While this my blog hardly reaches the exalted stature of President Theodore Roosevelt’s “bully pulpit,” it does provide a dandy soapbox, even now when soapboxes have been superseded by electrons. So Alex Golubitsky, Docket No. 11989-22, filed 12/3/25, and his trusty attorney, whom I’ll call Third, give me an opportunity for a modest yelp.

IRS claimed nonfiling and nonpayment add-ons on top of a $16K deficiency. Alex riposted that he had filed and paid VIBIR. Maybe this was a “cover over” that never broke cover. See my blogpost “Another Non-Virgin,” 1/30/18, for how VIBIR interfaces with IRS.

Alex made a Section 7430(g) qualified offer of $6782 plus interes;, IRS ultimately settled for $2151 (interest not stated, but not waived).

Third sought legals and admins. IRS agreed fees were reasonable, Alex didn’t stall, he did exhaust administrative remedies, and met net worth cutoff.

Except.

IRS settled.

STJ Jennifer E. (“Publius”) Siegel: “Petitioner provides no argument about prevailing with respect to the amount in controversy or with respect to the most significant issue or set of issues presented. § 7430(c)(4)(A)(i). Instead, he argues only that he is entitled to recover costs under the second option, the ‘qualified offer rule.’ See § 7430(c)(4)(E) and (g). Specifically, petitioner writes that the Government did not accept [Alex’s] offer, which results in Petitioner being the ‘prevailing party’ within the meaning of Section 7430(c)(4)(A)(i).” Order, at p. 2.

Except.

IRS settled (in case anybody missed it the first time).

“But even where the taxpayer makes a qualified offer under section 7430(g), the qualified offer rule does not apply to “any judgment issued pursuant to a settlement.” 7430(c)(4)(E)(ii)(I).” Order, at p. 3. (Citation omitted). Alex and Third lose.

Taishoff says once again, we get a statute that aims squarely at reducing unnecessary, vexatious, and burdensome litigation, which causes the exactly opposite result.

If Alex and Third could not get legal and admins by making a qualified offer and then settling the case, but could get legals and admins by insisting upon an unnecessary, vexatious, and burdensome trial and settling on the courthouse steps, there is a positive incentive for insisting on trial. And to IRS’ objection that petitioner thereby unreasonably protracts proceedings, the answer is that the statute itself makes qualified offer settlements uneconomic. This explicit Congressional enactment requires threatened, or actual, litigation to make an injured party whole.

Congress can correct this ridiculous situation. Yeah, right.

Merriam-Webster, the ultimate chaw-source, says the phrase first hereinabove written at the head hereof (as my deliberating-the-tip-amount on their two Grey Goose Gibson lunch check colleagues would say), opines said phrase is “British, old-fashioned,” but C. Crow Collateral Corporation is still seeking sealing of their third-party subpoena responses in Nat S. Harty & April D. Harty, Docket No. 23354-21, filed 12/2/25.

And having no better luck than they had in Richard B. Stillahn & Lisa R. Lang Stillahn a year ago; see my blogpost “Even If You Don’t,” 12/20/24. Btw, appeal was taken to 9 Cir back in January.

The Crow seems to have no better luck with ex-Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan’s now than it did back then.

Section 6103(h)(4)(C) strikes again. “… section 6103(h)(4)(C) provides there is an exception ‘if such return or return information directly relates to a transactional relationship between a person who is a party to the proceeding and the taxpayer [whose information is to be disclosed] which directly affects the resolution of an issue in the proceeding.’ This exception allows information about a transactional relationship with a third-party taxpayer to be disclosed if that information has a direct bearing on the outcome of an issue in a case.” Order, at p. 2.

“Here, SCCC was the facilitator of a transaction entered into by petitioner. The dealing of petitioner and SCC were intertwined. There is no requirement that the transactional relationship require a bilateral contract between the third-party and the petitioners. To decide this case, the Court will look at the interrelated transactions that made up the transaction at issue. Accordingly, the Court will deny SCCC’s motion to seal. In a separate order, the Court will unseal documents to be consistent with this Order.” Order, at p. 2.

It’s been five (count ’em, five) years and more since Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes’ famous dissent in Oakbrook. Back then no one else agreed that valuation was the key to syndicated conservation easement swindles and historic façade fakery, relying instead upon “very contestable readings of what it means for an easement to be perpetual” and nitpicking appraisers and appraisals.

See my blogpost “They Always Must Be With Us,” 5/12/25.

Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch devalues the syndicated conservation easement claimed by Mize Farm, LLC, Focus on Design, Inc., Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 8979-23, filed 12/1/25, with an off-the-bencher.

Both Mize and IRS stip out all the appraiser-appraisal and textual-regulatory argy-bargy, except Judge Buch tosses one of Mize’s appraiser’s expert report and expert status because of footfaults and finger-fehler, but he testifies as fact witness anyway. Doesn’t help; this GA boondockery isn’t worth $10 million, or even $6 million, more likely not even the $425K IRS concedes. Walmart snapped up the only decent retail/industrial site for miles around.

The whole case goes off on valuation, as Judge Holmes argued it should.

Like the Man said, “I tell you, this man went down justified.”

That’s Intan N. Ismail & Mohd Razi Abd Rahim, Docket No. 15704-24, filed 12/1/25. To be Einstinian, one must do the same thing over again, expecting a different result, and that sums up In & Mohd. It’s a replay of the busted Maylasian deemed C corps that never filed Form 8832 Entity Classification Election, or Form 8858 Information Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Foreign Disregarded Entities (FDEs) and Foreign Branches (FBs), or a Form 5471, Information Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations. Hence no passthrough of deductions.

I got Form 5471 wrong on the Special Enrollment Examination for EA, and it rankles me whenever I see that Form.

Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch needs none of his vaunted ingenuity here, as Judge Paris already told the story three (count ’em, three) years ago. See my blogpost “Billy Occam, Thou Should’st Be Living  At This Hour,” 11/29/22.

In & Mohd get penalties without even Boss Hossery, as ignoring a case you already lost is clearly negligence or disregard. IRS need provide Boss Hossery only when assessment swims into its ken, because 8. Cir, whence In & Mohd are Golsenized, only cares about Boss Hossery when tax and penalties are assessed, and that hasn’t happened yet.

My colleague Peter Reilly, CPA, roused me from my post-Thanksgiving torpor with the possibility that the post-Boechler push for equitable tolling might have gathered further impetus from 2 Cir’s rejection of Section 6213(a) jurisdictionality in its reversal of Buller, which I didn’t blog as, for want of resources, I don’t generally cover appellate courts. The trade press is always there ahead of me.

I responded that the tolling victories in 2 Cir, 3 Cir, and 6 Cir were largely Pyrrhic, as the bar for equitable tolling is so high as to be almost unattainable. Come to that, even Boechler herself couldn’t clear it. See my blogpost “Boechler, P. C. – T. S. Eliot Ending?” 7/15/25. 

 M. Lyman Moody & Evelyn H. Moody, Docket No. 11394-35, filed 12/1/25 are four (count ’em, four) years late as to their SND, so they’ll need a world-class story even if they get a win on nonjurisdictionality.  But even to get there, 10 Cir (H & Evelyn petitioned in UT, and that’s 10 Cir country) will have to overrule Foster v. Com’r, 449 F.2d 799 (10 Cir, 1971).

But hope springs eternal, and maybe we’ll find that 10 Cir reverses 54 (count ’em, 54) years of precedent if they appeal Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda’s toss of their deficiency petition. After all, that’s what 2 Cir did in Buller, wiping out 69 (count ’em, 69) years’ worth of precedent. That’s some “discipline,” what?

I had said I wasn’t going to editorialize when Tax Court tossed Boechler on remand, expecting the trade press and blogosphere to take up the story. I don’t know if they did; at any rate, no word thereof reached me. So I will editorialize a wee bit.

Taishoff says this whole jurisdictionality kerfuffle is a lot more wind-up than baseball. Boechler involved Sections 6230 and 6330, not Section 6213(a). The psycholinguistic hopscotch that followed was clear as mud. While at best an Antawn Sanders, who was 11 (count ’em, 11) seconds late with his filing (see my blogpost “In the Midnight Hour,” 6/20/23), should win in a walk (he started early but was baulked by his smartphone), anyone late more than a couple days (hi, Judge Holmes) needs that world-class tale.