Stephen C. Gilbert & Ronda D. Gilbert, Docket No. 18210-23, filed 1/2/26, hail from NJ, hence Golsenized to 3 Cir. So when they petition the SND they say they never got (and USPS tracking shows unclaimed) 177 (count ’em, 177) days late, the Culp equitable tolling gambit is playable.

And Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland is willing to listen. The Gilberts claim IRS never sent a courtesy copy first class or sent a copy to Mr. G’s workplace as their Form 2848 indicated, either or both of which they would have gotten timely if IRS followed usual procedure after the certified-mailed SND was returned undeliverable. The AO with whom the Gilberts had continuously dealt and for whom the Gilberts extended the deadline for assessment continued correspondence with them, never telling them a SND had issued. And the IRS transcripts for years at issue have no notation that a SND issued. Finally, when the Gilberts got a notice that an out year’s refund was applied to the years at issue’s deficiencies, they petitioned within two weeks.

IRS wants summary J, claiming the Gilberts fail to clear the high equitable tolling bar.

“There is a strong presumption in the law that a properly addressed letter will be delivered, or offered for delivery, to the addressee. The very strength of the presumption of regularity is rooted in the expectation that properly addressed U.S. mail failing to reach its intended recipient is a significant departure from the average. But ‘clear evidence to the contrary’ can rebut the presumption. In this case, the Gilberts have produced certified mail tracking records showing that USPS attempted to deliver the Notices of Deficiency… but ‘No Authorized Representative [was] Available’ making the delivery attempt unsuccessful. The Gilberts have also averred that they received no notice regarding the unsuccessful delivery. Further, both the Gilberts and AO L continued to correspond as if the case remained within Appeals sole jurisdiction. This information must be construed as true for purposes of summary judgment and, as such, suffices to establish a genuine dispute about whether the Gilberts received the Notices of Deficiency or were otherwise put on notice about their existence. Moreover, whether and how USPS makes its deliveries is generally beyond the Gilberts’ control. The Gilberts have therefore established a material dispute of fact as to whether extraordinary circumstances beyond their control intervened to prevent them from timely filing their Petition.

“Because the record suggests that the Gilberts may have diligently pursued their rights and may have been prevented from timely filing their Petition by extraordinary circumstances, we will deny the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” Order, at p. 5. (Citations and name omitted).

Did Culp lower the equitable tolling bar in 3 Cir?

And speaking of NJ and 3 Cir, how can there be a potentially groundbreaking NJ and 3 Cir case without you-know-whom? And of course The Great Chieftain of The Jersey Boys is among the trusty attorneys for the Gilberts. Another oak leaf cluster to his Taishoff “Good Job, First Class” awards.

I can’t say that 2025 was anything less than tumultuous, or that 2026 bids fair to be anything other than more of the same.

Come along for the ride!

The year ends on a high note for Taishofflaw, as I transition to retirement.

December brought six thousand (count ’em, six thousand) views, an all-time high for any calendar month. And the calendar year ends with forty-three thousand (count ’em, forty-three thousand) views, the best ever, even beating the COVID year 2021.

But have no fear, this my blog will go on unabated.

Not Judge Cathy (“NCY = No Cognomen Yet”) Fung. She forewent applying Loper-Bright to the Rev. Proc. 2010-16 change-of-address pronunciamento (see my blogpost “Addressing Loper-Bright,” 7/10/25), and now when USPS tells her there’s no difference when the same zip-plus-four covers two separate FL municipalities, she tosses Jason Darby, Docket No. 7964-24, filed 12/31/25, for filing 156 days after IRS mailed the SND to Pembroke Pines, but with the same zipcode as Hollywood.

Jason claims the SND wasn’t send to his last known address, because his last return showed Hollywood, not Pembroke Pines.

But the zipcode was the same.

“To show that respondent’s address error would not have affected proper mail delivery, respondent provided the Declaration from a USPS official. The Declaration confirmed that a letter mailed to the Pembroke Pines address would be delivered to the same destination in Hollywood, Florida 33025. Thus, we are satisfied that respondent mailed the Notice to petitioner’s last known address, whether it was mailed to the Pembroke Pines address or the same address in Hollywood, Florida 33025.” Order, at pp. 6-7.

Estate of Georgia M. Spenlinhauer, Deceased, Robert J. Spenlinhauer, Executor, T. C. Memo. 2025-134, filed 12/30/25, shows that an executor must execute, or involve himself in a tax disaster.

I’ll defer to Judge Tamara W. Ashford to explicate how Robert the ex’r both torpedoes the estate and gets himself Section 6901 transferee liability for estate tax plus chops, leaving the MA Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act  to rope him in.

And he represents himself in Tax Court, notwithstanding the $600K he says he spent to litigate the worth of a 1% interest in a family business he inherited from Mom that wound up selling for $375K.

Execution is everything.

It’s only the inflated numbers that keep Carl B. Barney, T. C. Memo. 2025-133, filed 12/30/25, from the entire amount he claimed as a charitable deduction. I’ve been following Carl B.’s hike through Tax Court through four (count ’em, four) blogposts, but, as usual, it all  comes down to the valuation joust.

Carl B.’s experts used management cashflow projections, which Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler finds unrealistically optimistic, given the flak for-profit colleges had encountered at time of sale. And Cal B.’s subsequent 1040Xs can’t undo his electing out of Section 453 installmentation. Post-event reductions-in-price relief applies to purchasers, not sellers, so Section 108(e)(2) doesn’t help Carl B.

“Mr. Barney voluntarily elected out of the installment method despite being a cash basis taxpayer and entitled to report gain as payments are received. He reported the entire transaction and gain for [year at issue] despite receiving only Purchase Notes as consideration. Each tax year stands on its own, and we find it entirely inappropriate to apply a purchase price adjustment for [year at issue] on the basis of events occurring in [Year Three].” T. C. Memo. 2025-133, at pp. 26-27. (Footnotes omitted).

There was a sale, Carl B. didn’t keep more control post-sale than any purchase-money seller-lender would. There’s a gap between FMV of what Carl B. transferred and what he got, so there is a bargain sale, but there needs to be computations, although Judge Speedy Weiler doesn’t order a Rule 155.

Chops were on the table, and Carl B. claimed an overpayment of tax, but until the final numbers are done, neither can be determined.

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.