Justin Joseph Moore, T. C. Memo. 2026-85, filed 9/15/26, is another CDP from an NFTL over an IA. Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro conducted a trial to see if JJ had raised underlying liability at the CDP, thus triggering de novo review at Tax Court. Result is that merely stating that one doesn’t know if IRS’ balances due are correct is not sufficient; one must produce some evidence to challenge IRS’ records.

True, JJ had problems working out with IRS his correct balances due on his late-filed returns, which stalled the refinancing of his commercial real estate until the interest rate escalation put paid to his plans. And Medicaid fraudster tenants didn’t help. But the refinancing proceeds were going into the real estate and not to IRS, so the liens won’t be lifted. Every lien lift I’ve ever seen went the same way; IRS goes first.

Anyway, lien stays.

But the headline first written hereinabove at the head hereof (as my already contemplatIng their second Grey Goose Gibson colleagues would say) shows itself in a footnote.

“Finally, we note that Mr. Moore’s Opening Brief, which appears to have been drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI), contains some troubling citation errors, including citations of pages that do not exist and citations of cases that do not support the propositions for which they are cited. For example, Mr. Moore’s Opening Brief cites page 1260 of Mesa Oil, Inc. v. United States, 467 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006), but that case ends on page 1256 of the federal reporter. Additionally, the Opening Brief cites Mesa Oil for the proposition that “[t]he balancing test under § 6330(c)(3)(C) requires reasoned analysis reflecting meaningful consideration of relevant evidence.” Pet’r’s Br. 51. But Mesa Oil, 467 F.3d at 1256, does not discuss section 6330(c)(3)(C); instead, it analyzes the collateral order doctrine and dismisses an interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Moore is reminded that, although the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure do not prohibit parties from using AI tools to help with preparing their cases, each party remains responsible for ensuring the accuracy of information submitted to the Court. See, e.g., Clinco v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-16, at *6–8.” Order, at p. 10, footnote 3.

For the Clinco story, see my blogpost “The Phantom Citation,” 2/9/26.