Candidates for Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda’s proposed hardy perennial Slaughter of the Innocents (see Proposed Rule 200(a)(3)(A)(ii), 5/26/26) will benefit from perusing Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes’ apportioning of Section 6015 by awarding complete relief to Amal H. Sleiman, without a single disrespected partitive genitive.

The case is Amal H. Sleiman, Petitioner and Chad Y. Sleiman, Intervenor, Docket No. 19155-24, filed 6/22/26 (Happy Palindrome Day!).

Turns out Chad is a bad lad, dishing out physical and mental abuse to Amal and minor offspring and loading up the marital domicile with 20 (count ’em, 20) guns, which Amal discovered when the ceiling collapsed. Transcript, at p. 11.

Though you cannot quote off-the-benchers, Judge Holmes unpacks both Section 6015(b) and Rev. Proc. 2013-34. Family practitioners should delve deep into the Rev. Proc., which Taishoff says will survive a Loper Bright attack, although none is raised here. Section 6015(e)(7) again provides cover for sworn testimony on the trial, as Appeals can take none, hence newly available. 

Also, the separation agreement between Amal and Chad gets in, though why that was unavailable at Exam, which concluded in the same month as the sep agreement was signed, and hence not in the admin record, is nowhere stated, Transcript, at p. 16. However, it does appear that Chad was pro se here as he tried on cross to beat up Amal to the point that Judge Holmes had to tell him to “shut up.” Transcript, at p.12.

I note the divorce proceedings between the Sleimans was hotly contested for eight (count ’em, eight) years, with legal fees to match, Transcript at pp. 14-15. With conceded tax due of $86K, I’m surprised neither side sought counsel here.