In Uncategorized on 01/28/2020 at 15:45

I’ve mentioned before now staggering bleary-eyed into my high school class after hearing Prez eulogize the man he called ”Mr President of the DJ Committee.” Yes, I and my fellows were “gonna be up all night gettin’ with it.” Gone, alas, like my youth, too soon.

But today Judge Colvin, unlike the immortal Lester Young, decides he does think he’s “listenin’ to Lacey.” Only this Lacey isn’t easy-listening DJ Jack, it’s Richard E. Lacey, II, whose contribution to whistleblower lore is found in my blogpost “The Whistleblower Office – Blown,” 11/25/19.

And whom else to bring the Lacey gambit front-and-center but Thomas M. Comparini & Vicki Comparini, Docket No. 6674-13W, filed 1/28/20? I’ve blogged the Comparinis and their epistolary jamboree for upwards of six (count ‘em, six) years; you could look it up.

Today IRS is once again trying the played-out summary J “We started nothin’ and got nothin’” gambit, notwithstanding the Comparinis gave them 500 pages to start, and when the Ogden Sunseteers kicked their Form 211, gave them 300 pages more.

Turns out that while the OS sent the first 500 to examination, who sent it back as unsubstantiated, they never sent examination (or anyone else) the second 300. And IRS’ summary J motion doesn’t include the administrative record.

“The parties dispute whether petitioners substantiated their application and supplemental application. The parties have not provided the administrative record to the Court, and we are unable on this record to review the reasonableness of respondent’s determination set forth in the letter issued to petitioners after they submitted their supplemental application.

“Respondent does not explain why materials provided by petitioners do not constitute substantiation of their application. Considering our obligation to resolve doubt in favor of the non-moving party, on our record we are unable to find that it is not in dispute whether petitioners substantiated their application.

Respondent contends that petitioners are not entitled to receive a whistleblower award because no proceeds were collected and no action was taken based on petitioners’ claim. With respect to petitioners’ supplemental application, no action was taken by the WBO (except to repeat the denial of the original application) and there were no proceeds. In Lacey v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. __,__ (slip op. at 38) (November 25, 2019), we said ‘[t]he Tax Court’s review of a WBO determination to “reject” a claim is not preempted by the absence of “action” and “proceeds”.’ The absence of ‘action” and ‘proceeds’, without more, does not provide sufficient grounds to justify granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment.” Order, at pp. 2-3.

Gotta do better, Sunseteers. Looks like you too are “gonna be up all night gettin’ with it.” And listenin’ to Lacey.

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 )

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: