I’m truly puzzled by STJ Lewis (“It’s That Name Again”) Carluzzo’s off-the-bencher, Lola M. Hussey, Docket No. 1870-24L, filed 11/26/25.
I am at a loss to know why IRS assigned six (count ’em, six) lawyers to this case, and had two (count ’em, two) of those lawyers take this case to trial (?) when Lola M. defaulted. Exactly what is there to try in a CDP unless petitioner had no prior opportunity to contest liability? Here, the record was filed and supplemented; it showed, at least to STJ Lew’s satisfaction, that the usual deficiency procedures had been followed, Transcript, at p. 4. So STJ Lew decides to waste no time on discussing whether Lola M. had a prior opportunity to contest.
There’s no mention of IRS seeking greater liability or chops than in the SND.
So, pointing out that Lola M.’s reliance on a 5 Cir case was misplaced and that she’d put in no evidence that the SND was “arbitrary and erroneous” as she claimed, STJ Lew denies IRS summary J but sustains the NOD tossing Lola M.
Was this case an orientation milk run for rookie attorneys?
Taishoff Law 
The two IRS lawyers in the courtroom were not rookies, but you can’t be too careful when professor and LITC guru Bob Probasco may be on the opposing side. He reported, “Judge Carluzzo from the United States Tax Court is in Dallas this week for a trial session. On Monday, some of my clinic students and two guests accompanied me to the courthouse to participate in the calendar call. Only three taxpayers actually showed up on Monday, but the Texas A&M University School of Law Tax Dispute Resolution Clinic provided assistance to all three. Which, in turn, makes things easier for the court and the IRS attorneys.”
LikeLike
Mr Kamman, I did not mean to suggest that IRS trial counsel were rookies, rather that putting six (count ’em, six) lawyers on this case and taking it to trial when the petitioner defaulted may have been a demonstration for rookies. The Aggie LITC apparently did not appear for Lola M.
LikeLike