Today, I’m reprinting the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo Foundation v. U.S. I’ve always seen the never-ending litigation involving medical residents as an attempt by hospitals to deprive their residents of the benefits and protections of Social Security coverage. Congratulations to Cathy Livingston and her folks for pursuing these cases as well as the attorneys at the Department of Justice.
I’m also reprinting from the National Taxpayer Advocate’s 2010 Annual Report to Congress — Most Serious Problem #8 — “The Failure of the Office of Appeals to Adequately Document Prohibited Ex Parte Communications May Violate Taxpayer Rights and Damage the Public’s Perception of its Independence.”
In the discussion of Most Serious Problem #8, there is an interesting dissertation on the appeals process, which should be of interest to EO practitioners considering same. In addition, there is expressed in the report a rather strong disagreement between the Taxpayer Advocate and the Office of Appeals.
Since we’re talking bureaucratic legalese here, the back-and-forth is not on a par with those late seventies exchanges on SNL between Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd (“Jane, you ignorant slut” and “Dan, you pompous ass”), but I wouldn’t be surprised if the two sides weren’t thinking along those lines. To quote the new philosopher king, Rex Ryan, “This is personal.” Here are parts of the report I found amusing: