These are properly excluded from discovery and the administrative record; also excluded from analysis of what the Whistleblower Office did or did not do is what other branches of IRS did or did not do. So Whistleblower 14376-16W, T. C. Memo. 2024-22, filed 2/14/24, get neither summary J in his/her favor, nor discovery of the 36 (count ’em, 36) categories of documents demanded.  But ex-Ch J. Michael B (“Iron Mike”) Thornton does give IRS summary J tossing 14376-16W’s petition, at no extra charge.

14376-16W is back from remand. The backstory is in my blogpost “Voluntary Malgré Lui,” 9/16/17.  It doesn’t end well.

That IRS field (not the Ogden Sunseteers) improperly tipped off Target that the whistle had been blown doesn’t change the result, nor that SB/SE let Target into the OVDP despite the whistle having been blown (although ex-Ch J Iron Mike agrees with IRS that Target asked in long before IRS told them about 14376-16W). IRS claims the only changes they made, and cash they collected, came from the returns and amended returns Target filed, not from 14376-16W.

Not every piece of paper or concatenation of electrons agency staff mentions or had around was necessarily considered by them in reaching their result. Discovery geeks and record-rule fans will find plenty of somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent in T. C. Memo. 2024-22, at pp. 31-40.

Some key takeaways: what field operators did or didn’t do is irrelevant; what was relied on by the Ogden Sunseteers is the point. Post-Barenblatt, blower discovery is an uphill fight at best. Post-Lissack, the blow had better be right on small-T target; not merely who, but precisely what, were the delictions.

Most essentially, neither the Ogden Sunseteers, nor IRS field, nor Tax Court, nor DC Circuit, loves whistleblowers. The old Italian proverb remains true: “Who draws his sword upon the prince had better throw away the scabbard.”