Attorney-at-Law

BLOWN OR TOSSED

In Uncategorized on 07/09/2019 at 17:42

Unlike Oscar Hammerstein II’s heroine walking through a storm with her head held high at the close of Carousel, Jaroslaw Janusz Waszczuk, Docket No. 23105-18W, filed 7/9/19, will find that he will be tossed if he doesn’t agree to IRS’ standard Rule 103 shield order, protecting the Section 6103 return info of the blown third-party, which IRS will hand over to JJ in the course of discovery.

JJ protests. “…petitioner filed a 136-page Opposition to respondent’s aforementioned motion, alleging such motion to be ‘frivolous, meritless, and groundless’. Petitioner then goes on to allege that ‘By granting the Motion for Protective Order to Respondent, the Court would interfere with Petitioner’s litigations in State of California Courts and with Petitioner’s complaints with various state and federal law enforcement agencies.’ The scores of pages and exhibits that then follow this allegation suggest to this Court (i.e., to the Tax Court) that petitioner may regard the present whistleblower proceeding as collateral to his other ‘litigations’ and ‘complaints’ and that he may also regard the present whistleblower proceeding useful in unearthing material for his use in such other ‘litigations’ and ‘complaints’.” Order, at p. 2.

The Judge with a Heart, STJ Robt N Armen, is unimpressed.

IRS won’t dish Section 6103 protected info without a tough protective order, limiting the use thereof to this case only. And without the Section 6103 info, JJ should understand he “…has little, if any, likelihood of success in this Court insofar as the whistleblower’s claim for reward under section 7623(b) is concerned. (This is not to say that the disclosure of Section 6103 Information by the Commissioner to the whistleblower assures such success.).” Order, at p. 3.

But STJ Armen lets JJ decide: he can withdraw his opposition, consent to the Rule 103 gag, and try his whistleblower but nothing else. Or he can continue to object, in which event he gets nothing, and can play the Michael Corleone gambit.

But because of JJ’s predilection to leap into print, STJ Armen cautions him.

“(A) lengthy response to this Order is not required; indeed, a lengthy response would be inappropriate and may be regarded by the Court as tantamount to petitioner choosing….” to oppose the motion and get nothing. Order, at p. 4.

And if JJ tries to rewrite the Rule 103 order, he’ll be deemed to have chosen to oppose and get nothing.

So if JJ wants to grab the spoils from the blown, he had better not get the Rule 103 gag tossed.

 

Advertisements

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: