IRS finds that they can’t get rid of STJ Jennifer E. (“Publius”) Siegel so fast, as she retains jurisdiction in Thomas Shands, Docket No. 14483-23W, filed 11/10/26, at least through the remand she orders.

The administrative record hasn’t yet been filed (after all, the case is only three (count ’em, three) years old). IRS’ counsel, all three of them, say they are “unable to address petitioner’s allegations in this case based upon the existing administrative record and a remand may obviate the need for formal discovery by petitioner.” Order, at p. 3.

Of course, the remand saves the need for a petitioner’s motion to enlarge the administrative record by including relevant documents, the only substitute for discovery in a record-ruler.

Petitioner’s discovery demands are barred pending the post-remand supplemental determination.

To address petitioner’s claim that this is a stall, let the parties report in six months where they’ve gotten.

I note that STJ Publius Siegel avoids dealing with IRS’ claim that petitioner’s trusty attorney showed petitioner a document erroneously included in the truncated admin record that said trusty attorney promised would not be so shown, which trusty attorney denies.  I’m surprised, as I know trusty attorney’s firm, although not any of the attorneys on this case. Still, this shows the perils of claw backs; unringing bells can be hazardous to your case.

Taishoff says tactically a petitioner wants a quick remand; delay helps only a defendant, which is IRS. Relinquishment only means a motion to designate a judge later on, when petitioner runs out of patience. Better to keep with the judge you’ve got.