In Uncategorized on 04/03/2023 at 16:48

No, this is not another casualty loss case, nor yet another Dixieland boondockery. Here, Whistleblower 9252-18W, T. C. Memo. 2023-45, filed 4/3/23, claims Tax Court gets jurisdiction because he filed his 200 (count ’em, 200) Forms 211 after 12/20/2006, when the current sliding scale for remuneration for blowers came into effect.

9252-18W had filed the same stuff before with CID as an informant, and entered into a CIRA (Confidential Informant Reward Agreement) that expressly precluded 9252-18W from making any Whistleblower filing. But Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber doesn’t let that deter him.

CID dropped their investigation, having collected nothing, whereupon 9252-18W sued on the CIRA in USCFC and got tossed after six (count ’em, six) years of litigation. 9252-18W doesn’t let any of that deter him either; he then files his 200 Forms 211 under the current Section 7623, which of course get tossed by the Ogden Sunseteers with the usual “speculative and/or did not provide specific or credible information regarding tax underpayments or violations of internal revenue laws.”

9252-18W claims Tax Court has jurisdiction under the amended Section 7623 because they looked at his pre-12/20/2006 information after that date. “Petitioner contends, in other words, that our jurisdiction depends, not on when he supplied information to the IRS, but on when the IRS used that information, e.g., by commencing an investigation.” T. C. Memo. 45, at p. 5.

As Whistleblower information submitted pre-12/20/2006 was subject to complete IRS discretion as to amount of reward, 9252-18W would be out. But he submitted nothing new. And caselaw prohibits trying to slide old information in to get jurisdiction.

Finally, the classifier (IRS subject-matter reviewer) rejected 9252-18W’s stuff.

No dough, no go.

Judge Scholar Al calls in Mandy Mobley Li, Ogden’s closer. “In any event, assuming arguendo that petitioner supplied a scintilla of new information after the statute’s effective date, we lack jurisdiction because the IRS took no action with respect to his claims. This case, like whistleblower award cases generally, is appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. See § 7482(b)(1) (penultimate sentence); Kasper v. Commissioner, 150 T.C. 8, 11 n.1 (2018). That court held in Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014, that we lack jurisdiction to review cases (like this one) where the IRS has issued a threshold rejection of a whistleblower’s claim.” T. C. Memo. 2023-45, at p. 6.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: