Not the 2008 Eugene Marten novel thus entitled, this is my comment on the unending silt-stir engendered by the sloppy drafting of Section 6751(b) and the unintelligent judicial gloss that renders this defective legislation an impediment rather than a remedy.

In River Moss Property, LLC, River Moss Management, LLC, Partnership Representative, T. C. Memo. 2025-79, filed 7/22/25, IRS employs nine (count ’em, nine) attorneys. Why this run-of-the-mill partial summary J motion needs a T. C. Memo. and nine IRS counsel, when the River Mosses only interpose what Judge Rose E. (“Cracklin’) Jenkins calls unconvincing objections and requests for discovery that will not lead to essential information.

Given this case is Golsenized to 11 Cir, whose view is that as long as supe can supervise when signoff occurs, Section 6751(b) is satisfied.

I note that among the baseball team IRS has assigned to this case, three (count ’em, three) of those attorneys are part of the team who first gave notice of the chops to the Moss Rivers.  Cf. T.C. Memo. 2025-79, at p. 1 with p. 3. “Senior Counsel Richard J. Hassebrock recommended assertion of that penalty by including it in the Answer. Mr. Hassebrock’s immediate supervisors, Associate Area Counsel Louis H. Hill and Strategic Litigation Counsel Alexandra E. Nicholaides, approved the civil fraud penalty in writing.”

Fortunately IRS gets partial summary J, lest the aforesaid three attorneys be confronted with ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a), which is engrafted into Tax Court practice by Rule 201(a).

 But such proceedings are a waste of time.