Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber, though still perplexed at Cassandra Allen’s maneuver (disclosing W-2 income on a gift tax return while not disclosing same nor paying tax thereon on a 1040X), must correct his opinion in T. C.  Memo. 2025-5, filed 3/4/25, which creates a new entry in my “Who Cares?” series..

Cassandra moved for a Rule 161 reconsideration. Judge Scholar Al thought she lived in MS when she petitioned, but she says she lived in MI.

So Judge Scholar Al orders that the opinion correct Mississippi to Michigan, and appeals to 6 Cir rather than 5 Cir.

For the rest, the previous opinion stands. See my blogpost “Just When Ya Think Ya’d Heard ‘Em All,” 1/16/25.*

* https://taishofflaw.com/2025/01/16/just-when-ya-think-yad-heard-em-all/

CF Headquarters Corporation, 164 T. C. 5, filed 3/4/25, claims the $3.1 million it got from NY State to stay in NYC post-9/11, when its subsidiary Cantor Fitzgerald lost 658 of its 1000 employees on 9/11, was a contribution to capital, or a gift, or disaster relief. Anyway, it’s not taxable income, they say.

In a “REVIEWED” full-dress T. C., Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan says no. For some background, see my blogpost “Continuation,” 9/16/20.*

The NYS grants weren’t part of permanent working capital, but went to pay rent and salaries, which the terms of the grants required. The only capital items were furniture, furnishings and equipment, and Taishoff says even those might have gotten Section 179 treatment.

The grants aren’t gifts because NYS hoped for tax revenue from corporate operations and employee State income taxes. Quid pro quo.

Section 139 disaster relief money is excludable only by individuals, which CF Headquarters Corporation isn’t.

But CF does escape penalties, because it cites all the right cases, so substantial authority. A Taishoff “Good Try” to Kevin M. Flynn, Esq., CF’s trusty attorney.

JJ. Foley, Buch, Nega, Pugh, Ashford, Urda, Copeland, Jones, Toro, Greaves, Marshall, Weiler, Way, Landy, Arbeit, Guider, Jenkins, and Fung are all on board.

* https://taishofflaw.com/2020/09/16/continuation/

The trusty attorneys for Albero Holdings, LLC, Albero Investors, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 16284-21, filed 3/4/25, are trying to understand and undermine the Boss Hossery therein, but their document production demands and interrogatories are run over by Greenberg’s Express.

Judge Elizabeth Crewson Paris: “‘As a general rule, this Court will not look behind a deficiency notice to examine the evidence used or the propriety of respondent’s motives or of the administrative policy or procedure involved in making his determinations.’ Greenberg’s Express v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974). By seeking drafts of final documents, petitioner is essentially seeking to look behind the signature appearing on the face of the form. See Sparta Pink Prop., LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-88, at *8; Patel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-133, at *21–22. This Court has held repeatedly that the ‘written supervisory approval requirement . . .requires just that: written supervisory approval.’ Dorchester Farms Prop., LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2023-92, at *5 (citing Pickens Decorative Stone, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-22, at *7 (quoting Raifman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018-101, at *61)). And a manager’s signature on a civil penalty approval form, without more, is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements. See Sparta Pink Prop., LLC, T.C. Memo. 2022-88, at *8 (citing Belair Woods, LLC v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. 1, 17 (2020)). Respondent provided petitioner with the penalty approval form electronically signed by the assigned revenue agent’s supervisor and the final FPAA. The draft documents petitioner seeks are irrelevant to determining respondent’s compliance with section 6751(b)(1).” Order, at p. 3.

I’m leaving in the citations because I’ve blogged all these cases.

The Boss Hoss has a first-class stateroom on Greenberg’s Express.

Omnibus motions are a regular feature of litigation in both State and Federal courts. It is economical to dispose of whatever impedimenta can be dealt with pretrial.

Hence Jerry Fitzgerald’s trusty attorneys file an omnibus motion to “quash respondent’s deposition notice and subpoena, motion for protective order, and opposition to motion to compel.” Rising Rock Partners, LLC, Robert Schill, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, et al., Docket No. 23614-21, filed 3/3/25. Jerry is a nonparty; his exact role, if any, in the case is unclear from the text of the order.

Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves tosses Jerry’s motion and supporting memorandum, but allows two (count ’em, two) separate motions and a separate opposition if trusty attorneys wish.

Rule 54(b) requires separate motions. And I can see why putting opposition to an adversary’s motion in one’s own motion (other than a cross-motion) might potentially confuse an adversary. Of course, hitting a pro se with a shotgun motion is unfair.

But here IRS is on the receiving end. IRS’ attorneys have been around the block a couple times (hi, Judge Holmes), and I am sure were nowise befogged by Jerry’s documents. Judge Tag Greaves has unscrambled many frittatas during his tenure on the Tax Court bench, surely much more complicated than that posed by Jerry’s trusty attorneys, even though a source tells me that one such has been “listed as a Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch in Tax Law since 2021,” an honor to which I have never aspired.

I most respectfully suggest that when Judge Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda takes up the Chieftainship in June, he cast a glance at Rule 54(b), and helps me (and perhaps Jerry’s trusty attorneys) understand the rationale behind the Rule.

It seems that the non-Venetian DOGE has decreed the end of 18F, the “onlie begetter” of DAWSON and author of the famous months-long shutdown of the Tax Court website to impose same on those who never done them any harm.

For backstory, see my blogpost “Behind That Curtain,” 7/6/21.*

A source states 18F was founded in 2014, resided at GSA, operated on a fee-for-services basis, and played a role in numerous high-profile projects, including redesigning the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division’s complaint submission process, as well as the free online tax return service IRS Direct File.

Source claims that the rationale for the shutdown, announced at 0100 hrs ET 2/1/25, was ideological, which I neither affirm nor deny on this nonpolitical blog, merely noting same.

* https://taishofflaw.com/2021/07/06/behind-that-curtain/

Back two years ago I predicted another silt-stir after Blake M. Adams, 160 T. C. 1, filed 1/24/23; see my blogpost “Section 7345 – Backdoor CDP?” of even date therewith, as my high-priced colleagues would say.

But Donald Ray Pierre, Sr., Docket No. 5178-24P, filed 2/28/25, isn’t that case. Here, a deficiency that bears all the signs of a clerical or arithmetic error on the 1040 for year at issue (failure to transpose an amount from Schedule 1 to 1040) gives rise to $83K of substantial tax delinquency.

Donald seeks discovery by motion, not having made informal or informal request. Judge Morrison blows that off: you can’t move to compel production of what you haven’t asked for before. Anyway, IRS makes the usual claim it gave Donald everything already.

But the real kicker is Judge Morrison’s reading of Adams, despite IRS being unable to produce either an original or copy of the 1040, nor a SND, nor a notice of arithmetic or clerical error.

“We held in Adams v. Commissioner, 160 T.C. at 12–15, that the IRS’s failure to mail a notice of deficiency is not the type of error that we can consider in a passport-certification case. Similarly, we cannot consider whether the IRS erred by failing to issue a notice of mathematical or clerical error. Thus, discovery is not warranted in this case as to whether the IRS complied with the requirements that it mail a notice of deficiency or issue a notice of mathematical or clerical error.” Order, at pp. 6-7.

So barring extreme IRS transcript glitches showing delinquency below statutory cutoff (like wrong numbers and years where SOL ran), there is nothing to litigate in passport grab cases.

No silt.

Given the current Federal employment situation and allied matters to which I shall not allude in this avowedly nonpolitical blog, it would not surprise me if my readers asked me why I waste their time with John R. Dee, Docket No. 15135-17W, filed 2/27/25. Obviously IRS collected something, or else this five-year-old whistleblower case would have been thrown on the Li heap long since. So there is at least a semblance of basis for the petition. And John, pro se, has kept the thing going, despite failing to appeal rejection of his motion to seal “permanently.”

Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”)  Buch rejects John’s motion to require IRS to file the administrative record because the caption is wrong (uses the docket number, not his name); John wants the document filed and that’s not production; John made no formal demand to produce on IRS, without which there is nothing to compel; and Rule 93 requires the filing John seeks within 45 days from setting of trial, which turns out to set the deadline  this coming Monday.

Even if Judge Buch granted the motion, “it would merely delay the relief he seeks. Common practice is to provide a nonmoving party an opportunity to respond to a motion and then decide the motion. And in the case of a discovery motion, if that motion is ultimately granted, common practice is to provide a reasonable time for the compelled party to provide the compelled discovery. Given these norms, any action on Mr. Dee’s motion would extend the date for filing the administrative record well beyond the date already established by the Court’s Rules.” Order, at p. 2.

If Judge Buch were required to list the five (count ’em, five) most important tasks he performed this week (may it never happen!), I very much doubt this order would be among them.

Has IRS produced yet another variant on stealth in Desmond McGuire & Cory Lynne Brame, et al, Docket No. 25461-16, filed 2/26/25?

Back a year ago, Des’ & Cory’s trusty attorney, who according to her website “was lead counsel in the first litigated 831(b) captive insurance case tried in the United States Tax Court,” unloaded a bunch document demands (hi, Judge Holmes).

IRS, not quite as obliging as Judge David Gustafson, “objected to the requests because they were premature, overly broad and unduly burdensome, cumulative and duplicative, and required the Commissioner to produce confidential return or return information protected by I.R.C. § 6103 and information that constituted attorney work product. The Commissioner’s response referred to his answer to petitioners’ informal discovery requests and stated the process of searching for additional responsive documents was ongoing. He also stated that ‘Additional responsive documents will be produced if and when they become available.’” Order, at p.1. (Footnote omitted).

So, having gotten bortscht (please pardon arcane technical term) between March and  November last year, trusty attorney moves for leave to file motion to compel out of time (that means late).

Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch says no. IRS says they gave the documents as part of the stipulation process. The documents relate to the audit of a transactionally-related party. “The Commissioner argues that he was only able to produce the documents after a document-by-document analysis performed pursuant to section 6103(h)(4)(C) to determine if the return or return information was transactionally related to petitioners. The Commissioner states that the documents produced in discovery, in the expert production, and as proposed stipulation exhibits ‘provided a comprehensive response to petitioners’ formal discovery requests.’” Order, at p. 2.

So IRS produced the documents. Doesn’t matter when or how or whether they told trusty attorney. Motion denied.

Oh yes, btw, “We remind the Commissioner that should additional documents be found that are responsive to petitioners’ formal discovery requests, that he has a continuing responsibility to supplement his responses pursuant to Rule 102.” Order, at p. 3, footnote 4.

When not recruiting seminarians to enlighten practitioners, Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler manages a busy division of Tax Court. He fends off a Loper Bright counterattack in Alan Hamel and Estate of Suzanne Hamel, Deceased, Alan Hamel, Special Administrator, T. C. Memo. 2025-19, filed 2/25/25.

Yes, I’m late, but blame the overwhelming hospitality of a distinguished professor emeritus of a world-famous medical school (and a friend since our middle school days seventy years ago). Give me a glass of Château d’Yquem and I’ll follow you anywhere.

Back to work, The backstory can be found in my blogpost “One Door Closes, Another Remains Open,” 6/3/24.*

The attack is on Temp. Reg. Section 301.6229(e)-1T, which mandated a specific form and means for notifying IRS of one’s partnership interest under the now-repealed TEFRA two-step.

While Loper Bright certainly effected a change of law sufficient to allow a post-30 day motion for Rule 161 reconsideration, it doesn’t of itself overrule cases where the court relied on Chevron.

And Section 6229(e) is ambiguous when it comes to identifying who is a partner under the old law. Wherefore, Tax Court must use its own independent ratiocinative powers, not merely defer to IRS because its statutory interpretation is permissible.

But the Temp. Reg. passes the test. Judge Speedy Weiler generously allows that IRS “engaged in some level of ‘reasoned decisionmaking’ when deciding to promulgate Temporary Treasury Regulation §301.6223(c)-1T.” T. C. Memo. 2025-19, at p. 8. IRS followed the APA, and while the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking didn’t spell out all the reasoning, it followed the Congressional directive to carry out the statute.

Anyway, the statute itself was amended to take chops (which is what petitioner is fighting about) off the deficiency menu and place it on the partnership (FPAA) tab; and that was already litigated at the partnership level.

Taishoff says it’s unusual that reconsideration merits a T. C. Memo. This one, however, serves notice that broad-spectrum Loper Bright challenges cut little ice in Tax Court.

* https://taishofflaw.com/2024/06/03/one-door-closes-another-remains-open/

Ever wondered how to put your best cliché forward when appearing before the 400 Second Street Bench? Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler has convened an all-star team to tell you how, and they’re taking the field two (count ’em, two) weeks from tomorrow.

Here’s the link with the info: https://ustaxcourt.gov/resources/outreach/best_practices_webinar_march_2025.pdf

Unfortunately, once again this invaluable program will not be recorded, so if any among you has to make a living or has made other unreschedulable commitments that prevent your viewing same, accept my condolences. And Tax Court, please accept my respectful objection. Record these programs for those who need them but cannot attend at the date and time specified.