When a preparer becomes a blower, confidentiality is a must. Ch J Patrick J. (Scholar Pat”) does a looking-backward to order sealing of a bunch documents (hi, Judge Holmes) in the file.

Unfortunately, this is another of the first-public, then-anonymous cases.

“In Whistleblower 12568-16W v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 103 (2017), the Court granted the whistleblower’s motion to proceed anonymously “until and unless the Court determines differently.” Id. at 108. In granting the whistleblower’s motion to proceed anonymously provisionally, the Court indicated that it had balanced the competing interests of the whistleblower and the public, which required it to balance the societal interests of protecting the identity of a confidential informant with the public’s right to know who is using the public’s courts. See id. at 104-105; see also Whistleblower 14106-10W v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. at 205. However, the Court noted that the balance of a whistleblower’s need for anonymity and the public’s interest in open judicial proceedings may change as a case progresses. See Whistleblower 12568-16W v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. at 105. The Court stated: ‘[W]e cannot say that, at some future time in this action, we may not revisit the balancing between alleged harm to petitioner and the societal interest in knowing petitioner’s identity and determine that anonymity is no longer justified.” Id. at 107-108.'” Order, at p. 2.

Another understatement : “…petitioner is employed in the field of providing tax services and advice to clients, if petitioner’s identity as a whistleblower becomes publicly known, petitioner would suffer serious economic harm. Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner has made a sufficient showing in support of the Court’s granting petitioner’s motion in that petitioner may proceed anonymously.” Order, at p. 2.

The key, practitioner, is to move when you petition. Of course, pro ses like the one here are on their own.

I’m not giving name or docket number for obvious reasons. The blower’s name is on the document. I have suggested to Ch J Scholar Pat that a better system is needed. With the practitioner’s name online today, anonymity may come too late.