I take an expansive view of the Rule of Completeness to note a pair of $2500 Section 6673 chops.

Judge Vasquez spares us the details of Myrna Marin, T.C. Memo. 2026-79, filed 9/2/26, but holds she frivoled $2500 worth, the usual unreported-income-protester-jive case.

OTOH, John W. Sprouse, T. C. Memo. 2026-80, of even date therewith (as my high-priced colleagues would say), gets his Section 6673 $2500 chop for excessive delay, stalling while claiming to try finding counsel. Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves also finds JW “lacked candor with the Court.” T. C. Memo. 2026-80, at p. 9.

I’m not surprised JW, who worked for Deloitte Consulting LLP, couldn’t find counsel. “… petitioner filed a document titled ‘Notice of Discovery Demand.’ Among other things, the document requested that respondent produce the birth certificates for ‘the clerk of court, the judge, and any of the DOJ staff employees.’ The document also requested materials that petitioner contended would establish that certain government actions constituted ‘aggravated identity theft.'” T. C. Memo. 2026-80, at p. 3. There’s more, but you get the picture.

Judge Emin “Eminent”) Toro reminds AirBnB, Inc. & Subsidiaries, 167 T. C. 9, filed 9/2/26, that legal experts called judges are standard equipment for Tax Court trials, and these legal experts are good at disregarding legal conclusions from nonlawyers (Taishoff says they’re not bad at disregarding legal conclusions from lawyers, too). 

Likewise Rule 143(g) doesn’t apply to pretrial discovery jousts, such as AirBnB and IRS are having with dueling Rule 103 motions.

“Rule 143 provides evidentiary rules for trials before this Court. It is found in Title XIV of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, titled ‘Trials.’ The Rule itself is titled ‘Evidence,’ and Rule 143(a) explains how ‘[t]rials before the Court will be conducted.’ Moreover, Rule 143(g), by its terms, applies to ‘any party who calls an expert witness.”” 167 T. C. 9, at p. 5. (Footnote omitted, but it says captions of statutes can be used to clear up ambiguity). No trial here, yet.

IRS has two (count ’em, two) declarations it put in supporting its Rule 103 from what sounds like a professional expert. The dispute is about what features of a “clean room” should have for reviewing ultra-secret computer software; don’t confuse this with the clean room used for electronic parts manufacture. See my blogpost “Do Your Homework and Clean Up Your Room,” 4/15/13.

AirBnB can always put inn their own experts’ declarations in support of their motion or in opposition to IRS counsel’s.

And maybe so might could be the declarations AirBnB wants stricken pertain to industry practices, which are OK under Rule 143(g). “The bulk of Mr. Myers’s statements appear to concern his view of standard protective order practices in the expert witness industry, so they might be acceptable without a written report under Rule 143(g)(3) in any event.” 167 T. C. 9, at p. 6, footnote 8.

“The expert witness industry?” Judge Eminent Toro got that right.

I can’t count how many times I’ve applied the designation to Judge David Gustafson That Obliging Jurist. All of us practitioners have been before irascible types, seeing newbies shredded and even oldtimers pulped by scorn and sarcasm, where self-defense is worse than silence. Judge David Gustafson is the reverse, a true gentleman.

So there’s got to be a lot to get him to turn to that old poker sanction, and call the clock in Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales, Inc., Docket No. 14616-14L, filed 9/1/26.

Now before all y’all shout as one voice “Didn’t that get finished in 2022?” yes, 9 Cir reversed and remanded in the famous “any time before supe loses supervisory powers” holding. But the case is still unresolved. IRS is willing to drop the liability and the Section 6707A chop, but Laidlaw’s claims they’re owed money and their counsel, the celebrated William J. (“Old Bill”) Wise, Esq., is sick. I’m sure we all wish Old Bill the swiftest recovery. So Laidlaw’s and IRS want more time.

Judge David Gustafson obliges, but calls the clock on this waltz of the decades.

“We will grant that extension, but we do not expect to grant any further extension. While we have immediate sympathy for counsel’s situation, this case and the fourteen cases related to it (filed in 2014-2019) have been long pending; the Commissioner’s concession has been long known; and the Court has a responsibility to bring these cases to conclusion. The pendency of a case is not cost-free to the Court, and the passage of time often makes a case more difficult to resolve, not easier. Moreover, extensions are granted when it is shown that the delay would better enable the presentation of the case, but not when a delay would simply leave the parties in the same circumstance in which they were at the time of the previous deadline, or in worse circumstance. We hope and assume that two more months will restore petitioner’s counsel to health and that he reasonably expects to be able to file his responses by that date; but sometimes the passage of time does not actually promote a party’s ability to conduct a case. If counsel will not be able to do the work necessary to bring these cases to conclusion, then he has the ethical responsibility to his clients and to the Court to cooperate in the retention of new counsel who can do so. We hope and assume that current counsel will be able to bring these cases to conclusion.” Order, at p. 2.