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.