Bryan Edward Menge
United States Tax Court · 2026-05-19
The case involves Bryan Edward Menge challenging an IRS Notice of Determination that upheld a proposed levy to collect unpaid income taxes for 2015-2018 after he failed to pay amounts reported on his self-filed returns. The Tax Court considered whether the IRS settlement officer abused discretion in sustaining the levy following a Collection Due Process hearing under IRC sections 6320 and 6330. Menge did not submit required financial documentation such as Form 433-A, did not fully participate in the hearing, and attempted to raise challenges to his underlying liabilities based on prior years that had already been resolved against him. The court found that the settlement officer verified legal requirements, considered all relevant issues, and properly balanced the need for tax collection against intrusiveness, with no abuse of discretion shown. It therefore sustained the determination and upheld the proposed levy action.
taxes
Jones Bluff, LLC, Green Rock Management, LLC, Partnership Representative, Petitioner(s)
United States Tax Court · 2026-03-19
This case involved Jones Bluff, LLC, a partnership under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) centralized audit regime, which claimed a large charitable contribution deduction for a conservation easement donation on its 2019 tax return. The IRS issued a Notice of Final Partnership Adjustment (FPA) disallowing the deduction and asserting penalties, prompting the partnership to file a petition in Tax Court and move for summary judgment on the ground that the BBA procedures violated the due process rights of its individual members by denying them notice and opportunity to be heard. The court denied the motion, holding that the partnership lacked standing to assert the constitutional due process claims of its members as third parties. It further upheld the validity of the FPA, noting that analogous prior partnership audit rules under TEFRA had withstood similar due process challenges even where non-notice partners were bound by outcomes. The decision relied on principles that a partnership representative receives notice on behalf of the entity, and any internal communication failures do not invalidate the federal procedures.
taxescivil rightsfederal power
Mammoth Cave Property, LLC, Mammoth Cave Manager, LLC, Partnership Representative, Petitioner(s)
United States Tax Court · 2026-03-09
The case concerned a limited liability company treated as a partnership for tax purposes that challenged an IRS Notice of Final Partnership Adjustment disallowing a charitable contribution deduction, arguing that errors in the prior Notice of Proposed Partnership Adjustment regarding the designated partnership representative and address caused the limitations period under I.R.C. § 6235(a) to expire and rendered the FPA invalid. The Tax Court held that the FPA issued on January 5, 2024, was timely and valid. The court reasoned that the partnership received actual notice through the NOPPA, continued to participate in the audit process by filing timely modification requests, and suffered no prejudice from any defects, as actual receipt and ongoing communications cured potential mailing or designation issues under precedents like Clovis I and Dees. The decision turned on the Bipartisan Budget Act's centralized partnership audit rules applicable to post-2017 returns.
taxesprocedure
Aventis, Inc. and Subsidiaries
United States Tax Court · 2026-01-28
The case concerned whether a 2000 securitization transaction among Aventis, its French affiliate, an advisor, and a bank qualified as a financial asset securitization investment trust (FASIT) under former I.R.C. §§ 860H–860L, which remained in place through 2015 under a grandfather clause. The Tax Court held that the arrangement was not a valid FASIT because the preferred stock issued to the affiliate failed to qualify as a regular interest—it did not unconditionally entitle the holder to a specified principal amount or to interest payments at a fixed or permitted variable rate—and the transaction also failed to meet the grandfather clause requirements. The court further ruled that the substantial compliance doctrine did not excuse these deficiencies, that Aventis remained the beneficial owner of the assets, and that the preferred stock was in substance equity rather than debt. As a result, Aventis was required to recognize the income generated by the FASIT assets and could not deduct the amounts paid to the affiliate as business interest.
taxesbusiness & regulatory
Riddle Aggregates, LLC, Ornstein-Schuler, LLC, Tax Matters Partner
United States Tax Court · 2025-12-15
The case involved a TEFRA partnership that donated a conservation easement and claimed a large charitable contribution deduction on its 2017 tax return; the IRS issued a Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment disallowing the deduction and imposing an accuracy-related penalty under I.R.C. § 6662. The tax matters partner petitioned the Tax Court and moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the penalty determination violated the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial under SEC v. Jarkesy and could not be assessed. The court denied the motion, holding that the Seventh Amendment does not apply to suits against the sovereign and that Congress has not consented to jury trials in TEFRA partnership-level proceedings. It further concluded that the accuracy-related penalty falls within the public rights exception to the Seventh Amendment because it is remedial and tied to revenue collection rather than punitive.
taxesprocedurefederal power
John R. Graham & Nicole Graham
United States Tax Court · 2025-11-13
The case involved petitioners John R. Graham and Nicole Graham challenging a deficiency determination by the IRS for the 2022 tax year regarding their claim for an earned income tax credit (EITC) based on Nicole Graham's sister, Angela Davis. The Tax Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the EITC for Ms. Davis. The court reasoned that while Ms. Davis satisfied the relationship and joint return requirements, the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence beyond testimony to establish that she shared their principal place of abode for more than half the year or met the age requirements through permanent and total disability, thus not meeting their burden of proof under the relevant tax code provisions.
taxes