In Uncategorized on 07/09/2018 at 15:40

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’ C. L. Dodgson, Through the Looking-Glass, 1871.

And when IRS compiles an administrative record in a whistleblower case, it contains exactly what IRS chooses it to contain – neither more nor less.

Except STJ Daniel A. (“Yuda”) Guy doesn’t think so.

Here’s Whistleblower 972-17W, filed 7/9/18, (hereinafter the “Whistler”) who gets to look through the looking-glass via a couple interrogatories (hi, Judge Holmes), and production of the descriptions and accounts of his/her conversations with various ROs and SAs.

Whistler tipped off the Federales about corporate skullduggery involving officer nonreporting of income and nonpayment of FICA. IRS claims they knew that already, and Whistler’s stuff didn’t move the chains.

IRS’ defense against Whistler’s discovery requests is a wee bit lame.

“Respondent maintains that petitioner should not be permitted to conduct discovery because the administrative record as compiled by the Whistleblower Office is the only information that was taken into account in the determination to deny petitioner’s whistleblower claim. Citing Kasper v. Commissioner, 150 T.C. No. 2 (Jan. 9, 2018), respondent asserts that the scope of review in whistleblower cases is limited to the administrative record and that petitioner has failed to establish an exception to the so-called record rule.” Order, at p. 4.

For the Kasper story, see my blogpost “Two Old Cases,” 1/10/18.

Well, this time the administrative record IRS proffers is scanty.

“The Court’s review of the administrative record shows that it contains very little information, other than petitioner’s Form 211, identifying or describing the specific information that petitioner provided to the IRS. While the administrative record indicates that petitioner had multiple meetings and informal contacts with various IRS agents involved in the investigations and examinations of taxpayers 1, 2, and 3, and corporations 1 and 2, described above, there are few records of the dates of petitioner’s meetings and virtually no documents describing the nature and scope of the information that petitioner provided to the IRS agents in question.” Order, at p. 5.

So Whistler gets three (count ‘em, three) interrogatories and two (count ‘em, two) document demands. But in the meantime IRS and Whistler should play nice and swap stuff.

Whistler wanted nonconsensual depositions if IRS didn’t pony up, but that’s premature.

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: