A couple days ago (hi, Judge Holmes, this one’s for you) I noted that Judge Holmes was justified in his famous Oakbrook dissent; see my blogpost “Luke 18:14,” 12/1/25. Now he’s again justified.

I failed to notice the now-boilerplate review of the CCA walkback of the Section 6213(a) jurisdictional barrier in October last; see my blogpost “United States Postmark,” 10/20/25. I routinely state I don’t follow the CCAs. I trust all readers of my blog are sufficiently hip to Shepardize any case they are going to cite; anyone who doesn’t know what “Shepardize” means had best not write memoranda of law until they learn and do likewise.

And once I start following CCAs routinely, readers will expect updates on all the cases I blog, which is far above my poor power to add or detract. The trade press and blogosphere do that better.

Howbeit, solely by way of illustration and example of the aforementioned CCA walkback,  Christopher Darrell Lewis, Docket No. 12896-25, filed 12/5/25, gets tossed because he petitions from FL, 11 Cir, where none of Oquendo, Buller, or Culp bring the Supremes’ Boechler discipline.

But again Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes foresaw this compartmentalization. Dissenting in Graev, 149 T. C. 23, eight (count ’em, eight) years ago this month, he suggested Tax Court leave extending Section 6751(b) Boss Hossery to the CCAs, rather than extending it in one Hamiltonian shot, as the majority did. See my blogpost “Stir, Baby, Stir – That Silt!” 12/20/17.

Sub silentio, Tax Court bench followed Judge Holmes’ lead post-Boechler, defiantly citing Hallmark Rsch. Collective and Sanders.  Where they are constrained by Supreme discipline, they sabotage the contrarian CCAs by invoking the strictures of equitable tolling.

In Chris’ case, Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda again calmly notes to Oquendo, Buller, and Culp, but carries on.

Note the boilerplate, Order, at p. 1, cites Pugsley as an 11 Cir affirmation of Section 6213(a)’s jurisdictionality, but Taishoff says that case was decided pre-Boechler. Moreover, if you read Pugsley, it mentions Section 6213(a) but says nothing about its jurisdictional validity, if any. The case goes off on last-known-address (but petitioner got the SND in time to petition per Section 6213(a), so no hurt, no foul) and Section 7502 mailed-is-filed, as petitioner used a PDF, not USPS.

And the final straw: Though DOJ cited Pugsley at p. 14 in their losing brief before the Supremes in Boechler, the Supremes didn’t even mention it in the Boechler opinion.

Wherefore I wouldn’t bet the latte money that undisciplined Pugsley is still good Section 6213(a) Sun Belt law. But we’ll let 11 Cir decide. If Chris can’t appeal, maybe someone else can.

And again Judge Holmes goes down justified.