No, this is not about a highroller caught in a Dixieland Boondockery. This is the story of John R. Dee, Docket No. 377-20W, filed 7/17/25. John is seeking more than the 1% IRS gave him for blowing on a highroller whose escapades John ripped from the headlines and promptly tipped off IRS.

Of course, IRS knew all about it. John’s tips about the management company and vice-president of highroller’s Sub S don’t add to IRS’ $7 million takedown of highroller’s wholly-owned Sub S and his own self. John’s earlybirding does get him a 1% $71K payday.

John claims he should get more. IRS wants summary J that John should take the money and run, and gets it.

STJ Diana L. (“Sidewalks of New York”) Leyden agrees John should do the Woody Allen.

“The only dispute that petitioner raises is that the amount of the award determined by the WBO was incorrect because ‘[w]hile certain facts were aggregated from media reports, petitioner’s claim involved extensive research and analysis of a multitude of public data and produced mountains of original information and analysis in support of petitioner’s allegations.’” Order, at p. 5.

IRS ran the Reg. Section 301.7623-4(c)(2) checklist as shown at Order at pp. 2-4, and all of John’s extensive research and analysis was only a dredge of public stuff.

John does much better than most blower-packagers. He doesn’t even get sequestered.

The Genius Baristas have relented, so I can now present Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch’s peroration in Veribest Vesta, LLC, True North Resources, LLC, Partnership Representative, filed 7/17/25. It would be impertinent for me to add, abstract, or comment beyond a loud “Amen!”

“The Court heard from more than two dozen witnesses. Some of those witnesses were experts hired by the parties. Some of those witnesses were people involved in the donation or tax reporting of the conservation easement. More importantly, many of those witnesses were the good people of the City of Elberton and Oglethorpe County who had nothing to do with this case, other than they happen to be involved in the mining industry in the vicinity of the old Grimes quarry.

“Many of the people who sat through this two-week trial were not harmed by doing so. The Court, the attorneys, and the expert witnesses are all paid for being there. Petitioner was there by its own choosing.

“But both the unrelated fact witnesses and the tax system in general were harmed by this trial. The witnesses were inconvenienced. They were not involved in the transactions in any way. They missed days of work and had to travel into Atlanta for trial so that petitioner could pursue an argument deemed by courts to be ‘not credible’ and ‘nonsense.’ More broadly, taxpayers footed the bill for the resources necessary to conduct this trial.

Mr. Dye, petitioner’s paid expert, expressed his misplaced frustration with this process. Holding a cylinder of Georgia Gray granite in his hand, Mr. Dye passionately explained his frustration, saying:

‘So somebody’s got to decide whether this has a value . . . because I’m going to get up from the table today, and I’m going to go home. And I’m going to go back to work. And my 81-year-old father is out there right now today pulling this stone out of the ground for his 62nd summer.

‘Now, if this right here that I have in my hand supports 2,500 people and a $300-million industry in a county that only has 23,000 people, then somebody has to explain to me how it has no value.’

“Mr. Dye’s frustration is misplaced because his client has tried to argue that the value is in the raw land, when in fact, the value lies in the people of the City of Elberton and Oglethorpe County, people like Mr. Dye and his father. Like Arnold Jaudon, Randy Rice, Mark Hill, Tim Huguley, Willie Simmons, Billy Bryant, David Giannoni, and Mark Stevens. The real value lies not in the stone, but in ‘an experienced crew and capable leader to extract it.'” Order, at pp. 61-63.

That’s the Supremes’ take on Section 6330, and Judge Courtney D. (“CD”) Jones is nowise loth to follow in Laquita Ann Hershberger, Docket No. 12868-24L, filed 7/16/25, even though Laquita isn’t one of those “‘laymen, unassisted by trained lawyers,’” who often “‘initiate the process.’” I’m quoting, of course, from Boechler, P. C., 596 US ____ (2022), at p. 9, the touchstone of Section 6330 disciplinary practice.

IRS gets summary J all the way on Appeals’ affirmance of the NITL NOD Laquinta and trusty attorney, whom I’ll call Geo, are contesting, until we get to CNC.

AO S (name omitted) rightly rejected Laquinta’s claims about her divorce settlement, as she never furnished any proof at the CDP. Even when she puts in those documents in Tax Court, Judge CD Jones isn’t convinced.

Now before my ultrasophisticated readers shout as one “What?! CDPs are record rulers! If the divorce stuff wasn’t in the admin record, why look at it?” I must quote Judge CD Jones.

“…(T)he U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits have concluded that our review is limited to the administrative record for CDP cases.

