The year ends on a high note for Taishofflaw, as I transition to retirement.
December brought six thousand (count ’em, six thousand) views, an all-time high for any calendar month. And the calendar year ends with forty-three thousand (count ’em, forty-three thousand) views, the best ever, even beating the COVID year 2021.
But have no fear, this my blog will go on unabated.
Not Judge Cathy (“NCY = No Cognomen Yet”) Fung. She forewent applying Loper-Bright to the Rev. Proc. 2010-16 change-of-address pronunciamento (see my blogpost “Addressing Loper-Bright,” 7/10/25), and now when USPS tells her there’s no difference when the same zip-plus-four covers two separate FL municipalities, she tosses Jason Darby, Docket No. 7964-24, filed 12/31/25, for filing 156 days after IRS mailed the SND to Pembroke Pines, but with the same zipcode as Hollywood.
Jason claims the SND wasn’t send to his last known address, because his last return showed Hollywood, not Pembroke Pines.
But the zipcode was the same.
“To show that respondent’s address error would not have affected proper mail delivery, respondent provided the Declaration from a USPS official. The Declaration confirmed that a letter mailed to the Pembroke Pines address would be delivered to the same destination in Hollywood, Florida 33025. Thus, we are satisfied that respondent mailed the Notice to petitioner’s last known address, whether it was mailed to the Pembroke Pines address or the same address in Hollywood, Florida 33025.” Order, at pp. 6-7.
Estate of Georgia M. Spenlinhauer, Deceased, Robert J. Spenlinhauer, Executor, T. C. Memo. 2025-134, filed 12/30/25, shows that an executor must execute, or involve himself in a tax disaster.
I’ll defer to Judge Tamara W. Ashford to explicate how Robert the ex’r both torpedoes the estate and gets himself Section 6901 transferee liability for estate tax plus chops, leaving the MA Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act to rope him in.
And he represents himself in Tax Court, notwithstanding the $600K he says he spent to litigate the worth of a 1% interest in a family business he inherited from Mom that wound up selling for $375K.
Execution is everything.
It’s only the inflated numbers that keep Carl B. Barney, T. C. Memo. 2025-133, filed 12/30/25, from the entire amount he claimed as a charitable deduction. I’ve been following Carl B.’s hike through Tax Court through four (count ’em, four) blogposts, but, as usual, it all comes down to the valuation joust.
Carl B.’s experts used management cashflow projections, which Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler finds unrealistically optimistic, given the flak for-profit colleges had encountered at time of sale. And Cal B.’s subsequent 1040Xs can’t undo his electing out of Section 453 installmentation. Post-event reductions-in-price relief applies to purchasers, not sellers, so Section 108(e)(2) doesn’t help Carl B.
“Mr. Barney voluntarily elected out of the installment method despite being a cash basis taxpayer and entitled to report gain as payments are received. He reported the entire transaction and gain for [year at issue] despite receiving only Purchase Notes as consideration. Each tax year stands on its own, and we find it entirely inappropriate to apply a purchase price adjustment for [year at issue] on the basis of events occurring in [Year Three].” T. C. Memo. 2025-133, at pp. 26-27. (Footnotes omitted).
There was a sale, Carl B. didn’t keep more control post-sale than any purchase-money seller-lender would. There’s a gap between FMV of what Carl B. transferred and what he got, so there is a bargain sale, but there needs to be computations, although Judge Speedy Weiler doesn’t order a Rule 155.
Chops were on the table, and Carl B. claimed an overpayment of tax, but until the final numbers are done, neither can be determined.
Petitioners in Section 7345s don’t get the Isaiah 42:3 treatment. Once more, the reed gets broken and the wick gets quenched in another unsuccessful attempt to contest liability in a passport grab. George N. Gaynor, Docket No. 3631-25P, filed 12/29/25, has a trio of trusty attorneys against a single IRS attorney.
No joy for George, as Judge Courtney D. (“CD”) Jones says the only hold Tax Court has on assessments is whether SOL has run on enforcement of collection thereof, and George folds that one.
George’s trusty attorneys claim SOL ran on George’s Section 6038 FBAR nonreporting chops before assessment.
“In this case, Mr. Gaynor’s request that we analyze the timeliness of the assessments underlying his section 7345 certification is tantamount to a request for this Court to redetermine a deficiency under section 6213. ‘Not all potential errors render a liability unenforceable.” Garcia v. Commissioner, No. 27496-22P, 164 T.C., 2025 WL 1431920, at *5 (May 19, 2025). In the section 7345 context, determining whether a federal tax debt is ‘legally enforceable’ ‘requires an inquiry into whether the limitations period for collection after assessment has expired . . .” Id. (citing Ruesch, 154 T.C. at 296) (emphasis added). Thus, Mr. Gaynor’s argument that the statute of limitations had expired on assessment of the liabilities misses the mark. Respondent has established here that assessment has occurred, and Mr. Gaynor makes no claim in his Petition or otherwise that the period of limitations for collecting the assessed liabilities has expired.” Order, at p. 3.
For the Garcia tale, see my blogpost “‘Are You Being Served?’ – Part Deux,” 5/19/25. For Ruesch, see my blogpost “Ruesch to Judgment,” 6/25/20.
Though 400 Second St., NW, in The Shut-Down City has “settled our brains for a long winter’s nap,” there appears a disciplinary announcement that is more than the usual someone-else-did-it, so-we-do-it-too.
The “someone else” is ME’s indigent legal assistance crew and the Supreme Court thereof, with 2 Cir in on the play. I’ll just not name the subject thereof, for though the aforesaid jurisdictions felt the punishment fit the “crime,” the Empire State, namely, the First Dep’t of our App Div, thought otherwise.
And here’s USTC’s: https://ustaxcourt.gov/files/documents/Announcement_12232025.pdf
What d’ya think? Was ME too strict, or NY too lenient? Is reciprocity supposed to be just that, buy whatever the first disciplinarian says, absent overreaching?
Visiting dearest and nearest.
Merry Christmas.
By order of the President of the United States of America, Tax Court is closed today.
In consequence thereof, so am I.
No, not the 1979 Edwards and Rodgers feel-good that propelled Sister Sledge to No. 1 status. This is the story of the multiple Forms 1040 filed by Ignacio Montes G and Alberto Yanez A, T. C. Memo. 2025-131, filed 12/23/25.
Judge Rose C. (“Cracklin'”) Jenkins tells the story.
“Petitioners, Ignacio Montes Gonzalez (Montes G) and Adalberto Y Yanez Alvarenga (Yanez A), filed multiple federal income tax returns for the 2020 tax year, varying the dependents reported on those returns. Montes G filed his original Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, on or before April 15, 2021. It claims head of household filing status, and it lists C.C. (subsequently referred to as C.M.) as a nephew qualifying for a child tax credit and Y.S. (subsequently referred to as Y.R.) as a foster child qualifying for a credit for other dependents. An amended return by Montes G also claims head of household filing status, and it lists C.M. as a nephew qualifying for a child tax credit, Y.R. as a foster child qualifying for a credit for other dependents, and, additionally, E.P. as a nephew qualifying for a child tax credit.
“Yanez A also filed Form 1040 on or before April 15, 2021. It also claims head of household filing status, and it lists A.A.R. as a son qualifying for a child tax credit. In addition to their individual returns, Montes G and Yanez A prepared a return for the 2020 tax year claiming the married filing jointly filing status, dated May 5, 2022. The joint Form 1040 lists C.M. as a nephew qualifying for a child tax credit, Y.R. as a foster child qualifying for a credit for other dependents, and A.A.R. as ‘other,’ qualifying for a credit for other dependents. It does not list E.P. It also adds a $300 deduction on Line 10b, Charitable contributions if you take the standard deduction.” T. C. Memo. 2025-131, at p. 2.
Needless to say, IRS nixes the whole bunch.
The stip-out leaves Y. R. as a qualifying relative (not child), E. P. and A. A. R. are out all the way, and the Section 6662(a) chops are dropped. But what of C. C., a/k/a C.M.? IRS concedes all the Section 152 outs except Section 152(c)(1)(B) six-months-and-a-day residence.
“The history with respect to petitioners’ returns, including their eventually conceded claims with respect to two other dependents, raises initial concerns about their credibility. Such concerns are compounded by the vagueness and inconsistency of their testimony. Accordingly, this Court finds petitioners’ testimony regarding C.M.’s residence with them not credible. Given the complete lack of documentation with respect to such residence, this Court concludes that petitioners have not satisfied the burden of establishing that C.M. was a qualifying child for the 2020 tax year.” T. C. Memo. 2025-131, at p. 5.
I give a Taishoff “Good Job” to the Alphabet Guys’ trusty attorney, whom I’ll call Tim C. C. He sorted out his clients’ pixilated filings, got IRS to fold the chops, and only lost when his clients’ performance on the stand let the team down.
Holidays, that is.
In addition to observing the Christmas Day holiday on Thursday, December 25, 2025, the Court will be closed on Wednesday, December 24, and Friday, December 26, 2025. DAWSON will remain available for electronic access and electronic filing.
Merry Christmas.
Taishoff Law 