Neither opinion nor order worthy of comment today. I won’t waste your time.

Your attention is respectfully directed to my blogpost “A Rant,” 3/7/13. I see some 574 orders on the Tax Court website thus far today, of which 250 are standing small-claimers. I imagine not a few of the recipients thereof will do as Noël Coward suggested is done in Bangkok at twelve o’clock. The rest will hover in some sort of limbo.

Remember we had some 35,000 petitions filed in CY 2021. Also, in that same period, my source tells me we had 24 full-dress T. C.s,  145 T. C. Memos., and 42 T. C. Sum Ops. My ultra-sophisticated readers need not tell me that cases were disposed of via off-the-benchers, stip-outs, and dispositive orders (summary J, no jurisdiction, no pay, claim preclusion). I have no tally of those, and I daresay no one else does, either. But let me know if I’m wrong.

Meantime, petitioners are still waiting for their “dission.”

Another of Judge David Gustafson’s conundrums is found in Rock Creek Property Holdings, LLC, Rock Creek Land Manager, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 5599-17, filed 8/1/22. Tax Court is one of those rare venues where a non-human can proceed without counsel; Rule 24(b) lets corporations, trusts, estates, and unincorporated associations pick a fiduciary, officer, or authorized individual to appear and litigate in Tax Court, whether admitted to practice or not.

But LLCs (limited liability companies), creatures of State statutes, never got mentioned in Rule 24(b), and ex-Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley didn’t fill the gap when he proposed Rules changes back in March.

The Rockers’ trusty attorney wants to bail, but who will “take up our quarrel with the foe”?

Judge Gustafson to the rescue. “Rule 24(b)(1) does not explicitly mention a ‘limited liability company’, but we construe the rule’s allowance to extend to an LLC. That is, we will allow Manager to continue to prosecute this case without counsel.” Order, at p. 2.

But Manager, the Rockers’ TMP under the now-repealed TEFRA régime, is inhuman; it’s another LLC.

Since trusty attorney filed the petition, no individual was designated to act for Manager, thus Rule 24(b)(2)(B) is off the menu.

Judge Gustafson again does the Gordian knot number.

“The case proceeded with counsel, but now counsel proposes to withdraw. Rule 24(c)(4) requires that ‘[a]ny motion to withdraw as counsel or to withdraw counsel must also include the party’s then-current mailing address, email address (if any), and telephone number.’ Paragraph 8 of Mr. [trusty attorney’s] motion acknowledges Rule 24(c)(4)(B); and as ‘[t]he TMP’s current mailing address’ the motion gives ‘Rock Creek, LLC, c/o Dwayne P. (Pete) Davis . . . .’ The motion does not state Mr. Davis’s relation to Manager, nor (assuming he is the human person who will appear) the capacity in which he will be appearing (whether officer, member, or something else).” Order, at p. 2.

So let trusty attorney dish on the individual who will appear for Manager: name, mailing address, e-mail (if any; but who in the 21st Century doesn’t have e-mail? Maybe another Rule change should require litigants to get e-mail), telephone number, and capacity In which appearing (member, manager, assignee, Bankruptcy trustee, receiver, creditor, casual bystander).

A good practice tip from Judge Gustafson.

This my blog has finally made it to the Pillars of Hercules. Today, 7/31/22, for the first time, my blog has been read in Gibraltar.

Takes me back to my young day when I collected QSL cards.

Now for Monaco, Andorra, and San Marino.

And they are an essential element of every judicial opinion, even a five-page off-the-bencher. I’m truly surprised at CSTJ Lew (“Especially With That Name”) Carluzzo making an offhanded observation that “(T)he relevant facts and controlling law are well known to the parties and need not be discussed in this bench opinion.” Transcript, at p. 4.

Judge, I’ve not the slightest doubt that petitioner and respondent gave the facts and controlling law the Job 19:24 treatment.

But what about the rest of us? I know that off-the-benchers are not precedent; at best are law of the case. But we practitioners read them, learn, mark and inwardly digest them. Especially in a Section 7502 mailed-is-filed case, where extrinsic evidence is received and carries the day for petitioners.

Great that the employee of petitioners’ trusty (former?) attorney was a good witness, and that the firm’s records were top-fuel. But what about postmark? Was there one? If so, was it legible? What is the source of data for ETA at the Glasshouse for a petition posted from wherever? Where is this case Golsenized, and does that CCA allow extrinsic evidence in a Section 7502? And does ABA Model Rule 3.7 play any part here?

I’m thinking maybe, when Section 7502 is in play, it might could be a good idea to try for an off–the-bench resolution, so that these vexatious questions can be avoided if someone can tell a good story.

I blog off-the-benchers, though the trade press and blogosphere don’t. And my readers read them, maybe because the trade press and the blogosphere don’t bother reporting them.

I say Judge Buch got it right: opinions are a critical component of what we understand to be the law. See my blogpost “Cracking Up,” 2/27/14.

Oh, the case is Gina M. Ledesma & Jullian Ledesma, Docket No. 13685-20, filed 7/29/22.

Judge Gale, or the parties, seem to have lost an heir somewhere along the tangled trail of Lawrence W. Nelson, III, Deceased and Jacalyn A. Thompson, Docket No. 18374-15, filed 7/29/22.

IRS wants to toss the late Lawrence (a/k/a Lonnie), who died post-petition, for want of prosecution.

“Respondent represents that he has been advised that no representative or fiduciary is currently authorized to act on behalf of the estate of Mr. Nelson and that Mr. Nelson’s only ascertainable heirs at law are his surviving spouse, petitioner Jacalyn A. Thompson  (Ms. Thompson), and his surviving issue, Brittany Thompson. Respondent further represents that neither Ms. Thompson nor Mr. Nelson’s surviving issue objects to our granting the Motion.” Order, at p. 1.

