Legal Opinion
Charles Stuart Pulcine v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Decided March 2, 2020Published
1Opinion of the Court
T.C. Memo. 2020-29
UNITED STATES TAX COURT CHARLES STUART PULCINE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 3880-16W. Filed March 2, 2020. Charles Stuart Pulcine, pro se. Richard Hatfield, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION WELLS, Judge: This whistleblower award case is before the Court on the parties’ motions for summary judgment. For the below reasons we will grant respondent’s motion and deny petitioner’s motion. -2- [*2] Background The following facts are based on the parties’ motion papers, including the declarations and exhibits attached thereto. See Rule…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Sundstrand Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- Sundstrand Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1992
- Murphy v. Commissioner of IRSCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2006
- Murphy v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2005
- Cooper v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2011
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.