Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes doesn’t disrespect a single partitive genitive in Drake Johnson, Docket No. 10265-25L, filed 10/8/26. What he does, is to cut the usual three-page toss of a petitioned CDP down to a page.

The usual toss order goes into the history of Sections 6320 and 6330, de novo vs abuse of discretion, a procedural history of the case, and the fact that petitioner never submitted a complete Form 433-A or B and backups for the requested CA. Then follows the boilerplate copious citation of precedent.

Judge Holmes does as is first hereinabove written at the head hereof, as my expensive colleagues say.

“The only issue is this rejection of Mr. Johnson’s request for a collection alternative. When the amount of tax liability is not at issue, our standard of review is abuse of discretion. This means that we look to see if the Commissioner’s decision was based on an error of law or rested on a clearly erroneous finding of fact, or whether he ruled irrationally. 

“We also review only the reasons given by the IRS in its notice of determination, not new reasons made for the first time on appeal. In other words, we follow Chenery.

“We have to conclude that the Appeals officer didn’t abuse his discretion in rejecting this request because Mr. Johnson did not submit supplemental financial information that the Appeals officer reasonably requested.” Order, at p. 1. (Citations omitted, but they’re the usual ones).