A classic move of Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes is found in Mission Organic Center, Inc., T. C. Memo. 2025-130, filed 12/16/25, a minor coda to the full-dress T. C. of even date herewith.

The fulldress “,,,analyzes the notices of determination that sustain enforced collection of the 2016–20 tax debts of Mission Organic Center, Inc. The Commissioner also determined to collect Mission’s tax debt for 2021. Our analysis of that last determination is different from that for its earlier tax years, and much easier.” T. C. Memo. 2025-130, at p. 1. (footnote omitted).

There were three (count ’em, three) NODs, the last covering only 2021. Mission never disputed liability, only hardship and wanted a collection alternative. But the AO really blew it.

“There are blatant mistakes in it, as she incorrectly stated that Mission’s attorney had asked for an installment agreement, and not just an OIC or currently-not-collectible status. But it’s the reasoning used that separates this notice from the others. She first determined that Mission could not challenge its tax liability for 2021 because section 280E ‘disallows all expenses related to the operation of a medical marijuana dispensary deemed legal under State but not Federal law.’ She then added that Mission didn’t qualify for any collection alternative because it hadn’t submitted ‘the requisite financial information necessary to facilitate a determination of your ability to pay.’ She also ‘noted’ that Mission was not current with its estimated-tax payments.” Order, at p. 2.

The NODs in the fulldress were better, of course.

The AO claimed Mission was contesting liability, but it didn’t check that box. The case activity record (part of the admin record) shows what Mission wanted, and Mission’s trusty attorney always claimed RCP for hardship was the issue.

The AO claimed Mission hadn’t provided financial info, although Mission had provided compliant records to COIC, and those were in the admin record and still timely.

As for noncompliance with estimateds, we have a Holmesian footnote worthy of repetition.

“Our skepticism extends to the Appeals officer’s assertion that Mission was not current in its estimated-tax payments for 2022. If true, that would make denying Mission’s OIC a matter of routine—we have repeatedly held that there is no abuse of discretion in rejecting a collection alternative for a taxpayer who fails to be current in its estimated-tax payments.  But the Commissioner himself included a proposed finding of fact that Mission had paid its 2022 estimated tax. And as the CDP process went into 2023, the settlement officer’s case-activity record asserted both that Mission was deemed ‘not in compliance with ES requirements” for that year, and that Mission was in compliance—both on the same page.” T. C. Memo. 2025-130, at p. 4, footnote 2. (Citation omitted).

Remanded.