Another attack on the routine IRS Section 6751(b) summary J motion fails in Mossy Flats Property, LLC, Otemanu Land Holdings, LLC, Partnership Representative, T. C. Memo. 2026-14, filed 2/5/26. The Mossy Flatsers claim the supe who signed the RA’s Penalty Lead Sheet wasn’t his direct supe that day. 

Judge Jeffrey S. (“Schwer”) Arbeit won’t buy it.

” The record shows that SRA B was RA M’s immediate supervisor on April 2, 2023, when she approved his initial determination to assert penalties against Mossy Flats. SRA B’s signature appears on the penalty approval form, where her title is listed as ‘Team Manager– Group 1244.’ And both RA M and SRA B averred under penalty of perjury that SRA B was RA M’s immediate supervisor. Petitioner has failed to show there is a genuine dispute for trial.” T. C. Memo. 2026-14, at p. 6. (Citations omitted).

Merely claiming that the declarations of SRA B and RA M in support of IRS’ motion are “self-serving” doesn’t raise a question of fact. “…petitioner provides no explanation for its assertion that the declarations are inadmissible under Rules 121(c)(4) and 143(a). In fact the declarations appear entirely consistent with Rule 121(c)(4), which provides that declarations used to support a summary judgment motion must (1) be made on personal knowledge, (2) set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and (3) show that the declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated. (Rule 143(a) simply provides that trials before the Court are conducted in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence.).” T. C. Memo. 2026-14, at p. 7. Taishoff says see also Section 7453.

Supervisors routinely move in and out. But there’s no evidence SRA B didn’t supervise RA M when he pulled the trigger on the Mossy Flatsers.