Attorney-at-Law

WE DON’T NEED LACEY

In Uncategorized on 01/30/2020 at 15:41

While it looked like out-of-hand tosses by the Ogden Sunseteers would hit the Lacey wall, the Obliging Jurist Judge David Gustafson, obliges the OS crew when the Form 211 is clearly off-the-wall. Case in point: Christian Bernd Alber, 2020 T. C. Memo. 20, filed 1/30/20.

This furnishes a counterpoint to Lacey, for which see my blogpost “The Whistleblower Office – Blown,” 11/25/19.

Chris’ bœuf reminds me of my youthful days in Our State’s Attorney General’s Office, where such complaints as his were routine. “His Form 211 alleges violations of the income tax laws of Germany, as well as ‘identity theft, tax theft, suppression and destruction of * * * [his] life through fake statements’ and generally alludes to rights under the United States and German Constitutions that afford ‘right[s] for * * * [his] property.’  In the attachments to his Form 211, Mr. Alber identified 17 discrete persons or entities as the perpetrators of his alleged grievances, but he asserted no facts that would connect any of these alleged bad actors to a specific violation of an internal revenue law of the United States.” 2020 T. C. Memo. 20, at p. 3.

Chris also has problems with his divorce, child custody, a hotel in Thuringia, and “a ‘highly criminal “psychological assessment” by a German doctor “even though * * * [he is] totally healthy’….” 2020 T. C. Memo. 20, at p. 3.

True, the OS’ toss letter used the contemned “and/or” conjunction, but that’s no obstacle.

“The Commissioner’s form letter contained the same ‘and/or’ conjunction that led to unclarity in Lacey v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. __, __ (slip op. at 39-40) (Nov. 25, 2019).  But on the record of this case, with the benefit of the detail in the ARM [award recommendation memorandum, the toss note prepared by the tax analyst at Ogden], all of the listed reasons for the rejection are warranted, so we need not pick and choose.  However, we continue to be concerned that, in a closer case, this form text may create confusion when we review a summary rejection of a whistleblower claim.” 2020 T. C. Memo. 20, at pp. 8-9, footnote 5.

No credible evidence of an IRC violation, and nothing that might lead to recovery of money. So the issue isn’t no action and no proceeds, but rather no action could go anywhere based on what was submitted.

In short, when there’s no allegation of an IRC violation, we don’t need Lacey.

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: