James W. Tindall v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

1.) Whether this dispute is even ripe for review by the Supreme Court of the United States (“this Court”) when Respondent’s agency administrative record has never been filed with the U.S. Tax Court (“the Tax Court”) and is not part of the judicial record, when Respondent has refused to comply with discovery, when the Tax Court has refused to compel Respondent to comply with discovery and when no effort has been made by either Respondent or the Tax Court to remedy the taint to Respondent’s agency administrative record created by the known hostile conflict-of-interest that existed between Respondent’s whistleblower analyst and Petitioner for more than four years? 2.) Whether the Tax Court and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“the Court of Appeals”) properly ignored the clear and controlling judicial precedent identified in SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943), when conducting a judicial review of an administration determination and both lower courts accepted Respondent’s new and contradictory administrative allegations first raised during the judicial review phase? 3.) Whether the Tax Court and the Court of Appeals applied the proper standard of review when reviewing new and contradictory administrative allegations that were only first raised during the judicial review phase with no change to the underlying facts or law?