It’s an old pro’s mantra: “Whatever arguments you got, raise ’em at the CDP; use ’em or lose ’em.” Sidney L. Matthew, P.A., Docket No. 416-23L, filed 7/30/26, furnishes yet another example.

First, even a sole-shareholder corporation is a legal entity separate from sole shareholder. Sid mixes them up, but Judge Kashi (“My or the High”) Way keeps the distinction clear. Shareholder Sid claims he transferred his principal residence, so its worth shouldn’t have been included in the worth of the PA’s receivable for the loan the PA made to Sid. But he does that post-petition after asserting at the CDP that he tried to get a mortgage to pay the taxes at issue. Judge Way is perplexed in a footnote.

“Petitioner provided documentation to Appeals showing that Mr. Matthew had attempted to secure a loan on his personal residence. But petitioner is now asserting that Mr. Matthew no longer owned that residence at the time of the CDP hearing. These directly inconsistent statements are hard to reconcile.” Order, at p. 4, footnote 3.

Except.

Taishoff says the two statements are inconsistent only if chronology is compressed. Maybe Sid should have said at the CDP that, after failing to secure a mortgage and being financially pressed, he thereafter sold at a ruinous loss just to pay for rent and groceries. If such were the case (and it’s not inconceivable in a depressed market; Sid petitioned from FL (Order, at p. 1), a locale notorious for real estate booms and busts), it might tip the scales.

Except.

First, it has to be true. And provably true. Next, it must be raised at the CDP. Tax Court CDP review is strictly record-rule. As I’ve said many times before, record-rule is the contrapositive of the old Yellow Pages slogan. The old Yellow Pages claimed “If it’s out there, it’s in here.” At a Tax Court CDP, if it’s not in there, it’s not out there.