No, not a typographical error in the title of the tome that gave birth to the celebrated line “Tell ’em what they want to hear and you’ll make the deal.” Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro tells Estate of Patrick Heiniger, Deceased, William A. Cahill, Jr., Ancillary Administrator c.t.a. and Alicia Heiniger, Ancillary Executor, Docket No. 8096-17, filed 9/18/25 part of what they wanted to hear, namely, that they and IRS’ counsel can work on redacting personally identifiable information from their filings, but a blanket seal is off the table. Likewise, Tax Court might seal discovery material that never makes it to trial, but sealing what evidence goes in needs a strong case, like trade secrets. And petitioners here aren’t in a trade or business.

The late Patrick had an art collection to die for, and he did. Both ex’r and adm’r, and intervenor (whom I’ll call Hana, who is alleged to have removed some of the artistic goodies from the estate), want the titles of the works and the names of their creators sealed, lest this information embolden the Matthew 6:19 types, or worse, chill the FMV of these masterpieces.

Judge Eminent: “The Estate and intervenor claim that, absent a protective order, the market value of identified artwork might decrease and the likelihood of attempts to steal identified artwork will increase. But the Estate and intervenor supplied only their own statements in the Motions, and a declaration from intervenor herself, to support their claims of harm. They have not provided factual data or other evidence to corroborate or support those claims. Such conclusory and unsupported statements are insufficient to establish good cause.

“Moreover, the Estate and intervenor have not demonstrated that their interests in protection from alleged harms outweigh the ‘strong common law presumption in favor of access to court records.’ Willie Nelson Music Co., 85 T.C. at 921. Our Court routinely discusses works of art, including their titles, the artists who created them, and their value, in its opinions. See, e.g., Lio v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 56, 59 (1985) (providing the names of the artwork in dispute and the fact that the taxpayer donated the artwork); WT Art P’ship LP v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-30, at *3, 7 (providing the names and valuations of five pieces of art donated by the taxpayer to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City as well as the names and sale prices of comparable works of art).” Order, at p. 5. (Citation omitted, but for WT Art P’ship, see my blogpost “Antiques Roadshow It Ain’t” 4/9/25).

I get appeals from time to time to delete blogposts. Mostly I don’t; Tax Court is public and none of those who make such appeals to me have the public persona of Willie Nelson. To save any prospective applicants their time, I’ll just quote Judge Eminent Toro.

“The principles governing the sealing of records before this Court are set forth in Willie Nelson Music Co. and subsequent decisions. As a general rule, the official records of all courts are to be open and available for public inspection. Willie Nelson Music Co., 85 T.C. at 917 (citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,597 (1978)); see also United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). The presumptive right to access, however, ‘may be rebutted by a showing that there are countervailing interests sufficient to outweigh the public interest in access.’ Willie Nelson Music Co., 85 T.C. at 919. Therefore, the public right to judicial records is subject to the discretion of the presiding court to control and seal upon an appropriate demonstration of good cause. Id. at 917–918; see also Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984)(discussing discretion under [FRCP] Rule 26(c)). In exercising such discretion, the court “must weigh the interests of the public, which are presumptively paramount against those advanced by the parties.” Willie Nelson Music Co., 85 T.C. at 919.” Order, at p. 3.

You can’t unring a bell.

And a word to practitioners: Remember, before you blithely counsel a client to send in the sixty Georges and a petition, your client is going public. Yes, personally identifiable will be redacted and whistleblowers will mostly get cover, but in deficiencies and CDPs years, amounts, what was income and what deductions, business dealings, and much else will be out there for anyone to see for a nominal fee to the Glasshouse Copycats. A casual motion to seal won’t get it. And Taishoff might could just maybe so pick it up. And you might get The Phone Call.