I’ve pointed out before now that remand is a double-edged sword; while remand can let you get in facts and arguments you missed the first time around, it also lets IRS clean up its act, and refresh and refurbish the administrative record.

Looks like IRS has a problem with Richard G. Saffire, Jr., Docket No. 101-18W, filed 3/30/20. Richard wants discovery, and IRS, leafing through the documents responsive thereto, finds some unturned stones that maybe perhaps the Ogden Sunseteers might want to check out.

Remember, the administrative record in a Section 7623 whistleblower case is “All ye know on earth, and all ye need to know,” as a much greater writer than I put it.

So IRS says “send it through again.” Richard wants discovery first. Now usually Tax Court will remand whistleblower cases, even though Judge Vasquez once thought they couldn’t. See my blogpost “Remand? You Can Whistle For It,” 1/31/18.

So why is Richard fighting remand? Well, I haven’t seen his papers, and The Glasshouse in Lockdown City is itself locked down, as is your blogger, so no one can say. But maybe a glimpse of my blogpost “Trust Me – It Wasn’t Yours,” 3/12/19, will give a hint at Richard’s impatience with the Ogden Sunseteers.

Howbeit, Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley is willing to cut the OS crowd some cliché.

“In this case, it appears the administrative record is presently incomplete, and we find that remanding petitioner’s whistleblower claim for further consideration by the WBO prior to the parties engaging in any further discovery will be the most efficient way to supplement the administrative record and conserve the resources of the parties and the Court.” Order, at p. 2.

Lest the IRS and the OS become too elated, Ch J Mighty Mo, like a much more exalted authority with a much more exalted personage, reserves for them a thorn in the flesh.

“We will, however, hold petitioner’s motion to compel in abeyance.” Order, at p. 2.