For those among my readers not yet satiated beyond repletion with the Section 6751(b) Boss Hoss sign-off, its cause and cure, Judge James S. (“Big Jim”) Halpern has yet another helping of hot-from-the-barbie chronology and commentary on this epochal silt-stir.

Here’s Horace R. Weaver & Candace M. Weaver, Docket No. 262-15S, filed 4/24/18. Horace & Candace are through with their trial, but their small-claimer lingers on.

I’ll spare all y’all the four (count ‘em, four) pages of Judge Big Jim’s prose, chronicling the trek of the Boss Hoss along Tax Court’s via dolorosa. Those practitioners expecting a trudge of their own might want to lift chronology and commentary for their memos of law.

And of course they can’t cite the source.

This comment is in part political, contrary to the established policy of this my blog. So it is definitely off topic.

Given that the Congress of the United States has failed or refused to override the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission, thereby surrendering the internet to the highest bidder, it remains to be seen how much longer anyone will be able to read this my blog.

I will, however, continue to write it.

I once wrote “Je Suis Charlie,” when fellow-journalists were attacked. I now join colleagues now or formerly in Stalinist Russia (or its current embodiment, wheresoever situate) and shall write samizdat pieces, self-published and “for the desk drawer,” circulation not permitted by the authorities.

I am sure that, one day, the authorities who now try to ban us will come to the same end as those in the past.

No, not another fractured opinion, with eccentric majority, concurring and dissenting; nor yet another one of the weirdest doubleplays in baseball history.

Rather, I’m tying an electronic string around my finger to remind me that the month after next is when I must fork over the $375.00 biennial fee for my continued good standing in the Bar of Our Fair State.

What happens if one blows past the registration date is illustrated in the Press Release of 4/19/18, wherein the failure of one Jude Ezeala is highlighted.

The Powers That Be even take credit cards, so one can get miles even as one re-ups for membership.

Many times have I stated that this is a nonpolitical Bog. So perhaps I’m stepping too near the cliché in the sand when I start the campaign for the next Chief Judge once Ch J-elect Maurice B (Watch This Space) Foley’s term has ended.

But when it comes to untangling and deciphering the convoluted, discombobulated and swangdangled papers that are launched at the Glasshouse at 400 Second Street, NW, by IRS, pro ses and automatic admittees, which unhappy task falls upon the Ch J, I nominate that Obliging Jurist, Judge David Gustafson (and I’m sure he won’t thank me for supporting him for that position).

Here’s a writing sample, Trilogy, Inc. & Subsidiaries, Docket No. 12097-16, filed 4/23/18.

Apparently IRS and the Trilogians had stiped to a bunch of facts, but one paragraph thereof was more than what IRS agreed, so IRS wants to bounce the paragraph. IRS moves for leave to file a first amended stipulation of facts.

Minor problem: “…no such amended stipulation was submitted with the motion (and evidently none exists, since the motion states that petitioners object to the motion), and the relief sought by such a motion for leave would be granted only if the motion to strike were first granted.” Order, at p. 1.

Judge Gustafson recharacterizes the motion as a motion to strike the offending paragraph.

So let the Trilogians explain why they object, being aware that in an earlier order regarding admissions, Judge Gustafson rejected a similar Trilogian objection, because the Trilogians couldn’t show how they were worse off if the paragraph were stricken now, than if it had never been made.

Any seconds for this nomination?

When it comes to providing blogfodder, stirring silt, dissenting, concurring, engaging in grammatical duellos, inserting wild footnotes, or generally jazzing up a day otherwise bereft of better material than unsubstantiation and feeble testimony, see the title of this my blogpost.

Here’s Estate of Jeanette Ottovich, Deceased, Randy Ottovich, Harvey Ottovich, and Karen Rayl, Executors, Docket No. 25781-12L, filed 4/20/18 (and remember that date).

So why all this wind-up when the pitch is simply “gimme a status report by July 18”?

Here’s why (and why dinner with Judge Holmes is a comedy special).

“…note that today is the exact bicentennial of the last trial by battle in the English-speaking world. See the onomastically excellent for our Court Ashford v. Thornton, 1 B & Ald.459, 106 E.R. 149 (1818) (Ashford declined battle; Thornton possibly got away with murder and ended up in Baltimore); see also ‘No ‘Game of Throne” Throwdown,” Staten Island Advance (March 28, 2016) (NY Sup. Ct.) (acknowledging trial by battle still available in New York State). (The case should be better known by tax lawyers for the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough: ‘it is our duty to pronounce the law as it is, and not as we may wish it to be’). Order, at p. 1, footnote 1.

Now that Judge Wherry has retired, long-absent whimsy has returned, brought back by Judge Holmes.

As for trial by battle still being available in New York, I don’t suggest trying it on.

My colleague Peter Reilly CPA took his cue today from a very exalted source to “smite me with friendly rebuke” for having missed Summa Holdings, Inc., 2015 T. C. Memo. 119 filed 6/29/15. Mr Reilly has noted in his blog on forbes.com that both 1 Cr and 2 Cir are dealing with appeals, and 6 Cir has tossed IRS. The prevailing view on appeal is that economic substance is not a smell test.

I responded that when Summa came down, a variation on the DISC-stuffs-Roth gambit, I viewed it as “much of a muchness with the other blown-up DISC-to-Roth cases, like Mazzei and Ohsman.”

And the facts in Summa pre-date the codification of economic substance in the still-unrepealed Affordable Care Act.

So if the statement that “if there’s a problem Congress should fix it” is what tosses IRS, we have yet to see whether Congress did fix it in 2010.

Thanks as always to Mr Reilly.

I don’t tweet, but the abbreviation that entitles this blogpost well summarizes Judge Mark V. Holmes’ Order in Gail Vento, et al., Docket No. 23537-08, filed 4/18/18. Judge Holmes is stuck with the outwash from the beaches of Our Insolvent Islands in the Sun.

For those unacquainted with 140-ese, the last three letters signify “If I Know.” The first I cannot explicate in a blogpost meant for family reading.

Again we have la famille Vento front-and-center, but only the daughters are on parade, their parents having successfully escaped the toils of the IRS. See my blogpost “It Pays To Be a Virgin,” 3/20/18.

But the issue of the daughters’ true Virginity was not disposed of, notwithstanding Judge James S (“Big Jim”) Halpern’s attempt, as to which see my blogpost “Farewell To The Virgin – Part Deux,” 9/7/16.

For between Judge Big Jim’s denial and IRS’ long-sought entry of decision in its favor, there came the Coffey break. See my blogpost thus entitled, 2/8/18.

So now the Vento daughters, having elected to dump the competent authority, maybe want to go for summary J (as Judge Holmes suggested in the last-named of my blogposts hereinabove, as my high-priced colleagues say).

Now all y’all know I just love summary J. Even if you lose the motion, you get valuable discovery, not only of your adversary but of the Judge as well.

Better yet, Coffey, with its kick-out of SOL, would end the whole Vento epic. Maybe.

Judge Holmes: “Respondent may well wish to appeal Coffey, though the appeal would likely head to a different circuit than any of these cases. Petitioners report that they may seek summary judgment. The Court would invite such a motion, but would urge both parties to become fully aware of the extreme complexities of figuring out what a fractured majority opinion means for later cases, and the possible difficulties of translating whatever the rule is in appellate courts to our Court’s rulings when we sit in conference. See http://procedurallytaxing.com/fractured-tax-court-opinions-which-opinioncontrols-and-does-the-supreme-courts-marks-decision-apply/ (And note as well that there is a case pending before the Supreme Court this term that may touch on this issue.).” Order, at p. 1.

In short, chaps, exactly what did we decide in Coffey? It sounds like the weirdest doubleplay in baseball history, 5-7-4, but in Coffey five (count ‘em, five) Judges agreed in Judge Holmes’ “majority” decision, seven (count ‘em, seven) Judges concurred as to result but thought Judge Holmes and the “majority” went too far, and four (count ‘em, four) dissented altogether.

Hence the above-cited blogpost from a guest on a colleague’s site: how do you deal with a case where the ratio decidendi (that means what they were talking about, for those of you who didn’t go to a high-class law school) is all over the lot?

So, plaintively echoing Paddy Chayefsky’s words from long ago (“Whaddya wanna do, Marty?”), Judge Holmes orders the parties to “…describe any progress they have made in framing the cases for decision on summary judgment, by agreement to be bound by Coffey on appeal, or any other suggestions.” Order, at p. 2.

And respond by July 17, 2018. I’m sure Judge Holmes would love for them to wait until July 17, 2118.

Many years ago, the British humor magazine Punch ran one-sentence reviews of plays then current in London’s West End. One particularly long-lived farce entitled “No Sex Please, We’re British” drew from Punch’s sententious critic the headline of this blogpost.

Now there are few sagas running at 400 Second Street, NW, that would draw so piteous a cry from such as me. But this five-barreled special is indeed a rara avis.

Here’s John E. Rogers and Frances L. Rogers, et al., 2018 T. C. Memo. 53, filed 4/17/18.

I have blogged the Rogers’s story extensively, but today Judge Goeke’s 134-page magnum opus has outdone me.

Suffice it to say that unreported income, sham transactions, undocumented loans, Section 274 documentation, home office, charitable gifts of land in exchange for municipal beneficence, and the innocent spouse who knew too much (with MBA, JD and CPA credentials), all play a part, but at the end of the day, it’s all been said before.

And yet, Mr. and Mrs. Rogers escape both the late-filing addition and the 75% fraud chop.

But wait, there’s more: the 20% accuracy or negligence chops are reserved for another day. So it seems there are Graev matters yet to come.

I see Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel transferring cases away from Ch J-elect Maurice B. (watch this space) Foley, apparently preparatory to Judge Foley’s ascendance to the Chieftainship.

That means I need to get en charette with a cognomen. I have one chosen, but am awaiting final approval.

As soon as that happens, I’ll announce the unveiling.

Cecil K. Kyei, Docket No. 9118-12, filed 4/16/18, is back, but Judge David Gustafson’s question remains unanswered because CKK never responds to a couple requests (hi, Judge Holmes) to deal with same.

The question? See my blogpost “Come And Take My Hand, Walk With Me Today,” 2/20/18.

How can one enter decision based upon a stipulation entered into when the 11USC§362(a)(8) automatic stay was in effect?

Obliging to IRS as he is to petitioners, Judge Gustafson let IRS cop out as to the stip, and treated their papers as a motion for entry of decision based upon lack of prosecution.

But IRS has no Section 6751(b) Boss Hoss sign-off, so chops are off the menu.

“Mr. Kyei has failed to participate in this case, and his noncompliance with the Court’s orders and rules prompts us to grant the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss as supplemented, and to enter decision against him pursuant to Rule 123(b).” Order, at p. 4.

But the decision is for less than the SNOD, because IRS has conceded some items.

IRS was lucky CKK didn’t put up a fight.