Jacalyn has established innocent spousery for all but about $51K of the deficiency and add-ons, and has stiped to settled issues with IRS. Order, at pp. 8-9.

So let’s do a Thackeray, and “shut up the box and the puppets, for our play is played out,” right?

Except.

Remember my blogpost “A Voyage of Discovery – Part Deux,” 10/1/21. All y’all will recall one ANR, possibly another surviving issue of the late Lawrence a/k/a Lonnie. A docket search reveals no order resolving whether ANR is in or out. If her fate is buried in a status report, perhaps it should be recited in the Order and Decision for the sake of completeness.

Yes, Tax Court is truly a voyage of discovery.

That’s Jamie B. Hall, T. C. Memo. 2022-82, filed 7/28/22. Jamie’s argument why she doesn’t owe income tax on two trusts (which aren’t trusts at all; no trust instruments, no transfers of title to property) is that Social Security Administration issued a Social Security card to her.

“Petitioner argues that the Social Security Administration created the Jamie Bennett Hall trust by assigning to her a Social Security number and a Social Security card. She argues that the property originally held in the purported trust is the Social Security card and that the Social Security Administration purportedly indicated an intention to form the trust by sending her this card. Petitioner states that the beneficiary of the purported Jamie Bennett Hall trust is the U.S. Government, and therefore the trust is a U.S. Government agency trust and is not taxable. Petitioner further argued that, because respondent determined that she is liable for deficiencies and additions to tax as an individual, respondent used ‘inappropriate forms to come up with Notices of Deficiency.’” T. C. Memo. 2022-82, at p. 4.

Judge Alina I. (“AIM”) Marshall ripostes to this gibberish with a walking barrage of “somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent.”

This is old-time, worn-out protester jive. Jamie goes down for the whole boat, deficiency, add-ons, and chops.

“The issuance of petitioner’s Social Security card is not a transfer of property that creates a trust, as petitioner contends. Petitioner has not provided any legitimate trust documents forming the purported trust. The purported trust does not reflect economic reality and is not recognized for income tax purposes. Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s deficiency determinations….” T. C. Memo. 2022-81, at p. 5.

Judge AIM doesn’t mention Section 6673. Maybe she should have.

I was reminded of a much-quoted essay written by President Lincoln shortly after he returned to the private practice of law following his single term in the House of Representatives.

To see what brought this 150-year-old document back to memory, read Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler’s opinion in Charles G. Kinney, T. C. Memo. 2022-81, filed 7/28/22.

Now read what President Lincoln had to say.

“Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can be more nearly a fiend than he who habitually overhauls the register of deeds in search of defects in titles, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his pocket? A moral tone ought to be infused into the profession which should drive such men out of it.”

My readers with ultra-sharp memories may remember Indu Rawat, Docket No. 15340-16, filed 7/28/22. If you, dear reader, are not one such, check out my blogposts “Che Se Firma È Perduto – Part Deux,” 7/20/21, and “That’s the Word!” 8/26/21.

Well today, after argy-bargy in extenso, Judge David Gustafson tosses his order from last July, gives Indu summary J on the non-Inventory stuff, but denies as to Indu’s claim that she was a NRA in year at issue; that’s Non-Resident Alien, not a pistol-packin’ Momma. The issue, of course, is that if Indu was a NRA in year at issue, she owes no tax on the disposition of the inventory after she sold her partnership interest. Again, the 2017 amendment to Section 864(c)(8) doesn’t apply.

First, the Form 870-LT Indu and IRS signed is a Section 7122 settlement, but only binds the parties to what they explicitly agreed, not collateral issues. Second, the many and varied status reports the parties filed, wherein Indu’s NRA status was repeatedly mentioned, isn’t a concession by IRS. Indu said she was a NRA in her petition, which IRS denied in its answer.

“However, instead of putting forth evidence to support her assertion, petitioner asks us to draw inferences from statements of the parties in joint status reports— statements that merely clarify the issues set forth in the petition. The petition asserted that Ms. Rawat was a nonresident alien, and the Commissioner’s answer expressly denied that assertion. When he thereafter joined in status reports—stating ‘The petition filed in this case presents two primary issues for resolution, (1) whether petitioner, as a nonresident alien, is subject to tax on that portion of the gain on the sale of her interest in a U.S. partnership that is attributable to inventory” (Doc. 18 at 2) (emphasis added)—we think he did not admit that she was a nonresident alien but rather joined in stating a disputed issue in the case of which her status was a component. It is not impossible that someone joining such a statement would intend thereby to signal his concession of nonresident alien status, previously disputed, but the Commissioner insists (Doc. 41 at 11) that he did not so intend. In resolving petitioner’s motion, we draw all inferences in the Commissioner’s favor, and we therefore decline to infer that his joining this status report constituted a concession of Ms. Rawat’s alleged nonresident alien status.” Order, at p. 7.

And Indu didn’t submit her own declaration.

So before tossing the three bucks at the Glasshouse Copycats in the hopes of eliciting hot stuff in status reports, be advised that there may be less than meets the eye.

I’ll reserve commentary on the policy and political considerations that underlay the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act; at least, I’ll not comment here, preserving my “firm, impassioned stress” that this remain a nonpolitical blog.

But today’s off-the-bencher by STJ Peter (“HB”) Panuthos, Joseph C. Malek & Melinda J . Malek v . Commissioner, Docket No . 9082-21S, filed 7/27/22, does let me make a nonpolitical comment: while eliminating the unreimbursed employee business expenses deduction may have worked a hardship on some taxpayers, it eased the burden on Tax Court Judges and STJs, who no longer have to listen to petitioners fail to provide any basis wherewith to Cohanize even a few bucks’ deduction.

It’s indeed an ill wind that blows no one good.