Michael D. Brown, T. C. Memo. 2025-126, filed 12/4/25, irrepressible, claims he now really lives in TX, no longer in NV when 9 Cir. shot down his appeal from 158 T. C. 9, filed 6/23/22, because IRS held his OIC for 27 months, making it automatically accepted per Section 7122(f). You’ll find the backstory in my blogpost “High-Flying Blogfodder,” of even date therewith, as my expensive colleagues would say.

Mike argues collateral estoppel doesn’t apply when he makes the same argument now.

Negatory, says Judge Morrison.

“The sole remaining issue is whether ‘petitioner’s offer in compromise was accepted by operation of I.R.C. § 7122(f).’ We agree with respondent that the Tax Court opinion in Brown, 158 T.C. 187, has resolved the identical issue.  Petitioner has provided no compelling reason to depart from\ that precedent. We therefore hold that the April 19, 2018, offer-in-compromise was not accepted by operation of section 7122(f). Our holding does not depend on any disputed facts.” T. C. Memo. 2025-126, at p. 6. (Citation omitted).

But IRS doesn’t get summary J. If Mike wants to appeal this decision, where does he go? TX is 5 Cir, NV is 9 Cir. So let the parties argue where Mike resided when he petitioned.

Fasten your seatbelts; the flight continues.

No, not an abbreviated revival of the 1952 George Axelrod play. Judge David Gustafson has to deal with an ongoing OIC that ends the CDP in All Is Well Homecare Services, LLC, Docket No. 21210-19L, filed 12/4/25. Here’s the end of the saga I only partly followed.

Judge David Gustafson has the whole nine yards, Order, at page 1, footnote 1. But now, having bought AIW’s OIC for everything the lien and levy covered, IRS moves to dismiss as moot.

Except.

The OIC states that if AIW fails to file or pay, or otherwise breaches the IRC during the five (count ’em, five) tax years following acceptance of the OIC, IRS can revoke the cancelation of the NFTL, levy, or sue for anything from a single missed payment to all the back tax debt, less any payments made. Order, at p. 2.

And AIW claims IRS still owes them an $88K overpayment from credits applied to reduce past debt, Order, at p. 4.

So maybe this case isn’t moot.

Except.

Judge Gustafson says whatever the Supremes said in Zuch, there’s nothing more to discuss. All y’all will recall Jennifer Zuch was fighting over whether she owed IRS the money that they took when they applied her credits to the alleged debt. See my blogpost “Give Credit Where Credit Is Due,” 12/12/16. All a CDP decides is whether a lien or levy is sustained. But like the famous grin without a cat, if no debt, then no lien and no levy, and nothing for Tax Court to decide.

AIW wants Tax Court to supervise the next five (count ’em, five) years because there might be a dispute, and because there is a current dispute about the $88K. No, says Judge David Gustafson. Fight out the $88K as a refund case in USDC or USCFC.

If AIW wants Tax Court to adjudicate the $88K dispute, which has nothing to do with lien or levy, that would be an advisory opinion, falling foul of Article III jurisdictional limits.

So this case is moot, as there’s no more relief pore l’il ol’ Tax Court can give. So this case is moot.

While this my blog hardly reaches the exalted stature of President Theodore Roosevelt’s “bully pulpit,” it does provide a dandy soapbox, even now when soapboxes have been superseded by electrons. So Alex Golubitsky, Docket No. 11989-22, filed 12/3/25, and his trusty attorney, whom I’ll call Third, give me an opportunity for a modest yelp.

IRS claimed nonfiling and nonpayment add-ons on top of a $16K deficiency. Alex riposted that he had filed and paid VIBIR. Maybe this was a “cover over” that never broke cover. See my blogpost “Another Non-Virgin,” 1/30/18, for how VIBIR interfaces with IRS.

Alex made a Section 7430(g) qualified offer of $6782 plus interes;, IRS ultimately settled for $2151 (interest not stated, but not waived).

Third sought legals and admins. IRS agreed fees were reasonable, Alex didn’t stall, he did exhaust administrative remedies, and met net worth cutoff.

Except.

IRS settled.

