Attorney-at-Law

REPEAL SECTION 7623

In Uncategorized on 07/08/2022 at 13:24

Might as well, as DC Cir has rendered that enactment completely illusory. And pension off the Ogden Sunseteers; there’s no reason for them to report for work, either physically or electronically, as all they have to do post-Li is nothing.

Mandy Mobley Li offered herself up on toast. As I said when Mandy Mobley first surfaced, “…perhaps maybe so this is a family law thing gone wrong. Just sayin’, not fur nuthin’.” See my blogpost “Ran The Checklist,” 4/6/20.

And Mandy Mobley was pro se then and thereafter. So when she was well and soundly trounced by Judge Courtney (“CD”) Jones, she appealed to DC Cir, all by her lonesome.

Remarkably, despite the much-proclaimed lenity shown pro ses, especially those as obviously hapless as Mandy Mobley, rather than seeking pro bono assistance for her, DC Cir engaged two attorneys (qualifications unstated and to fame unknown as far as the internet goes) as amici, to teach DC Cir about jurisdiction under Section 7623.

Truly, I can’t make it out.

I thought judges were the ones to decide questions of law. The only time an expert opinion might be required is when foreign law was at issue. Or so I thought.

As it happened, no sooner did the two amici conclude (might I indulge in a wee “nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more”?) that Tax Court had no jurisdiction unless IRS did something besides toss the claimant, than IRS folded. What Mandy Mobley did is unclear, but probably resembled a deer in the headlights.

From IRS counsels’ point of view, this is a gift. This is one entire area in which they have to do no work. Ditto from the Ogden Sunseteers’ point of view. And as Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction (Section 7623(b)(4)), I can’t think but that a reduction in workload is welcomed by that hard-pressed Bench.

Now all that’s necessary is for Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan to issue the stereotyped order in, for example, Ronald R. Kopko, Docket No. 19210-21W, filed 7/8/22. “…the stay of proceedings in this case is lifted. … the parties are no longer required to file status reports on or before September 30, 2022. … on the Court’s own motion, this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” Order, at p.1.

But how about claimants who have something? And who can’t afford to hire or engage counsel? Are contingency fees permitted in whistleblower cases (cf. Circular 230, 31 CFR §10.27(b))? It’s not clear.

So the tax whistleblower statute, a creaky vehicle at its best, is now completely broken down.

Unless another Rich Lacey, with the wherewithal to pay counsel, arises from without the bounds of DC Cir, gets tossed by the Ogden Sunseteers and Ch J TBS, and appeals to a different Circuit, whose Judges aren’t afraid to decide the law their own selves. And maybe so even make some people work for a living.

For Rich Lacey’s story, see my blogpost “The Whistleblower Office – Blown,” 11/25/19

Note this is a nonpolitical blog; my views of current Federal judicial appointments have no place here.

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 )

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: