In Uncategorized on 07/07/2020 at 16:44

I learn something new all the time blogging USTC. I had always thought the word “fulsome” meant exaggerated, principally in exaggerated, excessive praise or flattery. But there’s a secondary meaning, and David Frank Ruppert, Docket No. 20594-18W, filed 7/7/20, put me wise, for which I now thank him.

David Frank objects when IRS claims in their answer that they started nuthin’ and collected nuthin’. He says “…the Whistleblower Office’s review of his information was not ‘fulsome or sufficient”….” Order, at p. 1. I doubt the Ogden Sunseteers think flattery will get them anywhere. I was ready to have some fun with this, but the better angels of my nature caused me to take a wee dictionary nibble.

“Fulsome” also means “of a large size or quantity.”

STJ Diana L (“Sidewalks of New York”) Leyden is less interested how large was the Ogden Sunseteers’ scrutiny of whatever David Frank handed them, than how they rejected it.

Turns out the OS Final Decision said they tossed David Frank “…because the information provided was speculative and/or did not provide specific or credible information regarding tax underpayments or violations of the internal revenue laws.” Order, at p. 1.

No mention that IRS didn’t start or collect. They first raise that in their answer, and move for summary J.

“After respondent’s motion was filed, the Court held that, while we do not review the IRS’ decision whether to audit a target in response to a whistleblower’s claim, we may review for abuse of discretion the Whistleblower Office’s determination rejecting a whistleblower claim, even where no administrative or judicial proceeding is commenced and no proceeds are collected. See Lacey v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. __ (Nov. 25, 2019). However, respondent did not state as a basis for rejecting petitioner’s claim that no administrative or judicial proceeding was commenced or that no proceeds were collected. As a result of our holding in Lacey, respondent has not demonstrated in his motion that there is no genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether respondent abused his discretion with respect to petitioner’s whistleblower claim. We must therefore deny respondent’s motion.” Order, at p. 2.

I’d have thought that the “nuthin'” claim would be boilerplate in every Final Decision, so that the rejection of the blower would be thoroughly fulsome.




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: