Attorney-at-Law

THE ALL-STAR BREAK

In Uncategorized on 05/20/2015 at 17:10

Yes, I know it’s way too early in the baseball season, so this is a different all-star break. The US Tax Court Judicial Conference opens tomorrow, and a star-studded cast of judicial talent is onboard to edify us groundlings, and lead us into the right pathways.

One of the lead-off batters tomorrow morning is CSTJ Peter Panuthos, who today unhorses Whistleblower Bohdan Senyszyn, Docket 14706-13W, filed 5/20/15, a designated vorspeise.

Bo is peeved his whistleblowing got the usual “we didn’t use your info and didn’t collect a dime” from the Ogden Sunseteers. Bo claims his erstwhile partner (hereinafter known as “5”) took bogus deductions, didn’t report income or pay over withholding trust funds.

IRS said they sent their sleuths, and 5 got a “no change.”

OK, no biggie.

But beware, oh wannabe whistleblower; make sure that the one you seek to torpedo can’t depthcharge you.

While checking out 5’s alleged delictions, “(T)he Agent learned that the taxpayer was working with CID agents and assisted in the incarceration of the whistleblower.” Order, at p. 2.

Y’all can see where this is going.

IRS’s SME (subject matter expert) memorializes his debriefing of Bo delicately but firmly. “…‘Subject has a substantial Net Operating Loss [NOL] Carry Forward to offset any proposed additional tax liability ….’ Regarding petitioner’s motives in pursuing his whistleblower claim, the SME wrote, ‘It appears that the WB [whistleblower) is trying to get the IRS involved in a personal matter that is best resolved by the court system. It also appears to the SME that the WB (a former IRS G/M in LB&I) is attempting to use his knowledge of the ‘system’ to have the resources of the ‘Service’ set upon his partner for his (WB) pleading guilty and serving time in prison. Therefore, as set forth in the above paragraphs, the SME recommends that no further actions be taken by the SB/SE Examination.” Order, at p. 2.

Note- G/M means “Group Manager” and LB&I is Large Business and International.

Oh, and the Revenue Agent on the audit concluded that 5 wasn’t savvy enough to concoct a good tax fiddle without Bo’s insider knowledge.

After Bo has offered himself up on toast, CSTJ Panuthos deconstructs all of Bo’s contentions thus: “As discussed above, collection of proceeds upon which an award can be based is a prerequisite for a whistleblower award. Respondent did not collect any proceeds, and petitioner’s disagreements do not dispute that fact.” Order, at p. 5.

Summary J for IRS.

Sorry Bo, I can’t give ya a Taishoff “good try;” you didn’t clear your flanks before you attacked. Bad strategy.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: