IRS Makes Generous Offer to Settle Many Bullshit Conservation Easement Cases (5/18/26)

In IR-2026-65 (5/12/26), here, the IRS announced a new time-limited settlement initiative for bullshit conservation easements with bullshit (maybe redundant) claims for charitable deductions. Given that the claimed deductions were always bullshit, those at risk should (in my opinion) take the offer if they are otherwise eligible to do so. I won’t go through the eligibility requirements; those interested in those requirements should consult with counsel who, if competent, should be capable of assessing the high risk of not accepting. I will say that, for the taxpayers targeted, this is an extremely generous offer.

That is to say that, if I had been a Government (IRS or DOJ) attorney litigating one of these cases, there is no way the taxpayers in those cases would have gotten such a settlement offer from me; my opposing counsel when I was a DOJ Tax litigator knew that I did not make settlement offers (I told opposing counsel early on just to be sure they were aware); I recommended acceptance of taxpayer settlement offers only rarely (including one that conceded everything, including a civil fraud penalty that I caused the IRS to assert, but wanted the concession styled as a settlement; I even balked at the description of a complete concession as a “settlement” but finally recommended acceptance of the full concession “settlement” offer). In some rare cases, I did dicker with opposing counsel regard their offers, but we just did not have the same view of the taxpayer winning the case. Even in those cases I lost after receiving a settlement offer I rejected (or DOJ Tax rejected based on my recommendation), I never thought that in retrospect I should have recommended acceptance of the offer. You win some; you lose some.

Federal Circuit Rejects Taxpayers' Arguments about Midco Transaction (5/17/26)

In Dillon Trust Co. LLC v. United States, ___ F.4th ___ (Fed. Cir. 2026), CAFC here and GS here [to come], the Court in 50 pages rejects Dillon Trust’s bullshit claims in a bullshit “midco” transaction tax shelter. I wrote on one aspect of the case below. Court of Federal Claims Rejects Defective § 6603 Strategy for Multiple Transferee Liabilities (11/21/22), here (discussing one aspect of the Federal Circuit opinion).

The Federal Circuit offers a reasonable description of midco transactions (Slip Op. 10 n. 5):

5 A “midco transaction” or intermediary transaction is structured to allow a seller to engage in a stock sale and a buyer to engage in an asset purchase. Shareholders sell their C corporation stock to an intermediary (or midco) at a purchase price that does not discount for the built-in gain tax liability, as a stock sale to the ultimate purchaser would. The midco then sells the assets of the C corporation to the buyer, who gets a purchase price basis in the assets. The midco’s willingness to allow both buyer and seller to avoid the tax consequences inherent in holding appreciated assets in a C corporation is based on supposed tax attributes, like losses, that allow it to absorb the built-in gain tax liability. But, if these tax attributes of the midco prove to be artificial, then the tax liability created by the built-in gains on the sold assets still needs to be paid. In many instances, the midco is a newly formed entity created for the sole purpose of facilitating such a transaction, without other income or assets. It is thus likely to be judgment-proof, and the IRS will need to seek payment from the other parties involved in the transaction to satisfy any unpaid tax liability. 

That definition is antiseptic, eliminating details of the high- or low-drama presented in the rest of the opinion where the players on the taxpayer side unsuccessfully claimed a type of willful ignorance about the transaction to justify their participation and, they hoped, avoid the transferee tax liability involved. They failed.

The Court affirmed that the involved parties had at least constructive knowledge of the bullshit gambit and therefore could be liable under New York’s Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (see Slip Op. 21-26). Based on the players involved (see Slip Op. 3 nn. 1-3), some of whom testified, this was ““[a] deal done by very smart people that, absent tax considerations, would be very stupid.” Michael Graetz statement, oft quoted, see e.g., Lynnley Browning, How to Know When a Tax Deal Isn’t a Good Deal (New York Times 10/10/08).

On what these taxpayers (including the company whose stock was purchased), their transferees, their advisors, and other players in the “deal” knew or should have known, the Federal Circuit affirmed the CFC holding of constructive fraud. (In my mind, the facts affirmed by the Federal Circuit might have even permitted a reasonable inference of actual fraud in the sense that the selling shareholders in the midco transaction knew enough to also know that the taxes were going to be avoided/evaded.) Readers might want to read through the opinion to appreciate the high- or low-drama.

Key bullet points of the holding are:

• Transferee liability under § 6901 applies and invokes the NY UFCA. (Slip Op. 20-39.)
• The amount of liability included the transferor corporation’s tax, penalties, and interest. On including the penalty, the Federal Circuit noted that there “appears to be a circuit split” on including penalties. (Slip Op. 42) The Court of Appeals adopted the majority of Circuits inclusion of penalties (Slip Op. 42-44.)
• The § 6603 deposit made by the Dillon Trust could not avoid interest on other taxpayers’ liabilities. Slip Op. 44-50.)

As I view it, the parties knew or should have known that, if the IRS spotted the transaction and spent the resources to "unpeal the onion," it would likely assert transferee liability. So, it seems that they rolled the dice on the audit lottery. These taxpayers lost that roll of the dice. But there are many others who have won that gamble.

District Court Sustains IRS Assessment Authority for § 6039F penalty on D.C. Circuit Analysis in Farhy II (5/12/26)

In Zhang v. IRS, (N.D. Cal. No.3:24-cv-08210 Order Granting Partial Motion to Dismiss dtd.5/4/26), CL here and GS here, the Court held that the IRS had authority to assess the § 6039F penalty for failing to file Form 3520 reporting foreign gifts. The Court’s analysis is similar to the D.C. Circuit holding in Farhy v. Commissioner (Farhy II), 100 F.4th 223 (D.C. Cir. 2024) that the IRS had authority to assess the § 6038(b) penalty. In doing so, the Court rejected the Tax Court’s contrary holdings in Farhy v. Commissioner (Farhy I), 160 T.C. 399 (2023) and Mukhi v. Commissioner, 163 T.C. ___, No. 8 (11/18/24) (reviewed opinion confirming Farhy I).

Interestingly, the Court does not mention Safdieh v. Commissioner, 169 F. 4th 102 (2d Cir. 2/27/26), which agreed with the D.C. Circuit holding in Farhy II. I discuss Safdieh in Second Circuit Rejects Tax Court's Farhy Holding That IRS Can't Assess and Collect the § 6038(b) Penalty (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 2/27/26), here.

The Court also rejected Zhang’s APA and Eighth Amendment arguments.

I have written on the issue before in discussing Farhy and other cases. The prior postings sorted by date are here. I see no need to write further in this blog on that issue.

Another Gross Overvaluation Conservation Easement Claim Fails (5/6/26)

In Kimberly Road Fulton 25, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-36 (5/4/26), Case # 2026-36 here at #178 and GS here, the Court (Judge Holmes) shot down another bullshit syndicated conservation easement (“SCE”). As is common, the bullshit was in the gross overvaluation. So, not only do the partnerships (and their partners) in the consolidated cases lose, but they suffer the 40% 6662(h) gross valuation misstatement penalties. On the penalties, the Court’s analysis driven by its holding of a gross overvaluation is short (p.39, footnote omitted):

VI. Penalties

          The FPAAs determined the applicability of section 6662(h) gross-valuation misstatement penalties. This penalty applies if the value of property claimed on a return is 200% or more of the amount determined to be the correct value. It’s a 40% penalty, and there’s no reasonable cause defense. I.R.C. § 6664(c)(3). This is a math question, and it is a math question that we must find the Commissioner got right. The parties stipulated that the Commissioner complied with the supervisory-approval requirement of section 6751(b)(1) in asserting these penalties, and we therefore uphold them. 

Because its material facts are many and duplicative of patterns in earlier bullshit SCE cases, the only thing that makes this opinion worth reading is its opening (Slip Op. 1-2) which anticipates the conclusions I summarized above:

Jeffrey Grant’s grandfather taught him a saying that has stuck with him all his life: “Sometimes, a fast nickel is worth more than a slow dime.” A self-identified “land man,” Grant has [*2] made a career of buying vacant land in Georgia and quickly turning it into enough “fast nickels” to make a good living.

More on the Economic Substance Doctrine (ESD) and Relevancy in § 7701(o) (5/5/26)

In Kadau v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-37 (5/5/26), referred to as Kadau II, TC Case # 286-21 here at #216; GS here, the Court held that the taxpayer’s microcaptive insurance arrangement failed under the Economic Substance Doctrine (“ESD”) in § 7701(o) and was subject to the 40% penalty in § 6662(b)(6) and (i). Given the facts in Kadau II and its earlier opinion in Kadau v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-81 (referred to as Kadau I), at # 198 and GS here, the result is not surprising. The arrangement was smoke and mirrors to appear as a transaction with magic tax benefits.

Kadau II drew my attention because of its discussion of § 7701(o)’s requirement that the common law ESD be “relevant.” § 7701(o)(1) & (o)(5)(C). I have written on this issue before. See Liberty Global's Tax Scam Fails in Tenth Circuit (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 4/30/26), here; The Economic Substance Doctrine ("ESD")--the Common Law and § 7701(o) (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 3/31/26; 4/8/26), here; and Tax Court in Unanimous Reviewed Opinion Interprets and Applies the Accuracy-Related Economic Substance Penalty (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 11/12/25), here. I thought this might be a good point to offer further thoughts on § 7701(o) and the requirement that the common law ESD be “relevant.” (Actually, anticipating a theme below, my thoughts today may be a clarification of my earlier thoughts.)

Section § 7701(o), titled “Clarification,” states the general prongs of the common law ESD requirement—meaningful economic position effect and substantial nontax purpose. § 7701(o)(1). Then, in the balance of § 7701(o), some specific rules for applying the ESD are provided, such as that the nontax profit potential “be substantial in relation to the expected value of the net tax benefits that would be allowed if the transaction were respected.” § 7701(o)(2)(A). Those in the tax world for some time know precisely why that “clarification” was there—to foreclose taxpayer arguments that remote, unlikely profit potentials could still meet that prong of the common law ESD.

Kadau II addresses the term “relevant” in § 7701(o). Kadau II accepted the holding in Patel v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. ___, No. 10 (11/12/25) (reviewed unanimous) that § 7701(o) requires that the common law ESD must be “relevant” before § 7701(o) can apply. The Court in Kadau II did not need to address that predicate requirement because petitioners in briefing said (p. 4, emphasis supplied):

As the Court held in Patel III, a threshold determination must be made as to whether the economic substance doctrine is relevant. Because Petitioners formed a small captive insurance company, Petitioners acknowledge that section 7701(o) is applicable. The dispositive question is whether Petitioners’ transactions satisfy its requirements. Accordingly, we refrain from addressing any threshold determination issues and proceed directly to examination of the transaction by applying the foregoing elements outlined in section 7701(o)(1).

Judge in Trump Return Disclosure Damages Mega-Suit Appoints Amicus to Assist the Court on Jurisdictional Issue as to Party Adversity (4/30/26;5/1/26)

I recently wrote on Trump’s suit against the IRS for damages for tax return disclosures. See Could the District Court Invite or Appoint an Amicus to Present the U.S. Position in Trump v. IRS? (2/7/26; 2/12/26), here. The district court (Judge Williams) has appointed amicus curiae to “assist the Court in identifying the applicable law governing an analysis” of the issue she identifies—subject matter jurisdiction where because the parties may not be opposed there may be no case or controversy required for jurisdiction. See order of 4/29/26, CL here (document 43 on the docket sheet, CL here).

In an earlier order on the same day, Judge Williams said “it is unclear to this Court whether the Parties are sufficiently adverse to each other so as to satisfy Article III’s case or controversy  requirement.” Order dated 4/29/26, here (document 41 on the docket sheet), at p. 3. Based on that concern, the Order asks the “the Parties to address the question of subject matter jurisdiction before addressing the relief requested in the Motion.” Order at p.. 4. The Order appointing amicus curiae is apparently based on that concern as to which the response the nominal parties may give could be suspect.

The Order for Amicus assistance is more limited than I suggested in my original blog posting. However, the same concerns could prompt Judge Williams to appoint amicus (either sua sponte or on motion) for other aspects of the case where party adversity may be questionable.

Added 5/1/26 11:30am: The New York Times has this article on these events: Andrew Duehren, Judge Asks Justice Department: Will You Oppose Trump? (NYT 4/29/26), here.

Liberty Global's Tax Scam Fails in Tenth Circuit (4/30/26)

In Liberty Global, Inc. v. United States, ___ F.4th ___ (10th Cir. 2026), CA10 here, GS here, and CL here, using tax lingo and analysis, rejected Liberty Global’s tax scam. The panel majority correctly holds that Liberty Global’s farcical multiple steps did not pass economic substance doctrine (“ESD”) scrutiny.

The key issue upon which the majority of the panel and the dissenting judge differ is over what role, if any, § 7701(o)’s requirement that whether the ESD is “relevant.” § 7701(o)(1) & (o)(5)(C). So that readers can understand the statute’s textual context, I offer it here (with key word in red):

(o) Clarification of economic substance doctrine
    (1) Application of doctrine. In the case of any transaction to which the economic substance doctrine is relevant, such transaction shall be treated as having economic substance only if—
        (A) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer’s economic position, and
        (B) the taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from Federal income tax effects) for entering into such transaction.
* * * *
    (5) Definitions and special rules
    For purposes of this subsection—
    * * * *
        (C) Determination of application of doctrine not affected. The determination of whether the economic substance doctrine is relevant to a transaction shall be made in the same manner as if this subsection had never been enacted.

I have written previously on the issue of the term “relevant” in § 7701(o). The Economic Substance Doctrine ("ESD")--the Common Law and § 7701(o) (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 3/31/26; 4/8/26), here. I believe that ESD as the term is used both in the common law and in § 7701(o) means the same thing, except that § 7701(o) adds some specific rules that apply in applying certain features of the ESD. These specific rules address some taxpayer claims about how those features of the common law ESD work. For example, § 7701(o)(2) & (4) provide rules for applying the ESD requirement that a taxpayer have a non-tax profit potential. Section § 7701(o) rejects certain claims that taxpayers made in prior cases to avoid the ESD. Thus, I think that the threshold inquiry is whether the common law ESD applies (not that it is just relevant, but certainly, if ESD applies, it is relevant for purposes of § 7701(o) because the special rules of § 7701(o) may then apply).

Basically, what I am saying is that the panel majority gets it right and the dissent gets it wrong.

Further on Murrin and Allen and the Unlimited Statute of Limitations for Fraud on the Return (4/30/26)

I read earlier this week an excellent article on Murrin v. Commissioner, 158 F.4th 527 (3d Cir. 2025), here, cert petition pending (see here). Bryan Camp, The New Forever Rule for Record Retention (Tax Notes March 3/25/26), here. Professor Camp is concerned, as he was in filing an amicus brief in Murrin, with the potential application to innocent taxpayers of § 6201(c)(1)’s unlimited statute of limitations for a “false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax.” Murrin held that the taxpayer’s fraud is not required and that a return preparer’s fraud would suffice to apply the unlimited statute of limitations for fraud. For further on Murrin, see my post Third Circuit Holds Taxpayer Fraud is not Required for 6501(c)(1) Unlimited Statute of Limitations, Creating Conflict (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 8/18/25; 10/17/25).

In an alarmist mode, Professor Camp concludes his article by stating that, unless the problem of § 6201(c)(1) applying to innocent taxpayers is fixed, “I think we must all advise our clients to keep their records . . . forever.” (Emphasis supplied.) What does forever mean in this context? That's a quibble. Professor Camp is not just content to provide that bottom line from Murrin but repeats his arguments in his amicus brief as to error in Murrin and the predicate tax court opinion in Allen v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 37 (2007), here.

I encourage those interested in the issue (which I call the Allen issue) to read Professor Camp’s article. I have not recently stepped through the legislative and statutory history he discusses in support of his claims, but my recollection is that I was not then sure that they support his claims. In any event, I am sure that for a long period of time since the early tax law, practitioners, including me, assumed that § 6201(c)(1) required taxpayer fraud. Allen appeared out of the blue, so to speak. But now that, in Justice Kagan's words “we are all textualists now,” if we focus on the text of § 6201(c)(1), there is no textual reading that would limit its scope to taxpayer fraud if the fraud is on the return. In other words, at best regarding Professor Camp's claims, the actual text is ambiguous as to whether the text of § 6201(c)(1) requires the taxpayer's fraud.

