In Uncategorized on 07/22/2016 at 16:12

STJ Daniel A. (“Yuda”) Guy figures maybe the Ogden Sunseteers get one right occasionally in Peter Alexander Goodwin, Docket No. 23146-15W, filed 7/22/16.

Senior Tax Analyst C “was assigned to evaluate petitioner’s application for a whistleblower award. In carrying out his responsibilities, he collected and reviewed all documents that were required to be included in the administrative claim file, and he interviewed audit team personnel to obtain relevant information.” Order, at pp. 1-2. (Name omitted).

The upshot of STA C’s efforts are found in his unsworn but subscribed under penalty of perjury declaration, cited in extenso by STJ Yuda. STA C attaches every document, especially the LB&I “stand-down” determining that the capitalization-vs-expensing audits should be discontinued, and anyway the mismatches that Peter Alexander raises would be shortly wiped out due to MACRIS.

So IRS did nothing, like a certain world-famous nocturnal canine.

“Petitioner maintains that the Commissioner’s failure to conduct an examination of the taxpayer in respect of the items that he identified in his Form 211 and related documents violates the IRS’s mission statement and is contrary to the public policy underlying section 7623(b). He further asserts that the information he provided related to some assets that were not the subject of the stand-down directive and, in any event, the Commissioner should have initiated an examination upon termination of the stand-down directive.” Order, at p. 4.

Maybe so, but Section 7623 doesn’t let Tax Court second-guess IRS.

“The record reflects (and petitioner does not dispute) that the Commissioner did not initiate an administrative or judicial action against the taxpayer as a result of the information that petitioner provided, nor were any proceeds collected from the taxpayer that would support a whistleblower award under section 7623(b). As discussed above, it is well settled that the Court is not authorized to direct the Commissioner to commence an administrative or judicial action.” Order, at pp. 4-5.

The problem is the statute, not Tax Court. Whistleblowing should be in USDC, with a broader mandate from Congress.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: