Neither Hamlet’s immortal lament nor the protest of Andrew Tabaka, Chris Tabaka, Next Friend, T. C. Memo. 2026-70, filed 8/18/26, move Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber. Chris pointed out that IRS had failed to credit the late Andrew with two (count ’em, two) payments made against the deficiency to which the late Andrew stiped out before he became the late Andrew. IRS had later corrected same, but still claimed interest from due date of return to paid in full. The case had gone to litigation prep before it settled out.

Judge Scholar Al applies ministerial and managerial, the Section 6404(e)(1) standbys, and finds IRS committed neither miscue.

“In short, the time that elapsed between April 16, 2018 (when the IRS first contacted petitioner in writing about the deficiency), and August 6, 2019 (when the Court issued the [stiped] Decision), was less than 16 months, including a trip to Appeals. Compared with the mine run of cases in this Court, petitioner’s case was resolved quite expeditiously. In any event, “[t]he mere passage of time in the litigation phase of a tax dispute does not establish error or delay” under section 6404(e).” T. C. Memo. 2026-70, at p. 6. (Citation omitted).

The only thing that took time was IRS getting information from third-party payors to substantiate the 1099-Rs at issue. Once the back-ups came in, the case settled. 

Suleiman Sami, T. C. Memo. 2026-69, filed 8/18/26, claims he is one such, but despite his two (count ’em, two) accounting degrees he cannot keep enough records to cause Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland to allow a bunch deductions (hi, Judge Holmes). COGS for his ticket scalping business fail, but he does get Cohan treatment for the two (count ’em, two) passenger vehicles he runs in his unlicensed rideshare operation because he kept all the trip slips and his credit card and EZpass statements provide some basis for expenses.

As for influencing, he shows no income for years at issue, although Judge Tex Copeland shows how influencers make money (T. C. Memo. 2026-69, at pp. 4-5). Sami’s costly appearances at celebrity events, which he puts up on his social media, don’t qualify as business. Dropping a pass from Tom Brady and missing a serve from John McEnroe are just too much fun, even if you put them on your page. When he claims what he pays to attend big-ticket charity events are contributions, that founders on “no goods or services.”

Long before there were “influencers,” I missed three (count ’em, three) serves from Ray Ruffles, who won the Wimbledon mixed doubles that year; can’t say it was fun.

Sami did all his own Exam and pre-trial, but brought in The Jersey Boys and friends to try the case. Wise move.

Can you imagine a heartwarming boondockery? Neither can I, but this one comes close.

Vivian D. (“Golden”) Hoard, Esq., aided by a thoroughly competent panel of petitioners’ experts and a client whose loyalty is exemplary in a business not known for excessive decency, salvages a CA boondockery, knocking out all the chops and saving better than half the deduction, in Malibu Valley Land, LLC, Spectrum Development, Inc., Tax Matters Partner, T. C. Memo. 2026-68, filed 8/17/26.

Judger Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves walks us through a discounted cash flow development deal in the Santa Monica Mountains, LA’s retreat for the rich and famous. This is a 40-year old VTTM, a vesting tentative tract map deal that locked in old-time zoning and development until the CA State government ousted the locals.

Our hero is Brian, who fights to keep his Dad’s dream alive, paying off his Dad’s debts and his own, eschewing bankruptcy court and all the other dodges developers and investors pull. His horseback-riding buddies also play fair. IRS’ appraisal team are less than spectacular. Judge Tag Greaves stays with the story, writes a template for pricing out a development deal, and sends the parties off to a Rule 155 beancount. Brian’s trusty CPA and his trusty attorney also come through.

Even though the Rule 155 beancount hasn’t happened, Judge Tag Greaves absolves Briasn and friends of the 40% substantial overvaluation misstatement based on his calculations, T. C. Memo. 2026-68, at p. 89.

To the Golden Hoard, a Taishoff “Good job,” all around.

This is a non-political blog, so I am not commenting on the current tariff negotiations here. Rather, I note Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro’s refusal to become involved in the settlement talks between IRS and Fredonia Woodcock Creek Reserve, LLC, Fredonia Woodcock Creek Reserve IP, LLC, Partnership Representative, et al., Docket No. 6346-24, filed 8/17/26.

The Fredonians ask the Court to “‘extend the deadline for accepting the settlement offers in the above cases.’ It maintains that ‘[t]he need for the extension is to reconcile the disparity between the calculation of the other deduction amounts’ in these cases and others that have received similar offers. More specifically, petitioner ‘request[s] that this Court enter an order directing the IRS to submit a settlement offer with consistent valuation calculation process—absent [certain deductions for certain operating reserves] and to extend the acceptance deadline until 14 days from the date the Court rules on this motion.'” Order, at p. 1.

Judge Eminent Toro doesn’t negotiate for parties.

“Under well-established contract principles, respondent, as the maker of the offer, gets to determine the terms of the offer. Williston on Contracts § 5:7 (4th ed.)(describing the rule that ‘[j]ust as the offeror is at liberty to make no offer at all, it is also at liberty to dictate whatever terms it sees fit if it chooses to make an offer. Among these requirements may be acceptance within a specified time, and if no acceptance is made within that time, the power of acceptance necessarily expires’ and collecting authorities)…. Petitioner is of course free to negotiate with respondent and persuade him that the terms of the offer should be revised to achieve consistency with other offers or for whatever other reasons petitioner considers appropriate. But resolution of those requests remains the province of the parties, not the Court.” Order, at p. 1. (Citations omitted).

I’ve chronicled the activities of the Fredonians’ trusty attorney elsewhere. Rather than cite to them, permit me to offer some advice free, gratis, and for nothing, with no guarantees, warranties, or representations. Might it not be a good idea to set up a phonathon with His Honor and IRS’ counsel, and have a wee headbanging session, rather than making motions?

See my blogpost “Old-Time Head-Banging,” 6/5/15.

Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro has another form for the Tax Court litigator’s file in Airbnb, Inc. & Subsidiaries, Docket No. 12423-24, filed 8/14/26. And Judge Eminent Toro didn’t draft a word of it (at least not expressly).

This Discovery Protective Order for Non-Technology Proprietary and Confidential Information was hammered out by the parties after a phonathon with judge Eminent Toro. Whether this resulted from what we used to call a head-banging session deponent knoweth not. And note this DPO doesn’t cover the treatment of technology-related materials, although the parties “will continue their efforts to reach [such] agreement.” Order, at p. 1, footnote 2.

Howbeit, text appears following order, page 1. I make no warranties, guarantees, or representations as to adequacy, fitness for purpose, compliance with law or regulation, or anything else. YMMV.

It seems Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda has gone all Bundesliga with Tax Court jurisdiction. The former extensive paragraph describing “other IRS notices that may form the basis for a petition to this Court” that festooned routine want-of-jurisdiction petition tosses has been relegated to a footnote.

Is whistleblowing in the zone for promotion?

Solely by way of illustration of the foregoing and the source of the above quotation, see Cassandra John, Docket No. 3274-26SL, filed 8/14/26, at p. 2, footnote 2.

No, not innocent spousery; this is the tale of Tyler Uccellini, one of three (count ’em, three) children of the late Walter F. Uccellini, and beneficiary of a $10 million Pecuniary Trust established under his late father’s will.

Except.

For fourteen (count ’em, fourteen) years the late Walter’s estate, and Tyler’s trust, have been fought over in Albany Surrogates’ Court (Our Fair State’s probate court), while co-ex’rs Sis and Bro fight over a gift (or maybe a loan) from Dad to Sis. You know IRS piles on, hitting the ex’rs (Sis and Bro) with a SND for understated valuation of estate assets and overstated deductions. And the petition has been plodding for ten (count ’em, ten) years.

Tyler is obviously tired of holding a win ticket in the Jarndyce stakes, which horserace looks more like a death march. So he moves to intervene

The case is Estate of Walter F. Uccellini, Deceased, Michael J. Uccellini & Peter J. Cornell, Co-Executors, Docket No. 21810-16, filed 8/13/26. Judge Rose E. (“Cracklin'”) Jenkins says negatory. 

Tyler’s interests and the ex’r’s are the same, and the ex’rs are proceeding. “Even if delay of this case could be considered a failure to protect movant’s stake in this litigation, the objections credibly attribute a significant portion of the delay in this case to disputes among the co-executors that have been resolved by the Surrogate [sic] Court’s resolution of the gift/loan dispute and removal of [Sis] as a co-executor, as evidenced by the subsequent filing of a stipulation of settled issues. The Court also agrees with the objections’ concern that introduction another party into the case would re-introduce delays.” Order, at p. 4.

Judge Cracklin’ Jenkins writes a long essay on permissive intervention, a good review after years since this was a hot topic in the VIBIR days.

I cannot count how many times I’ve used the ancient jibe that lawyers can’t add. But ex-Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan has found one who can in Jeffery Dieffenbach, T. C. Memo. 2026-67, filed 8/13/26. Although his trial tactics may not be the best, Mr. Dieffenbach was either employed, or served as an independent contractor, as a bookkeeper, and was duly compensated as such, during at least some of the five (count ’em, five) years at issue.

Unfortunately, Mr. Dieffenbach did not file tax returns for those years. Mr. Dieffenbach was a licensed attorney in CT, T. C. 2026-67, at p. 2.

This is his second time around in Tax Court. I did not chronicle the first, as it was a toss for no jurisdiction. Hence his res judicata argument fails, as do his allegations of Exam irregularities (Greenberg’s Express). His Section 7605 multi-examinations argument founders, as replacing a retiring examiner with a new one doesn’t create a second exam. Both examiners had the same supe, and both duly Boss Hossed Mr. Dieffenbach.

That’s the plight of Aladar Deutsch and Sylvia G. Deutsch, T. C. Memo. 2026-66, filed 8/12/26. Al’s buddy Mr. Visel, who had previously put Al into losing investments, had a Mexican deal with some alleged Dubai heavy-hitters. Al bit to the tune north of $1.25 million.

Of course this was a classic advance-fee scheme of the kind you get at least five (count ’em, five) e-mails every day (weekends included) from Krystalina Georgieva at the World Bank, cancerous millionaire widows, Qaddafi’s relatives, Chinese moguls on the run, et hoc genus omne. They’ll all give you millions if you send them a couple grand “for fees.” Ya, right, ya betcha.

I won’t go through the details here; Al and Syl have suffered enough. Judge Tamara Ashford has to do it, so you can read the details in her opinion.

Why IRS didn’t fold eludes me. Judge Ashford’s extensive review of State (TX) law (larceny by trick or device) is overkill. Identifying the thief, charging him/her/them criminally, and pursuing such as are identifiable, are essential elements of establishing Section 165 theft loss. But here the thief is offshore and smart; Al’s and Syl’s trusty attorneys (both onshore and offshore) and their investigative team cannot nail him, nor can they establish to Judge Ashford’s satisfaction that buddy Visel was in on the fraud. He might have been just another one deceived.

Hence, what Al paid the pseudonymous thief is deductible, but the money he fronted buddy Visel to hang out in London pursuing the deal is not. Buddy Visel does show his true colors when Al asks him to cough up; he replies with “an expletive-laden response” refusing. T. C. 2026-66, at p. 11. 

Trusty onshore attorneys engage in an extensive joust with IRS about reopening the record, at pp. 21-24. Needless to say, it’s that Boss Hoss sign-off again. And since the petition stays assessment, and apparently both RA and supe were still in place and going strong when the explanatory paperwork was proffered, Boss Hossery is sustained.

Except. 

Al and Syl reasonably relied on their trusty CPA when they deducted buddy Visel’s London jaunt and whatever else they took, so no Section 6662(a) chops once the Rule 155 beancount establishes their final bill.

No, not a new Texas poker sensation to separate you from your money. This is Judge Cary Douglas (“C-Doug”) Pugh’s advice to Gerald A. Beacom and Jean A. Beacom, GT. C. Memo. 2026-65, filed 8/11/26. The kerfuffle concerns an AMIT carryforward Gerald was taking that stretched back to 1999 or maybe sometime through 2005, he couldn’t recollect exactly; “(understandably, given the passage of time)” says Judge C-Doug Pugh. T. C. Memo. 2025-65, at p. 2.

But that doesn’t help Gerald, even though he says he lost his old records in a flood.

“Petitioners defend their lack of documentation by claiming that IRS guidance requires taxpayers to retain prior year returns for a maximum of seven years. Internal Revenue Serv., Publication 17: Your Federal Income Tax 17–18 (Dec. 16, 2021), https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p17–2021.pdf (prescribing various periods for retaining records, including seven years for losses from worthless securities and bad debt deductions); see § 6511(b). They misread that guidance. It requires taxpayers to retain documentation supporting the items reported on a return for seven years. Petitioners should have maintained records supporting their claimed AMT credit for seven years from the date of the return on which they applied the credit, not seven years from the date of the return when they first paid the AMT. That is, petitioners were required to retain, as evidence of their eligibility for the AMT credit in tax year 2021, records (such as their prior returns) documenting the source of the AMT credit (and its prior utilization, if any) for seven years from 2021, not seven years from 1999 or 2000.” T. C. Memo. 2026-65, at p. 6. The flood took place years before 2021 (year at issue).