by Structured Settlement Watchdog
"Spotted Dick" a steamed "sue it" pudding containing a dried fruit (single claimant 468B QSF)…
Well if it wasn't obvious before. it is obvious now that "The Dick" has spots.
Beyond Structured Settlements March 1, 2010
(Dick) Risk offered two comments after the (recent IRC 104(a)(2) hearing. First, what he, as commissioner of the IRS, would say to staff.
'The proposed revision is deficient, as pointed out in the written public comments and in the testimony at the hearing, as it fails to “prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement” of Code section 104, as the law requires. The clarification of the single-claimant issue can be resolved with a single paragraph, consistent with congressional history, court decisions and the agency’s previous rulings, without creating new policy. The definition of “personal physical injury or physical sickness,” as Congress has prescribed, which other commentators have recommended, also merits inclusion in this regulation. Fix it and publish it again as a revised proposal. I do not concur that the revision should be made final in its current state. Your duty is to serve the people, not operate for the convenience of the staff. Further, it is abusive to the people you are here to serve to have suggested during the hearing that they start the process over again by requesting that the single-claimant issue be placed on the Priority Guidance Plan, without giving any assurance that the result would be any different than when the request was first made, in June 2003, accepted as a project in April 2004, and finally abandoned in late 2009.
Second, his overall take of the hearing.
'I am extremely disappointed at the staff’s position in favor of pushing through a shoddy and deficient product for its own convenience that fails to address legitimate issues brought to its attention by comments from the public, rather than doing the job right".
November 28, 2009
In his November 28, 2009 "sour grapes" about the Treasury Priority Guidance "swansong", Patrick Hindert cited that Risk " interprets the decision to remove the single claimant 468B project from the Priority Guidance Plan as evidence that sufficient guidance favoring single claimant 468B QSFs already exists. Risk points to I.R.C. § 7805(d) which requires the Treasury Secretary to “prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of [the Internal Revenue Code].” Risk concludes that Treasury’s decision is an acknowledgment that additional guidance is not “needful.”
I guess that explains Dick Risk's wistful post hearing comments, as related by S2KM
All the more reason that a supporter of single claimant 468B doesn't want "poker choker" Risk running the plays.
Leave a Reply