Pradeep Khanna, Docket No. 17234-24L, 1/12/26, has had five (count ’em, five) years of deficiencies erased, and no fewer than ten (count ’em, ten) years of Section 6038 offshore cash stash chops obliterated by defective Section 6751(b) Boss Hossery. Clearly, Pradeep’s trusty attorney knows a thing or two.

And of course, a quick docket search shows the hand of The Great Chieftain of the Jersey Boys.

But Pradeep wants to fight over the interest IRS abated in the unwinding of the foregoing, claiming too little, to wit, “‘nearly half a million dollars’ of interest is at stake and this Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue.” Order, at p. 4.

No, we don’t, says Judge Nega. This is a petition from a CDP, IRS dropped every claim, Pradeep’s account shows a zero balance, so  Zuch bars the door to The Glasshouse.

As for Section 6404(h), Pradeep has a real problem: either the NOD expressly denied his claim for abatement of interest (in which case his petition is too late for the 180-day cutoff to petition) or if not, his time to petition may not yet have run.

Taishoff says let’s say nothing of equitable tolling, as the parties and Judge Naga all avoid that rabbithole.

But the transcripts of the hearing of IRS’ motion to dismiss show that it’s just possible to read the NOD to deny the abatement Pradeep claims.

Except.

“…the Petition does not reflect this belief. It leaves the box designated for disputing any claim arising under section 6404(h) unchecked, alleges no assignment of error directed toward interest abatement, nor does petitioner even use the word ‘interest’ anywhere in his narratives.” Order, at p. 5. All the petition does list is $43K of misapplied refunds, not half a million or anything like it.

A month after petitioning, Pradeep sent a letter to the AO apparently still pursuing abatement. Order, at p. 5. Judge Nega deems this to be a concession that the NOD wasn’t final on that point. Taishoff isn’t so sure, but better strategy might be to hold the issue for a hearing and there seek remand, get a final rejection at a supplemental, and fight that out when the supplemental NOD is up for confirmation.

Btw, the petition doesn’t show any attempt to comply with the $2 million net worth cutoff of Section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii). Pradeep tries to rescue this in his Objection to IRS’ motion to toss as moot, but that’s too late. Order, at p. 6.

Bottom line: last-minute goal-line saves don’t work when the defense knows the pleading rules and had opportunity to raise relevant issues before the puck crosses the line. Red light goes on, buzzer sounds, game over.

The pattern continues. Petitioners who miss the 90-day cutoff for Tax Court relief in jurisdictions where Culp and its progeny has reduced the 90-day cutoff to a claim processing statute founder on failure to plead equitable tolling. Here is Judge Cathy (“NCY = No Cognomen Yet”) Yung sending off Hassan A. Daramy, Docket No. 2070-24, filed 1/9/26 for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

“Petitioner has not claimed, much less established, that equitable tolling extended that period for timely filing to the date that the Petition was filed.” Order, at p. 1.

Culp pointed out that the “United States Tax Court, Congressional Budget Justification, Fiscal Year 2024, at 23 (Feb. 1, 2023) (explaining that in Fiscal Year 2022 80% of the Tax Court petitions were filed by taxpayers proceeding pro se).” Culp, at p. 15. 

How a self-represented petitioner is to know how to plead equitable tolling is nowhere explained.

Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler has an opinion worthy of a full-dress T. C., but it’s only a Memo. Kenneth Walker and Juli A. Walker, T. C. Memo. 2026-4, filed 1/8/26, didn’t reconcile their ACA Advance Premium Tax Credit and didn’t file Forms 8962 and 1095-A with their 1040 MFJ, but did pay tax shown on the last-named. IRS assessed tax shown on 1040 MFJ, but sent Letter 12C when the Health Insurance Marketplace tipped IRS off that Ken and Juli had gotten $20K APTC.

Ken and Juli sent in the forms and got a NITL. IRS assessed the missing APTC because Ken and Juli blew past the 400% poverty line, claiming the APC was self-reported, hence assessed tax.

At the CDP they requested, their trusty attorney, whom I’ll call Woody, argues the assessed APTC is invalid, as there was no SNOD. The reconciliation forms do not self-report tax.

Judge Speedy Weiler does not “find respondent’s arguments to be compelling.” T. C. Memo. 2026-4, at p. 8.

