Petitioners in Section 7345s don’t get the Isaiah 42:3 treatment. Once more, the reed gets broken and the wick gets quenched in another unsuccessful attempt to contest liability in a passport grab. George N. Gaynor, Docket No. 3631-25P, filed 12/29/25, has a trio of trusty attorneys against a single IRS attorney.

No joy for George, as Judge Courtney D. (“CD”) Jones says the only hold Tax Court has on assessments is whether SOL has run on enforcement of collection thereof, and George folds that one.

George’s trusty attorneys claim SOL ran on George’s Section 6038 FBAR nonreporting chops before assessment.

“In this case, Mr. Gaynor’s request that we analyze the timeliness of the assessments underlying his section 7345 certification is tantamount to a request for this Court to redetermine a deficiency under section 6213. ‘Not all potential errors render a liability unenforceable.” Garcia v. Commissioner, No. 27496-22P, 164 T.C., 2025 WL 1431920, at *5 (May 19, 2025). In the section 7345 context, determining whether a federal tax debt is ‘legally enforceable’ ‘requires an inquiry into whether the limitations period for collection after assessment has expired . . .” Id. (citing Ruesch, 154 T.C. at 296) (emphasis added). Thus, Mr. Gaynor’s argument that the statute of limitations had expired on assessment of the liabilities misses the mark. Respondent has established here that assessment has occurred, and Mr. Gaynor makes no claim in his Petition or otherwise that the period of limitations for collecting the assessed liabilities has expired.” Order, at p. 3.

For the Garcia tale, see my blogpost “‘Are You Being Served?’ – Part Deux,” 5/19/25. For Ruesch, see my blogpost “Ruesch to Judgment,” 6/25/20.

Though 400 Second St., NW, in The Shut-Down City has “settled our brains for a long winter’s nap,” there appears a disciplinary announcement that is more than the usual someone-else-did-it, so-we-do-it-too.

The “someone else” is ME’s indigent legal assistance crew and the Supreme Court thereof, with 2 Cir in on the play. I’ll just not name the subject thereof, for though the aforesaid jurisdictions felt the punishment fit the “crime,” the Empire State, namely, the First Dep’t of our App Div, thought otherwise.

Here’s the whole story from our App Div: https://govt.westlaw.com/nyofficial/Document/I7f477860300711f09b09a0238669886f?viewType=FullText&listSource=Search&originationContext=Search+Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=(sc.Search)&navigationPath=Search%2fv1%2fresults%2fnavigation%2fi0a899f6c0000019b5b6b2eb693b4e407%3fppcid%3dc4bac05c810e49aab78d3010ffd1381c%26Nav%3dCASE_PUBLICVIEW%26fragmentIdentifier%3dI7f477860300711f09b09a0238669886f%26startIndex%3d1%26transitionType%3dSearchItem%26contextData%3d%2528sc.Default%2529%26originationContext%3dSearch%2520Result&list=CASE_PUBLICVIEW&rank=1&t_querytext=%22Scott%22+AND+%22Fenstermaker%22&t_Method=TNC

And here’s USTC’s: https://ustaxcourt.gov/files/documents/Announcement_12232025.pdf

What d’ya think? Was ME too strict, or NY too lenient? Is reciprocity supposed to be just that, buy whatever the first disciplinarian says, absent overreaching?

Visiting dearest and nearest.

Merry Christmas.

By order of the President of the United States of America, Tax Court is closed today.

In consequence thereof, so am I.

No, not the 1979 Edwards and Rodgers feel-good that propelled Sister Sledge to No. 1 status. This is the story of the multiple Forms 1040 filed by Ignacio Montes G and Alberto Yanez A, T. C. Memo. 2025-131, filed 12/23/25.

Judge Rose C. (“Cracklin'”) Jenkins tells the story.

“Petitioners, Ignacio Montes Gonzalez (Montes G) and Adalberto Y Yanez Alvarenga (Yanez A), filed multiple federal income tax returns for the 2020 tax year, varying the dependents reported on those returns. Montes G filed his original Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, on or before April 15, 2021. It claims head of household filing status, and it lists C.C. (subsequently referred to as C.M.) as a nephew qualifying for a child tax credit and Y.S. (subsequently referred to as Y.R.) as a foster child qualifying for a credit for other dependents. An amended return by Montes G also claims head of household filing status, and it lists C.M. as a nephew qualifying for a child tax credit, Y.R. as a foster child qualifying for a credit for other dependents, and, additionally, E.P. as a nephew qualifying for a child tax credit.

“Yanez A also filed Form 1040 on or before April 15, 2021. It also claims head of household filing status, and it lists A.A.R. as a son qualifying for a child tax credit. In addition to their individual returns, Montes G and Yanez A prepared a return for the 2020 tax year claiming the married filing jointly filing status, dated May 5, 2022. The joint Form 1040 lists C.M. as a nephew qualifying for a child tax credit, Y.R. as a foster child qualifying for a credit for other dependents, and A.A.R. as ‘other,’ qualifying for a credit for other dependents. It does not list E.P. It also adds a $300 deduction on Line 10b, Charitable contributions if you take the standard deduction.” T. C. Memo. 2025-131, at p. 2.

Needless to say, IRS nixes the whole bunch.

The stip-out leaves Y. R. as a qualifying relative (not child), E. P. and A. A. R. are out all the way, and the Section 6662(a) chops are dropped. But what of C. C., a/k/a C.M.? IRS concedes all the Section 152 outs except Section 152(c)(1)(B) six-months-and-a-day residence.

“The history with respect to petitioners’ returns, including their eventually conceded claims with respect to two other dependents, raises initial concerns about their credibility. Such concerns are compounded by the vagueness and inconsistency of their testimony. Accordingly, this Court finds petitioners’ testimony regarding C.M.’s residence with them not credible. Given the complete lack of documentation with respect to such residence, this Court concludes that petitioners have not satisfied the burden of establishing that C.M. was a qualifying child for the 2020 tax year.” T. C. Memo. 2025-131, at p. 5.

I give a Taishoff “Good Job” to the Alphabet Guys’ trusty attorney, whom I’ll call Tim C. C. He sorted out his clients’ pixilated filings, got IRS to fold the chops, and only lost when his clients’ performance on the stand let the team down.

Holidays, that is.

In addition to observing the Christmas Day holiday on Thursday, December 25, 2025, the Court will be closed on Wednesday, December 24, and Friday, December 26, 2025. DAWSON will remain available for electronic access and electronic filing.

Merry Christmas.

Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler judge-splains withdrawing Rule 90(f) deemed admissions to Simon Barkagan & Tatyana Barkagan, Docket No. 17023-21, filed 12/22/25, although I am sure their trusty attorneys, the Jersey Boys, need no such explanation.

The Barkagans left some IRS Requests for Admissions unanswered, so deeming same admitted, IRS seeks summary J. Of course, the admissions encompass “the ultimate issues of this case; alleged understatement of income, the substantiation and business purpose of deductions claimed, and the existence of fraud.” Order, at p. 2. Properly-drawn requests for admissions should be entitled “Come out with your hands up.”

Withdrawing deemed admissions requires the party opposing to show that witnesses are now unavailable, additional expense and delay now needed to obtain evidence; having to go to trial to prove what is now withdrawn is not reason to deny withdrawal.

Here, though for want of evidence the Barkagans’ trusty attorneys can’t withdraw all deemed admissions, those related to fraudulent intent are withdrawn. These are questions of fact and are inappropriate for summary adjudication.

So IRS’ summary J motion is held in abeyance until the parties file status reports stating what they can stip out.

Translated from Judgespeak, that means settle this case, guys.

No, not Oliver Stone’s 1986 war story; rather I am referring to Paul Dietzel’s pioneering LSU aggregations, The White Team, The Go Team, and The Chinese Bandits. We cardcarrying Medicare members remember their counterparts’ appearances in the 1962 Army-Navy game, with the hats and raucous cheers. Gone, alas, like our youth, too soon.

When OCC tries this move on the eve of trial in Habitat Green Investments, LLC, MM Bulldawg Tax Matters Partner, et al. , Docket No. 14433-17, filed 12/19/25, the Habs claim illegal substitution.

“…petitioner filed an Objection to respondent’s Motion to Withdraw Longstanding Trial Counsel Shortly Before Trial (Objection). In the Objection, petitioner states how ‘[r]espondent’s newly entered counsel’s failure to identify any reason for withdrawal, let alone good cause, is sufficient to deny his Motion.’ The Objection goes on to state how ‘allowing respondent’s main trial counsel to withdraw would materially harm petitioners, would violate the Court’s Rules and prior precedent, and would unnecessarily increase the cost of litigation in this, and the companion case St. Andrews.” Order, at p. 1.

Judge Christian N.(“Speedy”) Weiler brushes this aside.

Rule 24 governs, not 5 Cir learning. Besides, it’s not that IRS is without counsel. It recently filed EoAs for the new batch and they haven’t asked for timeouts. “While petitioner points to other proceedings with newly enrolled counsel as evidence of their assertions, in these consolidated cases we determine petitioner’s allegations raised in their Objection to be wholly unfounded.” Order, at p. 6.

Will petitioners seek Section 6673(a)(2) sanctions against the new arrivals?

That’s Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland’s advice to Kawekiulani Swain, Docket No. 12081-23L, filed 12/19/25. After Appeals sorted through Kawekiulani’s 433A and backups, they found he could pay via an IA, so denied CNC. He claimed Appeals didn’t substantiate his numbers, but they went from the pay stubs he supplied, and didn’t include did not include any income from leasing his extra car, or any of his other non-payroll bank deposits.

Still, Kawekiulani wasn’t done.

“… Mr. Swain also states that, ‘[t]he petitioner believes that he called [SO H] back from his business line and we are in the process of looking through call logs to see if a phone call was attempted by the petitioner. If the petitioner had called back, but [SO H] missed that call, this would be abuse of discretion.’” Order, at p. 6. (Name omitted).

True, Appeals misplaced Kawekiulani’s originally-submitted Form 433-A and backups and closed his appeal, but that got sorted out. Appeals’ paperwork handling lately has been less than stellar.

As for telephoning, Judge Tex Copeland is unimpressed.

Even construing the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Swain, this is not an abuse of discretion. SO H left two voicemails for Mr. Swain and then waited for more than a month to hear back from him before closing the case. During that time, Mr. Swain could have left a voicemail for SO H, attempted to call again, or submitted something in writing.” Order, at p. 6.

NITL sustained.

I just got this from a 501(c)(3) to which I have contributed for years. No guarantees, warrantees, or representations, but practitioners, beware.

The USPS recently changed the definition of when a piece of mail is considered postmarked or “mailed.”  In the past, it was sufficient to drop your letter in any mailbox, and it was considered “mailed” based on a postmark applied at pick-up. However, under the new USPS rule, only certain processing centers can apply postmarks. In some regions, this may mean a mailed item won’t receive a postmark for several days after being dropped off at the post office or placed in a mailbox.

In a deficiency case or any non-Boechler you’d better check where you can mail.