I just got this from a 501(c)(3) to which I have contributed for years. No guarantees, warrantees, or representations, but practitioners, beware.

The USPS recently changed the definition of when a piece of mail is considered postmarked or “mailed.”  In the past, it was sufficient to drop your letter in any mailbox, and it was considered “mailed” based on a postmark applied at pick-up. However, under the new USPS rule, only certain processing centers can apply postmarks. In some regions, this may mean a mailed item won’t receive a postmark for several days after being dropped off at the post office or placed in a mailbox.

In a deficiency case or any non-Boechler you’d better check where you can mail.

Kimberly Fulton, Docket No., 18582-21L, filed 12/18/25, is on her way back to Appeals on remand number three.

Remand number one came when IRS conceded the CDP hearing was defective. Number two followed when IRS’ motion for summary J to sustain supplemental NOD cratered on disputed facts.

Already in the admin record was a letter from Kimberly’s Mom stating she gave Kimberly a monthly allowance, and anything over that was a loan. The first SO on the case didn’t treat these as income because they weren’t guaranteed.

Kimberly did have interests in a couple LLC’s (hi, Judge Holmes) that she didn’t disclose, but claimed these had no activity or assets and so didn’t file 1065s.  Nor did Kimberly have enough income to file, she says.

Appeals affirmed the second supplemental NOD which treated the money from Mom as income and nondisclosure of the LLCs as grounds for bouncing Kimberly’s OIC.

Judge Cary Douglas (“C-Doug”) Pugh sends the case back to Appeals.

‘ The administrative record contains no explanation for SO H’s determination that the deposits were income. At the hearing, respondent argued that it could be reasonably discerned that SO H viewed the deposits as income from the undisclosed LLCs. However, that is inconsistent with the record; SO H asked no follow-up questions about the LLCs once petitioner’s representative explained that they were not active, and petitioner’s representative alleges SO H attributed these deposits to offshore assets. Additionally, SO O, the previous settlement officer assigned to petitioner’s case, considered the deposits to be gifts. We do not rely on post hoc explanations of SO Harvey’s silence and her unexplained departure from SO O’s position is not merely of ‘less-than-ideal’ clarity—it prevents our review of her decision.

“Moreover, SO Harvey rejected petitioner’s amended offer-in-compromise immediately after reviewing petitioner’s bank statements and without providing petitioner an opportunity to explain the deposits. Even though petitioner’s representative requested an opportunity to address the reasons for rejection, SO H informed petitioner’s representative that she intended to issue a Supplemental Notice of Determination. Failing to consider petitioner’s argument was an abuse of discretion.” Order, at pp. 5-6. (Names and citation omitted).

True, Kimberly was chary with info about the LLCs.

“Respondent is right that petitioner did not disclose her interest in certain LLCs. But petitioner explained why she did not disclose these interests (none of the LLCs were active or generated income), and SO H did not ask any follow-up\ questions. Petitioner’s omission does not justify SO H’s failure to explain her decision to reject petitioner’s offer-in-compromise, especially where SO H chose not to press the LLC matter further.” (Name omitted).

So Judge C-Doug Pugh sends Kimberly back to Appeals again. She’ll keep trying for the SO who will get it right.

Looks like Judge C-Doug Pugh is another disciple of the late great Gene (“Big Daddy”) Lipscomb, twice MVP lineman of the Super Bowl, in the glory days of the old Baltimore Colts. As Big Daddy used to say: “I just wrap my arms around the whole backfield and peel ’em one by one until I get to the ball carrier. Him I keep.”

Mark L. Fussell, T. C. Memo. 2025-131, filed 12/18/25, filed 1040X for three (count ’em, three) tax years, for which IRS gave him a CP21, allowing him a refund for Year One only. Mark alleged that his $420K loss was due to bad loans to his “tightly held” C Corp.

Mark says he thought the CP21 encompassed all three years, but IRS audited Years Two and Three, and Mark and IRS stiped them out as no-tax-no-refund before his tax was due for Year at Issue. Mark didn’t file Year at Issue, claiming audit, but thst’s a nonstarter.

Judge Rose E. (“Cracklin'”) Jenkins finds the claimed loans are unsubstantiated: no documents, no showing of payments made, no showing of Section 165(g)(2) securities compliance. Even if substantiated, any NOL carryback or carryforward is long used up, as no Section 172(b)(3) carryforward election was made.

And of course, the add-ons for nonfiling, nonpaying, and nonpayment of 1040-es are sustained.

Takeaway: You can stip out a year, but each year stands on its own. Be prepared to fight every succeeding year as if the year of the stip never happened.