No, That Is Not a Misprint

Though to the civilian eye the word first written hereinabove at the head hereof (as my already-on-their- third-Grey-Goose-Gibson colleagues would say) is clearly a spelling error, the word as thus written reprises the tone of Tom Stoppard’s famous character in his 1981 variant on “Hello, Dolly.” And I’ve used that spelling four (count ’em, four) times in blogposts before now, though have never yet explained its derivation.

I most respectfully submit, however, that Joanne G. Rosso, T. C. Memo. 2025-125, filed 11/6/25, is indeed a clessic.

Ex-Ch J Maurice B. (“Mighty Mo”) Foley is both terse and charitable, giving IRS the win.

“Petitioner claimed a $28,485 deduction relating to legal expenses but failed to submit sufficient documentation to substantiate $2,194 of these expenses. See § 6001; Rule 142(a); Treas. Reg. § 1.6001-1(a). She also failed to establish that the remaining $26,291 of litigation expenses relate to the production or collection of income. See §§ 212(1), 262(a); Rule 142(a); United States v. Gilmore, 372 U.S. 39, 46–49 (1963).” T. C. Memo. 2025-115, at p. 3.

When a prospective client tells you that you are the fourth lawyer they’ve consulted, the previous three being incompetent, read this case. Then decline the representation.

As the current government shutdown enters the record books, the “small court” grapples with upset trial schedules. STJ Lewis (“A Name to Remember”) Carluzzo urges the litigants to pursue resolution, whether by assiduous trial preparation or negotiated peace, in Christopher Jones, Docket No. 1450-25S, filed 11/5/25.

IRS wants a continuance of the December 8 trial date, but STJ Lew won’t take the easy way out. He holds the motion in abeyance, while urging the parties to strive on. Notwithstanding that they need not now comply with the SPTO, they must still prepare for trial or settle.

“Unless: (1) otherwise directed by the Court; (2) the trial session is cancelled; (3) the case is continued; or (4) a proposed stipulated decision is submitted sooner, both parties must appear on Monday, December 8, 2025, as presently required. The failure of a party to appear as directed could result in the entry of decision against that party.” Order, at p.1.

Let House and Senate do (or not do) whatever, Tax Court litigants must go on (even if IRS counsel is unpaid).

Richard Steven Harris, T. C. Memo. 2025-113, filed 11/4/25, claims he was the proprietor of the business that employed him, so his Sched C fails because his employer provided compensation for some of the expenses he claimed, Section 274 substantiation knocks out others, so he can’t show the expenses were “necessary.”

Of interest, he claims $74K of the $534K his employer was allowed per Section 179D Energy Efficient Commercial Building Deductions as “designer.” He was the sales manager on the jobs that set up the deduction.

Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler finds the 179D deduction lacks evidentiary support. Harris doesn’t show anything but uncorroborated testimony that he analyzed the original sequence of operations to determine how the existing systems were intended to operate, inspected the existing systems to determine how they were actually operating in comparison to the original sequence of operations (i.e., to identify any failures or ad hoc changes made to the original sequence of operations), and modified or changed the sequence of operations as necessary to better operate the systems.

Note he did have forms from his employer’s tax consultant showing him as designer and allocating him a part of the deduction. But Harris, pro se, never called the consultant as witness, nor did he attempt to get the forms in as business records. Taishoff says he might not have succeeded if he did, but worth a try.

Tax Court may be the “small court” but you still have to try your case.

Though I’m sure this is not Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro’s first encounter with heightened rhetoric, whether from north, south, east, or west, he notes that same does not convert a conservation easement valued by IRS at $612K into a $10,234,108 write-off for Paul-Adams Quarry Trust, LLC, Francis L. Adams, Tax Matters Partner, T.C. Memo. 2025-112, filed 11/3/25. Neither does same make this ” a difficult case.” T. C. Memo. 2025-112, at p. 6. Notwithstanding less difficulty, Judge Eminent Toro runs up 105 (count ’em, 105, and I have) pages to dispose thereof.

It starts with the usual give-and-go, flipping a busted Dixieland granite quarry. But by the time you get to page 7, you’ve heard enough.

“… when the easement was granted over the Paul-Adams property in 2017, Paul-Adams claimed the property was worth $10,545,088, relying on its supposed value as an operating granite quarry. In petitioner’s view, the dormant Paul-Adams property could, within four years of being revived, produce a material percentage of the total granite dimension stone produced annually in the entire State of Georgia.

“Petitioner has provided no credible evidence of how this would be achieved or why, if these claims were true, the property had not already been used for this purpose. The claimed value of the parcel in 2017 represented a more than 2,400% increase over its prior sale price in 2007. And its purported value was more than 750% of the value of the property Mr. Adams was leasing at the time, which included a larger quarry with a much better track record, and with respect to which he had an option to buy.

“In view of the entire record in this case, we find petitioner’s claim utterly unsupportable.” T. C. Memo. 2025-112, at p. 7. Btw, if you want to read a lot more about GA granite than you want to know, check out T. C. Memo. 2025-112, at pp. 10-13.

And while petitioners’ appraiser survives the Reg. Section 1.170A-13(c)(5)(ii) guilty knowledge test, he’s sailing mighty close to the wind when petitioners’ discounted cash flow numbers show up in his appraisal metadata.

A key fact is that the petitioners tried to quarry on the property, lost money (despite being longtime quarry operators), closed up the business, and sat for five (count ’em, five) years with the property dormant. Though they claim they found valuable granite, they closed up just when a major buyer was looking for more product. Makes no sense. And they lost $360K in the operation before shutting down, when starting a new quarry operation wasn’t that much more.

“Both experts assumed that the market could absorb the dimension stone extracted at the newly opened hypothetical quarry and that the new quarry would capture significant market share in practically no time. They further assumed that the new quarry would run at a level of efficiency achieved at the best quarries in the area, would quarry high-quality granite, and would have no trouble finding a qualified work force even though labor constraints have been a constant source of problems for other quarriers in the area. We do not share the experts’ enthusiasm and, making factual determinations, consider their analyses unrealistic, unreliable, and unhelpful. We catalog here only a few of the many failings of petitioner’s experts, which hypothetical willing buyers would not have ignored.” T. C. Memo. 2025-112, at p. 48. And you can’t run discounted cash flow analysis when a business has none. Especially is this so when there are plenty of comparable sales.

At close of play, highest and best use pre-easement is as an exploratory site for (maybe) future mining, not a going concern. Post-easement, recreation and passive activities, on which both sides agree.

Finally, petitioners claim the Section 6662(h) chop is void for vagueness.

“Section 6662(h), the statute setting forth the gross valuation misstatement penalty, and the related statutory and regulatory provisions are not vague. A person of ordinary intelligence has fair notice of what is prohibited. The value of property claimed on that person’s return must not be 200% or more of the correct amount. Nor has petitioner pointed to any rule in the related regulations that fails to provide fair notice of the conduct that the rules prohibit.

“To the extent petitioner takes issue with how the courts have applied the rules in specific cases, his recourse is to argue that those cases were wrongly decided, as he has done here. But disagreement with outcomes of cases does not render the relevant standard unconstitutionally vague.” T. C. Memo. 2025-112, at p. 105.

News reaches me that Frantic Frank Agostino is bringing the Jersey Boys in touch with Downtown. He joins The Big K-Crew.

Best of luck to all hands. Now send me some good blogfodder, guys.

The new, rock-’em-sock-’em, jim-handy Tax Court website has launched, and mirabile dictù, it works! Mostly.

It states thereon that a press release issued yesterday, on a Sunday no less, announced the shutdown-induced cancelation (maybe) of the  Examination for Admission to Practice in the United States Tax Court, a/k/a the Slaughter of the Innocents.

Except.

At the time of writing (9:57 a.m., EST, 11/3/25), the link thereto leads one to a press release dated 10/27/25, which says nothing about said Examination.

My faith in the Genius Baristas remains unimpaired.

Edited to add, 10:21 a.m., EDT: Sarah Silfies Finken, Esq., Administrative and Case Services Counsel at Tax Court, acting Public Affairs Officer, tells me that the Examination will proceed as scheduled on 11/5/25. I will post any other or further information as received.

Edited to add, 10:44 a.m., EDT: Ms. Finken confirms Examination to proceed as scheduled; good luck to all candidates.

James Robert Serena & Michael Hunter Waybright, Docket No. 13580-21S, filed 10/31/25, are fighting over $15K of Waybright’s NEC allegedly withheld by the nonemployer, which IRS says they can’t verify.

Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda needs none of his scholarship to blow this one off. Turning to the trusty saved boilerplate on the wordprocessor, he unloads the 652 (count ’em, 652) word essay on Tax Court’s Congressionally-limited jurisdiction.

Of course Serena & Waybright fit none thereof, so are relegated to USDC or USCFC, and best of luck with a $15K claim.

As usual, “the record at this juncture suggests that petitioners may have sought the assistance of the Court after having become frustrated with administrative actions by the IRS and any attempts to work with the agency but that the petition here was not based upon or instigated by a specific IRS notice expressly providing petitioners with the right to contest a particular IRS determination in this Court.” Order, at p. 3.

So Serena & Waybright are out $15K, sixty Georges, interest on their money, and lost time.

I can’t help them, or others with similar problems, but I can suggest something to help future frustrated self-representeds and prevent them from wasting money, time, and energy.

