Tax Court motions go public online in 2027: what that changes

On October 21, 2026, Chief Judge Patrick J. Urda signed Administrative Order 2026-02. Under it, Tax Court motions newly filed electronically on or after January 1, 2027 by practitioners admitted to the Court, together with any briefs or memoranda in support of those motions and any oppositions filed by admitted practitioners, will be made available to the public remotely through DAWSON. DAWSON is the Court's electronic case management and docket system.

That sentence sounds procedural. For a closely held business weighing a petition, it changes a practical question: how much of the company's financial life ends up readable by anyone with a browser, rather than by someone willing to visit a courthouse terminal in Washington or send a records request.

This piece dissects the Tax Court case file document by document, explains who can see each piece and from where, and then walks through the privacy rules that govern what you file. Whether to petition at all, and where the trial sits, are covered elsewhere; see our note on place of trial in Oklahoma and our walkthrough of IRS Appeals after the audit.

The statutory default: public first

Start with the statute. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7461(a), all reports of the Tax Court and all evidence received by it, including a transcript of the stenographic report of the hearings, shall be public records open to the inspection of the public. Public access is the rule written into the Code, not a policy choice the Court made later.

Section 7461(b) is the exception. The Court may adopt any provision it finds necessary to prevent disclosure of trade secrets or other confidential information, including sealing a document so that it's opened only as the Court directs. Once a decision is final, the Court may also let the party entitled to them withdraw original exhibits admitted in evidence.

So the honest framing is this. Everything you put in front of the Court is presumptively public. Confidentiality is something you ask for, justify, and may or may not get.

Two layers of access: remote vs. at the courthouse

Public does not mean equally convenient. The Court's Rule 27(b) draws a line between remote electronic access and access at the courthouse, and the whole 2027 change lives on that line.

Parties and their counsel may access remotely any part of the electronic case file the Court maintains. Nonparties, meaning anyone else, may remotely access only the docket record and any opinion, order, or decision of the Court, unless the Court orders otherwise. The rest of the public electronic record is available to nonparties only at the courthouse.

The Court has been moving documents across that line by administrative order. Administrative Order 2023-02, signed by Chief Judge Kathleen Kerrigan on May 5, 2023, made newly filed post-trial briefs by admitted practitioners and amicus briefs under Rule 151.1 remotely available in non-sealed cases from August 1, 2023, with earlier briefs still reachable through a records request or the courthouse public terminal. The Court's DAWSON FAQ lists stipulated decisions filed on or after that same date as publicly viewable as well.

Administrative Order 2026-02 is the next step on the same path: motions, supporting briefs and memoranda, and oppositions, when filed by admitted practitioners on or after January 1, 2027.

Tax Court motions and the rest of the file: an anatomy

Here is the file in roughly the order it fills up, and who can see each piece under the current rules and the new order. One orienting sentence on procedure: a deficiency case begins when the taxpayer petitions the Court in response to a notice of deficiency, and the IRS answers.

Petition and answer

The petition is the document that opens the case. It states what the IRS proposed, why you disagree, and the facts you rely on. The answer is the IRS's response.

Neither document is on the list of items nonparties can see remotely under Rule 27(b), and neither administrative order moves them. Under the current rules, a stranger to the case sees the docket entry showing a petition was filed, but reads the petition itself only at the courthouse or through a records request. The parties and their counsel see everything remotely.

Motions, supporting memoranda, and oppositions

This is the category that changes. A motion is a written request that the Court do something: dismiss, grant summary judgment, compel discovery, exclude evidence, continue the trial, or enter a decision. Motions often carry the heaviest attachments in the file, because a motion for summary judgment is argued on declarations and exhibits rather than live testimony.

Under Rule 27(b) as written, a motion filed by counsel is viewable by nonparties only at the courthouse. From January 1, 2027, a motion filed by an admitted practitioner, its supporting brief or memorandum, and any practitioner-filed opposition will be viewable remotely in DAWSON. Motions filed before that date stay where they are: available through a records request or the courthouse public terminal.

The order notes that the feature may be implemented after January 1, 2027, but that it will be effective with respect to motions filed on or after that date. A lag in the rollout is not a lag in coverage. Something filed in January that isn't visible in February can become visible later without any further notice to you.

One limit worth stating plainly. The order speaks of electronic filings by practitioners admitted to the Court and says nothing about self-represented petitioners. We read it as not reaching their motions, and sealed cases and sealed documents stay out of public view entirely under the DAWSON FAQ. If the Court clarifies either point later, the clarification controls.

Briefs after trial

A post-trial brief is the written argument each side files after the evidence is in. Since Administrative Order 2023-02, practitioner-filed post-trial briefs in non-sealed cases have been remotely viewable. A good brief quotes the record, so the brief often reproduces the most pointed facts from testimony and exhibits in a form that's easy to read and easy to search.

Stipulations and exhibits

Tax Court practice leans on stipulations of fact, which are agreed written statements of facts with the supporting documents attached. Those attachments are where a company's general ledger, bank statements, owner compensation records, customer lists, and contracts tend to live.

Evidence received by the Court is a public record under § 7461(a). Remote viewing of stipulations and trial exhibits is not something either administrative order grants to nonparties, so under Rule 27(b) they remain courthouse-only for the public. The change to watch is indirect: the same documents frequently get attached to motions. The order names motions, supporting briefs and memoranda, and oppositions; it doesn't say whether exhibits attached to a motion go online with it. Until the Court says otherwise, we'd plan as if they might.

Transcripts

The stenographic transcript of a hearing is expressly named in § 7461(a) as a public record. Nothing in the 2026 order addresses transcripts, so for nonparties they stay within the courthouse-and-records-request lane.

Orders, opinions, and decisions

These were always the most visible layer. Rule 27(b) lets nonparties see any opinion, order, or decision remotely, and the DAWSON FAQ confirms that opinions and orders issued by the Court are viewable electronically by the general public. An opinion that resolves your case will typically recite the facts the judge found, including figures.

What goes in the file, and the four things Rule 27 says to leave out

Rule 27(a) requires parties and nonparties alike to omit or redact four categories from anything they file. Taxpayer identification numbers, including Social Security and employer identification numbers, come out. For a date of birth, only the year should appear. For a minor child, only initials. For a financial account number, only the last four digits.

Notice what isn't on that list. Revenue, margins, payroll, the owner's salary, the names of major customers, the terms of your supply contracts, the appraisal of your building. None of it is protected information under Rule 27(a). If it's relevant to the dispute and you or the IRS file it, it's in the public record, and from 2027 it may be in the remote public record if it rides on a motion.

Sealing and protective orders: the exceptions

Rule 27(c) lets the Court order that a filing containing protected information be filed under seal without redaction. The Court may later unseal it or require the filer to submit a redacted version for the public record. The Court's Notice Regarding Privacy says the same thing: a party who wants to file a document containing personal identifiers may move to seal, and even if the document is sealed the Court may still require a redacted version.

Business confidentiality runs through Rule 27(d). For good cause, the Court may require redaction of additional information or issue a protective order under Rule 103(a). That's the route for trade secrets, pricing, and customer data, and it tracks the § 7461(b) authority over trade secrets or other confidential information.

Two practical points follow. Good cause is a showing you have to make; it isn't presumed because the filer is a private company. And sealing is granular. A sealed document in an otherwise open case keeps that document out of view, but the motion it supports, the order ruling on it, and the opinion may all still describe what it said.

Mechanics sit in Rule 27(e) and (f). A filer who submits a redacted document may also file an unredacted copy under seal, which the Court retains as part of the record. A redacted document may be accompanied by a reference list, filed under seal, that maps each redacted item to a unique identifier; a reference in the filing to the identifier is treated as a reference to the underlying information.

The waiver trap

Rule 27(g) is the provision we'd want every client to read before filing anything. In the Rule's words, the responsibility to redact a filing rests with the person making the filing. The Clerk is not required to review documents filed with the Court for compliance with the Rule. And a person waives protection as to the person's own information by filing it without redaction and not under seal.

Put those three sentences together and the rule is simple. Nobody at the Court is checking your exhibits for an account number. If one slips through unredacted and unsealed, the protection for that information is gone, and complaining later doesn't restore it. The Court's privacy notice adds that it expects the parties to exercise good faith in their efforts to redact, which cuts both ways: a good-faith slip is understandable, and a careless one is still your problem.

The 60-day fix

Rule 27(h) gives a limited safety valve. A person who inadvertently discloses identifying information may correct it by filing a properly redacted duplicate of the document, with all attachments, within 60 days of the original filing without leave of Court. After the 60 days, correction requires leave of Court, meaning you ask and the judge decides.

Two cautions. The fix is for the identifiers covered by Rule 27(a); it doesn't convert a business document you now regret filing into a sealed one. And a duplicate filing replaces nothing that was already viewed during those days.

What this means for a closely held business deciding whether to petition

A Tax Court case about an S corporation's reasonable compensation, a partnership's allocations, or a disallowed deduction is, at bottom, a dispute about the company's books. The books come in as exhibits. The arguments about the books come in as motions and briefs. After January 1, 2027, the arguments, and possibly whatever is attached to them, are a search away for any nonparty, including competitors, customers, lenders, and former employees.

Here is our practitioner's edge on this: the documents that hurt most rarely appear in the petition. They appear as exhibits to a motion for summary judgment, a motion in limine to keep out a valuation witness, or a motion to compel, because that is where a lawyer proves a point with paper. The 2027 change moves the motion layer online, and the attachments may follow. Thinking about what a motion will carry, before it's filed, is now part of case strategy rather than an afterthought.

It also raises the value of settling before motion practice. A case resolved at IRS Appeals or by stipulated decision after the petition keeps the file thin: a petition and answer the public reads only at the courthouse, and a decision document. A case that runs through summary judgment leaves a much fuller public record, and a trial leaves the fullest.

There is a counterweight. Public filings are also how the Tax Court's reasoning becomes accessible to the next taxpayer with the same issue, and the ability to read practitioner motions from Oklahoma City sessions without a trip to Washington is a real benefit to anyone evaluating their own exposure. Public access isn't a defect in the system. It is the system, and the privacy rules are carve-outs from it.

The small tax case wrinkle

Businesses with modest amounts at stake sometimes elect small tax case procedures under 26 U.S.C. § 7463, available when neither the deficiency nor the claimed overpayment exceeds $50,000 for the relevant period, with the Court's concurrence. A small tax case decision shall not be reviewed in any other court and cannot be treated as precedent. Nothing in § 7463 or the 2026 order makes S-case filings less public, so the election affects appeal rights and precedent, not the visibility of the file.

State procedure is separate

All of this is federal. An Oklahoma Tax Commission protest runs under Oklahoma procedure with its own rules on records and confidentiality, and none of the Tax Court rules described here govern it. Oklahoma owners with parallel federal and state disputes should treat the two files as governed by two different sets of rules.

A short checklist before anything is filed

• Assume every page is public, then ask what you'd want sealed and whether good cause exists under Rule 27(d).
• Review each exhibit for Rule 27(a) identifiers before it goes to counsel for filing; the Clerk won't catch them.
• Decide early whether a motion needs the full ledger as an attachment or whether a summary will carry the point.
• If something slipped, calendar the 60-day window under Rule 27(h).
• Weigh settlement timing against how much of the record exists yet.

Is a Tax Court petition still the right move for a business that values privacy? Often yes, because the alternative is paying first and suing for a refund in a court with its own public docket. The point is to petition with the public file in mind.

If your company is weighing a Tax Court petition, or already has a case heading toward motion practice, it's worth talking through what the file will look like before the first motion is drafted. You can reach our practice through the contact page or at our Oklahoma City office. A conversation early is almost always cheaper than a filing you can't take back.

This article is general information about Oklahoma, Texas, and federal law, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Facts matter; talk to a lawyer about yours.