STJ Jennifer E. (“Publius”) Siegel: “Petitioner provides no argument about prevailing with respect to the amount in controversy or with respect to the most significant issue or set of issues presented. § 7430(c)(4)(A)(i). Instead, he argues only that he is entitled to recover costs under the second option, the ‘qualified offer rule.’ See § 7430(c)(4)(E) and (g). Specifically, petitioner writes that the Government did not accept [Alex’s] offer, which results in Petitioner being the ‘prevailing party’ within the meaning of Section 7430(c)(4)(A)(i).” Order, at p. 2.

Except.

IRS settled (in case anybody missed it the first time).

“But even where the taxpayer makes a qualified offer under section 7430(g), the qualified offer rule does not apply to “any judgment issued pursuant to a settlement.” 7430(c)(4)(E)(ii)(I).” Order, at p. 3. (Citation omitted). Alex and Third lose.

Taishoff says once again, we get a statute that aims squarely at reducing unnecessary, vexatious, and burdensome litigation, which causes the exactly opposite result.

If Alex and Third could not get legal and admins by making a qualified offer and then settling the case, but could get legals and admins by insisting upon an unnecessary, vexatious, and burdensome trial and settling on the courthouse steps, there is a positive incentive for insisting on trial. And to IRS’ objection that petitioner thereby unreasonably protracts proceedings, the answer is that the statute itself makes qualified offer settlements uneconomic. This explicit Congressional enactment requires threatened, or actual, litigation to make an injured party whole.

Congress can correct this ridiculous situation. Yeah, right.

Merriam-Webster, the ultimate chaw-source, says the phrase first hereinabove written at the head hereof (as my deliberating-the-tip-amount on their two Grey Goose Gibson lunch check colleagues would say), opines said phrase is “British, old-fashioned,” but C. Crow Collateral Corporation is still seeking sealing of their third-party subpoena responses in Nat S. Harty & April D. Harty, Docket No. 23354-21, filed 12/2/25.

And having no better luck than they had in Richard B. Stillahn & Lisa R. Lang Stillahn a year ago; see my blogpost “Even If You Don’t,” 12/20/24. Btw, appeal was taken to 9 Cir back in January.

The Crow seems to have no better luck with ex-Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan’s now than it did back then.

Section 6103(h)(4)(C) strikes again. “… section 6103(h)(4)(C) provides there is an exception ‘if such return or return information directly relates to a transactional relationship between a person who is a party to the proceeding and the taxpayer [whose information is to be disclosed] which directly affects the resolution of an issue in the proceeding.’ This exception allows information about a transactional relationship with a third-party taxpayer to be disclosed if that information has a direct bearing on the outcome of an issue in a case.” Order, at p. 2.

“Here, SCCC was the facilitator of a transaction entered into by petitioner. The dealing of petitioner and SCC were intertwined. There is no requirement that the transactional relationship require a bilateral contract between the third-party and the petitioners. To decide this case, the Court will look at the interrelated transactions that made up the transaction at issue. Accordingly, the Court will deny SCCC’s motion to seal. In a separate order, the Court will unseal documents to be consistent with this Order.” Order, at p. 2.

It’s been five (count ’em, five) years and more since Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes’ famous dissent in Oakbrook. Back then no one else agreed that valuation was the key to syndicated conservation easement swindles and historic façade fakery, relying instead upon “very contestable readings of what it means for an easement to be perpetual” and nitpicking appraisers and appraisals.

See my blogpost “They Always Must Be With Us,” 5/12/25.

Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch devalues the syndicated conservation easement claimed by Mize Farm, LLC, Focus on Design, Inc., Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 8979-23, filed 12/1/25, with an off-the-bencher.

Both Mize and IRS stip out all the appraiser-appraisal and textual-regulatory argy-bargy, except Judge Buch tosses one of Mize’s appraiser’s expert report and expert status because of footfaults and finger-fehler, but he testifies as fact witness anyway. Doesn’t help; this GA boondockery isn’t worth $10 million, or even $6 million, more likely not even the $425K IRS concedes. Walmart snapped up the only decent retail/industrial site for miles around.

The whole case goes off on valuation, as Judge Holmes argued it should.

Like the Man said, “I tell you, this man went down justified.”

That’s Intan N. Ismail & Mohd Razi Abd Rahim, Docket No. 15704-24, filed 12/1/25. To be Einstinian, one must do the same thing over again, expecting a different result, and that sums up In & Mohd. It’s a replay of the busted Maylasian deemed C corps that never filed Form 8832 Entity Classification Election, or Form 8858 Information Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Foreign Disregarded Entities (FDEs) and Foreign Branches (FBs), or a Form 5471, Information Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations. Hence no passthrough of deductions.

I got Form 5471 wrong on the Special Enrollment Examination for EA, and it rankles me whenever I see that Form.

Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch needs none of his vaunted ingenuity here, as Judge Paris already told the story three (count ’em, three) years ago. See my blogpost “Billy Occam, Thou Should’st Be Living  At This Hour,” 11/29/22.

In & Mohd get penalties without even Boss Hossery, as ignoring a case you already lost is clearly negligence or disregard. IRS need provide Boss Hossery only when assessment swims into its ken, because 8. Cir, whence In & Mohd are Golsenized, only cares about Boss Hossery when tax and penalties are assessed, and that hasn’t happened yet.

My colleague Peter Reilly, CPA, roused me from my post-Thanksgiving torpor with the possibility that the post-Boechler push for equitable tolling might have gathered further impetus from 2 Cir’s rejection of Section 6213(a) jurisdictionality in its reversal of Buller, which I didn’t blog as, for want of resources, I don’t generally cover appellate courts. The trade press is always there ahead of me.

I responded that the tolling victories in 2 Cir, 3 Cir, and 6 Cir were largely Pyrrhic, as the bar for equitable tolling is so high as to be almost unattainable. Come to that, even Boechler herself couldn’t clear it. See my blogpost “Boechler, P. C. – T. S. Eliot Ending?” 7/15/25. 

 M. Lyman Moody & Evelyn H. Moody, Docket No. 11394-35, filed 12/1/25 are four (count ’em, four) years late as to their SND, so they’ll need a world-class story even if they get a win on nonjurisdictionality.  But even to get there, 10 Cir (H & Evelyn petitioned in UT, and that’s 10 Cir country) will have to overrule Foster v. Com’r, 449 F.2d 799 (10 Cir, 1971).

But hope springs eternal, and maybe we’ll find that 10 Cir reverses 54 (count ’em, 54) years of precedent if they appeal Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda’s toss of their deficiency petition. After all, that’s what 2 Cir did in Buller, wiping out 69 (count ’em, 69) years’ worth of precedent. That’s some “discipline,” what?

I had said I wasn’t going to editorialize when Tax Court tossed Boechler on remand, expecting the trade press and blogosphere to take up the story. I don’t know if they did; at any rate, no word thereof reached me. So I will editorialize a wee bit.

Taishoff says this whole jurisdictionality kerfuffle is a lot more wind-up than baseball. Boechler involved Sections 6230 and 6330, not Section 6213(a). The psycholinguistic hopscotch that followed was clear as mud. While at best an Antawn Sanders, who was 11 (count ’em, 11) seconds late with his filing (see my blogpost “In the Midnight Hour,” 6/20/23), should win in a walk (he started early but was baulked by his smartphone), anyone late more than a couple days (hi, Judge Holmes) needs that world-class tale.

From the Tax Court website: “In addition to observing the Thanksgiving Day holiday on Thursday, November 27, 2025, the Court will be closed on Friday, November 28, 2025. DAWSON will remain available for electronic access and electronic filing.”

I’m truly puzzled by  STJ Lewis (“It’s That Name Again”) Carluzzo’s off-the-bencher, Lola M. Hussey, Docket No. 1870-24L, filed 11/26/25.

I am at a loss to know why IRS assigned six (count ’em, six) lawyers to this case, and had two (count ’em, two) of those lawyers take this case to trial (?) when Lola M. defaulted. Exactly what is there to try in a CDP unless petitioner had no prior opportunity to contest liability? Here, the record was filed and supplemented; it showed, at least to STJ Lew’s satisfaction, that the usual deficiency procedures had been followed, Transcript, at p. 4. So STJ Lew decides to waste no time on discussing whether Lola M. had a prior opportunity to contest.

There’s no mention of IRS seeking greater liability or chops than in the SND.

So, pointing out that Lola M.’s reliance on a 5 Cir case was misplaced and that she’d put in no evidence that the SND was “arbitrary and erroneous” as she claimed, STJ Lew denies IRS summary J but sustains the NOD tossing Lola M.

Was this case an orientation milk run for rookie attorneys?

Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda finally sheds his scholarly judicial detachment and unloads on Lake Jordan Holdings, LLC, Lake Jordan Partners, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, T. C. Memo. 2025-123, filed 11/25/25.

“… we return to the old question: ‘Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?’ Lake Jordan Holdings, LLC (Holdings), claimed a charitable contribution deduction of $12,740,000 on its [year at issue] tax return for the donation of a conservation easement over 157 acres of rural property in Elmore County, Alabama (easement property). Outside the current environment, this value would be truly remarkable. A 96% stake in Holdings, whose only asset was 165 acres of land—the easement property and eight adjacent acres of odds and ends—had cost $583,000 a few months before. In conservation easement world, however, it is just another day at the office.” T. C. Memo. 2025-124, at p. 1.

It’s the old story, the good ol’ boy with an eye for real estate and a need for cash meets a couple cottage industrialists (hi, Judge Holmes) who have found gold in them thar boondocks.

Ch J Urda has to do the geography, topography, and real estate developmancy, together with the non-MAI but Made As Instructed appraisals. Ch J Urda has the whole story at pp. 4-18, ending with the usual slide-under-the-tag at the end of December to get the donation into year at issue.

Yes, it is a donation, all the Section 170 Dixieland Boondockery boxes were checked, but the valuation is the usual farce. “In a declaration prepared during the pendency of this case, Mr. G swore under penalty of perjury that “[a]s of the Donation Date, I was a Certified General Real Property Appraiser with the state of Alabama ….’ Mr. G subsequently admitted that when he made the declaration he knew that he did not have such a license on the donation date. Given Mr. G’s admission that he lied to this Court, we will treat his representations with justly earned suspicion.” T. C. Memo. 2025-123, at p. 18, footnote 8. (Name omitted).

But wait, there’s more! ” In preparing this report, Mr. Gr and Ms. M liberally cut and pasted from assorted data sources without attribution. For example, the market data and economic trends sections of the report were directly lifted from online sources including Wikipedia.” T. C. Memo. 2025-123, at p. 20.

Fortunately, the CPA who prepared the 1065 and exhibits and the K-1s also attached Form Form 8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement, as required by Notice 2017-10. Of course, Exam disallowed the deduction. Petitioners’ claim that the SND was arbitrary and capricious doesn’t shift BoP in 11 Cir, because there BoP for deductions is always on the taxpayer claiming same. Anyway, preponderance rules.

IRS’ Section 170 arguments, as aforesaid, go by the board. That a taxpayer wants a tax benefit doesn’t negate donative intent. The Section 708(b) technical termination of partnership when 50% or more capital interest transferred issue was disposed of in Savannah Shoals (see my blogpost “Two Memos, Nothing New,” 3/26/24). And the various defects in appraiser and appraisal IRS alleges are brushed aside. As usual, the issue is weight, not qualification.

So we come to valuation, and all the usual suspects are paraded. Besides, there isn’t even a gas station close to this place. “The easement property is located a considerable distance from any commercial conveniences (including a gas station), one of the reasons Mr. G determined that an active adult community was not feasible on the property. And as local market participants confirmed…, the Titus area had seen very little development whatsoever.” T. C. Memo. 2025-123, at p. 36.

And here’s a vintage draught of Scholar Pat: “It does not take Kallikrates or Frank Lloyd Wright to understand that the success of a development or a building is rooted in place. The easement property’s lack of nearby commercial conveniences, its accessibility difficulties, and its challenging topography, combined with its river aesthetic and its distance from the main body of Lake Jordan, would push a developer to look for a similar location that might have fewer obstacles to surmount.” T. C. Memo. 2025-123, at p. 37.

IRS claims civil fraud, after its attempt to amend the answer was denied, moving to conform pleadings to proof. Though the Lake Jordans weren’t ambushed, they disclosed enough so IRS wasn’t deceived.

“The Court shares the Commissioner’s frustration with the mix of sophistry and cupidity at the heart of this transaction, as well as the utter waste of time and money spent in untangling the ins and outs of this abusive scheme. Fraud this was not, however.” T. C. memo. 2025-123, at p. 55. This was a laughably aggressive tax posture that anyone with the least shred of common sense would reject.

At close of play, the Lake Jordans get a $1.1 million deduction, and a 40% gross overvaluation chop.