Judge Foley (“MightyMo” to his many friends) excoriates IRS in a designated hitter, 5/10/13, Anonymous 1 and Anonymous 2, Docket No. 12472-11W.

Remember the Anonymous Duo? No? Well, check out my blogpost “Your Name Is Not Your Fame”, 11/2/12, where Mighty Mo blew off the Anonymous Duo because IRS said they didn’t use the info the Anonymous Duo put on their Forms 211, saying “didn’t use the info and didn’t get any cash.” So MightyMo gave IRS summary judgment tossing the Anonymous Duo.

May I claim prophetic vision, as I wrote at the end of the aforementioned blogpost: “I know it’s a waste of time asking Congress to do anything; they can’t stop the country from falling off the fiscal cliff they created, much less clean up the whistleblower provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. But this charade really has to stop.”

Well, Congress didn’t, but IRS reopened the matter on its own hook, apparently, and sent the Anonymous Duo a letter so stating. So the Anonymous Duo move to vacate the summary judgment they lost, and IRS opposes.

“Respondent reopened petitioners’ original award claims, yet requests that the Court deny petitioners’ motion. Furthermore, respondent states that ‘The Court’s Order and Decision specifically made reference to the petitioners’ information and respondent’s subsequent investigation; the Court granted respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, aware of that possibility.’ Respondent’s statement is misleading. The Court was aware that respondent opened a subsequent investigation, however, respondent assured the Court that the SB/SE investigation was independent and that the information petitioners provided in their original Forms 211 was not being used. Moreover, respondent did not inform the Court that he was considering subsequent action relating to petitioners’ original award claims.” Order, at p. 2.

Now for the good part: “It appears, despite respondent’s assertions to the contrary, that the information provided by petitioners in their original Forms 211 has been used by respondent in the SB/SE investigation. Furthermore, respondent has repeatedly failed to provide the Court with relevant information: respondent failed to timely inform the Court about the SB/SE investigation, failed to inform the Court that respondent was considering reopening petitioners’ original award claims, and, most egregiously, failed to inform the Court that respondent did, in fact, reopen petitioners’ original award claims. We do not know whether these failures were the result of bureaucratic confusion or ineptitude. We do know, however, that the obfuscation surrounding this matter has either been caused or exacerbated by respondent.” Order, at pp. 2-3,

Now the Anonymous Duo’s Rule 162 vacate-or-reverse motion is filed way later than the thirty-day requirement. “Motions to vacate are generally not granted absent a showing of unusual circumstances or substantial error (e.g., mistake, inadvertence, surprise, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other reason justifying relief).” Order, at p. 3. (Citations omitted).

But this case is pretty unusual, ya think?

Anyway, Mighty Mo thinks so, and his thought is what counts: “The Whistleblower Office’s reopening of petitioners’ original award claim is an unusual circumstance. Furthermore, respondent provided the Court with incomplete, misleading, and possibly inaccurate information. Accordingly, we vacate our Order and Decision dated November 2, 2012, and conclude that respondent’s April 26, 2011, determinations were not valid. “ Order, at p. 3.

So the Anonymous Duo can wait until IRS completes its new inquiry, and if they’re unhappy with the result, they can petition afresh.

Now IRS, in the immortal words of the late great Desi Arnaz: “Lucy, you got some ‘splainin’ to do!”