I should be pleased that Section 6751(b) Boss Hossery furnishes so much blogfodder and such ample opportunity for scouting (pejorative: look it up) the wretched drafting of the statute. But the enormous waste of judicial resources and litigants’ effort is headshaking material. The statute doesn’t accomplish what Congress intended; even if it could, the ensuing jurisprudence has made it worse than useless. 

Here we go again. Harvey Birdman & Diane Birdman, Docket No. 28897-10, filed 9/18/26, make their third appearance in this my blog. Harv & Di are leads in six (count ’em, six) cases, all old Section 932 Virgins, Congress’ unguided largesse to Our Insolvent Islands in the Sun.

IRS wants Boss Hoss summary J only as to Harv & Di, but trusty attorneys list all six docket numbers in their opposition papers, earning a reproof from Judge Cary Douglas (“C-Doug”) Pugh. Order, at p. 1, footnote 1.

But IRS’ paperwork is far from exemplary. I won’t attempt to condense, much less set forth in full, the Penalty Approval Form, more particularly bounded and described at Order, at p. 2. It tops Bud Abbott and Lou Costello’s celebrated “Who’s-On-First?” routine.

Judge C-Doug Pugh manages to rescue the Section 6663 fraud and the Section 6662(b)(1) negligence chops from under the hooves of this staggering Boss Hoss, incidentally reiterating everything wrong with the statute.

“The statute requires approval ‘in writing’—it does not prescribe a particular form that writing must take. See § 6751(b)(1); Belair Woods, 154 T.C. at 17. Likewise, this Court has consistently declined to prescribe a particular format or style for a supervisor’s written approval under section 6751(b). See, e.g., Palmolive Bldg. Invs., 152 T.C. at 86 (2019) (citing Deyo v. United States, 296 F. App’x 157, 159 (2d Cir. 2008) (requiring ‘only personal approval in writing, not any particular form of signature or even any signature at all’)); Belair Woods, 154 T.C. at 17. Because petitioners fail to raise a material factual dispute regarding supervisory approval of the section 6663 fraud and section 6662(b)(1) negligence penalties, we will grant respondent’s motion in part.” Order, at p. 4.  (Footnote omitted, but it says deposing the RA adds nothing to her declaration for the purposes of this motion; presumably petitioner can get their whack at trial, see Order at p. 4.)

One final reproof to petitioners’ trusty attorney, and this is one we had ding-dinged into our heads in Civil Procedure One (thanks Dean Warren). ” We note that Mr. D’s declaration contains many pages of legal argument. We address his legal argument as if it were contained in petitioners’ Opposition brief because it is argument only and not factual support. We caution counsel that arguments do not belong in declarations.” Order, at p. 2, footnote 3. (Name omitted).