Whistleblowing, tax division, has reached its final version in Whistleblower 972-17W, T. C. Memo. 2023-152, filed 12/21/23. Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro sends off 972-17W empty-handed with the headline first above written at the head hereof (as my expensive colleagues would say).

972-17W bombarded the Ogden Sunseteers, and IRS generally, with all sorts of leads. But the skullduggery IRS ultimately unearthed was not that which 972-17W gave them. And even if the info that 972-17W gave IRS caused them to look, it wasn’t specific to the delictions whence came the recovery.

“…even if we accept as true many of the disputed points that petitioner presses—including that (1) the IRS took a greater interest in Targets 1, 2, and 3 because of petitioner’s allegations and even opened examinations or investigations because of petitioner, (2) petitioner met frequently with CID agents who welcomed petitioner’s help, (3) CID Special Agent A once asked petitioner if petitioner would be willing to testify against Target 3, and (4) Target 1 once called petitioner to threaten petitioner and petitioner reported this conversation to CID Special Agent A—it would not be enough for petitioner to prevail. That is because the record before us is devoid of evidence that petitioner provided any specific information that substantially contributed to assessments the IRS actually made. See Lissack v. Commissioner, 68 F.4th at 1324.” T. C. Memo. 2023-152, at p. 22.

Blower, be specific.

Again, full disclosure: Mr. Lissack was once a client of mine in a wholly-unrelated matter many years ago.