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to which this case is presumptively appealable, see § 7482(b)(1)(G)(i), has not specifically addressed this issue in a precedential opinion.” Order, at p. 4. (Citations omitted).

Hence, anything goes. And AO S even cut her initial determination of what Laquinta could pay on an IA by $500.

Laquinta never put in a Form 656, so OIC is out.

But AO S never mentioned CNC in the NOD.

“In the Case Activity Record, AO Snyder noted that Ms. Hershberger requested CNC status and also requested evidence of hardship status. Nonetheless, the Notice of Determination is completely silent regarding this requested collection alternative. Moreover, although AO S determined that Ms. Hershberger could pay under an IA, she did not separately consider CNC status.

“In particular, she failed to consider whether enforced collection would cause a hardship on Ms. Hershberger. Hardship is one of the considerations that the IRS must consider when determining whether a taxpayer is entitled to CNC status.” Order, at pp. 8-9. (Citations omitted).

Judge CD Jones notes that even if hardship puts Laquinta into CNC status, IRS can drop a NFTL to protect its interests, nudge nudge, wink wink.

Back to Appeals for consideration of hardship.

It’s a sixty-four (count ’em, sixty-four) page off-the-bencher in another phony syndicated conservation easement case from the usual suspects in Oglethorpe County, GA. The phony valuation (income capitalization method blown up by comparable sales, of which there are more than two dozen) cuts a $20 million valuation down to $111K, plus 40% gross substantial overvaluation chops.

But don’t read Veribest Vesta, LLC, True North Resources, LLC, Partnership Representative, Docket No. 9158-23, filed 7/15/25, for the 58-page trudge through Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch’s evisceration of this dodge.

Read Transcript, Pages 59 through 63. Judge Ingenuity Buch fires a shot across the bows of the attorneys who try these nonsense cases. He lays out why they should be hit with Section 6673(a)(2) chops, multiplying proceedings needlessly and vexatiously.

I wish I could quote Judge Buch’s words, but the Genius Baristas have clogged Dawson’s Creek so that I cannot drag-and-drop.

But I can provide a takeaway: this is how you set up a Section 6673 chop. And more than that, this is how a judge expresses what a lot of us believe.

Estate of Billy S. Rowland, Deceased, James A. Park, Executor, T. C. Memo. 2025-76, filed 7/15/25, fails to port the DSUE (Deceased Spouse’s Unused Exclusion) of the late Fay Rowland. Fay’s last-minute-filed Form 706 fails to state the FMV of noncharitable and nonmarital assets forming part of the late Fay’s trusts FBO children and grandchildren.

Rev. Proc. 2017-34 allows the last-minute filing, but still requires full compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements for precise itemization. Substantial compliance guesstimates don’t get it in this case, although Ch. J. Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda doesn’t preclude its applicability in other cases.

Of course equitable estoppel against IRS fails on multiple grounds.

The 2022 case of the year is back at Tax Court and Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch gives it the T. S. Eliot treatment in an off-the-bencher Boechler, P. C., Docket No. 18578-17L filed 7/15/25.

Boechler, P. C., was a ND single-shingle plaintiffs’ personal injury (asbestos) firm. Boss Jeanette Boechler, Esq., had a “hectic” life during year at issue.

“Ms. Boechler was one of the caregivers for her mother who was in her late 90s. Ms. Boechler resided in the same residence as her mother and her sister, Lisa Boechler. She shared caregiving responsibilities with Lisa, as well as another sister who lived in Fargo, North Dakota. Ms. Boechler assisted her mother by making meals, taking her to doctor’s appointments, and performing other tasks around the house. Ms. Boechler was also a single mother to her son who graduated high school in [year at issue]. He was about to leave home for the first time to attend college.” Transcript, at p. 5.

The issue was late 941s which IRS claimed  and gave her a Section 6721 chop, which Jeanette disputed. Jeanette miscalculated when the petition from the CDP was due, but had a bunch PI cases percolating (hi, Judge Holmes) and was moving her son into college in NY. Jeanette’s petition, signed by her counsel, was two (count ’em, two) days late.

IRS’ response: “(W)hile Ms. Boechler’s personal circumstances may have been difficult, they were not uncommon, they were not beyond her control, and they do not rise to the level of extraordinary.” Transcript, at p. 8.

The Supremes said Congress didn’t prohibit equitable tolling of the 30-day cutoff, Section 6330 was “unusually protective of taxpayers” and such litigation is often initiated by pro se litigants.

The two-pronged test for equitable tolling is that petitioner diligently pursued their rights and that extraordinary circumstances beyond petitioner’s control prevented timely filing.

“Boechler did not allege or establish any facts that indicate it diligently pursued its rights. There is no indication that Boechler followed up with its attorney to ensure the attorney or supporting staff timely filed the petition. Cf. Holland, 560 U.S. at 653–54 (holding that a litigant diligently pursued his claim when he followed up multiple times with his attorney to ensure the petition was timely filed). Ms. Boechler testified that she could not recall if she filed the petition or if she supervised or otherwise provided direction to the person who filed the petition. And given that the petition was filed by counsel, the record is unusually silent as to what direction, if any, was provided by or to counsel to ensure timely filing of the petition. In short, the record is silent as to whether anyone diligently pursued Boechler’s rights. Failure to satisfy the first prong is sufficient for us to deny Boechler’s claim of equitable tolling. See Menominee, 577 U.S. at 256 (holding that failure to meet one element of the equitable tolling test is sufficient for the Court to deny equitable tolling).” Transcript, at pp. 11-12.

As for the second prong, merely being a busy attorney with family responsibilities (especially when these are shared) isn’t extraordinary (ain’t that the truth). Nor is getting the arithmetic wrong when dealing with SOL.

IRS wins.

I expect the trade press and the blogosphere will provide the editorial comments I now refrain from making.

A bunch Dixieland Boondockery opinions (hi, Judge Holmes), with no joy for the investors.

Vivian D. (“Golden”) Hoard, Esq., and her colleagues are still hunting the Section 6751(b) bubble in Jefferson Property Holdings, LLC, Strategic Fund Manager, LLC, Partnership Representative, T. C. Memo. 2025-75, filed 7/14/25, and Sand Valley Holdings, LLC, Sand Valley Investors, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, T. C. Memo. 2025-74, filed 7/14/25. Much of a muchness, supervisors signing off before they lose their supervisees, the fight over who made the initial determination, but at the end of the day, the cool second look that Congress wanted has been swamped by the sloppy drafting of a remedial statute. Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber finds nothing new; citations are the usual suspects.

Judge Nega needs 55 (count ’em, 55) pages to deal with four (count ’em, four) consolidated cases, all with appraisal strikeouts. But even though the syndicated conservation easement deductions fail for want of competent appraisals, Judge Nega must decide if the substantial overvaluation chops that IRS wants to assess are warranted. So the defective appraisals are still at issue.

Spoiler alert!

IRS wins.

Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch finds that Garaad Mohamed Muse & Shukri Jeylani Abdalla, Docket No. 15191-24S, filed 7/14/25, avoid Section 6662 accuracy and negligence chops by standing on ceremony.

Gar & Shukri got married in their native Kenya in a religious ceremony valid by the laws of that country. They moved to MN, acquired irreconcilable differences, and got divorced by means of a ceremony that would have been valid back in Kenya.

When they petitioned the deficiency caused by their separate HOH filings during the year they were ceremonially divorced, they lost because MN law said they were still married. MN law says MN domiciliaries can get divorced only by judicial decree, even if validly married under foreign law. Federal tax law goes by State law for who is and is not married. If married under State law, even if living apart, one can file only MFS or MFJ. IRS classified Gar & Shukri as MFS, and recomputed their taxes accordingly.

IRS conceded the Section 6662 chops as to Shukri, but as Gar ran a tax prep business, they left him to face the chops.

“Mr. Muse married Ms. Abdallah in Kenya in manner accepted by both his religion and that country. In the eyes of Kenya, Minnesota, and the Federal government, this was a valid marriage. Following those same customs and practices, Mr. Muse and Ms. Abdalla ceremonially divorced. While not a valid dissolution of marriage in the state of Minnesota, Mr. Muse was nevertheless reasonable in his belief that he obtained a valid divorce. In his experience, following the traditions of his religion with respect to marriage was respected in the eyes of the law. We find that he acted with good faith and reasonably believed performing a ceremonial divorce would satisfy the requirements of divorce in Minnesota.” Transcript, at pp. 9-10.

I can’t close without noting yet another typographical error, but not in this opinion. Judge Buch has another off-the-bencher, Ashley M. Huber, Docket No. 10742-24, filed 7/14/25. Ashley’s a protester, who featured here a couple weeks ago (hi, Judge Holmes). Judge Buch refers to that.

“We will not impose sanctions in this case, but we caution Ms. Huber against taking frivolous positions in future litigation. Although we previously warned Ms. Huber about the possibility of a sanction in another case, Huber v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-29, that opinion was issued mere days before this case was called. On this record, we will not impose a sanction under section 6673.” Transcript, at p. 11.

For the cited opinion, see my blogpost “Something New,” 6/5/25. The case is T. C. Memo. 2025-59, issued 6/5/25.

