No, Brandon the NC used car dealer who trumpets his travails with his all-cash sub-$5K bargains on YouTube under the moniker first set forth hereinabove at the head hereof (as my second-Grey-Goose-Gibson colleagues would say) is not in Tax Court (yet). And may never be.

Yet the much-lamented heavy monthly car payment is on Judge Goeke’s screen in Fritz B. Ziegler & Margaret S. Ziegler, Docket No. 4466-22L, filed 7/11/25. IRS wants to levy for the seven (count ’em, seven) self-reported but unpaid years, aggregating north of $350K. Fritz says he’s got insomnia and potential heart problems, can’t work and lives on Social Security.

Problem is, notwithstanding his ownership of a Subaru, Fritz signed up last year for another car.

“Petitioners’ arguments regarding the potential medical expenses, and the impact of the medical expenses on this case, are also inconsistent with a decision made by the Petitioners to incur a substantial car loan to buy an expensive vehicle in 2024. Petitioners purchased a Honda with the retail value of in excess of $51,000, and incurred a car loan, which required an in excess of $800-a-month payment. This transaction was on May 16th, 2024. The decision to make this transaction, and incur the additional monthly expense, is inconsistent with Petitioners’ position that they were concerned with the potential offset of medical expenses.” Transcript, at p. 8.

It seems Judge Goeke hasn’t gone car-shopping recently. My sources say $745 per month was the average payment for a new car last year, and a new Honda Pilot or Odyssey would’ve cost in that range in LA, Fritz’s home state, in 2024.

That said, Fritz & Margaret have $400K in home equity.

“The Settlement officer inquired about the equity in Petitioners’ home, which exceeds $400,000 in equity, and a vehicle; Petitioners owned a Subaru. His analysis was made without considering the impact of the purchase of the Honda. But we believe that purchase of the Honda, together with the fact that Petitioners have never made any serious effort to generate cash to pay this tax liability based upon their equity, supports the analysis of the Settlement officer. Petitioners would maintain they could not obtain any cash from their equity in their home, because there’s a lien on the home. However, it’s clear that Petitioners had no intent to ever sell the home to recoup the equity, or do any other arrangement with the Internal Revenue Service which might have used the equity in the home to satisfy their tax liability.” Transcript, at p. 10.

Answering a car question, don’t buy a new car if you owe taxes.