You’d best make a substantial showing per Rule 248(b)(4) when you show up on eve of entry of decision in a settled TEFRA case. Yes, the partners in Blomquist Holdings, LLC, Crestlawn Investors, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, 165 T. C. 6, filed 9/17/25 have a statutory right to participate, but only per Court Rules, Section 6230(l). Had the Blomquists been timely with their participation petition, they could have come in without qualification. But to wait until entry of decision, with no allegation that the TMP kept the objectors in the dark about the litigation, doesn’t get it.

Chimney Rock, which I blogged under the title “The Perpetuity Punt – Part Deux,” 5/1/25, and which Judge Elizabeth Crewson Paris quotes extensively in Blomquist Holdings, tells the rationale.

The 39 (count ’em, 39) wannabes (scheduled in 165 T. C. 6, at p. 3, footnote 5) haven’t explained why they were free-riding on the TMP, nor shown that the TMP was conflicted out. What isn’t said is that the TMP got as decent a settlement as I’ve yet seen in a Dixieland Boondockery. “Respondent proposed (1) to disallow $53,830,000 of the charitable contribution deduction Blomquist claimed for its conservation easement donation, (2) to disallow $1,405,000 that Blomquist claimed as an ‘other deduction,’ (3) to allow an ‘other deduction’  of $11,657,800, (4) to impose a section 6662(h) accuracy-related penalty of only 10% and concede the remaining penalties, and (5) to refrain from imposing the 2% of adjusted gross income floor under section 67 on the allowed ‘other deduction.’” See 165 T. C. 6, at p. 4.

Practice tip: “The individual Motions and Notices filed by the 38 partners were filed with the Court as a single document, rather than separately filed. The Court determined that the Motions were timely filed but did not conform to the Court’s Rules. Therefore… the Court directed each Objecting Nonparticipating Partner to separately file a Motion for Leave to File a Notice of Election to Participate and to lodge therewith a separate Notice of Election to Participate.” 165 T. C. 6, at p. 5. Separate checks, but there’s a reason here. Each partner is separately situated; the capacity of one to litigate the case effectively differs from the others. Some may make the cut, others not.