Remember, chaps, fully seventy (count ’em, seventy) percent of Tax Court petitioners are self-represented.

Taishoff says, put the boilerplate Tax Court jurisdiction essay on the Tax Court website! Prominently. With a heading like Before You Petition, Read This!

Maybe so might could be the Genius Baristas and 18Fs or whoever else is cobbling together the new, rock ’em-sock ’em, jim-handy Tax Court homepage (coming soon to a URL near you this Monday Nov. 3) might want to do this.

Of course I might be too late, but I never saw a beta of this new, rock ’em-sock ’em, jim-handy whatever.

I’ll mention Carol Rae Foulds, T.  C. Memo. 2025-111, filed 10/30/25, only to show I’m still here. I haven’t fallen into the stockpot where my celebrated Bolognese sauce is doing its three (count ’em, three) hour simmer.

The case is another NITL summary J barrelshoot on a pro se who hadn’t filed for seven (count ’em, seven) years when IRS gave her a couple SFRs (hi, Judge Holmes) for two of the bunch. Dr. Foulds never petitioned liability. There follows the usual argy-bargy about presumptive mailing, the defective PS3877 paperwork followed by IRS showing they don’t need no stinkin’ presumption of mailing, and Dr. Foulds folding the summary J motion, as Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda trots around the bases.

It’s a miserable rainy night on this Minor Outlying Island off the Coast of North America. So while waiting breathlessly for the rollout of the new Tax Court homepage, this is what I do between stirrings.

I stopped beating this drum because no one listened, so here’s a spoiler alert: as the date for the Slaughter of the Innocents (United States Tax Court Examination for Non-Attorney admission) approaches, I will again agitate for requiring attorneys to pass the exam.

Tune out now if you’re bored or don’t care.

One can style oneself a “tax lawyer” and lead clients down a dead-end street, and all the Tax Court bench can do is commiserate. And it doesn’t require Congress to do anything (thanks be to whatever gods may be, because Congress is so good at not doing…but this is a nonpolitical blog). Just amend Rule 200 to require passing the same exam you give nonattorneys. Put in an annual registration fee for admittees, by all means; clear out the deadwood, hold another Tax Court Judicial Conference. Even require annual CLE (see to what depths I’ve sunk, I who loathe the CLE racket), but spare us orders like Tina Mohr, Docket No. 9510-25, filed 10/29/25.

 Here’s her story: “Regarding the timeline issues, I have been fighting this since 2018, and I finally hired a tax attorney. I presented the letter that I received from the IRS stating I had 90 days to file, and the attorney (No longer at the firm) (Name omitted) noted that the form that H&R Block filed (2018 Injured Spouse), was incorrect, so she submitted the correct form (Innocent Spouse), rather than file with the courts. I was not aware of the process, so I assumed she filed what she needed, and it was all acceptable.” Order, at pp. 3-4.

As this is a blog meant for reading round the family circle, I here cannot adequately express my opinion.

Of course, Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda’s hands are statutorily tied. As Tina is about 1900 days later with the SND petition, and about 600 days late with the innocent spousery, even if the Supremes pulled a blanket Boechler, the two-hurdle equitable tolling would put paid to Tina’s case. No extraordinary circumstances (fire, flood, pandemic, terrorist attack) shown here, and no showing Tina diligently pursued rights. But a prompt petition, which should be automatic at the intake interview unless the client is way too late, is the only safe approach.

Ch J Scholar Pat, at least try floating this when you next amend the Rules of Practice and Procecure.

It’s been four (count ’em, four) years since that bodacious shambolic schemozzle rollout of DAWSON, with disappearing dockets, months without orders or opinions, or other than paper filings. Apparently that’s just long enough for the Genius Baristas (and maybe their chums the 18F, whoever they might be (if they survived DOGE)) to forget what a disaster that was.

So now they’re bestowing on a public that never did them any harm a new homepage. They promise us all kinds goodies (hi, Judge Holmes).

Here’s the press release.

“Notice: US Tax Court to Launch Redesigned Website Homepage November 1st

• The Tax Court will launch a redesigned public website homepage during the weekend of November 1. When you visit our site on Monday, November 3, you’ll notice several improvements:
• Streamlined Navigation – Quick access tiles will provide direct links to our most visited pages, making it easier to find the information you need
• Timely Updates – A dedicated news and notices section will keep you informed of important Court information
• Priority Alerts – Announcements will be prominently displayed to ensure you don’t miss urgent updates
• New Support Contact – For questions or assistance, you’ll be able to reach us at help@ustaxcourt.gov
• Improved Security and Accessibility – Behind-the-scenes enhancements will ensure a safer, more accessible experience for all users

We are committed to providing the public with efficient access to Court information and services. If you have questions after the launch, please contact us at help@ustaxcourt.gov“

Taishoff says, cain’t hardly wait.