Even though Chem-Div Inc., Docket No. 6928-23, filed 7/14/25, substantially prevailed, didn’t unreasonably delay, and its claimed litigation costs were reasonable; and IRS agreed it has no substantial justification for  alleged $2 million ChemDiv’s deficiency, ChemDiv had too much cash in the bank the day it petitioned.

In consequence whereof, Judge Courtney D. (“CD”) Jones finds ChemDiv doesn’t get Section 7430 legals.

ChemDiv’s trusty attorneys assert “… the balance sheet on the date of its Petition was an ‘anomaly,’ attributable to approximately $10,000,000 in cash that had not been distributed. ChemDiv argues that the Court should construe the law in accordance with ChemDiv’s view of Congressional intent since, as ChemDiv claims, it is exactly the type of taxpayer who should be able to recover costs. ChemDiv states that ‘determin[ing] Petitioner’s net worth based on a snapshot in time that is not consistent with its historical and accurate net worth is inconsistent with such Congressional intent.’ Accordingly, ChemDiv submits that its net worth is $5,704,610, and argues that a holding otherwise ‘would be inconsistent with Congress’ intent, the facts of this case, and would reward Respondent’s unreasonable conduct in this case.’” Order, at p. 5.

“Unreasonable” is putting it mildly. Check out Order at pp. 1-2, where “… the revenue agent said that she would not allow the accrual no matter what documentation ChemDiv provided.”

And when an Appeals conference ended with “no litigation risk” for IRS, Order, at p. 2, I wonder who made that assessment.

But the law says what it says.

“The statutes are clear. As applicable in this case, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(B) provides that a “party” means in relevant part a ‘corporation . . . the net worth of which did not exceed $7,000,000 at the time the civil action was filed.’ Section 7430 is a waiver of sovereign immunity and must be strictly construed in the Commissioner’s favor. While we are sympathetic with ChemDiv’s frustration––at having to provide its substantiation to the IRS multiple times and engage in extended proceedings before respondent ultimately conceded nearly the entirety of the case––ChemDiv does not meet the net worth requirement. Accordingly, ChemDiv is not the ‘prevailing party’ within the meaning of section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) and is not entitled to recover any costs or fees in this case.” Order, at p. 5. (Citations omitted).

The trusty attorneys, whom I’ll call The Sullivans, get a Taishoff “Good try.” The client gets nothing.

No, Brandon the NC used car dealer who trumpets his travails with his all-cash sub-$5K bargains on YouTube under the moniker first set forth hereinabove at the head hereof (as my second-Grey-Goose-Gibson colleagues would say) is not in Tax Court (yet). And may never be.

Yet the much-lamented heavy monthly car payment is on Judge Goeke’s screen in Fritz B. Ziegler & Margaret S. Ziegler, Docket No. 4466-22L, filed 7/11/25. IRS wants to levy for the seven (count ’em, seven) self-reported but unpaid years, aggregating north of $350K. Fritz says he’s got insomnia and potential heart problems, can’t work and lives on Social Security.

Problem is, notwithstanding his ownership of a Subaru, Fritz signed up last year for another car.

“Petitioners’ arguments regarding the potential medical expenses, and the impact of the medical expenses on this case, are also inconsistent with a decision made by the Petitioners to incur a substantial car loan to buy an expensive vehicle in 2024. Petitioners purchased a Honda with the retail value of in excess of $51,000, and incurred a car loan, which required an in excess of $800-a-month payment. This transaction was on May 16th, 2024. The decision to make this transaction, and incur the additional monthly expense, is inconsistent with Petitioners’ position that they were concerned with the potential offset of medical expenses.” Transcript, at p. 8.

It seems Judge Goeke hasn’t gone car-shopping recently. My sources say $745 per month was the average payment for a new car last year, and a new Honda Pilot or Odyssey would’ve cost in that range in LA, Fritz’s home state, in 2024.

That said, Fritz & Margaret have $400K in home equity.

“The Settlement officer inquired about the equity in Petitioners’ home, which exceeds $400,000 in equity, and a vehicle; Petitioners owned a Subaru. His analysis was made without considering the impact of the purchase of the Honda. But we believe that purchase of the Honda, together with the fact that Petitioners have never made any serious effort to generate cash to pay this tax liability based upon their equity, supports the analysis of the Settlement officer. Petitioners would maintain they could not obtain any cash from their equity in their home, because there’s a lien on the home. However, it’s clear that Petitioners had no intent to ever sell the home to recoup the equity, or do any other arrangement with the Internal Revenue Service which might have used the equity in the home to satisfy their tax liability.” Transcript, at p. 10.

Answering a car question, don’t buy a new car if you owe taxes.