Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro decides that whether the straight Rule 121 summary J review or the Van Bemmelen APA abuse-of-discretion standard applies, Suzanne Jean McCrory, T. C. Memo. 2024-61, filed 5/30/24 still loses, because her information didn’t help IRS clear the $200K/$2 million oxer.

The backstory is in my blogpost “Perseverance Furthers,” 8/1/23.

IRS does answer and raise the Section 7623(b)(5) jurisdictional defense to Suzanne’s mandatory award claim. Suzanne’s arguments are of no avail. IRS did get almost $180K from the last of the seven-claim torpedo-spread Suzanne sent in. One was examined with no change. IRS claims the information she provided on five was the usual “not specific, were not credible, or were speculative.” T. C. Memo. 2024-61, at p. 3.

The last hit whatever jackpot there was.

Since the administrative record supports the result, method of review doesn’t matter. Taishoff says since the test is what the IRS documented as doing, the nomenclature is unhelpful. Was money collected? Was the whistleblower’s information the procuring cause? Any no-proceeds case should be dealt with on a jurisdictional motion, post-Li. Mandatory cases likewise, if the $200K/$2 million issue is in play. And few, if any, cases go beyond that to abuse-of-discretion, whatever it’s called.

Here, Suzanne’s information was the procuring cause of the collection. But Section 7623(a)’s nonmonetary cutoff means any award is nonmandatory and nonreviewable. To get a mandatory 15% or better, you need $200K gross income for individuals and $2 million in dispute for all targets. And “in dispute” means what IRS asserted against target, not what blower claimed the target owes.

But Suzanne remains the leading contender for the first Fighting Joe Insinga Memorial Award.