“Petitioners’ original return did not account for their receipt of the APTC. Upon request by the IRS petitioners furnished a completed Form 8962 that reported their MAGI to be $110,599—more than 401% over the federal poverty line of $24,600. The Form 8962 also reported that petitioners were not eligible to receive the PTC and, in Part III, reflected an excess APTC of $20,904. Form 8962, however, does not ultimately determine an amount of tax due from petitioners. Furthermore, petitioners’ return, as originally filed, failed to account for the PTC. Therefore, and upon receipt of information received in Form 8962, it was necessary for the IRS to determine whether petitioners had a deficiency in tax. See I.R.C. § 6211.

“On brief petitioners contend that Congress provided protections to taxpayers from inappropriate assessments. Petitioners argue that the IRS adjusted their 2018 tax return and determined that a deficiency in tax was due, and the IRS was therefore obligated to issue a Notice of Deficiency under the deficiency procedures of subchapter B of chapter 63 of subtitle F of the Code, namely sections 6211 through 6215. We agree.” T. C. Memo. 2026-4, at p. 8.

Woody gets a Taishoff “Good Job, First Class, with Swords and Diamonds.”

The great Boechler silt-stir continues apace. Both IRS and Jay Dunn, T. C. Memo. 2026-2, filed 1/7/26, agree that Jay can withdraw his petition without prejudice from a CDP that sustained the NITL that he now wants to deal with via an OIC. Judge Goeke leans heavily upon IRS’ concession that they won’t be prejudiced if he allows the withdrawal.

The original Wagner allowed withdrawal without prejudice because the Section 6330(d)(1) thirty-day cutoff to petition a NOD was jurisdictional, and that train had left by the time the motion to withdraw had been made. Boechler defanged the thirty-day bite.

“Dismissal without prejudice protects the plaintiff’s right to file a subsequent lawsuit. Our decision in Wagner to grant dismissal without prejudice might, on its face, have caused a taxpayer to think he had another chance for Court review of the collection action. Before Boechler that was not the case. After Boechler, taxpayers technically have another chance for Court review of the collection action if they can establish that either equitable tolling or some other relief to the 30-day petition period of section 6330(d)(1) applies.

“Nevertheless, the phrase ‘without prejudice’ may still confuse taxpayers because they are severely restricted in their ability to seek further Court review even though section 6330(d)(1) does not impose a jurisdictional bar to filing a subsequent petition. As a practical matter, it is unlikely that taxpayers will have another opportunity for Court review of the collection action. Taxpayers face a ‘heavy burden’ of proof when asserting they are entitled to equitable tolling. Tolling of federal statutes is used ‘sparingly.’” T. C. Memo. 2026-2, at pp. 5-6. (Citations and footnote omitted).

If in fact the equitable tolling road is the only one around the thirty-day barrier, then dismissal without prejudice is largely symbolic. So much time will have elapsed between the NOD and the refiling that the petitioner will need a spectacular story to get through.

But Judge Goeke isn’t done; he drives home the lesson.

“Petitioner understands that if respondent rejects his OIC, respondent will not issue a supplemental notice of determination for the Court to review. He also acknowledges that upon the Court’s granting dismissal without prejudice, he will be subject to collection actions as provided by law. He has stated that he does not intend to refile a petition.

“Because respondent does not object to petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss, we will dismiss this case without prejudice.” T. C. 2026-2, at p. 6.

Taishoff says if seeking withdrawal without prejudice in a CDP, take a good hard look before relying on Dunn.

Milk Saving Starving Children Foundation, T.C. Memo. 2026-1, filed 1/6/26, leads off the Memo season with a revocation of its 501(c)(3) status. MSSC was organized to “raise money to purchase rice, soy, and/or powdered milk. It will solicit these products from their manufacturers. The milk will then be distributed world-wide to starving children.” T. C. Memo. 2026-1, at p. 3.

Problem was, as STJ Diana L. (“Sidewalks of New York”) Leyden found, “… while petitioner may have donated and participated in some charitable endeavors, it was not operated exclusively for exempt purposes. In addition to any charitable activities it undertook, petitioner engaged extensively, and seemingly primarily, in commercial activities, namely (1) purchasing and renovating the Property [a building MSSC bought], as well as renting out the addition to that Property to unrelated commercial businesses, and (2) using the Property to operate a coffee shop, Café Beignet.” T. C. Memo. 2026-1, at p. 14.

