Thus Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber disposes of Section 7806(b)’s injunction that location of a Code section raises no inference, implication, or presumption of its contents. Clair R. Couturier, Jr., T. C. Memo. 2024-6, filed 1/17/24, says that it doesn’t matter where Congress placed Section 4973, it’s still a chop and thus Boss Hossable.

Clair’s been here before; he sought sealing back in 2019 (denied), tried estoppel against IRS (ditto), and his expert played the Michael Corleone classic gambit last September and lost.

Today, Clair claims the 6% excise tax on his $25 million excess IRA contribution is unBoss Hossed.

“The flush text of section 4973(a) refers to this exaction four times, in each case describing it as a ‘tax.’ The term “penalty” appears nowhere in section 4973(a) or in any of the provision’s other six subsections. The statute’s plain text thus establishes that the exaction imposed by section 4973 is a ‘tax’ under the Code.” T. C. Memo. 2024-6, at p. 4.

Besides, Subtitle D, Chapter 43, has many excise taxes triggered by pension plans and the like. Judge Scholar Al lists them, and notes that many of them direct conduct by the taxed, but that’s nothing new. And as for the 6% being “punitive,” some of the others run to 100% in Section 4975.

Chops are off in Subtitle F, and Boss Hossery has its very own Subchapter C. And additions to tax apply to the Section 4973; if it weren’t a tax, there could be no additions.

Finally, Section 6751(b) was enacted to prevent examiners from coercing settlements by using chops as chips. “Needless to say, a revenue agent could not plausibly assert a section 4973 excise tax at the conclusion of an ordinary income tax audit in an effort to induce settlement. Because section 4973 exactions cannot be used as ‘bargaining chips’ in this way, Congress is unlikely to have envisioned section 6751(b) as applying to them.” T. C. Memo. 2024-6, at p. 8.

Clair wants a functional analysis, but Judge Scholar Al says it’s simple statutory interpretation, and when Congress says “tax” they mean “tax.”

Running rental real estate is a hands-on business; notwithstanding Section 469(c)(2), which shoehorns all rental real estate into passivity, anyone other than a pure investor, who hands all operational control to a manager, is finding tenants, collecting rents, making repairs or contracting for them (and riding herd on contractors), dealing with governmental and quasi-governmental authorities having or asserting jurisdiction, vendors, and utility providers, and getting entangled in the legal system.

Since a lot of rental real estate is Mom-and-Pop, a key to establishing an active deduction from a compulsorily passive business is showing material participation, like doing all of the above for at least 100 hours per tax year, and doing more than anybody else.

Judge Morrison has the story in an off-the-bencher, Krishan K. Gossain & Kavita Gossain, Docket No. 21812-22, filed 1/16/24. Krish claims pro status, but his 9-to-5 gig gives him too many non-real estate hours.

He does hit the 100 hour cutoff for the Section 469(i)(1) $25K special real estate allowance, and doesn’t fall foul of the $100K AGI disallowance barrier.

Best of all, Kav’s hours count too.

“Section 469(h)(5) provides that in determining whether a taxpayer materially participates in an activity, the participation of the spouse of the taxpayer is taken into account. A regulation elaborates that, in the case of any married individual, any participation by such person’s spouse in the activity during the taxable year (even if the spouse does not own an interest in the activity and even if the spouses do not file a joint return) is treated as participation by such person in the activity during the taxable year. Treas. Reg. § l.469-5T(f)(3).” Transcript, at pp. 9-10.

But Krish is on his own for pro status, which he must attain to break the $25K barrier which separates the professionals from the also-rans.

“The hours he worked on the rental properties include only the hour [sic] he personally worked on the rental property, not the hours Mrs. Gossain worked on the rental properties. §469(c)(7)(B) (first flush sentence).” Transcript, at pp. 12-13.

The Sweet Swan of Avon’s masterpiece echoes this morning, as a reliable source informs me that no statement has, or will, issue from the United States Tax Court on the departure of ex-STJ Eunkyong Choi back in August last year.

“The rest is silence.”

Maybe for Horatio; not for me it isn’t.

Our current “Born Again on a Monday” commemorations occasionally fall on the actual birthdate of the figure commemorated.

So it shall be with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., this year.

Wherefore USTC is out of business today, per Rule 25(a)(5).

So am I.

Jack Donald Supinger, Docket No. 4810-23, filed 1/12/24, is back, but maybe not so polite as before (see my blogpost “Holding Out the Lamp,” 10/29/21).

Now JD wants a remote trial because “(P)etitioner has a disability which is protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (‘the ADA’), which causes extreme pain and discomfort when sitting in a vehicle for more than a short duration of time. The time and distance to the court would be more than petitioner could physically bear and would exacerbate petitioner’s medical state and disability. Requiring petitioner to appear in person would be unduly burdensome.” Order, at p. 2.

This case, like the one discussed in my above-referred-to blogpost, is before Judge David Gustafson, who is obliging to a fault. But JD’s past performance weighs against him.

Besides frivoling, dodging, evading, and obfuscating in ’21, JD has another case for a different year pending before Judge Alina I. (“AIM”) Marshall. Judge Gustafson checks out the trial transcript in that one, and finds JD is up to his old moves.

Still obliging, Judge Gustafson would be willing to grant JD a remote trial, could he produce something beside his unsworn request, like “(A) credible and persuasive letter from a doctor, explaining the nature and effects of the disability.” Order, at p. 2. Btw, ADA doesn’t apply to Tax Court.

And for anyone alleging inability to come from away to try your case in Tax Court, here’s some words from Judge Gustafson on vesting of remoteness.

“Our system of justice presumes that the trier of fact, who must judge the credibility of witnesses and their testimony, will have the ability to observe them in person. Therefore, the great majority of Tax Court petitioners who take their cases to trial undertake the logistical burdens associated with appearing in person before the Court. Mr. Supinger’s history before us shows no reason that, while his neighbors duly appear in court for their trials, he should be granted special treatment and be excused from doing so. Where (as here) a witness’s credibility is already in question, the Court’s ability to observe in person has an increased importance. When proceedings are not in person but are remote, this ability is lost, and the fact-finding function is compromised to some extent. Moreover, converting a case from in-person to remote is not as simple as flipping a switch or checking a box. We lack the equipment and technology to conduct this case remotely from Columbia, South Carolina, during the session that we will conduct there beginning April 8, 2024. Rather, to be handled remotely, this case would have to be transferred to a different, remote session (or be scheduled as a stand-alone ‘special session’). In the right circumstances we would happily go to this trouble for a petitioner who seeks in good faith the adjudication of his sincere contentions. So far we are not convinced that Mr. Supinger is such a petitioner.” Order, at pp. 2-3.

Moreover, Judge Gustafson hit JD with a $5K Section 6673 frivolity chop back in ’21, but gave him a chance to avoid the chop by forswearing frivolity. JD didn’t, and appealed to 4 Cir, which affirmed on Judge Gustafson’s opinion.

I make IRS 8 to 5 in the morning line for this one.

I had thought my “Stealth” series had been terminated with prejudice last February, when Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan announced the adoption of amended Rule 147, by affixing thereto the FRCP 45(a)(4) view-halloo for third party subpoenas, thereby putting paid to The Stealth Subpoena.

But when ex-STJ Eunkyong (“N’Yawk”) Choi resigned last August, unlike every other judicial departure I can remember, no public notice was given. If there was a mass reassignment of her cases, I confess I missed it.

An internet source dates her resignation at 8/11/23. Tax Court’s website shows no press release on that date or thereafter relating to STJs until the announcement of the appointments of STJs Siegel and Fried on 8/28/23; see my blogpost “Take  Two,” 8/28/23.

If any reader should have other or further particulars to share, I’d be obliged to them.

Edited to add, 1/12/24: Turns out there was a mass reassignment of ex-STJ Eunkyong (“N’Yawk”) Choi’s cases on 8/15/23, which confirms the 8/11/23 resignation date (8/11/23 was a Friday, so if the reshuffle took place on Monday 8/14/23, the orders confirming same would have issued on Tuesday). I’ve very rarely noted reassignments, as mostly they’re just load-balancing. And as I have no means of ascertaining what any judge’s load might be, the reassignment might be for any reason, for example a judge’s being on a heavy-duty trial and needing a colleague to deal with the dross, or a bunch judge’s cases (hi, Judge Holmes) unexpectedly settling out, leaving the judge free to pick up some slack.

But still, why no public notice? Following.

At the close of yesterday’s webinar, Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan requested any attendee who had a suggestion for a topic or topics for future webinars to contact Tax Court’s Public Affairs Office.

Desirous as always of assisting practitioners and others, I sought out the Public Affairs Office to ascertain how one might proffer such suggestions.

I was informed that, while no Public Affairs Officer has been selected to replace now-STJ Jennifer E. (“Publius”) Siegel, suggestions should be directed to Sarah Silfies Finken, Esq., Administrative and Case Services Counsel, at publicaffairs@ustaxcourt.gov.

Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan led an enlightening discussion this afternoon of Rule 124, the arbitration rule that really involves mediation. It’s truly unfortunate that these webinars are neither recorded for viewing by those unable to see these presentations when scheduled, nor are they accorded 31 CFR §10.6(f)(2) CPE qualification for EAs, ERPAs, and retreps. If they were so recorded and qualified, they would get a larger viewership.

Mediation, a refined form of headbanging, does provide a most useful outlet for pro ses, and even protesters, who just want to be heard. Here echoes the lament of Linda Loman in Arthur Miller’s great tragedy: “Attention must be paid!” As Judge James S (“Big Jim”) Halpern explained, he uses pretrial conferences as a chance to hear the protester out, and to acquaint them with their nonexistent chance of prevailing. Having been heard, they settle. Sort of mediation light.

But CSTJ Lewis (“Caro Nome”) Carluzzo pointed out that formal mediation wouldn’t work with pro se litigants who generally have no idea how to prepare or evaluate a case.

Maxine Aaronson, Esq., a longtime mediator from Dallas, offered the useful point that lawyers and litigants fall in love with their case. A mediator can take off their rose-colored glasses and show the warts and blems on the beloved. And, as Tax Court cases involve multiple issues and often multiple years, mediation can serve to effect settlement of even more issues and years, potentially even years not before the Court, than a formal opinion.

Of course, it was generally agreed that expert testimony cases are the best candidates for mediation; “hottubbing” the experts (even though never so-called) is the best method of trying to reach some kind of useful consensus, or to cull the incurable expert who is playing advocate. And Judge Holmes is once more vindicated, as valuation cases are best candidates for mediation.

I found the reticence of OCC’s representative, Shawna A. Early, Esq., left me questioning to what extent, if at all, OCC wants to play in this sandbox. Is OCC afraid that mediation might lead their side to give more than they might get from a judge? Of course, OCC has no worries about legal fees and disbursements.

Howbeit, I’d really like to know what my readers have experienced. Having been a mediator myself once, I found it rewarding.

Occasionally, but more often than I’d like, a case that promised good, sustained blogfodder turns out to be a damp squib. The bifurcated trials in William M. Hefley and Aimee J. Hefley, T. C. Memo. 2024-4, filed 1/9/24, go by the board, as Aimee withdraws her petition to review denied innocent spousery (T. C. Memo. 2023-4, at p. 3, footnote 4), leaving us with the SNOD for three (count ’em, three) tax years.

It’s a bunch deductions substantiations (hi, Judge Holmes), and as Wm and Aimee put in no evidence, IRS wins on a walkover. Apparently Wm and IRS were prepared to sign to a supplemental stipulation that would have maybe allowed some of the disputed deductions. Aimee balked, so the supplemental stip can’t go in on the trial, T. C. Memo 2024-4, at p. 4. And neither Wm nor Aimee offered anything else.

When I saw the Hefleys show up on the website today, I cyberthumbed through my old blogpost “Slipped Through The Cracks?” 11/15/19, which it turns out had gotten six (count ’em, six) views in recent days. Maybe some people knew something was up; I wish they’d told me.

If you read that blogpost, you can see why I hoped for better than this.

Carl K. Klotzsche, Docket No. 11833-23S, filed 1/8/24, is a day ate and more than a dollar short, with his petition from $6800 in deficiencies over two years. He tried filing on Day 90, but claims DAWSON locked him out, so he finally filed on Day 91.

“This contention arguably raises section 7451(b)(1), which provides that when a ‘filing location is inaccessible or otherwise unavailable to the general public on the date a petition is due, the relevant time period for filing such petition shall be tolled for the number of days within the period of inaccessibility plus an additional 14 days.’ DAWSON is a ‘filing location’ under this provision. Sanders, 160 T.C., slip op. at 9; see § 7451(b)(2)(B).

‘To determine whether the tolling period under section 7451(b)(1) applies to an electronically filed petition, the Court distinguishes ‘between the availability of the Court’s system and user-specific issues.’ Sanders, 160 T.C., slip op. at 10. A DAWSON outage that affects the public’s ability to file petitions renders DAWSON ‘inaccessible or otherwise unavailable to the general public,’ thereby triggering the tolling period. See id. at 11. Conversely, problems that an individual filer experiences while DAWSON is operational do not trigger the section 7451(b)(1) tolling period. See id.

“In his Response petitioner acknowledges that he could access DAWSON on [Day 90], but alleges that he could not upload his Petition onto the system despite several attempts. However, the Court’s own records show DAWSON was operational at all relevant times. The Court’s website allows users to view DAWSON’s system status. See United States Tax Court, https://status.ustaxcourt.gov/. The system recorded no downtime on [Day 90].” Order, at p. 4.

Sanders, of course, is poor Antawn Jamal Sanders, 160 T. C. 16, filed 6/20/23, whose sad tale I told in my blogpost “In The Midnight Hour,” 6/20/23. Antawn was eleven ( count ’em, eleven) seconds late with his filing.

Carl shares his fate, and Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan tosses him.

Taishoff says it might be well, despite all the encouraging words on the Tax Court website, that if you’re going to file electronically, you have a fourteen-year-old IT wizard handy (unless you’re a fourteen-year-old IT wizard yourself) as you log on and prepare to file. And have a prepaid envelope from an approved PDS addressed to The Glasshouse on DAWSON’s Creek ready to send off with a duplicate original petition in it, in case the new, improved, jim-handy (ya sure, ya betcha) DAWSON website leaves you up DAWSON’s creek.