My learned and literate readers, drinkers deep from the well of great literature, certainly remember Herman Melville’s “A Story of Wall-Street” and the melancholy figure of Bartleby, the castoff clerk of the Dead-Letter Office in Washington, Delta Charlie.

Who can forget Melville’s pathetic peroration, “Conceive a man by nature and misfortune prone to a pallid hopelessness, can any business seem more fitted to heighten it than that of continually handling these dead letters and assorting them for the flames?”

Well, try reading Tax Court orders, all 150 of them, on a day when no opinions or designated hitters are to be found, when Judge David Gustafson fails or refuses to oblige, and Judge Mark V. Holmes neither stirs silt nor yet again disrespects the partitive genitive.

Judge Goeke does have an off-the-bencher, but after an unreasonably prolonged closing in colorful downtown Levittown, I can’t get up much enthusiasm for Phuongtruc Cao Nguyen, Docket No. 4556-16, filed 11/13/17.

Valuing Ms. Nguyen’s Chanel bags, Prada bags, a watch and other handbags may suit an honors graduate of the University of KY Law School and former Senior Trial Attorney in Chief Counsel’s Office, but I would prefer not to.

I suppose some people think that tax controversy is dull, dry as dust, hypertechnical, soporific. I find it intensely interesting.

Now I’m not saying that Joszeph Hjalmer Eotvos & Kelly Mae Eotvos, 21450-16S, filed 11/9/17, are the equals of Charles J. Weiss and his trusty attorney DP (whose never-say-die attitude and tactical improvisation are more particularly bounded and described in my blogpost “Ya Can’t Make This Stuff Up,” 8/17/16).

But Joszeph Hjalmer really gives it the good old college try and inspires Judge Buch to deliver a designated hitter off-the-bencher to a thirsty blogger on a cold, raw November evening.

Kelly Mae runs a child care operation from the marital domicile. They claimed heavy depreciation for use of home and personal assets.

Judge Buch: “When called upon to substantiate those expenses, the Eotvoses did not directly substantiate what was claimed. Instead, they reconstructed those expenses by photographing a wide array of household assets and estimating their value. Those assets included swords and battle axes, which Mr. Eotvos collects, and Mrs. Eotvos’s jewelry.” Order, transcript, at p. 4.

Judge Buch is pardonably understated. “Battle axes were not used as children’s playthings, and their acquisition and maintenance was not in furtherance of the day care business.” Order, at p. 6.

Judge, I’ve heard of rambunctious infants, but this is “a wee bit ower t’score,” as they say in the Hielan’s.

There’s more, of course, but the battle axes finished Joszeph Hjalmer’s tour as a witness. “And a witness who can testify with a straight face about the nexus between a battle axe and a day care business earns no credibility.” Order, transcript, at pp. 6-7.

I’ll reprise a song from the 1955 Douglass Wallop, George Abbott and Jerry Ross classic musical. The four small-claimers on the program at 400 Second Street, NW, today “need not long detain the tourist,” as the Guide Michelin used to say. And the designated hitters offered little.

One exception: the Judge With a Heart, STJ Armen, disappointed me. Really disappointed me.

Poor Amy L. Goline, 20756-16S, filed 11/9/17 was a day late and a lot more than a dollar short with her petition from a SNOD. But instead of telling Amy to pay the tax, if able, apply for a refund and get down to USDC or USCFC if refund not forthcoming, he offhandedly cites McCormick, and brushes off Amy.

“…under prescribed conditions it is possible that petitioner may have judicial recourse in another court system based on an action for refund. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 (1970). However, the possibility of such recourse is a matter that this Court need not, and does not, address; rather, in that regard, petitioner may wish to consult a competent tax advisor.” Order, at p. 3.

C’mon, Judge, anyone pro se in a small-claimer is probably too rich to get a lawyer from a LITC and too poor to get one from the free world. At least be more specific, like all the other Tax Court judges. Maybe the Court “need not” address the option, but there’s no reason you can’t.

Lest it appear that I’m an ungrateful guest, I acknowledge the generosity and good fellowship of my esteemed colleague Peter Reilly, CPA, ace blogger at Forbes.com. It was a fun lunch today, my friend, and safe travels back to the Back Bay. I gratefully acknowledge your permission to post on one of the topics we discussed over le hamburger and le croque monsieur.

A case in point: The Coca-Cola Company and Subsidiaries, Docket No. 31183-15, filed 11/8/17.

Judge Lauber spends fourteen (count ‘em, fourteen) pages of his Order mixing and matching, tailoring, trimming, cutting, redacting and detracting from the transcripts, filings, and exhibits that the Cokers want to put in on the trial, so that we, the public, can see everything not utterly protectable by trade secret and privilege. Homage to Section 7461(a).

Judge Lauber diligently guards both the Cokers’ rights and privileges, and the public’s right to see justice done and the whys and wherefores thereof.

I won’t even try to digest the meticulous approach Judge Lauber takes. Read the order; it is a masterpiece of judicial surgery*.

OK, Judge Lauber lets us in on whatever the law allows.

All we have to do is surry down to the stoned soul picnic at 400 Second Street, NW, politely ask the clerk to open the voluminous file, and while away our idle hours reading. That is, those of us who don’t have day jobs.

Now if Tax Court were on the PACER system or equivalent, we could follow the advice of Ireland’s great poet and lengthen our days by stealing a few hours from the night, lighting the darkness with the glistering glow from our laptops, and paging through the night over that which Judge Lauber so painstakingly and scrupulously has excised and extracted for our edification.

But no. Tax Court’s lowly Article One online lips are sealed. Only orders, opinions and decisions are to be had on the world-wide web. As the Sweet Swan of Avon put it so well, “the rest is silence.”

Judge Lauber’s labor’s lost for the greatest majority of his fans.

So c’mon, Tax Court, let it all hang out. Put the backstories on line. Bankruptcy Court does, USDCs and CCAs do, why not you?

*Edited to add, 8/28/21: Except you can’t read it, because the Stealth Genius Baristas have blocked the entire docket, even though this Order was online for the world to see when it was issued. DAWSON, what sins are committed in thy name!

It turns out that the old saying about the shortest way home both helps and hurts Robert Hudson and Eleanor M. Hudson, 2017 T. C. Memo. 221, filed 11/8/17.

It’s Cap’n Bob’s story. Cap’n Bob was ex-Air Force Reserve and ex-Northwest Airlines, retired from both, but seeking to stay in the skies he loved. He wanted to go foreign, because the non-US flag carriers would respect his seniority. Why that matters is best described in fellow-aviator Ernest K. Gann’s 1961 classic “Fate is the Hunter.” That number can mean life or death.

So Cap’n Rob went to GAP. No, that’s not an accounting method, that’s a US recruiter of flyboys and girls for the global skies. Apparently, when Cap’n Bob was jobhunting, going through GAP paid more than a touch-and-go with the airlines’ headquarters. The long way round, y’know; it pays off.

Cap’n Bob was taken up by Korean Airlines. His deal with GAP said he wasn’t GAP’s employee, but an alone-in-the-sky IC.

Cap’n Bob got to push a 747-400 from and to The Land of the Morning Calm, and was a Seoul man, although he spent all his vacation days and downtime (when not on reserve) in the Land of the Free, where he owned three (count ‘em, three) homes, none of them principal.

Cap’n Bob was lucky to retain the services of Eric W. Johnson, esq., when IRS dumped some of his home mortgage deduction, and blew away his foreign earned income exclusion.

All y’all will remember EW, the hard-charging MN tax attorney who provides “honest representation at reasonable rates.” What, no? How fleeting is fame. Well, see my blogposts “Abate, Don’t Debate,” 8/25/14, and “Honest representations at reasonable rates,” 8/28/14.

Cap’n Bob’s foreigner status is a nonstarter. Too few days outside the home of the brave and the free, only the hotel-and-suitcase ties to The Land of the Morning Calm, and Cap’n Bob is back in the USA for tax purposes.

But IRS isn’t done. They claim the deal with GAP makes Cap’n Bob an IC. No he wasn’t, shows EW, and wins that one.

Judge Pugh: “We hold that Mr. Hudson’s proper work classification during the years in issue was that of an employee.  Korean Airlines exercised considerable control over his work.  While flying Korean Airlines aircraft, Mr. Hudson was required to abide by the policies and procedures listed in the employee manual he received from Korean Airlines.  See, e.g., Weber v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 378 (finding that as the taxpayer was bound by rules determined by his principal, the principal  held sufficient control for the taxpayer to be classified as an employee).” 2017 T. C. Memo. 221, at pp. 18-19.

The GAP agreement can’t change the facts that bound Cap’n Bob to Korean Airlines’ command and control.

Moreover, since Cap’n Bob relied on the CPA GAP found for him, and consulted EW (at his usual reasonable rates), no chops for Cap’n Bob.

Over the years I’ve run, in a desultory way on this my blog, the Taishoff “Good Excuse” Sweepstakes, in various categories, such as late returns (or nonfilings), mislabelled income and deductions, internet reliance, and such. I await the grand (no prize) winner.

Today there is one excuse that falls at the first fence, but it’s as explicit in its candor as it is defective in its effect, enough so that I’ll forgo blogging STJ Lewis (“Say It Loud, Say It Proud”) Carluzzo’s designated off-the-bencher concerning health insurance premium deductions under an obscure provision of Section 35.

Here’s Rodney Morrison, Docket No. 21066-10, filed 11/7/17. A long-running show, but Rod wanted more.

Ex-Chief STJ Panuthos: “At some point after these cases were set for trial the Court was advised that a basis of settlement had been reached in these dockets and that the parties would submit settlement documents.

“… respondent filed a status report and also filed a Motion for Entry of Decision. Respondent asserts that proposed decision documents were sent to petitioners…. Respondent further asserts that petitioner Rodney Morrison advised respondent that he and his wife signed the settlement documents however they were delaying the return of the documents to respondent in order hold off potential collection action.” Order, at p. 1.

Ya gotta like candor. Rod is obviously someone who tells it like it is.

Ex-Chief STJ Panuthos is not amused.

“It appears that there is no doubt that the parties have arrived at a basis of settlement in these cases given that settlement documents prepared by respondent have been executed by or on behalf of petitioners. Petitioners have not presented any justifiable reason for failing to return the signed documents to respondent for execution and submission to the Court.” Order, at p. 1.

So, Rod, show cause why decision should not be entered.

More than once on this my blog I’ve announced that I’ll never be a Tax Court judge. I wasn’t on law review. I wasn’t a member of the Order of the Coif. I never clerked for any judge. I never worked for a white-shoe law firm or Big Four CPA, much less made partner. I never worked in the Office of IRS Chief Counsel, or anyplace in Treasury.

I’m just an old-time, beaten-up, beaten-down, single shingle “general practitioner with very limited experience and mediocre qualifications,” as “the best and wisest man” John H. Watson ever knew put it.

So I must accept my lot in life, with a sly grin that I am not reduced, as Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel, who has all the qualifications and experience needed for Tax Court Boss, and then some, to the following.

Daniel Ray Hippensteel, Docket No. 18584-17S, filed 11/7/17.

“In that petition, petitioner elected to have this case conducted under the Court’s procedures for small tax cases, pursuant to Internal Revenue Code section 7463. …respondent filed his Answer to the petition. …petitioner filed a Reply To Answer. Generally, a reply to an answer is not to be filed in a small tax case, unless otherwise directed by the Court. See Rule 173(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Accordingly, we will recharacterize petitioner’s reply.” Order, at p. 1.

Well, if it’s not to be filed, does it get tossed? Or something else?

Daniel Ray’s Reply To Answer (hold your breath) “…is recharacterized as a Letter.” Order, at p. 1.

I’m sure I couldn’t possibly manage that.

Don’t run your family business this way. As a cautionary lesson,, take a gander at VHC, Inc., 2017 T. C. Memo. 220, filed 11/7/17.

Favorite son Ron was running a number of his own companies, some of them in direct competition with the family business. He had built the family company from a local into a national, but then his companies went sour and his promissory notes (some signed, some rubberstamped, some none thereof) went even sourer.

The family C Corp kept advancing money to Ron, even when their own capital was eroded and their lenders walked away. Then they couldn’t get performance and completion bonds to bid some projects.

It takes Judge Kerrigan fifty (count ‘em, fifty) pages to go through the non-loans to Ron and Ron’s wheeling and dealing, but the bottom line is, no bad debt write-off. No arms’-length lender would lend on the terms that VHC did to the favorite son.

And the advances weren’t ordinary and necessary business expenses. A business might advance money to another to shore up goodwill or seek a profit therefrom, but there has to be some hope of an economic return. Ron was under water, and what put the finishing touches on it was this gem.

“By 1999 [Ron’s company] and its affiliates were operationally in trouble.  Advances made by VHC did not remedy Ronald H.’s problems, as [Ron’s company] continued to struggle and in 2001 could not pay its bills.  [Bro] Timothy testified that if VHC had not guaranteed Ronald H.’s and his related companies’ debts in 2002, the companies would have gone into bankruptcy.  VHC continued to make advances to Ronald H. and his related companies throughout the years at issue knowing that they would not be repaid.” 2017 T. C. Memo. 220, at pp. 62-63.

Thanks, Bro, good job. Your eight (count ‘em, eight) male lawyers must have smiled their sweetest smiles as your case went down the drain, while the three (count ‘em, three) women lawyers from IRS must have exchanged behind-the-back fist-bumps.

Equitable recoupment doesn’t help with the interest VHC accrued on Ron’s notes that weren’t paid. Equitable recoupment applies only when two taxes have been applied to the same item inconsistently, and refund of one of the two taxes is barred by SOL.

“Our determination regarding whether VHC’s advances represented bona fide debt does not automatically establish that taxes it paid for closed tax years were erroneously applied.  Application of the equitable recoupment doctrine would require the Court to make further determinations regarding the amount and character of VHC’s purported accrued interest payments from 1997 through 2003.  It is outside the scope of the equitable recoupment doctrine for this Court to make such determinations for taxes collected 20 years ago.” 2017 T. C. Memo. 220, at p. 77.

If you’re confused, so am I. I think what Judge Kerrigan is really saying is, you made your bed, now pleasant dreams.

But VHC does get some giveback on a litigation with a subcontractor that settles years later, requiring a payment by VHC and relinquishment of a claim for which VHC had accrued income years before.

The rest is gone.

Once you get a reputation for being obliging, you can’t get away from it. That Obliging Jurist, Judge David Gustafson, is a victim of his own success. People want him to babysit their cases, even when he’s not going to be at the trial venue.

Here’s his designated hitter, Hailey Property Holdings, LLC, Hailey Land Manager, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 24486-16, filed 11/6/17.

Both Hailey and IRS want a continuance of their Atlanta face-off, and they spell out good grounds for that, so Judge Gustafson gives it them.

But they can’t bear to be separated from that Obliging Jurist. IRS and Hailey ask “…that the undersigned judge retain jurisdiction and require the filing of status reports every 90 days.” Order, at p. 1.

Judge Gustafson doesn’t say he’s flattered, but I expect he is.

Nevertheless, relinquishing jurisdiction, he blows off IRS and Hailey. “However, the undersigned judge is not scheduled for a subsequent Atlanta session and does not know whether or when he is likely to be so scheduled. The parties do not suggest that this case might require a special trial session (rather than being included on a future Atlanta calendar) and do not explain any special needs that might exist in this case requiring in the meantime the superintendence of a judge (rather than having the case pending in the general docket).” Order, at p. 1.

Judge, love doesn’t need reasons.