Tax Court Warns Counsel in Advance of Trial in Syndicated Conservation Easement Case (10/31/25)

In Cottonpatch Timber Company, LLC v. Commissioner (T.C. No. 26103-22, here, at #54 Order dtd 10/29/25), TN here, Judge Gustafson sent warnings to counsel in a syndicated conservation easement case in advance of the trial setting currently for December 15, 2025. Specifically, he cautioned:

As to valuation, the Tax Court has criticized overvaluation of conservation easements in Mill Road, at *48-53, and in a number of recent opinions in other cases. Petitioner’s counsel should be able, in due course, to explain why its position this case is materially different from the strongly criticized positions in those cases, since a position that ignores those opinions and reflects the gross fallacies in those previous positions might be frivolous, see sec. 6673(a)(2), and trial time spent in disregard of those opinions would likely be a waste.

The Mill Road opinion is here.

In addition, Judge Gustafson closed with this cautionary advice:

          The judge stated to counsel that he is considering the possibility of issuing, at the conclusion of the trial in this case, a bench opinion pursuant to Rule 152. The parties should keep that possibility in mind as they prepare their pretrial memoranda, since in that event there would be no post-trial briefing.

These cautions to counsel echo Judge Buch’s Order with attached extensive bench opinion in a conservation easement shelter. Tax Court Rejects a Bullshit Tax Shelter False Valuation Claim with Warning of Sanctions for Taxpayers, their Counsel, and Expert Witness Proffering the Bullshit (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 7/16/25; 9/10/25), here. I think Tax Court judges are getting less tolerant, rightfully so, considering the massive waste of time for trials to claim grossly inflated valuations for conservation easements.

Tax Court in Reviewed Opinion Holds TEFRA Litigation Time Limits Jurisdictional (10/25/25)

I am late to post on North Wall Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. ___, No. 9 (10/21/25) (reviewed opinion, T.C. Case No. 27773-21, here, at # 50 and  GS here). North Wall is the latest on the tax saga starting with Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner, 596 U.S. 199 (2022), holding that the time limit for instituting CDP Tax Court proceedings is not jurisdictional, meaning that equitable tolling for late filing may apply. In recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, many time limits have been held to be not jurisdictional. The key tax exception is United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347 (1997), holding that the refund time limits are jurisdictional.

Notwithstanding the general trend, the Tax Court has held § 6213(a)'s time limits for petitions for redeterminations of deficiencies are jurisdictional. Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126 (2022) (unanimous reviewed opinion). Three Courts of Appeals have now held the § 6213(a) time limits are not jurisdictional, thus permitting equitable tolling. See 6th Circuit Joins 2nd and 3rd Circuits in Holding § 6213(a)’s 90--day Petition-Filing Deadline is Not Jurisdictional (8/25/25; 9/8/25), here.

In North Wall, the opinion for the Court finds the TEFRA time limits jurisdictional. The opinion’s detailed discussion of the TEFRA interrelated time frames is quite excellent. I highly recommend. For purposes of this blog entry, the headnotes are sufficient:

          R mailed a Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA) to the tax matters partner (TMP) of PS, a limited liability company treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes and subject to the TEFRA unified audit and litigation procedures. P, a notice partner, filed a Petition for readjustment of partnership items 168 days after R mailed the FPAA to the TMP. R moved to dismiss P’s Petition for lack of jurisdiction. P objects.

          A TMP may file a petition for readjustment within 90 days of R’s mailing of an FPAA to the TMP. I.R.C. § 6226(a). A partner or group of partners entitled to notice may file a petition within 60 days after the close of the 90- day TMP petition period. I.R.C. § 6226(b)(1); see also I.R.C. § 6231(a)(8) (defining “notice partner”), (11) (defining “5-percent group”).

          The text, context, and relevant historical treatment of the TEFRA petition period establish that the period within which to file a petition is a jurisdictional limit. The text places the petition period within the jurisdictional grant. I.R.C. § 6226(b)(1), (f). In the context of the broader TEFRA provisions, allowing equitable tolling would render [*2] the TEFRA statutory scheme unworkable. Historically, courts have treated the TEFRA petition deadlines as jurisdictional, and Congress has amended TEFRA to specifically account for the effect of the petition deadlines’ being jurisdictional.

          Even setting aside the jurisdictional question, the complex TEFRA statutory scheme indicates that Congress did not intend for the equitable tolling doctrine to apply to untimely TEFRA petitions.

          Held: P’s Petition was untimely.

          Held, further, equitable tolling does not apply to hold open the prescribed periods set forth in I.R.C. § 6226(a) or (b) for filing a TEFRA petition.

Interest in DOJ Tax Reunion/Wake for DOJ Tax Alumni (10/17/25)

I am trying to assess interest among DOJ Tax Alumni for a Reunion/Wake for the Tax Division. Since some DOJ Tax Alumni read this blog, I offer this link to the blog post on the DOJ Tax Alumni Blog I maintain: Fillable On-Line Form to Assess Interest in DOJ Tax Alumni Reunion/Wake (10/7/25), here.

Tax Court Rejects Various Hail Mary Claim, Including APA Claims, to Get Out of Penalty Free (10/8/25)

In Computer Sciences Corp. v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. ___, No. 8 (2025), TC Case No. 4823-21, here, at entry 305 dated 10/6/25*, GS here**, and TN here, the Court (Judge Lauber) issued yet another § 6751(b), here, written supervisor approval opinion where, as in other cases, the taxpayer seeks to avoid an IRS penalty because of a supposed IRS footfault in the penalty assertion process. In addition to the usual § 6751(b) hail mary claims for a get out of penalty free escape, the taxpayer raises Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) Claims which, I presume, are the reason the opinion was designated for T.C. reporting (as opposed to T.C. Memo or simply an Order).

For persons wanting a preliminary look at the underlying issues of what the case is all about, go to the docket entries linked above at entry 42 Order dated 7/24/23.

I report here on the APA claims, and will then cover its reference to the § 6751(b) regulations adopted in final in December 2024.

I start my discussion with a quote from Bryan Camp’s iconic post The APA Is Not A Hammer (Procedurally Taxing Blog 6/24/22), here, which opens:

Kristin Hickman loves the APA. To channel Jed Rakoff, it’s her Stradivarius, her Colt 45, her Louisville Slugger, her Cuisinart, and her True Love. It’s her Hammer, her righteous Mjölnir.

And when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Including ALL Treasury regulations.

Although Computer Sciences is not directly attacking regulations, the same comment is appropriate here. With the modern claims about the APA, everything begins to look like a nail, so taxpayers unleash the APA to attack IRS action regardless of how far-fetched the attack is.

In Computer Sciences, I introduce the Court’s holdings from the opening relevant headnotes that, while not technically part of the opinion, for present purposes fairly summarize the opinion (after each holding, I provide brief comment for context):

Eighth Circuit Applies First Sec. Bank Limitation to § 482 Intangibles Allocation Despite the Commensurate with Income Standard Enacted in 1986 (10/2/25)

I recently wrote on the 3M case pending in the 8^th Circuit involving the issue of whether the commensurate with income standard in § 482 enacted in 1986 permits the IRS to use § 482 to allocate royalty income to 3M for intangibles it transferred to a Brazilian affiliate in excess of the amount of royalty income permitted by Brazilian law. The full text of the commensurate with income standard  enacted in 1986 is: “In the case of any transfer (or license) of intangible property (within the meaning of section 367(d)(4)), the income with respect to such transfer or license shall be commensurate with the income attributable to the intangible.” See Loper Bright’s Motivated Mistreatment of Statutory Ambiguity and Best Interpretations (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 8/28/25), here.

In 3M Company v. Commissioner, ___ F.4th ___ (8th Cir. 10/1/25), here, the Court held that the IRS could not use § 482's commensurate with income standard to tax a related party affiliate's (3M's)  income on the transfer of intangibles in excess of legal limits permitted by law applying to the party receiving and exploiting the intangibles transferred to it.

I think it might be helpful to illustrate the issue in a simple examples. I start with an example where no legal prohibition is involved: Suppose intangible property in an open market would have commanded a royalty of 10% in an unrelated party transaction (which I will call the fair market value (“FMV”) royalty). But, in a related party transaction, the U.S. party transferring intangibles to the foreign affiliate charged the foreign affiliate a royalty of 5%. The foreign affiliate earns extra income over what it would have earned if it paid the FMV 10% royalty. This example is a classic instance where the commensurate with income standard enacted in 1986 applies to permit the IRS to tax the U.S. affiliate on an additional 5% royalty.

The next example is the same, except the law where the foreign affiliate earns the extra income limits royalty payments to 5%. The foreign affiliate earns extra income by paying 5% rather than the 10% , FMV royalty. The 5% royalty rate is not commensurate with the income. The question in 3M is whether the IRS can apply the FMV commensurate with income royalty rate despite the local law prohibition?

In Commissioner v. First Sec. Bank of Utah, N.A., 405 U.S. 394 (1972), the Court held that pre-amendment § 482 did not permit an allocation where the recipient was not lawfully entitled to receive the income. In 3M, the taxpayer argued and the Eighth Circuit held that the commensurate with income standard did not apply because Brazilian law limited the royalty the 3M affiliate could pay 3M. The IRS argued that the 1986 commensurate with income amendment to § 482 permitted the allocation. I repeat the text of the commensurate with income standard: “ In the case of any transfer (or license) of intangible property (within the meaning of section 367(d)(4)), the income with respect to such transfer or license shall be commensurate with the income attributable to the intangible.” (Emphasis supplied.)