Let me be clear, I’m not starting, engaged in, or continuing a vendetta or nitpicking party  against IRS. Neither am I claiming holier-than-thou status, whether against petitioners, intervenors, or respondent. Sloppiness should be called out, because we’re all prone to taking the shortcut or the slippery slope.

Yeah, I’ve been called a curmudgeon. By the second generation member of a family I represented on and off for over forty years. I’ll accept that. But I’ll say it again: sloppiness, whatever its source, should be called out.

I know IRS is shortfunded, shortstaffed, and shortstacked, especially when dealing with hangovers from Congress’ strewing of unguided largesse on taxpayers fleeing to Our Insolvent Islands in the Sun, as more particularly encountered in Amgen Inc. & Subsidiaries, et. al., Docket No. 16017-21, filed 3/5/24.

Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves shoots down this try at a Rule 91(f) quick-kick facts-and-evidence-deemed-established OSC because IRS’ counsel tries for an inside-the-park without touching first, second, or third. Or even hitting the ball.

The parties were sparring over segmented P&Ls, which Amgen first claimed they didn’t have, but thereafter came up with some of the years at issue. Following back-and-forth on the completeness and accuracy thereof, IRS sent Amgen its version, and a stipulation consenting to same, which failed to attach the exhibits referred to therein. Amgen objected.

Judge Tag Greaves: “Respondent’s motion is deficient in several respects. First, respondent failed to attach to his motion the segmented financial statements referenced in his draft Joint Third Stipulation of Facts Second Financial Stipulations as required by Rule 91(f)(1)(B). Without these exhibits, we will not require petitioner to stipulate to their accuracy. Respondent’s motion further fails to set forth sources, reasons, and basis for claiming that the financial statements should be stipulated as required by Rule 91(f)(1)(C). Respondent did not explain the documents he consulted nor his process in constructing the segmented financial statements. Finally, respondent’s motion did not show that petitioner had reasonable access to this information in accordance with Rule 91(f)(1)(D).” Order, at p. 3.

Moreover, Amgen disputes the accuracy of the latest iteration of the statements. And the parties did seem to be working on discovery in good faith.

Now, it’s true that Amgen (and the Subsidiaries) have deployed 21 (count ’em, 21) lawyers, only one of whom is in-house and the balance ultra-whiteshoe, but IRS has 16 (count ’em, 16) to oppose, not exactly Davey-Crockett-Alamo odds. So why not follow the Rule 91(f) checklist? IRS knew about Amgen’s objections at the end of December, Order, at p. 2. Check my chronology there.

Motion for OSC denied.