Although MSSC at first did some charitable milk distribution, it stopped ten (count ’em, ten) years after organization, and didn’t restart until IRS started auditing, T. C. Memo. 2026-1, at pp. 4-5.

And MSSC ran a golf fundraiser, but what happened to the funds is not explained in the administrative record, T. C. Memo. 2026-1, at p.12.

MSSC was not operated exclusively for an exempt purpose.

“In this regard the presence of a single substantial purpose that is not described in section 501(c)(3) precludes exemption from tax under section 501(a) regardless of the number or the importance of the purposes that are present and described in section 501(c)(3).” T. C. Memo. 2026-1, at p. 12.

Opening the T. C. Sum. Op. book for 2026, Luke Gibson and Breeana Gibson, T. C. Sum. Op. 2026-1, filed 1/6/26, save $5700 of their noncash charitables, but lose the remaining “high end cycling EQ apparel” to a defective appraisal and Luke’s trial testimony, both of which fail to convince STJ Di. In short, keep track of your basis and appraisals, and the deductions will keep track of themselves.

I know nothing about Mark Zoch, Docket No. 15438-24, filed 1/5/26; the only anomaly is that filing fee was waived, yet the case involved a six-figure deficiency with substantial add-ons and chops. The case was on this morning in The Bayou City, where I happened to be visiting my nearest and dearest.

I couldn’t get down to Bush Street to sit in on the proceedings. I called chambers to see if any of the cases on today was going over to another day this week, but there was none. Mr. Zoch’s case was dismissed for want of prosecution.

So I didn’t get to provide an in-person “hi, Judge Holmes.”

Hence the title first set forth hereinabove at the head hereof, as my expensive colleagues would say.

Stephen C. Gilbert & Ronda D. Gilbert, Docket No. 18210-23, filed 1/2/26, hail from NJ, hence Golsenized to 3 Cir. So when they petition the SND they say they never got (and USPS tracking shows unclaimed) 177 (count ’em, 177) days late, the Culp equitable tolling gambit is playable.

And Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland is willing to listen. The Gilberts claim IRS never sent a courtesy copy first class or sent a copy to Mr. G’s workplace as their Form 2848 indicated, either or both of which they would have gotten timely if IRS followed usual procedure after the certified-mailed SND was returned undeliverable. The AO with whom the Gilberts had continuously dealt and for whom the Gilberts extended the deadline for assessment continued correspondence with them, never telling them a SND had issued. And the IRS transcripts for years at issue have no notation that a SND issued. Finally, when the Gilberts got a notice that an out year’s refund was applied to the years at issue’s deficiencies, they petitioned within two weeks.

IRS wants summary J, claiming the Gilberts fail to clear the high equitable tolling bar.

“There is a strong presumption in the law that a properly addressed letter will be delivered, or offered for delivery, to the addressee. The very strength of the presumption of regularity is rooted in the expectation that properly addressed U.S. mail failing to reach its intended recipient is a significant departure from the average. But ‘clear evidence to the contrary’ can rebut the presumption. In this case, the Gilberts have produced certified mail tracking records showing that USPS attempted to deliver the Notices of Deficiency… but ‘No Authorized Representative [was] Available’ making the delivery attempt unsuccessful. The Gilberts have also averred that they received no notice regarding the unsuccessful delivery. Further, both the Gilberts and AO L continued to correspond as if the case remained within Appeals sole jurisdiction. This information must be construed as true for purposes of summary judgment and, as such, suffices to establish a genuine dispute about whether the Gilberts received the Notices of Deficiency or were otherwise put on notice about their existence. Moreover, whether and how USPS makes its deliveries is generally beyond the Gilberts’ control. The Gilberts have therefore established a material dispute of fact as to whether extraordinary circumstances beyond their control intervened to prevent them from timely filing their Petition.

“Because the record suggests that the Gilberts may have diligently pursued their rights and may have been prevented from timely filing their Petition by extraordinary circumstances, we will deny the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” Order, at p. 5. (Citations and name omitted).

Did Culp lower the equitable tolling bar in 3 Cir?

And speaking of NJ and 3 Cir, how can there be a potentially groundbreaking NJ and 3 Cir case without you-know-whom? And of course The Great Chieftain of The Jersey Boys is among the trusty attorneys for the Gilberts. Another oak leaf cluster to his Taishoff “Good Job, First Class” awards.

I can’t say that 2025 was anything less than tumultuous, or that 2026 bids fair to be anything other than more of the same.

Come along for the ride!