On Greenberg’s Express

Judge David Gustafson’s warning (see my blogpost “Tête de Cuvée,” 8/28/25) is once again unheeded in Martin Plantation, LLC, Piedmont Private Equity Manager, LLC, Partnership Representative, Docket No. 12907-22, filed 9/3/25.

The Martini try a submarine attack on their deficiency FPAA by impugning Examination. Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves finds them firmly aground on Greenberg’s Express. The Martini seek to subpoena the testimony of Mr. B (name omitted), but Judge Tag Greaves needs to see how this helps them.

“This Court reminds petitioner that Mr. B’s testimony cannot be used as an impermissible attempt to go behind the Notice of Final Partnership Adjustment. See generally Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324 (1974). Petitioner has neither offered Mr. B as an expert witness nor filed an expert witness report from Mr. B, thereby limiting the scope of information in which he can opine related to the property valuation. Rule 143(g). Petitioner needs to specifically state the testimony it seeks to elicit from Mr. B and explain the purpose for which it will be offered into evidence.” Order, at p. 1. (Name and footnote omitted).

Taishoff says I wish there were more original, better crafted maneuvers. Or opinions and orders with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent. This stuff is true silly season material.