Further, on the purpose of § 6201(c)(1), I do not conceive it is as a punishment provision but a recognition that fraud on the return makes discovery by the IRS more difficult. After all, the consequence of the unlimited statute of limitations is that the taxpayer pays the tax the taxpayer owed ab initio. True, the taxpayer may have to pay interest, but tax and interest are not penalties. The taxpayer Professor Camp is concerned about is the truly innocent taxpayer relying on a fraudulent preparer; for such a taxpayer there will be no penalty because (i) § 6662 civil penalty which does not apply with taxpayer reasonable cause (unless, for some § 6662 civil penalties, the reasonable cause exception does not apply which is not likely in an innocent taxpayer context) and (ii) § 6663 civil fraud penalty does not apply unless taxpayer fraud is involved. So, from that perspective, the truly innocent taxpayer suffers no penalty with respect to the fraud on the return; rather, he would just pay the tax and interest that are in the helpful metaphor, his dues for a civilized society.

That’s all I have on the merits of Murrin and Allen. Just a few more comments:

Interesting points from ABA Tax Online Presentation on Loper Bright (4/29/26)

I just attended online an ABA Tax Section Program titled: “Navigating Tax Guidance in a Post-Loper Bright World.” The ABA page on the program is here. The panel participants were very knowledgeable.

Early in the program, I asked the following question via the Q&A tool:

Under Loper Bright, if, after using all the tools of statutory interpretation, a judge still cannot determine whether the IRS interpretation or the opposing interpretation is the best interpretation (a state of equipoise on the interpretation), what does the judge do? Should the judge flip a coin, consult, his ouija board, follow his own preferred outcome, etc.?

I have asked a similar question in previous ABA programs, but the question was never answered. In today’s program, the question was answered—that is, at least an answer was proffered. I am not sure it is the right answer but it certainly echoed Loper Bright’s reasoning, such as it is.

So what was the answer? Basically, the answer given by the judge on the panel was that, with good statutory interpretation, the judge will always have something to tilt the judge to the best interpretation. (That is my paraphrasing and advanced apologies if I did not get it exactly right.) Actually, as the question was answered, I think the answer was hedged saying that he did not think it would happen very often (although that is from memory, I may be misremembering, and my notes don’t confirm that).

I think the essence of the answer was an echo of Loper Bright which is just flat-out wrong on the point of continuing possibility of ambiguity (equipoise). Loper Bright claimed by fiat that a judge should always be able to reach a single best interpretation with no need for a default rule such as Chevron deference to the agency interpretation. (For this, one must remember that a condition of Chevron deference was that the statute be ambiguous, meaning that the judge could not determine whether the agency interpretation or an opposing interpretation was the single best interpretation; if the court could determine the best interpretation, Chevron required the court to stop at Step One without any deference.)

District Court Invalidates and Vacates Listed Transaction Reporting Regulation (4/18/26)

In Drake Plastics Ltd. Co. v. IRS, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___ (S.D. Tex. 4/15/26), CL here, and GS here [to come], the court (Judge Lee Rosenthal) considered APA claims of invalidity of the regulations determinations of “transactions of interest” and “listed transactions” for micro-captive insurance companies (from the conclusion):

          The court grants in part the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and a permanent injunction, (Docket Entry No. 58), and grants in part the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, (Docket Entry No. 63). The defendants (1) appropriately designated micro-captive transactions as transactions of interest through 26 C.F.R. § 1.6011-11; but (2) exceeded their statutory authority in designating micro-captive transactions as listed transactions through 26 C.F.R. § 1.6011-10. The court declares unlawful 26 C.F.R. § 1.6011-10 and vacates it. The case is remanded to the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service for further agency action consistent with this opinion.

          The vacatur is stayed until May 1, 2026, to avoid taxpayer confusion on Tax Day. Cf. Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4–5 (2006) (“Court orders . . . can themselves result in . . . confusion . . . .”). Final judgment is entered separately.

I am not sure what the last paragraph stay is about, but I do understand the holdings in the first paragraph.

The court’s holding turns upon interpretation of the statutory requirement that "transactions of interest" have the “potential” for tax avoidance but that “listed transactions” that have tax avoidance, at least presumptive tax avoidance, rather than just the potential for tax avoidance. The court reasoned that the IRS did not adequately explain microcaptive arrangements identified in the "listed transaction" regulation.

Judge Rosenthal is a very good judge, so I respect her analysis, even though I am not convinced that it is correct.