E. W. Henley’s view of life may or may not accord with contemporary literary criticism, but it certainly describes judicial review under Section 7345. Judge Benjamin A. (“Trey”) Guider III, lists the six (count em, six) arguments made by Michelle Ricci & James Follett, Docket No. 3950-25P, filed 12/17/25, only considers one, and that fails to make the cut.

“Mr. Follett and Ms. Ricci have set forth six arguments: (1) ‘[t]he amounts presented [on the Certification Notices] are incorrect,’ (2) “[t]his is the first communication I have received regarding any delinquent taxes,’ (3) ‘[t]his is the first notice my accountant has seen only through me,’ (4) ‘I have filed my state income taxes for all the years referred to in this document,’ (5) petitioners ‘file [their] taxes jointly but have received this [Certification Notice] separately,’ and (6) petitioners ‘file [their] taxes jointly but have’ different tax liability balances. Doc. 1 at 2. Petitioners based these arguments ‘on the Income taxes filed for the years noted on the notice.’ Id. at 3.” Order, at p. 3. (Citations are to the record).

While Tax Court can’t deal with underlying liability, it can see if the delinquencies underlying the Notices are in fact “serious,” that is, the liabilities meet the Section 7345(b)(1), (f) criteria. Also delinquencies subject to pending CDPs, pending OICs, compliant IAs, and innocent spousery are not reportable to State.

Nic & Jim don’t put in any evidence to rebut IRS’ account statements.

The gate is strait indeed.