This title won’t hardly be a best-seller with the CLEflogging crowd. Everest Granite, LLC, Everest Plains Holdings, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 29477-21, filed 4/3/24, was engaged in a prolonged request for admissions pingpong, wherein IRS was distinctly getting the worst of it.

In fact, so far was IRS behindhand with responses that the Everests came within an inch of defaulting IRS altogether on deemed admissions, more particularly as bounded and described in that pinnacle of the trade press Tax Notes. Tax Notes carried the story I missed 6/22/23, the same day I also missed ex-STJ Eunkyong Choi’s ill-fated barrage of quick-toss OSCs. Hardly covered myself with glory, but neither did IRS’ counsel, whom I’ll call Mikey.

Mikey was relieved of duty after the Tax Notes spread. Let those who seek anonymity in Tax Court, fail, and wind up appearing in this my blog consider themselves lucky. Judge Cary Douglas Pugh recounts the tale of Mikey’s derelictions of duty, which will cost IRS the excess legal fees and costs to which the Everests were put by Mikey’s casual approach. I can’t think Mikey will get a big hello from Danny Werfel at the next IRS happy hour.

Judge Pugh rescues IRS from default, and hacks her way through the maze of discovery and summary J demands. I’ve often said I’m a great fan of both, but it takes two to play. And Judge Pugh is obviously unwilling to allow play to continue.

“We are not satisfied that the parties have righted the discovery ship and are even more unsure that an off-the-record conference call will resolve the parties’ differences. Therefore, we will set this case for hearing at our May 6, 2024, New Orleans, Louisiana, trial session.” Order, at p. 6. And she gives the parties a list of what to talk about.

“Furthermore, in light of the parties’ disputes and the attendant delays in preparing this case for trial or other disposition, we believe the continued use of requests for admissions would be counterproductive. We remind the parties of this Court’s emphasis on the stipulation process and the advantage of that process over other formal discovery options. See Branerton Corp. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691, 692 (1974). To the extent the parties seek agreement regarding specific facts, they should concentrate on stipulations of facts or, if necessary, motions to compel stipulation under Rule 91(f). We will look dimly on any future motions to compel discovery that do not relate to document requests. We will discuss at the May 6, 2024, hearing whether an outright ban on requests for admissions and certain formal discovery is warranted going forward.” Order, at pp. 6-7.

I fear that some less-than-diligent types will ruin useful tools for the rest of us. Lose your case at discovery, indeed.

Unless one is a professional gambler, that’s what the IRC says. Gambling winnings are ordinary income, gambling losses are itemized Sched A deductions. But the trusty attorney (whom I’ll call Shelly) for Karen Berlant & Wayne Rhine, Docket No. 34622-21L, filed palindromically on 4/2/24, has a novel twist.

K&W netted winnings against losses, came out behind (as must gamblers do) and reported neither.

I’ll give Shelly a mention-in-dispatches, because his bold attempts fall beneath the “Good Try” level, but is worthy of better than an “Oh Please.”

CSTJ Lewis (“Wotta Name!”) Carluzzo Judge-‘splains: “Relying upon a definition of wagering provided in Title 31 or the United States Code, petitioners argue that a gambling transaction should be considered an exchange of property. And, as petitioners correctly note, losses upon the exchange of property are deductible above the line. See sec. 62(a)(3). Petitioners distinguish the long line of cases holding that a gambling loss may only be deductible as an itemized deduction (professional gamblers excepted) by pointing out that none of the previously decided cases addressed the argument they present here, perhaps, as petitioners suggest, because the taxpayers in some or many of those cases were self-represented.” Transcript, at p. 7.

Except.

“The awkwardness of conceptualizing a gambling transaction as an exchange of property is a bit like trying to force a square peg into a round hole, as the saying goes. That awkwardness in and of itself makes petitioners position less than compelling, but more technical reasons suggest that the argument must be rejected.

“Section 62(a)(3) operates, as petitioners suggest, to allow losses from the exchange of property to be deduction in the computation of adjusted gross income, or ‘above the line’. But individuals are only entitled to deductions for losses as provided in section 165, and only losses incurred in the exchange of property fitting the description of a capital asset may be deducted by an individual. See secs. 165(f) and 1211.” Transcript, at pp. 7-8.

All K&W did was put up cash, hardly a capital asset. And granting their argument would strip nonprofessional gamblers of the Section 165(d) deduction they already have.

But Shelly isn’t done.

“Petitioners acknowledge the long line of authority that supports respondent’s position in this case but suggest that the authority reflects what was once a negative public impression of the activity. They point out the increase in the number of casinos over the past few decades and the more recent opportunities for gambling through Internet websites and argue that the change in public sentiment should result in a change in law respect to how gambling losses are treated for federal income tax purposes.” Transcript, at pp. 8-9.

No dice, says CSTJ Lew.

“Changes in the law on the basis of changes in public sentiment, however, are more appropriately given effect by the Congress rather than the courts.” Transcript, at p. 9.

A Taishoff “Good Job, First Class, with Oak Leaves” goes to the trusty attorneys for Mohamed K. Abdo and Fardowsa J. Farah, 162 T. C. 7, filed 4/2/24 (Happy Palindrome Day!), whom I’ll call Meg & Dave. Mo and Far are two weeks late and much more than a dollar short, when they petition their SNOD. Their last day in the Section 6213(a) 90-day stretch was 3/2/20, but they mailed their petition on Saint Patrick’s Day, 2020, from their home in OH.

Nevertheless Mo and Far have the luck of the Irish. Because Tax Court was under the COVID lockdown mail embargo between March 19 and July 9 that year. And because, as Judge Alina I. (“AIM”) Marshall judge-‘splains: ” On March 13, 2020, the President of the United States declared a nationwide emergency under section 501(b) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121–5207, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (Nationwide Emergency Declaration). See Letter to Federal Agencies on an Emergency Determination for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic Under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 2020 Daily Comp. Pres. Doc. 159 (Mar. 13, 2020). The President also approved major disaster declarations for each of the 50 states pursuant to section 401 of the Stafford Act. On March 31, 2020, Pete Gaynor, the administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), at the direction of the President, signed DR-4507-OH (Ohio Disaster Declaration), which declared the State of Ohio a major disaster area. See Ohio; Major Disaster and Related Determinations, 85 Fed. Reg. 26,702 (May 5, 2020). As with each other state disaster declaration, the Ohio Disaster Declaration identified the pandemic conditions warranting the declaration as “beginning on January 20, 2020, and continuing.” See id. at 26,703.” 162 T. C. 7, at p. 4.

This let Treasury set aside deadlines, leading to the famous Notice 2020-24, 4/9/20 (see my blogpost “Le Quinzième Juillet,” 4/10/20; but see also my blogpost “Too Late is Too Late,” 9/10/21).

Meantime, IRS churns out Prop. Treas. Reg. § 301.7508A-1(g), 86 Fed. Reg. 2607, 2613 (Jan. 13, 2021), which goes final and which says that late petitioning doesn’t get the mandatory 60-day push other acts get.  IRS says Chevron deference bars Mo and Far.

Mo and Far (ably represented by Meg and Dave) say the statute controls; the Reg. is invalid because Congress filled the field.

“Section 7508A(d)(1) provides that, in the case of any ‘qualified taxpayer,’ the period beginning on the earliest incident date specified in the declaration to which the relevant disaster area relates and ending on the date which is 60 days after the latest incident date so specified ‘shall be disregarded in the same manner as a period specified under [section 7508A(a)].” Section 7508A(d)(2)(A) defines a ‘qualified taxpayer’ to include an individual whose principal residence is located in a disaster area. Section 7508A(d)(3), by cross-reference to section 165(i)(5)(A) and (B), defines a disaster area as an area determined by the President to warrant federal assistance under the Stafford Act. Petitioners contend that they are qualified taxpayers because they resided in Ohio at all relevant times.

“Petitioners argue that Congress clearly intended section 7508A(d) to operate in a mandatory and automatic manner and, therefore, the Secretary’s interpretation of section 7508A(d) fails under Chevron step 1. Specifically, petitioners contend that section 7508A(d) provides a mandatory extension of the deadlines and gives no discretion to the Secretary.” 162 T. C. 7, at p. 10. They claim IRS is trying to subvert Congress.

But IRS isn’t done. What does a lawyer say when confronted with a clear statute?

“…respondent further contends that the statute is ambiguous in two ways: First, Congress did not address what specific time-sensitive acts are postponed pursuant to section 7508A(d), and second, Congress did not directly address federally declared disasters without an incident date under section 7508A. In respondent’s view, the regulations are necessary to resolve these ambiguities.” 162 T.C. 7, at p.12.

Any lawyer who can’t find an ambiguity should find another way to make a living.

But Meg and Dave have a table, showing exactly where Congress lets IRS decide, and where discretion was off the table, 162 T. C. 7, at p. 15, which Judge AIM Marshall annotates.

And the table clears the boards. The contrast in language between 7508A(a) and (d) o’ercrows IRS’ wordscrabble. And the heading “Mandatory 60-day extension” while not dispositive, nevertheless provides “… an instance in which the heading is of some use for interpretative purposes, and it supports our reading of the statute.” 162 T. C. 7, at p. 17. (Citations omitted).

As for what acts are subsumed under the mandatory 60-day statutory push, Judge AIM Marshall finds no ambiguity.

“Having given full consideration to section 7508A(d) and its context, we must agree with petitioners that respondent’s interpretation conflicts with both the plain wording and the mandatory and specific nature of subsection (d). Postponement of any section 7508(a)(1) act would not be mandatory if it needed to be triggered by a discretionary act of the Secretary, who could use his discretion not to act at all. Instead, we think Congress’s intent is clear. For a defined person (a ‘qualified taxpayer’), a defined period (‘beginning on the earliest incident date . . . and . . . ending on the date which is 60 days after the latest incident date’) ‘shall be disregarded in the same manner as a period specified under subsection (a)” of section 7508A, that is by mandatorily and automatically disregarding ‘whether any of the acts described in paragraph (1) of section 7508(a),’ including the act of filing a petition with the Court, ‘were performed within the time prescribed therefor.’” 162 T. C. 7, at p. 20.

IRS fights to the finish; there is no incident date in the COVID declaration. Meg and Dave say, “So what? There was one in the OH declaration thereunder, namely, viz., and to wit, 1/20/20.”

IRS’ ex post facto regulatory binge doesn’t work.

Ch J Kerrigan, and Judges Foley, Buch, Nega, Pugh, Ashford, Urda, Copeland, Jones, Toro, Greaves, and Weiler are on board with this.

Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch concurs, noting that Chevron may be on the way out, as the Supremes have granted cert in a case to reconsider. Howbeit, “Over a century of precedent supports the unremarkable proposition that ‘[a] regulation to be valid must be reasonable and must be consistent with law.’ Before Chevron, it was clear that ‘regulations, in order to be valid, must be consistent with the statute under which they are promulgated.’

“In recent years, the Supreme Court has held regulations to be inapplicable with only a fleeting reference to Chevron…,  or without referencing Chevron. And the Supreme Court has specifically stated that it ‘need not resort to Chevron deference . . . [when] Congress has supplied a clear and unambiguous answer to the interpretive question at hand.’” 162 T. C. 7, at p. 24. (Citations omitted).

Judges Nega, Ashford, Urda, Copeland, Toro, and Greaves agree.

Judge Courtney D. (“CD”) Jones says this case strikes a blow for Rare Noodledom. Hallmark Collective and Sanders keep a consistent tone. When Congress sets a limit, game over. Culp doesn’t apply outside 3 Cir, and cert has been sought there.

“Today, the opinion of the Court holds that section 7508A(d) provides for an unambiguously self-executing postponement period for certain acts set forth in section 7508(a), including the filing of a petition for redetermination with the Tax Court. § 7508(a)(1)(C); see op. Ct. p. 18. This position is consistent with the Court’s prior decisions in Hallmark and Sanders that the deadline under section 6213(a) is jurisdictional, because unlike equitable exceptions, statutory exceptions to jurisdictional deadlines are of course permissible. Moreover, our prior decisions in Hallmark and Sanders are further undergirded by the jurisdictional nature of the AIA, codified under section 7421(a)….” 162 T. C. 7, at pp. 26-27.

Judge CD Jones points out that assessment and collection are as essential as barring injunctions to prevent collection and enforcement. And as I have pointed out, the automatic stay in Section 6213(a) is a narrow exception to Anti-Injunction Act’s high wall against interference.

Judge Greaves is OK with the Section 6213(a) part. Judges Buch, Nega, Urda, Copeland, nd Toro agree with it all.

Suzanne M. Frost, Docket No. 2287-21L, filed 4/1/24, is fighting both the seven-figure deficiency from two (count ’em, two) years of ex-spouse’s construction operation, and the interest and add-ons resulting therefrom.

IRS’ bankruptcy expert concedes that Year One add-ons (late filing, late paying) were due more than three (count ’em, three) years before Suzanne petitioned, as due on the April 15 of following tax year. Hence, though assessed and not disputed in the bankruptcy proceeding, the Year One add-ons are included in Suzanne’s discharge. See Order, at pp. 13-14, for the whole story about what is and isn’t discharged in bankruptcy. Might be a good question on the next EA exam.

But the rest of Suzanne’s taxes are in. IRS has both SNOD and CML (Certified Mailing List), and that the SNOD doesn’t have the certified mail number on it doesn’t matter. Suzanne’s claim she never got the SNOD doesn’t count, as it was mailed to last known address. Anyway, Suzanne had a chance to contest in the bankruptcy proceeding she filed, and didn’t contest.

Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland, though denying Suzanne summary J on anything, notes IRS waited seven (count ’em, seven) years before going after Suzanne, so Suzanne wants interest abated. IRS says Suzanne caused the delay when she filed FOIA claims and innocent spousery (denied). Judge Tex Copeland says those are fact questions, not suited for summary J.

As to innocent spousery, “(I)t is not clear from the record whether Ms. Frost received the final determination letter, the mailing of which is reflected on the CML. Neither party has produced a copy of the final determination letter; and, because of that, there are genuine issues of material fact relevant to the parties’ innocent spouse relief dispute.” Order, at p. 15. (Footnote omitted, but read it.).

“In his Motion, Respondent contends that Ms. Frost’s actual receipt of either the Notice of Deficiency or the final determination letter is unnecessary ‘to limit [her] from raising a spousal defense as the claim does not dispute the existence of the liability.’ Respondent cites no caselaw to support his position.” Order, at p. 15, footnote 20.

Innocent spousers, please copy.

A Taishoff “Good Try” to Suzanne trusty attorney, whom I’ll call Chris.

Stanley Battat & Zmira Battat, Docket No. 17784-12, filed 3/29/24, aren’t having a good Friday, as Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch vacates their 2021 partial summary J chops win (for which see my blogpost “Chuck Rettig and Bob Baffert,” 5/11/21) and handed back to IRS the chops then denied for untimely Boss Hossery.

Stan & Zm are still awaiting outcome of the underlying SNOD, so Judge Ingenuity Buch canvasses the Rules, and finds none for vacating or reconsidering non-final orders, only decisions, which this isn’t, as it doesn’t finally dispose of the case. Maybe an order disposing of a case might get the vacation or reconsideration 30-day cutoffs that Stan & Zm want to block IRS’ attempt to roll back the clock and send in the chops, but the T. C. Memo. from 2021 didn’t.

So the 30-day cutoffs for reconsideration and vacation go by the “Court’s discretion to waive a nonjurisdictional deadline” boards. FRCP 60 comes in from left field, carrying “change of controlling law” in its hip pocket.

11 Cir, whence Stan & Zm are Golsenized, is the home of Kroner, he of the Imaginary Friend but also beneficiary of ex-Ch J Michael B. (“Iron Mike”) Thornton’s celebrated dictionary chaw (for which see my blogpost “Money-Back Guarantee Meets the Boss Hoss,” 11/30/16). Boss Hossery can happen any time before supervisor loses authority over supervised, even after trial, opinion, decision, appeal, and further appeal(s), as long as assessment (which is statutorily barred during all the foregoing) has not taken place. The supervisor can be at his/her retirement party, the supervised can be on life support, but if the magic scrawls on the Form 4549 or CPAF appear prior to the last-named thereof, all is well.

Anyway, Judge Ingenuity Buch wipes the 2021 summary J for Stan & Zm, and substitutes summary J on chops for IRS. Timeliness is wiped by Kroner. Stan’s & Zm’s claims that the sign-off was by an acting supervisor, and that there was no meaningful review of the chops proposal, are blown off.

“Existing precedent requires that we reject both of the Battats’ alternative arguments. In Belair Woods, we explicitly rejected reading a ‘meaningful review’ standard into section 6751(b). As we wrote there, ‘We have held in numerous cases that the group manager’s signature on the Civil Penalty Approval Form is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements.” Belair Woods, 154 T.C. at 17. We also noted in Belair Woods that staff members, including supervisors who approve penalty determinations, might change jobs, be reassigned, or retire. Id. And in Thompson v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. 87 (2020), we found that someone acting as a supervisor may approve a penalty determination. Thompson, 155 T.C. 93–94.” Order, at p. 8.

For Belair Woods, see my blogpost “Can We Talk – Part Deux,” 1/6/20; and for Thompson, see my blogpost “Settlements,” 8/31/20.

And if Stan & Zm can find any other defect in the 2011 Boss Hossery, IRS has plenty time to fix it (hi, Judge Holmes). Order, at p. 8, footnote 2.

Taishoff says if this is what Congress intended in 1998 to prevent bludgeoning of taxpayers by overzealous RAs who threaten chops, Congress’ present dysfunction is well-grounded in copious precedent.

Spoiler alert: it isn’t happy. Merrie P. Wycoff, T. C. Memo. 2024-37, filed 3/28/24, loses her CDP, and the epistolary barrage she directed after her attorney bailed gets her a very modest Section 6673 frivolity chop from Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber.

“The purpose of section 6673 is to compel taxpayers to think and to conform their conduct to settled principles before they file and litigate. This is because frivolous and groundless claims ‘divert the Court’s time, energy, and resources away from more serious claims and increase the needless costs imposed on other litigants.’  With a view to deterring abuse of judicial and IRS resources, this Court must exercise its discretion to determine when a penalty under section 6673 is appropriate, and in what amount.

“Petitioner has continued her pattern of frivolous filings despite our warnings. However, her filings display confusion and make it clear that she has suffered from loss of representation by her former counsel. We will therefore exercise our discretion to impose a modest penalty of $250.” T. C. Memo. 2024-37, at p. 9. (Citations omitted).

Merrie was here back in 2014; see my blogpost “Open and Shut,” 1/13/14, and again in 2017; see my blogpost “The Boss As Consultant,” 10/16/17. In the meantime, Merrie’s spouse Jeff died and their business cratered. But Merrie’s attempt to get CNC founders when she lays off $350K, claiming a loan she can’t prove, $247K in the bank, and $1.8 million in equity in her home.

The deficiencies here are older than most whiskey I can afford, and the interest must definitely be a lot more than I can afford.

Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes is finally vindicated, as the majority view in Oakbrook, from which he dissented back in 2020 (see my blogpost “They Always Must Be With Us,” 5/12/20), finally collapses when Hewitt rams Reg. Section 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii) clean amidships.

Judge Courtney D. (“CD”) Jones sees that much-contemned Regulation section off in Valley Park Ranch, LLC, Reed Oppenheimer, Tax Matters Partner, 162 T.C. 6, filed 3/28/24.

The Valley Parkers did the conservation thing with 45.76 acres, be the same more or less as we dirt lawyers say, of Okie Boondocks. Their deed said the easement “can only be terminated or extinguished, whether in whole or in part, by judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, and the amount of the proceeds to which [501(c)(3) guardian] shall be entitled, after the satisfaction of prior claims, from any sale, exchange, or involuntary conversion of all or any portion of the Property subsequent to such termination or extinguishment, shall be determined by the court, unless otherwise provided by State or Federal law at the time.” 162 T. C. 6, at p. 5.

Moreover, the deed went on “If the Easement is taken, in whole or in part, by exercise of the power of eminent domain, [Valley Park] and [501(c)(3) guardian] shall be entitled to compensation, by the entity declaring power of eminent domain, in accordance with applicable law, policy and procedures. Respective portions shall be determined by a Qualified Appraisal meeting standards as established by the United States Department of the Treasury.” Idem, as my expensive colleagues say.

Now Oakbrook was affirmed by 6 Cir, but Hewitt was overturned by 11 Cir. The Valley Parkers are 10 Cir, which has not ruled. Generally (love that word!), Tax Court doesn’t change course based on one reversal, except sometimes. Oakbrook didn’t need to consider the validity of the Reg Section, as the concurrence said. And if the dissenters here say this renders the law unstable, well, it’s already unstable.

“Moreover, Oakbrook I—decided just four years ago—is not entrenched precedent. To our knowledge, the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits are the only courts of appeals to speak on the issues we consider today.” 162 T. C. 6, at p. 11. So Judge CD Jones overhauls the whole tale of the adoption of Reg Section 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii), with the New York Landmarks Conservancy (now brilliantly led by my friend Peg Breen) in the forefront.

At close of play, for the majority at least, the deed satisfies the statute. Prior claims means claims arising before the grant: here there aren’t any. IRS’ claim that an OK court might read a claim arising post-grant but before extinguishment as being prior is too great a stretch. And there’s no possibility of reverter of title to grantors, which stifles attempts to get deductions for give-and-go maneuvers.

Judges Foley, Urda, Toro, Greaves, Marshall, and Weiler agree.

Judges Buch and Copeland concur. Judge “Ingenuity” Buch says IRS’ attempts for a quick knockout of overvalued boondocks, wheresoever situate, via summary J has created more uncertainty than clarity. The best rule is RTFS = Read The Statute (the “F” is for emphasis). “We need not reach the question of the validity of the proceeds regulation to decide this case.” 162 T. C. 6, at p. 33.

Ch J Kerrigan, with Judges Nega, Pugh, and Ashford following, dissents. Oakbrook was decided after Hewitt, and 6 Cir wasn’t convinced by the Hewitt opinion.

“I am concerned that the Court’s reversing a prior position taken only four years ago and without compelling new legal argument will result in instability of the law in the area of conservation easements. Additionally, the opinion of the Court may result in challenges to regulations that have been relied upon for over 40 years. I reiterate here what I stated in my concurrence to 3M about ‘creat[ing] a slippery slope whereby courts would be constantly faced with determining whether comments are significant and whether the agency responded appropriately to them.” 3M Co. & Subs. v. Commissioner, No. 5816-13, 160 T.C., slip op. at 280 (Feb. 9, 2023) (Kerrigan, C.J., concurring).” 162 T. C. 6, at p. 39.

I didn’t have a lot to say about 3M, as I expected the trade press and blogosphere to make much of it.

But I must give a modest cough, and say that I was right two years ago: betting against 6 Cir in Oakbrook was taking the bookies’ money.

No, not a reprise of an obsolete video game, this is the story of Khurram Shahzad Gondal and Arooj Asmat, T. C. Memo. 2024-36, filed 3/27/24. Arooj is out of the Section 6663 fraud chops, although she gets the Section 6662 negligence variety.  Apparently Exam decided not to press for fraud chops on Arooj, so the SNOD (which Judge Courtney (“CD”) Jones calls a NOD, inviting conflation with Notices of Determination in CDPs, SS-8 reclassifications, 501(c)(3) disqualifications, and innocent spousery) only chops Khurram.

Khurram gets nailed by the Medicaiders in Our Fair State for false billing. Khurram and partner ran a bunch C Corp taxi companies (hi, Judge Holmes), but not the De Niro-Foster type. Khurram provided transportation to Medicaid clients seeking doctor visits or hospital outpatientry. Only Khurram billed NYS for nonmedical trips. Only Khurram siphoned cash from his C Corps for personal expenses.

After the State authorities got through with Khurram, they sent word to the IRS. Infoshare is standard operating at the NYS/IRS interface. Khurram and Arooj were less than cooperative at Exam, and produced no records.

I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am. Leaving an audit trail with bank accounts is an invitation. IRS has world-class bank account reconstructors, and the presumption that everything that goes in is taxable, except what obviously is not, makes their lives easy.  And Khurram doesn’t put up much of a fight. Close to $1.5 million in constructive dividends over two (count ’em, two) years, with enough badges of fraud to qualify for vulture scout, sets up a nice haul for IRS.

Edited to add, 3/28/24: I should read my own blog. WordPress reminds me of my blogpost “Nailed in Nebraska,” 2/26/20, wherein I recounted that Judge Elizabeth Crewson Paris decried hitting spouse with Section 6662 negligence chop when other spouse got Section 6663 fraud chop; same is impermissible stacking of penalties. Taishioff says pro se Arooj should move for reconsideration on error of law.

There’s another Tax Court webinar coming, and it’s a hot topic, sure to attract the attention of even the most jaggedly-sophisticated practitioner.

Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves leads a star-saturated panel, including but without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing (as my paid-by-the-word colleagues say) Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro, and CSTJ Lewis (“Ah, How That Name Sings”) Carluzzo, in an exploration of Tax Court discovery.

Catherine Gugar, Esq., AAC LB&I specialist, and Guinevere Moore, Esq., tax attorney (representing us civilians) round out the team.

Here’s how to register. https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_ehSms0omT3i-e294Qu1mSg#/registration

A must-have.

The third appearance of Sunil S. Patel and Laurie McAnally Patel, et al., T. C. Memo. 2024-34, filed 3/26/24, is just a reiteration of all the microcaptive dodges to which Judge Courtney D. (“CD”) Jones cites so patiently. For backstrory, see my blogposts “Are You Being Served? – Pert Deux,” 5/20/20, and “Loro Firmani, Tu Perdi,” 9/22/20. Sunil’s manifest desire to get into the microcaptive taxdodging business is his downfall. Interesting side note: Sunil’s actuarial whiz was apparently sued by one of his high-profile customers for the made-as-instructed numbers that undid said customer, T. C. Memo. 2024-34, at p. 49. Support staff, watch it; your customers will turn on you.

Savannah Shoals, LLC, Green Creek Resources, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, T. C. Memo. 2024-35, filed 3/26/24, once again justifies Judge Holmes’ celebrated dictum in Oakbrook: “Conservation-easement cases might have been more reasonably resolved case-by-case in contests of valuation. The syndicated conservation-easement deals with wildly inflated deductions on land bought at much lower prices would seem perfectly fine fodder for feeding into a valuation grinder.” 154 T. C. 10, at p. 126.

Here, Judge Goeke boots IRS’ argy-bargy about Section 708(b) termination of partnership, timely reporting of the conservation easement, proper appraisal and appraisal summary, and in thirteen (count ’em, thirteen) pages, demolishes the Shoals’ valuation, chopping them with 40% overvaluation. T. C. Memo. 2024-35, at pp. 34-47.

If you want to see what Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes was talking about, here’s Judge Goeke’s take. “New Shoals claimed a $23 million deduction. The easement had a fair market value on the donation date of $480,000. Because the amount of the claimed deduction was more than 200% of the fair market value, the 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty applies to any underpayment of tax attributable to the valuation misstatement.” T. C. Memo. 2024-35, at p. 48.