In my youth, this had to do with tombstones. The custom was to install the tombstone a year after the deceased had been sited in; family and friends would gather, and a sheet would be removed from the tombstone for all to admire. I thought this bizarre at the time, and haven’t attended any in many decades. I don’t even know if this is still done.

But today STJ Diana L (“The Taxpayer’s Friend”) Leyden, having lost patience with a blower who refuses to redact when politely asked, threatens an unveiling of her own.

13420-19W, filed 9/18/20, (hereinafter “Four Twenty”) started anonymously in March, when STJ Di told Four Twenty to redact a few documents, which were replete with personally identifiable information. Also Four Twenty and IRS were to redact and file another eleven (count ’em, eleven) other such documents. STJ Di also gave the parties the usual redaction two-step to follow. And even gave them an extension of time to do so.

Of course Four Twenty did nothing, except file an unredacted motion to toss his own petition. STJ Di orders Four Twenty to redact that, and while he’s about it, to redact further his petition; apparently the original version was imperfectly redacted.

IRS enters the dance, moving to modify STJ Di’s earlier order, because Four Twenty had duck-dived. IRS wants to file twelve (count ’em, twelve) redacted documents.

STJ Di gave Four Twenty an Order to Show Cause why IRS’ redactions shouldn’t go in, at no extra charge.

“… petitioner filed a Response to Order… (response). In his response, petitioner states he has no objection to the submission of the redacted Court Orders attached to respondent’s motion to modify. Petitioner noted an objection to footnote 1 in respondent’s motion to modify as containing ‘other information of petitioner’. Petitioner also noted an objection to footnote 5 of the redacted version of respondent’s motion for summary judgment, attached to respondent’s motion to modify, as containing ‘other information of petitioner’. The Court will take steps to seal these two documents so that this case can proceed on petitioner’s motion to dismiss.” Order, at pp. 2-3.

For those whose eyes have not yet glazed over, STJ Di recounts a phoneathon with IRS and Four Twenty, wherein she told Four Twenty to get that Sharpie in hand, reform and redact.

But STJ Di has finally lost patience with Four Twenty.

“If petitioner fails to comply with this Order, the Court may revisit the question of whether the Court should continue to allow petitioner to proceed anonymously. Whistleblower 12568-16W v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 103, 107-108 (2017).” Order, at p. 3.

As to 12568-16W, see my blogpost “Now You Don’t See Him, Now You Do,” 3/23/17. As I said back then, if there’s any disincentive to whistleblowing, unveiling is leading.