I must be wearying my readers with seemingly-endless dissections of consented dismissals of CDP NODs “without prejudice.”

Except.

The story goes on in Tax Court. Jerhi Curry, Docket No. 3819-24L, filed 1/30/26, tries both a Motion to Withdraw and a Motion to Dismiss, and a week later comes up with a Motion to Dismiss, citing Wagner and noting IRS doesn’t object.

No attorney or USTCP appearing for Jerhi is listed on the docket search, but somebody got it right.

Howbeit, Judge Alina I. (“AIM”) Marshall is down with this. She tosses the petition “without prejudice.” But interestingly, she cites to Dunn, T. C. Memo. 2026-2.

I wonder if Judge AIM Marshall gave Jerhi the same allocution Judge Goeke gave the petitioner in Dunn. For that, see my blogpost “Wagner Boechlerized,” 1/7/26. 

In both State and Federal courts, when a motion or application is denied, or a case dismissed, “without prejudice,” that means the movant, applicant, or petitioner can try again later. If they try in good faith, the fact they were turned down before won’t count against them. OTOH, if the motion or application is denied, or the case dismissed, “with prejudice,” it means “fuggedaboutit, you’re finished.”

Yes, I know Boechler made the Section 6330 thirty-day cutoff a claims processing limit, not a jurisdictional barrier. But a petitioner is still entitled to only one Tax Court review of a CDP. And even a claims processing limit has some preclusive effect. Even if the equitable tolling two-step highjump is not the only means of escaping the thirty-day cutoff, what are the other paths back to The Glasshouse in the Freezing City?

As Judge Goeke suggested in Dunn, dismissal “without prejudice” is largely symbolic.

So why even mention it? As Oscar Hammerstein II remarked, “Is a puzzlement.”