When Should You Hire a U.S. Tax Court Attorney?
What Tax Court representation actually consists of, stage by stage, and why trial experience is the wrong proxy for competence in a forum where most cases settle.
Hire counsel at the point where the work that determines the outcome begins, which in most Tax Court cases is well before trial and often before the petition is filed.
The great majority of Tax Court cases are resolved by settlement rather than by trial. That is not a criticism of the forum; it is how the deficiency system is designed to work. It means effective Tax Court representation consists mostly of developing the factual record, evaluating litigation hazards honestly, narrowing issues through stipulation, negotiating with IRS Chief Counsel and the Independent Office of Appeals, and positioning the case so that a settlement reflects the government's actual risk.
That is why "how many trials have you had" is a poor screening question. A practitioner whose cases settle well may be doing the job correctly. The better question is whether the lawyer can explain, for your case, what the government would have to prove, what evidence exists, who carries the burden, and what a realistic range of outcomes looks like.
Before the Petition
Three decisions are made here, and two of them are difficult to undo.
Whether to petition at all, and in which forum. A statutory notice of deficiency gives access to the Tax Court without paying first. The alternative is to pay, file a refund claim, and sue in a federal district court or the Court of Federal Claims, which generally requires full payment. Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960). Filing a Tax Court petition generally forecloses a later refund suit for the same year. I.R.C. section 6512(a). The forum choice affects the governing precedent, because under Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), aff'd, 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971), the Tax Court follows a squarely on-point decision of the circuit to which the case would be appealable.
The deadline. Under I.R.C. section 6213(a), the petition is generally due within 90 days of the mailing of the notice, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States. This is the decision point where counsel most often arrives too late to help.
Whether to elect small tax case treatment. For deficiencies of $50,000 or less for each year, I.R.C. section 7463 permits an election to proceed under simplified procedures. The trade is that the decision is neither appealable nor precedent. For a taxpayer with a recurring issue, that trade is usually bad. For a one-time dispute about substantiation, it is often sensible.
The petition itself matters more than its length suggests. Tax Court Rule 34 requires clear and concise assignments of error and statements of the facts on which the petitioner relies. Errors not assigned are generally deemed conceded. A petition that fails to assign error to a penalty, or to an alternative theory in the notice, can cost the issue before the case is developed.
Immediately After Docketing
The case is answered by IRS Chief Counsel under Tax Court Rule 36, and the answer defines what the government admits and denies. Where the government bears the burden on an issue, the answer usually reveals it. Rule 142(a)(1) places the burden on the Commissioner as to new matter, increases in deficiency, and affirmative defenses pleaded in the answer. Rule 142(b) places the burden as to fraud on the Commissioner and requires it to be carried by clear and convincing evidence.
Two things happen in parallel. Counsel begins trial preparation. And under Rev. Proc. 2016-22, Chief Counsel generally refers qualifying docketed cases to Appeals for settlement consideration; while a referred case is with Appeals, Appeals has sole settlement authority. That is why a taxpayer who never got to Appeals before the notice of deficiency issued frequently gets there after the petition.
The functional document at this stage is not a nondocketed protest. It is a focused settlement submission or legal memorandum written for an audience that includes a trial lawyer.
Once a Tax Court case is docketed, procedural deadlines, the administrative record, and settlement strategy begin to matter immediately. Early review can affect how the case is positioned before discovery and trial preparation advance.
Informal Discovery and Stipulation
This is the stage that distinguishes competent Tax Court practice, and it is invisible from the outside.
The Tax Court expects the parties to exchange information informally before invoking formal discovery. The practice descends from Branerton Corp. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691 (1974), and it is not optional in any practical sense: a party who serves formal discovery without first attempting informal exchange will usually be sent back.
Tax Court Rule 91 then requires the parties to stipulate to the maximum extent possible all facts and documents that are not fairly in dispute. This is unusual among federal courts and it is the single most important procedural feature of Tax Court practice. The stipulation process determines what the judge will actually see, forces both sides to confront the record, and frequently resolves the case by revealing that the dispute is narrower than either side believed.
A lawyer who understands this stage will use it to establish authenticity and admissibility of the taxpayer's records early, to force the government to commit to a factual theory, and to identify precisely which facts remain contested. A lawyer who treats stipulation as clerical work loses the advantage.
Formal Discovery and Motions
Formal discovery under Tax Court Rules 70 through 74 includes interrogatories, requests for production, and depositions, which under Rule 74 are available in narrower circumstances than in district court practice. Requests for admission are governed separately by Rule 90. Depositions without consent are extraordinary.
Motions practice matters in specific situations. Summary judgment under Rule 121 is useful where the issue is legal and the facts are not in dispute, which is more common in tax cases than in general civil litigation. Motions to shift the burden, motions in limine on expert testimony, and motions concerning the scope of the notice arise regularly.
Counsel adds particular value here when the case involves a purely legal question, because a legal question decided on summary judgment avoids the expense and the risk of trial on facts that do not need to be found.
Settlement Negotiation
Settlement in the Tax Court is not haggling. It is an exchange of assessments about litigation risk.
The government's side of that analysis is structured. Appeals evaluates the probable outcome in litigation and, where substantial uncertainty exists, settles on the basis of mutual concessions reflecting the relative strength of the positions. IRM 8.6.4.2. Chief Counsel evaluates trial risk on similar terms.
Effective representation supplies the government with reasons it could lose that it can document internally: contemporaneous records that contradict the examiner's inference, an absence of controlling circuit authority, an unfavorable burden allocation, a witness the government cannot produce. It does not consist of asserting that the taxpayer is a good person or that the amount is unaffordable.
Two mechanisms deserve mention. A qualified offer, defined by I.R.C. section 7430(g), can shift litigation costs to the government under section 7430(c)(4)(E) if the offer is rejected and the ultimate liability is equal to or less than what the offer would have produced. It requires precise timing and form, and it changes the negotiating posture when used correctly. And how the case closes matters: a stipulated decision entered by the court is different in effect from an administrative agreement form, and a closing agreement under I.R.C. section 7121 provides statutory finality where the parties need it.
Tax Court cases often resolve before trial, but settlement depends on the factual record, legal authorities, litigation hazards, and the strength of the position developed before negotiations begin.
Request an Initial Case ScreeningTrial and What Follows
Trials are conducted without a jury, before a single judge or special trial judge. The petitioner requests a place of trial under Tax Court Rule 140 and the Court designates it. The Federal Rules of Evidence apply. Tax Ct. R. 143(a).
Where the court determines the issues but the computations remain, Tax Court Rule 155 provides the procedure for the parties to submit agreed or competing computations for entry of decision. Rule 155 proceedings are not a second chance to argue the merits, and taxpayers who treat them that way lose credibility at the end of a case they may otherwise have won in part.
When Self-Representation Is Realistic
Taxpayers may represent themselves in the Tax Court, and many do so successfully. It is realistic where the dispute is documentary rather than legal, the amount is modest, the small tax case procedures apply, and the taxpayer is organized and unemotional about the facts. The court and Chief Counsel are accustomed to unrepresented petitioners and there are calendar call assistance programs and low income taxpayer clinics in many locations.
Self-representation becomes a poor choice when any of the following is present: the civil fraud penalty under I.R.C. section 6663, because the government must prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence and the defense is evidentiary; valuation, because it requires expert testimony and the qualification of experts; a legal issue on which the controlling circuit has not ruled, because the case is really about precedent; substantial deficiencies across multiple years or entities; evidentiary problems such as missing records, unavailable witnesses, or authentication disputes; a criminal dimension; or collateral consequences that make an adverse finding costly beyond the tax.
Admission Versus Competence
Admission to practice before the Tax Court is not a proxy for controversy experience. Attorneys in good standing may be admitted on application under Tax Court Rule 200; nonattorneys may be admitted by written examination. Neither requires having handled a case.
What actually distinguishes practitioners is procedural fluency. Ask a prospective lawyer to explain, for your matter: which party bears the burden on each issue and why; what the answer admitted and denied; how the case will be positioned for stipulation under Rule 91; which circuit governs and what that circuit has held; whether the case belongs in Appeals after docketing; whether summary judgment is realistic; and what a settlement range looks like and why.
Those answers reveal more than a trial count. In a forum where most cases settle, the skill being purchased is the ability to build a record and evaluate risk accurately, and to be right about it when the government disagrees.
If a notice of deficiency has issued or a Tax Court case is already docketed, the decisions that shape the outcome are made in the petition, the stipulation process, and the settlement posture rather than at trial. Chase Counsel handles selected United States Tax Court and federal tax controversy matters. Learn more at www.ChaseCounsel.Com/federal-tax-controversy.
Related Articles
What Is a 90-Day Letter From the IRS?
What Happens If You Miss the Tax Court 90-Day Deadline?
What Happens During an IRS Appeals Conference?
This article discusses federal tax procedure generally and is not legal advice for any particular taxpayer. Whether representation is warranted, and what it should consist of, depends on the issues, the amounts, and the procedural posture of the specific case.