Attorney-at-Law

BLOWIN’ IN THE WIND

In Uncategorized on 09/01/2021 at 16:51

It’s almost eight (count ’em, eight) years to the day since I reported on a truncated interview with a TIGTA Deputy IG. I know it’s been a while, so see my blogpost “Another Whistleblower Gets Blown,” 8/30/13. And I’ll save you the trouble of clicking the link.

What I asked was “why TIGTA didn’t deal with the unending stonewalling by the Whistleblower Office, which seems to spend its waking hours denying claims when they’re not claiming that they haven’t determined anything. I cannot disclose his reply, here or elsewhere, as I asked informally.” I wish I could display the body language my question evoked, but I cannot, as I had not identified myself as a journo.

Howbeit, if TIGTA needs a new project, they can be sure that the Ogden Sunseteers are “consuming miles of red tape in the correctest forms of activity,” as another Nobel laureate put it. And accomplishing…well, take a look at Wai-Cheung Wilson Chow and Deanne Chow, 2021 T. C. Memo. 106, filed 9/1/21.*

The Chows whistled their former landlord, who, they said, only paid tax on the one building wherein the Chows rented, but boasted to them that she owned others, which she rented on a cash-only basis, paying no tax. The Chows attached to their Form 211 “a list of possible aliases used by the target taxpayer, a list of 50 addresses possibly associated with the target, and the identity of a possible relative of the target and that person’s associated addresses. The Chows obtained most of this information from internet research. From this research, they surmised that the target hides her property ownership from the IRS by purchasing properties in cash and registering them under various names, trusts, and companies.” 2021 T. C. Memo. 106, at p. 3.

Well, confronted with this, and mindful of Lacey (see my blogpost “The Whistleblower Office – Blown,” 11/25/19), the OS bucked the Chows’ materials to an SBSE classifier, who checked IRS’ databases and bounced the Chows as not credible.

“As the basis for this recommendation, the classifier stated that the target’s tax filings indicated income from one rental property and the database revealed that the target owned only one property. The SBSE classifier concluded that the claim provided no specific or credible information regarding Federal tax noncompliance.” 2021 T. C. Memo. 106, at p. 4.

Exactly what the SBSE classifier expected the target’s tax filings to show, except that the target filed for only one property, I cannot divine.

Need I point out that, if the Chows are correct in any particular, none of the target’s subterfuges will show up on any IRS database? The entire point is that target wasn’t filing for other properties. It might have been well to see who, if anyone, was filing for one or two of the properties on the Chows’ list, and, if they were filing, what, if anything, were they filing.

Looking on the radar for that which flies below the radar rarely if ever produces a worthwhile result.

So Judge Buch tosses the Chows.

But in the words of anther Nobel Laureate, “the answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.”

*Wai-Cheung Wilson Chow 2021 T C Memo 106 9 1 21

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: