I got a midnight hot flash from a well-placed source that IRS is folding all chops in Lakepoint Land II, LLC, Lakepoint Land Group, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 13925-17. Recalling IRS’ commitment to candor, fairness, and transparency, IRS will ditch the backdated docs, and will review the other syndicated easement cases to make sure that, if Boss Hossery is asserted, they’ll play it like Caesar’s wife, above reproach.

A Taishoff “Good Job, First Class, with Swords and Diamonds.”

And Tell Harvard Too

The following notice appeared on the United States Tax Court website homepage today, without elaboration.

“Petitioners and practitioners logged into their DAWSON accounts may experience problems opening documents on a docket record when using a mobile device such as a phone or tablet.”

Pity this warning wasn’t available back in mid-December, when Antawn Jamal Sanders was eleven (count ’em, eleven) seconds late with his filing due to his own nonDAWSON computer jimjams, as more particularly bounded and described in my blogpost “In the Midnight Hour,” 6/20/23.

It looks like Antawn never filed an appeal, but all is not lost.

He’s still within the 90-day window per Rule 190; 4 Cir, to which it seems Antawn is Golsenized, might go with 3 Cir in Culp and apply equitable tolling.

And if ever there was a Section 6213 SNOD case where equitable tolling was a slamdunk, this is it.

How ’bout it, Harvard? Shouldn’t the Fogg of the Legal Clinic of the Harvard Law School spread on to Richmond?

William H. Evenhouse and Nelle L. Evenhouse,, T. C. Memo. 2023-113, filed 9/7/23, got back to CA on the same day IRS sent them a SNOD, which was mailed to their CA address. But IRS didn’t get Bill & Nelle’s petition until 148 (count ’em, 148) days after SNOD mailing. Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber, confronted with IRS’ USPD Form 3877 showing date of mailing and Bill’s & Nelle’s travel documents showing they returned to The Land of the Free from Turkey on said date of mailing, didn’t allow Bill & Nelle the 150-day out-of-country SOL, but went all Hallmark Collective, saying Section 6213 is jurisdictional as to SNODs, and Section 6213(a) “if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States,” doesn’t apply. T. C. Memo. 2023-113, at p. 3.

Game over, right?

Maybe not. Bill & Nelle, living in The Bear Republic, are Golsenized to 9 Cir. And 9 Cir says Section 6213 cutoffs are jurisdictional. Judge Scholar Al reviews 9 Cir precedents in T. C. Memo. 2023-113, at p. 3, footnote 2. But there’s more than that.

“Therefore, we need not address a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that the statutory filing deadline in deficiency cases is a non-jurisdictional “claims-processing” rule. See Culp v. Commissioner, No. 22-1789, 2023 WL 4612024 (3d Cir. July 19, 2023.” Ibid., as my expensive colleagues would say.

Culp? Seriously? See my blogpost “No Time for Modesty,” 2/15/22. But little did I then know that the Fogg of the Legal Services Center of the Harvard Law School would descend upon, and the Boechler, P. C., fog would envelop, 3 Cir.

Wait until the Supremes get their hands on this one.

What a darling silt-stir!

No, not the further tribulations of the brown-headed nuthatch or the denseflower knotweed (for which see my blogpost “A Nuthatch, A Knotweed, A Fox Squirrel, and A Busted Benderdinker,” 10/17/22). Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes has found a new candidate for conservation easement protection.

No, not properly dated IRS documents.

Ardan Holdings, LLC, Ardan Investors, LLC, Tax Matters Partner Docket No. 17483-21, filed 9/6/23, “…is one of many syndicated-conservation-easement cases before the Court, and we continued it because the parties needed a considerable amount of discovery. They have been cooperating in informal discovery ever since, but recently petitioner moved to calendar this case for trial, because scheduling these cases has become increasingly difficult; and respondent moved to consolidate docket number 8164-23 with this case, because the newer case alleges the same highest-and-best use, features the same alleged promoter and appraisers, is derived from the same parent parcel, and is in the same county as this case.” Order, at p. 1.

Sounds like a perfect candidate for joint trial, briefing, and opinion, no?

But therein lies the rub.

“The problems with calendaring are a shortage of courtroom space, especially in Atlanta where courtroom availability is an endangered species; the fiscal constraints on respondent’s ability to retain an expert witness this late in the fiscal year; and the number of trials looming for counsel on both sides.” Order, at p. 1.

Atlanta is Ground Zero for high-profile State law trials and the Dixieland Boondockery tsunami.

So maybe try Columbia, SC, or agree for 8164-23 to be bound by the outcome in 17483-21.

Expect a major knock-on effect.

Judge Mark V (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes dismisses the petition of Emmanuel D. Pacquiao, Docket No. 20835-19L, filed 9/5/23, without prejudice. IRS does not object.

I remain, after many years, at a loss how a petition in a lien/levy case (hence the “L” in the docket number) can be dismissed without prejudice. Section 6320(b)(2) allows but one (count it, one) fair hearing (CDP) per taxable period specified in the NFTL; Section 6330(b)(2) has an identical limitation for CDP in NITL cases. Section 6330(d)(1), applicable both to NITLs and NFTLs (the latter pursuant to Section 6330(c)), provides for the thirty-day SOL on petitions from both classes of CDP.

Yes, I know about equitable tolling. Boechler, P. C. resonates loud and clear. But if Emmanuel wants to try another petition later, why not seek a continuance, get his act together, and seek leave to amend later? Why drop the current petition, file a new one, pay another sixty Georges, and take the not-inconsiderable chance that the claim of equitable tolling doesn’t fly because he already timely petitioned, so why does he need equitable relief?

And why does IRS consent, unless they’re playing “gotcha!”, and will grab Emmanuel’s property now that the stay provided by Section 6330(e)(1) is lifted?

Puzzling. Any reader have any ideas? I see Emmanuel is represented by counsel; if they made a deal with IRS, why not enter a stiped decision?

The headline first written at the head hereof should come as no surprise to the greatest part of the readers of this my blog; even the most casual among you know that today is Labor Day, a Federal holiday observed in the Wannabe State, hence circumscribed by Rules 10(d) and 25(a)(5)(A).

Wherefore there is nothing here.

No, not an airshow flyby; this is Bruce S. Harris, Deceased, Docket No. 7474-23S, filed 9/1/23. STJ Diana L (“Sidewalks of New York”) Leyden orders 75 (count ’em, 75) pages which accompanied the petition of the late Bruce (presumably filed before he became the late Bruce) to be sealed, as they contain personally identifiable information. Moreover, STJ Di orders IRS to proffer proofs of Section 6751(b) Boss Hossery, failing which either IRS folds the chops or both parties shall file status reports.

As a docket search shows no motion to substitute parties and amend the caption has been filed, exactly how is the late Bruce to proceed? That “great gulf fixed” elucidated by an even greater Authority than US Tax Court still remains unbridged, and is likely to remain so.

So it might be time to get a fiduciary/ex’r/adm’r in for the late Bruce.

I was able to offer telephonic congratulations today to STJ-designate Jennifer E. (“Publius’) Siegel, on her elevation to CSTJ Lewis (“The Great Name”) Carluzzo’s “few, happy few.”

Her successor to the post which she has held so long and in which she served so well has not yet been named. No date can now be determined when her successor will be named. In the meantime, the contact information for Public Affairs on Tax Court website will remain the same.

That’s a SNOD, says Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler, to Michael J. Watson & Tracey L.Watson, et al., Docket No. 12220-21, filed 8/31/23, the als being a platoon of insurance companies, which I guess are microcaptive cashstashes.

Mike & Tracey claim all kind of malfeasance and malpractice at Exam, and violations of the Taxpayer Bill of Goods, but de novo is the Tax Court mantra when it comes to SNODs, and the past isn’t even prologue.

“A proceeding before this Court to redetermine a deficiency is a proceeding de novo, and we generally will not look behind a notice of deficiency to examine the Commissioner’s procedures in making the determination. Our decisions are based on the merits of the record before us, and not on the record developed at the administrative level. 

“Accordingly, our review of petitioners’ tax liabilities is not limited to the administrative record, nor will it be based on the RA’s examination. On the facts before us, we decline to look behind the notices of deficiency to consider the actions of the Commissioner and his RA.” Order, at pp. 4-5.

As for the “simple cryptic letter” above cited, which Mike & Tracey claim isn’t a SNOD, “(A)ll that is required is that the notice advise a taxpayer that the Commissioner has in fact determined a deficiency. ‘Thus, all a notice of deficiency need do is identify the taxpayer, show that a deficiency was determined, state the taxable year involved, and set forth the amount of the deficiency.’” Order, at p. 5. (Citations omitted).

Seems like Section 7522(b)(3) is an orphan. Appeals never gets mentioned in these cases; maybe that’s also a throwaway.

It may be elementary, my dear Watsons, but it’s still a SNOD.

I’ve dealt with the Taxpayer Bill of Goods, s/a/k/a the Taxpayer Bill of Rights before, principally in my blogpost “The Taxpayer Bill of Goods,” 4/17/19. Moya, a particularly badly-litigated case, is cited here, as is the Jersey Boys’ attempted stretch (see my blogpost “The Taxpayer Bill of Goods – Part Deux,” 6/20/19, where I said “Be the ice thin and the sun hot, they will go for it.”). 

Nothing new here: no new rights, no separate cause of action.

As for due process, whatever Exam didn’t give them, Judge Speedy Weiler will give Mike & Tracey both barrels and a reload.

Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber goes past the simple “we got nothing, so you get nothing” beloved of the Ogden Sunseteers in Andrew Bill Katakis, T. C. Memo. 2023-112, filed 8/30/23.

Andy B. says Target (the putative bad guys, not the department store) “engaged in money laundering through real estate transactions. He included a spreadsheet listing hundreds of such transactions, showing for each the buyer, the seller, the sale price, the property address, the transaction date, etc. For some transactions he appended ‘WB Comments,’ e.g., ‘Where did the down payment come from and who is making the loan payments and what is the current loan balance[?]’ He did not allege any specific violation of any Federal tax law.” T. C. Memo. 2023-112, at p. 2.

The OS did send Andy B’s disquisition over to SB/SE for a classifier (that’s a subject matter expert) to unscramble said frittata, but the classifier found no way of determining year(s), or source documents, to show what tax hadn’t been paid, so the OS bounced Andy B. without sending his stuff to Exam.

Andy B. petitions, but of course is denied.

“In Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014, the D.C. Circuit delineated this Court’s jurisdiction to review cases (like this one) where the IRS has issued a threshold rejection of a whistleblower’s claim. In Li the WBO rejected a whistleblower’s claim on the ground that the information she submitted was ‘vague and speculative.’ Id. at 1017. The WBO did not forward the claim to an IRS examination team for further review, and no action was taken against the target taxpayer.

“The D.C. Circuit held that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction in these circumstances because the IRS had made no ‘award determination’ within the meaning of section 7623(b). Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th at 1017. As the court explained, ‘an award determination by the IRS [under section 7623(b)] arises only when the IRS ‘proceeds with any administrative or judicial action described in subsection (a) based on information brought to the Secretary’s attention by [the whistleblower].’” T. C. Memo. 2023-112, at p. 3.

So according to DC Cir, whatever happens in Ogden stays in Ogden, unless some money winds up with IRS.

I’ve hammered Mandy Mobley Li enough before now, and DC Cir’s rather unusual (to be charitable) decision equally. That said, I can’t but feel that the entire Tax Court bench is not thrilled to bits with Li. Is Tax Court’s only function to review how the Ogden Sunseteers divvied the swag? Is that really why Congress enacted Section 7623?

If the answer to the two foregoing questions is “yes,” why does Judge Scholar Al discuss what happened before the OS kicked Andy B’s Form 211?

I await further enlightenment.