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.

Kimberly Fulton, Docket No., 18582-21L, filed 12/18/25, is on her way back to Appeals on remand number three.

Remand number one came when IRS conceded the CDP hearing was defective. Number two followed when IRS’ motion for summary J to sustain supplemental NOD cratered on disputed facts.

Already in the admin record was a letter from Kimberly’s Mom stating she gave Kimberly a monthly allowance, and anything over that was a loan. The first SO on the case didn’t treat these as income because they weren’t guaranteed.

Kimberly did have interests in a couple LLC’s (hi, Judge Holmes) that she didn’t disclose, but claimed these had no activity or assets and so didn’t file 1065s.  Nor did Kimberly have enough income to file, she says.

Appeals affirmed the second supplemental NOD which treated the money from Mom as income and nondisclosure of the LLCs as grounds for bouncing Kimberly’s OIC.

Judge Cary Douglas (“C-Doug”) Pugh sends the case back to Appeals.

‘ The administrative record contains no explanation for SO H’s determination that the deposits were income. At the hearing, respondent argued that it could be reasonably discerned that SO H viewed the deposits as income from the undisclosed LLCs. However, that is inconsistent with the record; SO H asked no follow-up questions about the LLCs once petitioner’s representative explained that they were not active, and petitioner’s representative alleges SO H attributed these deposits to offshore assets. Additionally, SO O, the previous settlement officer assigned to petitioner’s case, considered the deposits to be gifts. We do not rely on post hoc explanations of SO Harvey’s silence and her unexplained departure from SO O’s position is not merely of ‘less-than-ideal’ clarity—it prevents our review of her decision.

“Moreover, SO Harvey rejected petitioner’s amended offer-in-compromise immediately after reviewing petitioner’s bank statements and without providing petitioner an opportunity to explain the deposits. Even though petitioner’s representative requested an opportunity to address the reasons for rejection, SO H informed petitioner’s representative that she intended to issue a Supplemental Notice of Determination. Failing to consider petitioner’s argument was an abuse of discretion.” Order, at pp. 5-6. (Names and citation omitted).

True, Kimberly was chary with info about the LLCs.

“Respondent is right that petitioner did not disclose her interest in certain LLCs. But petitioner explained why she did not disclose these interests (none of the LLCs were active or generated income), and SO H did not ask any follow-up\ questions. Petitioner’s omission does not justify SO H’s failure to explain her decision to reject petitioner’s offer-in-compromise, especially where SO H chose not to press the LLC matter further.” (Name omitted).

So Judge C-Doug Pugh sends Kimberly back to Appeals again. She’ll keep trying for the SO who will get it right.

Looks like Judge C-Doug Pugh is another disciple of the late great Gene (“Big Daddy”) Lipscomb, twice MVP lineman of the Super Bowl, in the glory days of the old Baltimore Colts. As Big Daddy used to say: “I just wrap my arms around the whole backfield and peel ’em one by one until I get to the ball carrier. Him I keep.”

Mark L. Fussell, T. C. Memo. 2025-131, filed 12/18/25, filed 1040X for three (count ’em, three) tax years, for which IRS gave him a CP21, allowing him a refund for Year One only. Mark alleged that his $420K loss was due to bad loans to his “tightly held” C Corp.

Mark says he thought the CP21 encompassed all three years, but IRS audited Years Two and Three, and Mark and IRS stiped them out as no-tax-no-refund before his tax was due for Year at Issue. Mark didn’t file Year at Issue, claiming audit, but thst’s a nonstarter.

Judge Rose E. (“Cracklin'”) Jenkins finds the claimed loans are unsubstantiated: no documents, no showing of payments made, no showing of Section 165(g)(2) securities compliance. Even if substantiated, any NOL carryback or carryforward is long used up, as no Section 172(b)(3) carryforward election was made.

And of course, the add-ons for nonfiling, nonpaying, and nonpayment of 1040-es are sustained.

Takeaway: You can stip out a year, but each year stands on its own. Be prepared to fight every succeeding year as if the year of the stip never happened.

E. W. Henley’s view of life may or may not accord with contemporary literary criticism, but it certainly describes judicial review under Section 7345. Judge Benjamin A. (“Trey”) Guider III, lists the six (count em, six) arguments made by Michelle Ricci & James Follett, Docket No. 3950-25P, filed 12/17/25, only considers one, and that fails to make the cut.

“Mr. Follett and Ms. Ricci have set forth six arguments: (1) ‘[t]he amounts presented [on the Certification Notices] are incorrect,’ (2) “[t]his is the first communication I have received regarding any delinquent taxes,’ (3) ‘[t]his is the first notice my accountant has seen only through me,’ (4) ‘I have filed my state income taxes for all the years referred to in this document,’ (5) petitioners ‘file [their] taxes jointly but have received this [Certification Notice] separately,’ and (6) petitioners ‘file [their] taxes jointly but have’ different tax liability balances. Doc. 1 at 2. Petitioners based these arguments ‘on the Income taxes filed for the years noted on the notice.’ Id. at 3.” Order, at p. 3. (Citations are to the record).

While Tax Court can’t deal with underlying liability, it can see if the delinquencies underlying the Notices are in fact “serious,” that is, the liabilities meet the Section 7345(b)(1), (f) criteria. Also delinquencies subject to pending CDPs, pending OICs, compliant IAs, and innocent spousery are not reportable to State.

Nic & Jim don’t put in any evidence to rebut IRS’ account statements.

The gate is strait indeed.

A classic move of Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes is found in Mission Organic Center, Inc., T. C. Memo. 2025-130, filed 12/16/25, a minor coda to the full-dress T. C. of even date herewith.

The fulldress “,,,analyzes the notices of determination that sustain enforced collection of the 2016–20 tax debts of Mission Organic Center, Inc. The Commissioner also determined to collect Mission’s tax debt for 2021. Our analysis of that last determination is different from that for its earlier tax years, and much easier.” T. C. Memo. 2025-130, at p. 1. (footnote omitted).

There were three (count ’em, three) NODs, the last covering only 2021. Mission never disputed liability, only hardship and wanted a collection alternative. But the AO really blew it.

“There are blatant mistakes in it, as she incorrectly stated that Mission’s attorney had asked for an installment agreement, and not just an OIC or currently-not-collectible status. But it’s the reasoning used that separates this notice from the others. She first determined that Mission could not challenge its tax liability for 2021 because section 280E ‘disallows all expenses related to the operation of a medical marijuana dispensary deemed legal under State but not Federal law.’ She then added that Mission didn’t qualify for any collection alternative because it hadn’t submitted ‘the requisite financial information necessary to facilitate a determination of your ability to pay.’ She also ‘noted’ that Mission was not current with its estimated-tax payments.” Order, at p. 2.

The NODs in the fulldress were better, of course.

The AO claimed Mission was contesting liability, but it didn’t check that box. The case activity record (part of the admin record) shows what Mission wanted, and Mission’s trusty attorney always claimed RCP for hardship was the issue.

The AO claimed Mission hadn’t provided financial info, although Mission had provided compliant records to COIC, and those were in the admin record and still timely.

As for noncompliance with estimateds, we have a Holmesian footnote worthy of repetition.

“Our skepticism extends to the Appeals officer’s assertion that Mission was not current in its estimated-tax payments for 2022. If true, that would make denying Mission’s OIC a matter of routine—we have repeatedly held that there is no abuse of discretion in rejecting a collection alternative for a taxpayer who fails to be current in its estimated-tax payments.  But the Commissioner himself included a proposed finding of fact that Mission had paid its 2022 estimated tax. And as the CDP process went into 2023, the settlement officer’s case-activity record asserted both that Mission was deemed ‘not in compliance with ES requirements” for that year, and that Mission was in compliance—both on the same page.” T. C. Memo. 2025-130, at p. 4, footnote 2. (Citation omitted).

Remanded.