John R. Dee, 167 T. C. 1, filed 7/2/26, got his whistleblowing info to IRS a month after they had finished auditing Target (the taxpayer, not the store), and had their agreed audit report undergoing internal review. John’s info related to three (count ’em, three) items in Target’s year at issue return, of which two resulted in no change and a $2 million deficiency in the third. But all this had been resolved and agreed to before John’s info got to Ogden. So Ogden bounced John’s Form 211.

John petitions and wants to put in additional extra-record evidence. Judge Nega undertakes the obligatory jurisdictional review.

“Under Li and Kennedy, the Court lacks jurisdiction over a petition relating to a whistleblower’s claim if that claim is rejected at the threshold (Li) or forwarded to an examination team and no examination occurs (Kennedy). Then under Estate of Insinga v. Commissioner, 149 F.4th at 718, the Court has jurisdiction over a petition relating to a whistleblower’s claim if that claim is forwarded to an active or open examination, regardless of whether action was taken based on the whistleblower’s claim. See Lissack v. Commissioner, 125 F.4th at 255 (holding that the Court has jurisdiction when the IRS ‘proceeds with’ an action under section 7623(b)(1)).” 167 T. C. 1, at p. 6.

But what happens after the audit is over? Insinga seems to say that once audit is done, there’s nothing to review. But Judge Nega says that’s a false bright line. Until anything taxpayer owed is paid, a lot can happen, and blower info could help rake in the cash.

Happily, Rev. Proc. 2005-32, § 4.01, 2005-1 C.B. 1206, defines what is a “closed case.” And this case isn’t “closed,” because internal review hadn’t yet concluded and no Section 7121 closing agreement had been signed. And if “unagreed,” assessment hadnlt ye3t occured, so the case is definitely not closed.

Now before my ultrasophisticated readers cry out as one “So what?! Since when has Tax Court been bound by a Rev. Proc, even before Loper Bright?” Judge Nega says Rev. Proc.s still provide useful guidance.

John’s additional evidence wasn’t before Exam, and his memo of a purported phonecon with a WBO Analyst is neither necessary background information, nor deliberately or negligently excluded from the record, and it does not indicate a failure to fully explain the WBO’s actions so as to frustrate judicial review. 167 T. C.1, at p. 11.

Denial of award sustained.