MarkZ

🚨Update on the Missing IRS Commissioner Issue And Missing IRS Chief Counsel with Full Briefing 🚨 I asked Grok to provide a summary of where we are. It did pretty good. I only added a few things. @IRS_MEDIC (Anthony E. Parent, Esq.) highlights a prolonged leadership vacuum at the IRS in its two primary Senate-confirmed roles—Commissioner and Chief Counsel—arguing that this is more than ordinary transition friction and raises serious questions about the legality of enforcement, Tax Court proceedings, and related actions. Missing IRS Commissioner The IRS has had no confirmed Commissioner since Billy Long was removed in August 2025 (he served only briefly after confirmation). Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent served as Acting Commissioner under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), but that 210-day period expired around March 6, 2026. No permanent nominee has been submitted to the Senate. As of late October 2026, Parent counts roughly 235 days without a Commissioner. An IRS statement confirmed Bessent’s acting service ended and he is no longer serving in that capacity. The agency asserts the Secretary retains authority over vacant Treasury offices and that day-to-day operations continue under a non-statutory “Chief Executive Officer” (Frank J. Bisignano) reporting to the Secretary. Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee have criticized the arrangement, the invented CEO role (never authorized by Congress), and the failure to nominate a Commissioner, calling it an evasion of the confirmation process. Parent’s core argument (advanced in litigation such as Cutler v. Commissioner) is that the Commissioner is the named respondent in Tax Court cases (see Tax Court Rule 60(b) and related provisions). He filed a motion to vacate a decision on the ground that there is no lawful Commissioner (or properly acting one). The Tax Court denied it; the issue is on appeal to the Second Circuit. In a recent post after the government’s brief was filed, he stated that the government simply did not address the missing-Commissioner argument—calling the non-response the “smartest move.” The government’s position (that even if the vacancy is true, the remedy would be dismissal, effectively treating a Commissioner as unnecessary and the refusal to appoint as advantageous) aligns with the practical effect he sees: courts and the government bend over backward to keep proceedings alive via workarounds, parallel authority, and doctrines that protect the status quo rather than treating the statutory vacancy as fatal. He views the prolonged refusal to nominate as benefiting the executive by avoiding Senate oversight while still enforcing the tax laws. He notes that statutes and rules repeatedly reference “the Commissioner” for appointments (e.g., Chief of Appeals under IRC § 7803), representation, and other functions, and he has raised related challenges to other actions taken without proper authority. Dubious Appointment of Kevin Salinger as Acting IRS Chief Counsel The Chief Counsel position (the other Senate-confirmed IRS leadership role; chief legal officer under IRC § 7803) has also lacked a confirmed occupant. Multiple people have served in acting or temporary capacities in 2025–2026, including Kenneth Kies (Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy). Prior acting periods under the FVRA have expired (senators noted Kies’s window running out around mid-June 2026 absent a new nomination). In September 2026, IRS Chief Counsel Notice CC-2026-004 directed use of a signature block for “Kevin M. Salinger, Acting Chief Counsel,” stating that by operation of the FVRA he serves in that role pending confirmation of James Gadwood (nominated June 23, 2026). Gadwood’s nomination has advanced through the Senate Finance Committee (hearings held; reported favorably) but, as of the latest available information, awaits full Senate confirmation. He is not yet confirmed. Parent argues Salinger’s designation is outside any valid FVRA acting period and lacks proper statutory basis. Salinger is a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy (a Treasury political appointee role, not the first assistant to the Chief Counsel or an otherwise eligible person under the FVRA’s default rules for automatic succession or presidential designation of a Senate-confirmed official). He was not Senate-confirmed for the Chief Counsel position, and Parent contends the agency is simply listing him as “Acting” after prior windows closed, without a lawful designation that restarts or satisfies the Act’s limits. The IRS itself has used various temporary arrangements; Parent sees the current claim as another workaround that sidesteps confirmation and the FVRA’s exclusive means for temporary service. He notes the lack of clear public explanation of how Salinger was designated and criticizes the tax media and senators for largely ignoring the issue. Overall Framing on the Profile Parent presents the dual vacancies (plus issues such as the non-statutory CEO and questions around TIGTA) as evidence that the IRS is operating without the two officials Congress made Senate-confirmed, using Treasury political appointees and invented titles. He argues this creates enforceability problems for liens, levies, notices of deficiency, Tax Court representation, and related actions; that the government benefits from the vacuum (reduced accountability, continued operations without confirmation); and that courts tend to protect the government rather than enforce the statutory structure strictly. He has used Cutler and related advocacy to test these points and urges attention to the structural collapse of proper leadership while the agency continues enforcement. These are arguments advanced in litigation and commentary by Parent; courts have not (as of the latest posts) ruled in his favor on the Commissioner vacancy as a basis to vacate decisions, and the government has treated the agency as able to continue functioning. The factual background of the expired FVRA windows, absence of a Commissioner nominee, Gadwood’s pending nomination, and the Salinger signature-block notice is grounded in public IRS statements, Senate records, and contemporary reporting. Parent's theory is that the IRS is being intentionally destroyed by Donald Trump. Who called the income tax the idea of our foreign enemies on the Joe Rogan Experience on the campaign trail in 2024 and vowed to return to a tariff only policy. Parent argues the only way to destroy the IRS is *without* passing one law, as it is laws themselves that are responsible for the IRS. Congress can only be expected to always do what it does on taxation - create an onerous system so it can monetize the so many tax favors Americans be become desperate for. The entire point of the income tax is to drive the human behaviors that foreign bankers desire. Congress is complicit in the crime as Congress allowed foreign bankers to decide these issues with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Congress can never be a solution to any problem. The job of Congress is to provide problems for its enemies - the American people, so that its sponsors can benefit.