Three (count ’em, three) items for the scrapbook today, none worthy of an individual blogpost.

Tracey Yvonne Lucas, T. C. Memo. 2026-22, filed 2/26/26, wanted to “help people,” so she ran a sole proprietorship called “Tracey’s TLC.” Unhappily, Judge Kashi (My or the High”) Way finds she had only one client, no separate bank account, reported no income therefrom (although she got a few bucks looking after a neighbor’s child), and got her claimed deductions Section 274’d away.

Mark Hassan, Docket No. 10565-19, filed 2/26/26, has Judge Fung denying IRS document production and Mark’s assertion of privilege with what I would call RTFSPTO (“Read The Standing Pre Trial Order”)(the F” is for emphasis). “Given the procedures and impending deadlines set out in the Court’s Standing Pretrial Order, we need not address any infirmities in the parties’ filings and we will not address whether petitioner’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine is sufficient to defeat the relief sought in respondent’s Motion. If either party intends to use any documents at trial, that party must exchange them as part of the Stipulation of Facts or as the party’s Proposed Trial Exhibits within the prescribed deadlines.” Order, at p. 2. Maybe privilege is a shield, not a sword; if ya hide ’em, ya can’t use ’em.

Todd O. Olson, Docket No. 28000-22L, filed 2/26/26, would give rise to a Shakespearean pun if I were that way inclined, but I’ll spare you. Judge Cary Douglas (“C-Doug”) Pugh exhaustively surveys Tax Court’s mechanisms for holding no-show petitioners in default, and so holds Todd. Judge C-Doug Pugh adds a stinger: “We warned petitioner on multiple occasions that we may impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673 if he persisted in making frivolous arguments. Petitioner’s silence may imply that he had no non-frivolous response to respondent’s Motion. But because he did not respond with frivolous arguments after we warned him, we will not impose a section 6673 penalty at this time. We remind petitioner that our warnings regarding section 6673 also apply to any future cases in this Court.” Order, at p. 4, footnote 2.