Eleventh Circuit Rejects Bullshit Conservation Easement Shelter (7/20/26; 7/27/26)

In Savannah Shoals, LLC v. Commissioner, ___ F.4th ___ (11th Cir. 2026), CA11 here and GS here, the Eleventh Circuit rejects the appeal of a bullshit conservation easement shelter. The result is foretold in the first paragraph of the opinion, noting that the shelter claimed a “$23 million” deduction for an easement found by the Tax Court to be worth $480,000. See Judge Goeke’s opinion Savannah Shoals LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-35, here.

I won’t discuss the opinion further because, although it is 34 pages long and is designated “FOR PUBLICATION,” I don’t think it adds anything material to previously developed law, factual conclusions, and appellate review. The bottom-line is for taxpayers and promoters to avoid bullshit claims, including bullshit claims on the Tax Court’s valuations. The Court does not say that or even, for most readers, fairly imply that. Still, that is my inference. And, of course, plenty of other opinions, including from this Court, can be read for that proposition.

One interesting point is that oral argument was 12/10/25 and the unanimous opinion was 7/16/26, for 218 days gestation period for a 34 page opinion of little precedential value. (See CL docket entries here).

However, I will make some comments which are even more picky.

JAT Comments:

 1. The Court discusses the shelter’s attack on the IRS expert. (See Slip Op. 10-16.) The Court spends some time discussing FRE 702 and the Daubert Standard. As it turns out, immediately before I read Savannah Shoals, I had just revised my Federal Tax Procedure Practitioner Edition to add a footnote on the text reference to FRE 702. I just copy and paste that footnote discussion because I don’t think the Court in Savannah Shoals picked up the nuance even though I don’t think the nuance would have changed the outcome.

Second Circuit Says § 6751(b) Means What It Says-Appeals Officer in CDP Appeal Must Verify the Supervisor Approval Requirement (6/30/26)

In Besicorp Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, ___ F.4th ___ (2d Cir. 2026), 2Cir here and GS here, the Court held that, in a CDP Appeals Office Conference, the Appeals Officer must verify the IRS’s compliance with § 6751(b)’s written supervisor approval requirement for penalties. The Court says that in 29 pages cogently, if not succinctly, traversing the applicable statute and other authority. Those 29 pages are not all fluff without lessons for students and practitioners, so I address certain key points.

1. I open with a comment I make in a soon to be published article. Section 6751(b) is nonsensical and a textual mess. That comment was focused on the courts’ flailing around to make sense of the mess and was an argument for courts to approve the regulations adopted in December 2024 to make sense of key components of § 6751(b). However, as to the text in § 6751(b) that Besicorp interprets and applies, the text is clear, so Besicorp is correct that CDP Appeals Office proceedings require verification of the written supervisor approval requirement. (I except from that the possible application of res judicata discussed below in ¶ 5.) That is a textualist reading of the text; I don’t see any reasonable mode of interpretation that would reach a different conclusion.

2. Of course, in making that verification, the Appeals Officer must wade into the mess of the other components of § 6751(b) which are a mess with differing interpretations by the courts. I suppose, the Appeals Officer might rely upon the § 6751(b) regulations, either proposed or permanent, although the Besicorp Appeals Office hearing likely occurred before the regulations were proposed or adopted. (In this regard, the Second Circuit argument in Besicorp was 2/5/24; and Besicorp (and consolidated cases) were filed in the Tax Court in 2017. See T.C. dkt. Entries here, before the 2024 regulations were even a twinkle in the Commissioner’s eye.

3. The income tax liabilities in Besicorp and consolidated cases arose from bullshit tax shelters. The Court says the tax and interest (Slip Op. 3) reporting and tax savings from “tax shelter transactions designed to avoid the payment of taxes,” as determined by the IRS. The tax shelter transactions were of the “intermediary tax shelter” aka Midco ilk. (Slip Op. 10.) Besicorp’s deficiency was $50 million. (Slip Op. 5.) And, being a category of bullshit tax shelters, the IRS also asserted the 40% penalty which for Besicorp was “roughly $20 million penalty on a $50 million deficiency for its accuracy-related gross valuation misstatements,” citing § 6662(h). (Slip Op. 5.)

4. The taxpayers involved in Besicorp and consolidated cases may have been affiliated with the promoters who promoted the bullshit tax shelters. Indeed, from my work in this area, I found it was not uncommon for the promoters who “earned” very large amounts from promoting the fake tax savings (a price taxpayers were willing to pay for fraud insurance) to themselves then “shelter” their income with their own bullshit tax shelters (always permitting some variance in the smoke and mirrors game). I note in this regard that one of the attorneys for the taxpayers was also an attorney for at least one promoter and related corporation.

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, 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.

Déjà vu All Over Again-Non SCE Tax Shelter with Alleged Bullshit SCE Features (3/23/26)

Bloomberg has this article: Michael J. Bologna, Whistleblower Targets Tax Shelter Promoting Do-Good Technology (Bloomberg Tax 3/23/26), here. The only thing I know about the strategy is from the article. I therefore cannot speak to whether it is in fact a bullshit tax shelter. However, if the article accurately describes the strategy, it has the earmarks of bullshit tax shelters—likely gross overvaluation of charitable noncash donations—from  Jackie Fine Arts in the 1970s and early 1980s, through a cousin, Barrister, then going through the Syndicated Conservation Easements.

The article appears to be well researched and has some comments by prominent attorneys in this area. Some excerpts:

          Working off a playbook refined over several years, Solidaris and its partners in 2025 proposed four separate plans, each investing in 45 shell companies, and each looking to raise $90 million from wealthy investors.

          In one plan, the investors could vote to donate license rights to a technology designed to help blind people navigate in urban environments. In the second, they could vote to distribute digital coloring books to pediatric cancer patients. And in the two others, they could choose to donate crime-fighting artificial intelligence technology to local police departments. All four plans were described in private placement documents as Regulation D private offerings, allowing the promoters and sponsors to raise capital without registering the investments with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

          Elements of the strategy including outsized charitable deductions, complex procedures, and unusually high fees, warrant government scrutiny, according to former Internal Revenue Service, SEC, and Department of Justice officials who reviewed the documents for Bloomberg Tax.

          “It undermines fundamental economics and human behavior,” said Miles Fuller, a former senior counsel at the IRS Office of Chief Counsel. “One dollar does not turn into five dollars overnight. And if it did, it is unlikely the beneficial party would then donate the five dollars to charity rather than sell and pocket the profit.”

          The Solidaris-led strategy to collect $360 million total from investors last year could generate charitable deductions of $1.8 billion this tax season, assuming high-wealth investors vote to donate the technology and then claim a deduction worth five times their investments. That would cut an estimated $667 million from their federal returns and $90 million from state returns for tax year 2025.

          Solidaris says its investments “multiply good on a local, state, and national scale.” It also said it plays no role in whether investors vote to donate the technology. The company has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

          Under the Internal Revenue Code, whether a tax shelter is allowed or not can be an open question until the government weighs in. And that can take years, especially when the shelter is novel or complicated.

Just a few comments:

Tax Court Calls Out Yet Another Bullshit Tax Shelter But Relieves Taxpayer of 6662 Penalties (2/24/26 as corrected; 2/27/26)

Major Correction: I made an error in the original blog post, by misreading the court's application of the 40% Substantial Valuation Misstatement and Gross Valuation Misstatement Penalties in § 6662(e)(1)(A) and I.R.C. § 6662(h) but not picking up that the reasonable cause defense it sustained effectively wiped out all 6662 penalties.

Yesterday, the Tax Court (Judge Weiler) decided Otay Project LP v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-21, TC Dkt here at # 349, TN here, and GS here, tanking another bullshit tax shelter. There is no indication that this is a syndicated shelter creating basis and thus deductions out of thin air in complex structures taxed as partnership; as presented it seems like “one-off” imagined by creative minds and blessed by firms that have played prominently in tax sheltering—E&Y and McKee Nelson LLP; moreover, I suspect (suspicion only) that variations on the shelter were promoted on and opined upon on other occasions.

I find it a bit odd that, although Judge Weiler says he read the those firms’ opinions (Slip Op. 45), but he does not identify the persons signing the opinions. Oh well, let’s move on to the main points for tax procedure enthusiasts.

On the Merits of the Complex Machinations:

The actual bottom-line tax costs of the shelter failing must await the Rule 155 computation, but the Court concludes on the merits (other than penalties) (Slip Op. 31):

In sum, we determine petitioner has not met its burden here and has failed to correctly establish the Basis Deduction under section 743(b), as claimed on OPLP’s 2012 Form 1065. Accordingly, we will sustain respondent’s disallowance of $713,759,615 of a more than $743 million claimed Basis Deduction reported on OPLP’s 2012 Form 1065 for the 2012 tax period. 

I believe it would not be helpful to most tax procedure enthusiasts to wade into the complex facts and partnership tax law discussed in the opinion. Although this appeared not to be one of the abusive shelters of the late 1990s and early 2000s (e.g., BLIPS or variants used by different accounting and law firms), I suspect that some of the fanciful notions asserted in those earlier versions were deployed here in a more complex and “engineered” (Slip Op. 30-32) journey through esoteric partnership tax provisions.

Suffice it to say that the Court rejected that “engineered” journey on the merits of the partnership tax law and also based on economic substance doctrine. In this regard, because it preceded the effective date, the transaction was not subject to the codified economic substance doctrine in § 7771(o) or the penalty in § 6662(b)(6). (See Slip Op 2 n. 2.)

 The Penalties:

Conservation Easement Case Set for Trial Only on Valuation (and No Other Issue) with No Post-Trial Briefs (12/29/25)

I note that today, among the orders released, the following Order was issued setting a trial of the valuation issue (and no other issue) in a conservation easement case. (I copy and paste the full order below, but readers may access the original order for case # 8669-20, here, at docket entry 86.)

Since gross overvaluation is the common flaw of many bullshit tax shelters, Judge Lauber is cutting to the chase. Any other flaws in the legal structure of the shelter may not matter after this limited trial.

The wording of the order to reject post-trial briefs suggests that Judge Lauber will issue a bench opinion. See Tax Court Rejects a Bullshit Tax Shelter False Valuation Claim with Warning of Sanctions for Taxpayers, their Counsel, and Expert Witness Proffering the Bullshit (7/16/25; 9/10/25), here. As suggested in that prior blog, one issue that may arise is whether the petitioner’s submission of a bullshit valuation may draw sanctions.

United States Tax Court
Washington, DC 20217

MORGAN RUN PARTNERS, LLC,
OVERFLOW MARKETING, LLC, TAX
MATTERS PARTNER,

Petitioner

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,

Respondent

Docket No. 8669-20.

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 Holds that Partners Unwilling to Settle on Terms Offered Partners Willing to Settle TEFRA Litigation Cannot Intervene if Untimely and No Acceptable Reason for Untimely Intervention (9/19/25)

In Blomquist Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. ___, No. 6 (9/1725), TC here at # 364 [Full TC cite and link to come when available], GS here, and TN here, the Tax Matters Partner and some (but not all) wished to participate in one of the IRS settlement initiatives for docketed syndication easement (“SCE”) cases. The particular settlement initiative required all LLC partners to agree to the settlement, meaning that the IRS could assess the settlement tax, penalty, and resulting interest consequences without much further ado. (LLC owners are not technically partners but a treated as partners for most substantive tax purposes and under the TEFRA audit procedures.) For those who are not familiar with the IRS settlement initiatives for SCE cases, an excellent introduction may be found at Hale E. Sheppard, Settling Syndicated Conservation Easement Cases With the IRS, 186 Tax Notes Federal 851 (2/3/26), here. Mr. Sheppard is an excellent tax litigator and is counsel in a number of the SCE cases in the Tax Court, but was not counsel in Blomquist (where the indicated counsel for the petitioner are from the international firm Dentons, here, which has a substantial US presence; those counsel are identified in the Blomquist opinion and may be further identified by searching on the Dentons’ site here).

This opinion in Blomquist rejects an attempt by some but not all partners to avoid the settlement agreement under the procedures in the statute and Tax Court rules for them to do so. In most litigation contexts, this attempt is called a motion to intervene, but the statute and Tax Court rules deal with the partnership version for an unwilling partner specifically. (I use the term unwilling partners; the opinions in the cases use other terms such as nonparticipating partners; the statutory provision is § 6226(c)(2); the Tax Court Rule is 248(b)(4).) The Tax Court (Judge Paris) does an excellent job of going through the rules to show why a timely request to participate in the proceedings is generally required and a late request will be permitted only in circumstances where the tardy request is justifiable. Blomquist holds that the partners trying to avoid the settlement (the unwilling partners) had not shown that the late request was justifiable. (Note that the Blomquist litigation (but not the T.C. opinion) is discussed in Hale Sheppard’s article linked above at pp. 855-856 and p. 857).

Based on Blomquist and other SCE cases where, post-Blomquist, Orders have been entered, I infer the following:

1. Based on recent litigated outcomes, the settlement offer is very good. Which is, of course, why the partners willing to accept the offer appear to have made a good decision, far better than they can hope to achieve in full trial of the matter (which would also require further wasted litigation costs and wasted time from the participants (even with the private attorneys being more than happy to waste time at their exorbitant billing rates), including judges, staff and witnesses). That, however, is just my inference from the cases I have read. In any event, it is clear that there were partners wanting to settle who were motivated, I infer, by the tax outcome (tax and penalties, with interest consequences as well) which is far better than had they litigated.

Tax Court Rejects SCE’s Hail Mary Jarkesy Pass (8/21/25; 10/22/25)

On 10/17/25, I added Comment # 3 below regarding the Court's denial of petitioner's Motion for Certification of an Interlocutory Order to Permit Immediate Appeal on the Jarkesy issue.

On 10/22/25, I added Comment #4 below to not the Tax Court's denial of Silver Moss's Motion for Certification of an Interlocutory Order to Permit Immediate Appeal on the Jarkesy issue.

In Silver Moss Properties, LLC v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. ___, No. 3 (2025) (T.C. Dkt. No. 10646-21, here, at Entry # 109, GS here)), the Court acting as referee called out that Taxpayer’s Hail Mary pass* to avoid the civil fraud penalty. Since the Tax Court (or someone for it) has already stated the essence of the case in a Headnote, I just copy and paste it here:

           A partnership subject to the audit and litigation procedures of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. No. 97-248, 96 Stat. 324, donated a conservation easement and claimed a charitable contribution deduction under I.R.C. § 170. P, the tax matters partner, timely petitioned this Court challenging the IRS’s Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment. R later amended his Answer to assert a civil fraud penalty against the partnership under I.R.C. § 6663(a).

          P filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, citing SEC v. Jarkesy, 144 S. Ct. 2117 (2024), and contending that this Court is barred from adjudicating the civil fraud penalty because U.S. Const. amend. VII guarantees a right to trial by jury in such actions, which is not an option in this Court.

          Held: U.S. Const. amend. VII does not apply to suits against the sovereign, and Congress has not otherwise consented to trial by jury in TEFRA partnership-level actions.

          Held, further, the “public rights” exception to U.S. Const. amend. VII applies to a civil fraud penalty under I.R.C. § 6663(a).

          Held, further, this Court may adjudicate an I.R.C. § 6663(a) civil fraud penalty.

This plaintiff in the case appears to be a Tax Matters Partner for an LLC taxed as a partnership, which appears to be the favored format for the flurry of bullshit Syndication Conservation Easement ("SCE") tax shelter cases plaguing the Tax Court now with wholly inappropriate drains on the Tax Court's , the IRS’s and the public fisc resources. I don't know if this particular case involves an abusive tax shelter, but it seems to have the same earmarks, including the same lawyers involved in some of the abusive shelter cases. 

 JAT Comments:

1. (Warning, this is a multi-paragraph comment #1): In this case, the IRS did not originally assert the civil fraud penalty, §6663, in its FPAA. The Court granted the IRS motion for leave to file the amended answer asserting the fraud penalty based on discovery from the petitioner. (See Docket entry # 37.) I presume that the FPAA originally asserted the 40%  gross overvaluation penalty. §6662(h), a penalty that is almost always finally applied by the Tax Court in these  SCE cases, if properly asserted, because well simple mathematics shows a gross overvaluation. So, the difference is 25% (which, like civil penalties, generally accrues interest from the date the return was due). Which means that the cost of playing the audit lottery can be more than the taxpayers (encouraged by the promoters who promoted bogus valuations and bogus legal opinions) counted on.

Tax Court Rejects a Bullshit Tax Shelter False Valuation Claim with Warning of Sanctions for Taxpayers, their Counsel, and Expert Witness Proffering the Bullshit (7/16/25; 9/10/25)

Note a significant addition was made on 9/10/25 @ 5:30pm at end of this blog entry.

I write today on a “dictated” oral decision at the conclusion of trial in Veribest Vesta, LLC, True North Resources, LLC, v. Commissioner (T.C. Dkt # 9158-23; docket entries here at docket # 199). Bottom line, the taxpayer’s (only because they got caught) claim went “True South.”

Note on Tax Court Orders: Orders can be relatively short dealing with routine procedural matters or may be longer when they serve the same function as T.C.M. opinions. Juge Buch’s opinion is the latter sort where he enters as an a one-page order attaching his lengthy findings of fact and conclusions dictated into the record at the close of the lengthy trial. This Order serves as the report (same as T.C. and T.C.M. opinions) required by § 7459(a), here. One difference between an Order and the other Tax Court opinions is that the Order does not list counsel. Readers can identify counsel for the parties by clicking the docket entries link above and clicking at the box on upper right for a printed docket sheet.

Veribest involved a standard plain vanilla bullshit Syndicated Conservation Easement shelter, with many Tax Court opinions and Circuit Court affirmances in other similar cases preceding Veribest in essence calling out the bullshit. Some cases have been decided on other grounds, but there was always a common problem of false hyper-inflated valuations of the easements; often (I can’t say always) the valuations claimed were many, many times the real cost of the whole property (including the easement) reasonably close to the date the easement was carved out and “donated” to a willing “charity.” There could be several procedural footfaults for claiming deductions, but false overvaluations have been a common feature of many bullshit tax shelters since the days of Jackie Fine Arts and Barrister. Old timers will remember those shelters from the 1970s and 1980s.

In the SCE cases that have barraged the Tax Court dockets with much wasted resources involving many lawyers making lots of money, one feature has been the taxpayers (through their lawyers making lots of money) proffering expert witnesses who lack credibility. I include at the end of this blog some earlier blog offerings in bullshit tax shelters (including one-off rather than syndicated) with valuations that were not credible.

Today, I want to note Judge Buch’s warning of the potential for Section 6673 penalties. Section 6673, here, is titled “Sanctions and costs awarded by courts.” The Section permits the Tax Court to award costs:

Tax Court Rejects Too Good to be True Tax Shelter Defense Based on Tax Opinion Purchased to Support a Reasonable Cause Defense (5/17/25)

In Stevens v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-45, TCM here * & GS here, the court rejected the taxpayer’s arguments for the merits of the bullshit, “too good to be true,” tax shelter. Most of the findings of facts and opinion relate to the merits. As usual, the shelter was effected through a shroud of complex financial documents that, in the end, signified nothing that was cognizable for tax purposes. 

* Readers wishing to access the opinion through the docket entries may do so here at docket # 199.]

I find the penalties interesting because the taxpayers recognized that the shelter might be subject to penalties and, for that reason, “purchased” a tax opinion that, they hoped, would protect them against penalties if the IRS saw through the smoke and mirrors in the documents and disallowed the tax benefits of the shelter. Here are some quotes from the opinion (boldface supplied by JAT):

In July 2014 Shannon Stevens [the wife-taxpayer] became concerned with the risk of tax penalties if SLS engaged in the Dermody transaction and claimed interest deductions related to it. Shannon Stevens was the longtime owner and operator of her own accounting firm. She had substantial experience preparing tax returns for individuals and small businesses. She discussed with both Dermody and Witten her concern about tax penalties.

 On July 29, 2014, Dermody sent Shannon Stevens a sample tax opinion letter relating to a transaction of a different type from the Dermody transaction. Dermody recommended that she obtain a tax opinion letter about the Dermody transaction.

 On July 30, 2014, Gopman spoke to Witten and recommended to Witten that petitioners obtain a tax opinion letter from Jeffrey Rubinger, a tax attorney. On July 30, 2014, Witten emailed Shannon Stevens with a copy to Kirk Stevens and Gopman. Witten recommended that petitioners obtain a tax opinion letter for their “protection.” Witten stated that a tax opinion letter could be obtained from Rubinger “for a reasonable price.” In a separate communication with Shannon Stevens, Witten specifically suggested that a tax opinion letter could be obtained from Rubinger for $10,000.

The estimated cost of the opinion letter was too low; the opinion letter ultimately cost $40,000.

Court Dismisses Bivens Claim Against IRS Agents for Asserting Accuracy-Related Penalties (4/21/25)

In Ray v. Priver, et al., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71600, 2025 WL 1113406 (D. D.C. 4/15/25), CL here and GS here, The Court dismissed Ray’s Bivens actions against IRS agents that, he claimed, violated his constitutional rights in the IRS’s assertion of the accuracy-related penalty under § 6662(b)(1) and (2) and then in improperly influencing the Tax Court’s sustaining of the penalties in Ames v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-36, GS here, aff’d in part and reversed in part with respect to a portion of the penalties, Ray v. Commissioner. 13 F.4th 467 (5th Cir. 2021), after remand motion to Reopen the Record denied in Tax Court (10/28/22), aff’d on appeal Ray v. Commissioner, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21799, 2023 WL 5346067 (5th Cir. 8/18/23), GS here*, and petition for rehearing denied Ray v. Commissioner, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 27464 (5th Cir. 10/16/23). At the end of all that commotion from the main Tax Court case in 2019, Ray was liable for some of the accuracy-related penalty but not for a portion for which the Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court on its denial of the “reasonable cause” defense.

I asked Gemini, Google’s AI Tool, to summarize the case. The following is the result which I have massaged somewhat (reminder these AI Tools, while good, need to be carefully reviewed and revised as appropriate).

Background:

• In 2014, the IRS audited Ray and issued a notice of deficiency, including a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6662(a) & (b)(1) (negligence or disregard) (b)(2) (substantial understatement).
• Ray claims this penalty was unwarranted, alleging that two other IRS agents found insufficient evidence for it. He asserts that Lawson and Priver knew this but still pursued the penalty and falsified evidence in his administrative file.
• Ray initially challenged the penalty in Tax Court, where he alleges Priver and Lawson repeatedly lied and falsified evidence. The Tax Court upheld the penalty, but the Fifth Circuit reversed finding Ray not liable for some of the penalty based on reasonable cause. On remand, the Tax Court entered decision sustaining the deficiency and the portion of the penalty approved by the Fifth Circuit.
• Ray later obtained files through a FOIA request, which he claims revealed that Priver and Lawson maliciously prosecuted the penalty claim and concealed exculpatory evidence.

Claims:

• Ray sued Priver and Lawson in their individual and official capacities, alleging what he called a Bivens action:
• Count I: Malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
• Count II: Denial of a fair trial under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss:

• Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing:
• Improper service (later moot due to government acceptance of service).
• Sovereign immunity bars official-capacity claims (conceded by Ray).
• Failure to state a claim against individual defendants under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

Court's Ruling:

• The Court GRANTED the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
• The Court agreed that Ray's claims against Priver and Lawson in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity.
• Regarding the individual-capacity claims, the Court applied the two-step Bivens analysis:
• New Context: The Court found that Ray's claims arise in a "new context" because they involve IRS employees, a different statutory mandate (Internal Revenue Code), and do not align with the specific constitutional violations in the three previously recognized Bivens cases (Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure, Fifth Amendment sex discrimination, and Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment).
• Special Factors: The Court found "special factors" counseling against a new Bivens remedy, primarily the existence of a comprehensive alternative remedial scheme within the Internal Revenue Code. This scheme includes administrative review, the ability to sue for a refund, challenging assessments in Tax Court, and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) for investigating employee misconduct. The Court emphasized that even if these remedies don't provide complete relief (like monetary damages), their existence is sufficient to preclude a new Bivens action. 

• JAT Addition: The Court relied significantly on the Supreme Court’s admonition that expansions from past Bivens applications is “now a ‘disfavored’ judicial activity.” Hernandez v. Mesa, 589 U.S. 93, 102 (2020); and Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 135 (2017) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662, 675 (2009)). 

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that Ray's case presents a new Bivens context, and the presence of an existing remedial scheme within the Internal Revenue Code constitutes a "special factor" that makes it inappropriate for the judiciary to imply a new damages remedy against individual IRS employees. Therefore, the Court dismissed Ray's amended complaint.

JAT Comments:

Another Bullshit Tax Shelter Goes Down; On Frank Lyon (4/17/25)

Judge Lauber nails another bullshit tax shelter in GWA, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-34, TC here at Dkt # 357, GS here [to come] and TN here. Suffice it to say that Judge Lauber was not confused by the smoke and mirrors the taxpayer threw up on the proverbial wall. The key issue is whether the financial contract was an option contract or an ownership contract. For the tax benefits, the taxpayer wanted to treat it as an option contract, the form in which it appeared; the taxpayer argued it was an option contract that permitted deferral and ultimate favorable tax treatment; the IRS asserted it was an ownership contract not allowing such treatment. Other issues were (i) whether the treatment as an ownership contract was, under the facts, a change of accounting requiring a § 481 adjustment (it did) and (ii) whether the taxpayer was subject to penalties (it is).

I write to discuss the role of Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 561, 573 (1978) in the opinion. Frank Lyon was a disaster of an opinion, and my principal poster child as to why tax cases are too important to have the Supreme Court decide them. (That is hyperbole, of course, but not much.) In Frank Lyon, the Court, while nominally honoring the venerable tax concept of substance over form, entered a fact-intensive multi-element inquiry to bless the form of a sale-leaseback transaction with tax ownership benefits (depreciation) going to the nominal lessor (Frank Lyon). I think that most careful observers of Frank Lyon believe that Frank Lyon was incorrectly decided. E.g., Charles I. Kingson, How Tax Thinks, 27 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 1031, 1034-35 (2004). “few [tax] shelters are shoddier than those approved by the Court in Lyon and Brown [Commissioner v. Clay B. Brown, 380 U.S. 563 (1965)]”; and Bernard Wolfman, The Supreme Court in the Lyon's Den: A Failure of Judicial Process, 66 Cornell L. Rev. 1075, 1098 (1981). Still, perhaps saving the day, courts generally find enough in Frank Lyon to reject bullshit tax shelters, as Judge Lauber did in GWA, LLC v. Commissioner.

I won’t get into a back story on Frank Lyon in which I was peripherally involved at DOJ Tax. Perhaps I will write on it sometime, in order to explain why, in my judgment, the Court imprudently granted the petition for certiorari in the first place and then wrote the opinion the way it did (in my view imprudently, rather than DIG the case). Nevertheless, that should not detract from the opinion on its four corners. Since Frank Lyon, most of the bullshit tax shelter legal opinions cite and claim to rely on Frank Lyon. Most judicial opinions cite Frank Lyon in shooting down bullshit tax shelters.

Tax Court Rejects Bullshit Syndicated Conservation Easement Shelter for the Usual Reasons (3/31/25)

In Ranch Springs, LLC v. Commissioner, 164 T.C. ___, No. 6 (3/31/25), links below *, the Tax Court rejected another bullshit tax shelter, here of the syndicated conservation easement ilk. The fact pattern for this ilk of bullshit tax shelter may be simply stated: a grossly overvalued property contributed to charity for charitable easement purposes. The holding highly summarized is:

• the real value is determined in an amount grossly less (joining grossly and less may not be good English, but readers will get the concept); and
• the 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty applies because, well, the valuation was grossly misstated.

A more detailed summary is found in the Syllabus and, for those wanting more, in the 66-page opinion (actually 64 excluding the caption and the Syllabus), but that is the guts of the holdings.

These are unexceptional holdings, in my opinion, so I am not sure why the Court designated this a “T.C.” opinion rather than a “T.C. Memo.” opinion. The parts I found interesting (set forth below) are hardly the stuff of which T.C. opinions are usually made. Perhaps the reason is in the third “Held” conclusion in the Syllabus relating to the proffered “before value” found to be erroneous as a matter of law as follows:

Held, further, assuming arguendo that limestone mining was a permissible use, the version of the income method P’s experts used to determine the “before value” of the property is erroneous as a matter of law because it equates the value of raw land with the net present value of a hypothetical limestone business conducted on the land. A knowledgeable willing buyer would not pay, for one of the assets needed to conduct a business, the entire projected value of the business.

. Oh well…..

So, what did I find interesting?

Bullshit Tax Shelter "Investors" Reach the End Game on Tax Dodging from 1999 BLIPS "Transaction" (2/20/25)

Yesterday, the Tax Court (Judge Goeke) entered its opinion in Blum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-18, TN here, GD here*, and GS here**. The opinion is 48 pages long. After reading Slip Op. pp. 1 & 2, I had the sense that Judge Goeke would have made it much shorter except for inappropriate arguments made by the Blums (really their counsel), which he apparently felt necessary to address. So that readers might get that same sense, I quote pages 1 & 2 in their entirety (footnote omitted):

This affected items case deals primarily with the responsibility of taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to update information about the partners of a partnership under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. No. 97- 248, §§ 401–407, 96 Stat. 324, 648–71. The Treasury regulations 1 explicitly and clearly state the requirements for partnerships and their partners to update names and addresses of the partners as well as the IRS’s obligations when mailing a notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA).

           Petitioners did not adhere to the regulations; the IRS did. Petitioners did not properly identify Scott Blum as an indirect partner in the TEFRA partnership or update the address for sending the FPAA with respect to his partnership interest. Instead, they try to place the blame for their alleged nonreceipt of the FPAA on the revenue agent (RA) who audited their personal and partnership returns. Petitioners do this because they want to avoid a district court’s decision in the TEFRA partnership case that held that Mr. Blum engaged in a tax shelter and improperly deducted a $78.5 million artificial loss (tax shelter loss). They knew about the partnership case while it was ongoing in district court and are obviously unhappy with the outcome. We find not only that the IRS mailed the required FPAA with respect to Mr. Blum’s partnership interest to the correct address but also that petitioners received it.

          Throughout this case, petitioners have concocted numerous unfounded theories about the IRS’s alleged failure to follow proper procedure. They have also made multiple misrepresentations to the Court and omitted important information. Testimony by IRS employees clearly and credibly establishes that the IRS indeed followed proper procedures and that the IRS mailed the FPAA as required by the Code and the regulations.

          Apart from their argument about their alleged nonreceipt of the FPAA, petitioners also make multiple baseless arguments to avoid paying the tax that they owe pursuant to the district court’s decision.  They argue that the district court did not really disallow the tax shelter loss and that they resolved the disallowance of the $78.5 million tax shelter loss in a prior Tax Court case for a mere $373,641 in tax. They also challenge the timeliness of the FPAA and the affected items Notices of Deficiency that precipitated the filing of the Petition. Each of these arguments fails. Accordingly, we find, in accordance with the district court’s decision in the TEFRA case, that petitioners are not entitled to deduct the $78.5 million tax shelter loss.

Court Cannot Determine on Motion to Dismiss Malpractice and Related Claims from Bullshit Tax Shelter that the Statute of Limitations from 1997 Was Not Tolled (9/24/24)

In Cáceres v. Sidley Austin LLP (N. D. GA No 1:23-cv-00844 Dkt # 35 Opinion & Order dated 9/17/24), TN here and CL here, the Court denied the motion to dismiss filed by Sidley Austin (“Sidley,” the giant law firm, here). The Cáceres engaged R.J. Ruble, then a partner at the predecessor firm of Brown & Wood, to opine about a 1997 Midco transaction, an abusive tax shelter transaction in which the Cáceres sought to avoid the double tax upon sale of their corporate business. For an explanation of the Midco transaction, see FTP Practitioner Edition pp. 797-798 and Student Edition p. 537; and for Federal Tax Procedure Blog discussions of Midco transactions, here. Basically, tax shelter promoters use a variety of abusive techniques to avoid the built-in corporate level gain and then the sellers and the promoters share the tax thus illegally evaded, leaving the IRS without the tax. Usually, the promoters use a bullshit tax shelter to try to shield the corporate level tax, and when that tax shelter is denied, there is no money to pay the tax, requiring the IRS to seek the tax from third party such as the Cáceres.

At the motion to dismiss stage, the well-pled pleadings are analyzed to see if they pled sufficiently that, if the allegations and claims are true, a case had been stated. (This is before any factual development by discovery and cannot consider facts outside the complaint that a party may know; it is just a test of the sufficiency of the complaint.) The issue on the motion to dismiss was whether on the facts pled the statute of limitations barred the suit. The underlying transactions (including the legal opinion) were in 1997; this particular suit was brought in state court in 2023 and removed to federal court in 2023. Various claims in the complaint had statutes of limitations that were much shorter than the 20+ years that intervened from the 1997 accrual of the actions claim in the complaint. The question was whether, on the facts pled and claims made, the relevant statutes of limitations were tolled because of Sidley’s actions in hiding its alleged misconduct. The Court held that, on the facts pled, it could not determine that the statute of limitations had not tolled, so the case survived the motion to dismiss.

Perhaps the key fact was the IRS commencement in 2018 of a transferee liability suit under § 6901 against the plaintiffs as shareholders wrongfully sharing the corporate-level tax illegally avoided. See United States v. Henco Holding Corp., 985 F. 3d 1290 (11^th Cir. 2021), here. (Of course, significant audit commotion would have likely preceded for years the filing of the transferee liability suit, but the issue was whether on the facts pled,  the plaintiffs had been fairly put on notice as to the causes of action at a time outside the limitations period.) As described by the Court, the Cáceres alleged (Slip Op. 14-15)

Substantial § 6700 Promoter Penalty Case Involving Refund Suit and Counterclaim Settled for $5,200,000 (5/25/24)

In Clark v. United States (S.D. Fla. 9:21-CV-82056), CL docket entries here, the taxpayer, Celia R. Clark, an attorney active in the promotion of microcaptive insurance companies for certain claimed tax advantages, brought a suit for refund of § 6700 penalties in the amount of $1,745,544. That amount represented 15% of the aggregate § 6700 penalties of $11,636,919 required in order to meet the jurisdictional requirement (special rule to avoid the Flora full payment requirement) for refund suits for the § 6700 penalties. See Complaint, here, paragraphs 65-67). (Actually, the aggregate amount paid was slightly in excess of 15% of the aggregate penalties.)

The 6700 penalty here for false or fraudulent misstatements as to a material matter is 50% of the gross income derived or to be derived from the penalized conduct. The penalized conduct is the organization or participation in a plan or arrangement in which the person furnishes or causes to be furnished a statement that the person “knows or has reason to know is false or fraudulent as to any material matter.”  being the organization or participation in the sale of a plan or arrangement that claims false tax benefits. I discuss the  § 6700 penalty and the § 6703(c) relief from Flora full payment requirement in my Federal Tax Procedure Book (Practitioner Ed. 2023.2), here, at pp. 853-856.

In the Government’s Answer and Counterclaim, here, the Government responded to the allegations in the complaint and sought judgment for $10,095.359 (Answer pp. 26-27, which seems to be the net amount after application of Clark’s payments with some add-ons.) Among the allegations in the Answer and Counterclaim are (i) a mélange of facts implying or proving (if proved) that Clark knew or had reason to know of the falsity of the scheme and documents implementing the scheme (Answer pp. 16-25, ¶¶ 16-85) and (ii) “From 2008 through 2016, Clark, through her law firm, earned over $23 million in fees from the microcaptive insurance programs.” (Answer p. 25 ¶ 87.) I infer that the alleged aggregate fee amount was the basis for the penalties exceeding $11 million.

Taxpayers Should Be Prosecuted Along with Enablers of Abusive Tax Shelters (3/8/24)

This blog entry is an opinion piece. Individual taxpayers should be prosecuted along with their enablers who promote and implement the abusive shelters (particularly enablers from the tax professions).

The following is from a report of Attorney General Garland's comments (Kerry K. Walsh Deborah A. Curtis Amy Jeffress, “Swift” Justice: Attorney General Garland Vows To Uphold DOJ Priorities in Fireside Chat (Arnold & Porter 3/6/24), here):

Additionally, AG Garland explained how DOJ’s three co-equal priorities — upholding the rule of law, keeping America safe, and protecting civil liberties — implicated corporate accountability. AG Garland stressed that the greatest deterrent of white collar crime is holding individual corporate executives to account. AG Garland also reiterated the importance of applying the rule of law equally, regardless of rank or position of power.

I supplied the bold-face to emphasize the point. There has been a perception that, by delivering up the corporation (or other entity) for criminal consequences, the people in the corporations (collectively, the executives) could escape accountability.

A similar perception and resulting phenomenon exists in the tax area where the promoters of abusive tax shelters (think, for example, the Son-of-Boss shelters in the late 1990s and early 2000s) were prosecuted, but the taxpayers generally were not. Yet all of those taxpayers or at least most of them knew that they were violating the law and participated in the fraud. For example, the abusive shelters wrapped in complex structures and voluminous more-likely-than-not opinions, required at the minimum that the taxpayers represent to the promoters that they had a nontax profit motive when, in fact, they did not. That was a lie that was essential to abusive tax shelter. Moreover, most of those wealthy taxpayers had independent counsel (other than the ones supplied or recommended by the promoters) before buying into the deal. Assuming that most of those independent counsel were competent, those taxpayers knew that the deals were bogus, but nevertheless sought to buy fraud insurance through the legal opinions rendered by the promoter’s supplied or recommended counsel (as opposed to their own independent counsel). That worked as insurance.

My argument has been that the way to discourage abusive tax shelters is to prosecute the taxpayers along with the promoters. This would discourage the tax professional penalty insurance industry and abusive tax shelters generally.

This blog entry is cross-posted on the Federal Tax Crimes Blog here.

Tax Court Denies Petitioner Summary Judgment on Transferee Liability (2/6/24)

In Meyer, Transferee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-15 (2/5/24), TC Dkt Entry # 44, here, TN here, and GS here, the Court denied the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment in a transferee liability case. The petitioner argued that (i) the statute of limitations for the IRS’s transferee liability claim was not timely under the statute of limitations, (ii) collateral estoppel precluded the IRS claim, and (iii) judicial estoppel precluded the IRS claim. The estoppel claims denials are straightforward. I focus here on the first claim about the statute of limitations.

The underlying transaction at issue was a typical Midco abusive tax shelter transaction (I have often called abusive tax shelter transactions bullshit tax shelters). I assume readers are familiar with Midco transactions. An example with a good discussion is in Tax Court (Judge Lauber) Rejects Shareholders' Attempts to Reduce Transferee Liability (Federal Tax Procedure 2/10/22). I will offer a high level overview of the Midco transactions (which have variants but with common result of an empty corporation with a very large tax liability). A Midco transaction involves a third party purchasing, directly or indirectly, stock of a corporation with very large built-in gain from shareholders for a price exceeding what they would obtain if the corporation sold the assets and distributed the cash. After the purchase, the buyer sells the assets and enters an abusive tax shelter transaction (such as the Son-of-Boss involved in this case) to supposedly offset the gain, and then strips out to assets (mostly cash) to leave the corporation empty when the IRS audits and disallows the tax shelter transaction. The supposed tax “savings” is shared by the shareholders (through the purchase price) and the promoters, leaving the IRS (and the country’s taxpayers) holding the bag in the empty corporation. Remember for the balance of this discussion that all of this hinges on the fraudulent Son-of-Boss transaction. In other words, the initial corporate transferor with the unpaid tax liability engaged in fraudulent reporting.

In Meyer, Transferee, the IRS asserted transferee liability under § 6901 by treating the corporate-level transactions as including a deemed transfer to the petitioner as transferee (rather than as a seller of the stock to a third party). For an initial transferee, such as the petitioner, the statute of limitations for transferee liability does not expire until one year “after the expiration of the period of limitation for assessment against the transferor.” § 6901(c)(1).

As posited by the Court, the first step is to establish when the statute of limitations expired on the deemed transferor—the sold corporation engaging in the Son-of-Boss transaction and fraudulently reporting the transaction to zero out the gain on the return. Normally, the limitations period is 3 years. And, the Court worked on the assumption that the 3-year period would have applied and counted certain other extensions or suspensions that extended the corporate transferor’s limitations period. The Court’s analysis is fairly straightforward, so I won’t rehash that here.