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.
Taishoff Law 
When one asks Google AI if Justice Scalia compared Tax Court to traffic court, the first two citations are to this your blog.
An unfair comparison, of course. Or perhaps an unfair slur on traffic courts that know how to preserve confidentiality. It should be noted that more than four months ago (March 10, 2026), Judge Urda ordered: “as petitioner has filed a Motion to Proceed Anonymously, the entire record in this case is temporarily sealed pending disposition of petitioner’s motion.” That order, complete with petitioner’s name, is still available online.
LikeLike
Mr. Kamman, I was present at the Duke University Fuqua School of Law for the Tax Court Judicial Conference in May, 2015, whereat the late Justice Scalia made that statement. To the best of my recollection, he used the words “village traffic court.” I remarked at the time that, having just eaten the dinner we paid for, his remark was a wee bit rich. I stand by my comments; anyone wishing to contradict me is free to do so, provided they were then present. Were you there? I don’t recollect seeing you. As I said in my blogpost, I made my views known to Ch J Urda today, and it is too early to expect a reply. Of course, if I receive any, I swill promptly post same, if permitted.
LikeLike
I don’t doubt the veracity of your report of Justice Scalia’s assessment of the Tax Court. I just wish more people who are present at such appearances by leading jurists would report what they say in unguarded moments. But then, it would probably just encourage them to bite their tongues.
There are 74 cases where “Whistleblower” is the petitioner, when you do a search on the Tax Court website. Of these, the actual names of the petitioner are revealed in two cases, despite orders intended to protect their anonymity. One is from 2025, the other from 2016. Would this happen in a well-supervised village traffic court?
LikeLike
Mr. Kaaman, the problems with sealing and confidentiality in Tax Court, whether in whistleblower cases or generally, go back long before ever I came on the scene. I fear they will be there, mutatis mutandis, long after both you and I are gone. Pro ses will continue to do the darndest things, leaving clerks and Judges to play catch-up. I wish I had a magic formula, or someone does.
LikeLike
I agree with what you say but I won’t defend misspelling my name. I have Norwegian ancestors (maternal lineage) but I’m not a soccer player, so don’t be confused by that Mancunian striker.
Incidentally, Kamman rhymes with salmon and famine. Think of skinny fish. A few centuries back, it was Kampmann, but a voiceless consonant between two voiced ones required too many vocal gymnastics. The surplus N was dropped early last century to make it look less German in wartime.
LikeLike
Mr. Kamman, sorry.
LikeLike
Speaking of whistleblower cases, something is afoot at Tax Court, apparently since the DC Circuit decided a case (Trongone) last month, reversing Tax Court’s decision against a pro per petitioner with amicus help from a student clinic. A search of this your blog doesn’t find a reference to Judge Leyden’s 10/17/24 order in 2838-23W.
On July 27, 2026, Judge Urda issued orders in at least eight W cases, allowing them to proceed after stays pending the outcome of a DC Circuit appeal. These cases were filed in 2021 and 2022, and at least one of the stays dates to 2022, before the Trongone case was filed in 2023. So I’m not sure what exactly has happened, and await your analysis.
The cases are 8396-22W, 35306-21W, 2600-22W, 3131-22W, 36131-21W and 35918-21W (same petitioner), 8399-22W, and 19729-22W. I wonder if others were issued, for sealed cases? These all have named petitioners.
LikeLike
Mr Kaaman, STJ Leyden’s order came down the same day as Bruce Edward Johnson, T. C. Memo. 2024-94, a whistleblower case I found more interesting. And all DC Cir did in Trongone was remand for consideration of the out years. “On remand, the agency may still of course decide that Trongone is not entitled to an award because it did not collect proceeds for any tax year at issue based on her application. See Local 814, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. NLRB, 546 F.2d 989, 992 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (per curiam). We simply hold that the agency’s stated explanation does not support the decision it reached.” Trongone, at p. 13. As for the eight cases taken off hold, let’s see what happens.
LikeLike