§7623 — Expenses of detection of underpayments and fraud, etc.

372 (2022), and should be overruled.

The case is distinguishable from an example given in the regulations in which the usefulness of the documents supplied by a whistleblower may justify increasing the award percentage from 15% to 22%: 40 [*40] Example (1).

When one of 9 [*9] those thresholds is not met, the rest of section 7623(b) does not “apply.” I.R.C. § 7623(b)(5). And because section 7623(b) does not apply, there can be no award under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 7623(b) that we might review under paragraph (4).

7623(b)(4). This right does not apply to all award determinations; whistleblowers may only seek judicial review of award determinations made under section 7623(b).7 In other words judicial review is available only for award determinations where the proceeds in dispute exceed $2 million and an individual target taxpayer has a gross inco

As we have noted before, section 7623(b)(4) is unusual as ajurisdiction- conferring provision because it "does not prescribe any particular form ofnotice to the would-be petitioner." Whistleblower 22231-12W v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-157, 108 T.C.M. (CCH) 124, 126. In prior cases, "[w]e have held that the name or label ofa document does not control whetherthe document constitutes a determination" and that "ourjurisdiction is established when the Commissioner issues a written notice that em

Section 7623(b)(4) provides that "[a]ny determination regarding an award * * * may, within 30 days ofsuch determination, be appealed to the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall havejurisdiction with respect to such matter)." Unlike most statutoryprovisions granting usjurisdiction, section 7623(b)(4) does not pre- scribe any particular form ofnotice to the taxpayer or would-be petitioner.

Unlike most other sections ofthe Internal Revenue Code that conferjurisdiction on this 4(...continued) blower is convicted criminally for planning and initiating such activities. Sec. 7623(b)(3).

In Form 11369, Confidential Evaluation Report on Claim for Award, RA Jackson confirmed his reliance on the 2 Because of our holding herein, we need not decide whether the “proceeds in dispute” exceeded $2 million pursuant to section 7623(b)(5)(B).

6 The parties agree that the IRS took action and collected proceeds in this case, and so we need not decide whether, under Li, we would have jurisdiction to review a WBO denial in a case in which the IRS proceeded with an action, but did not collect proceeds, or in which the IRS did not proceed with an action.

Held: We need not decide the standard ofreview in this case because we would sustain R's determination under either a de novo or an abuse ofdiscretion standard ofreview.

We need not decide what constitutes the "amount in dispute" at this time.

We disagree with petitioner that the IRS proceeded with an administrative or judicial action by creating OVDI or by virtue of taxpayers’ participation in OVDI.

We disagree with petitioner’s submission that the statute is unambiguous.

We disagree with petitioner's interpretation ofthe law.

Petitioner also contends respondent incorrectly concluded that petitioner relied on publicly available information.

The default provisions ofthe APA likewise call for review confined to the administrative record since section 7623(b) was promulgated after the APA and fails to expressly provide for a different review process.

7623 has been confined to contractual claims brought under 'the Tucker Act,(28 U.S.C.

Section 7623 Section 7623 provides for both discretionary and mandatory awards to individuals (i.e., whistleblowers) who submit information about third parties that have underpaid their tax or otherwise violated the internal revenue laws.

Served 07/18/24 2 [*2] In this case, pursuant to section 7623(b)(4), petitioner seeks our review of an award determined by respondent’s Whistleblower Office (WBO).

Legal Background Section 7623 provides for awards to individuals (commonly referred to as whistleblowers) who submit information to the IRS about third parties who have underpaid their taxes or otherwise violated the internal revenue laws.

Section 7623 Section 7623 provides for awards to individuals (commonly referred to as whistleblowers) who submit information to the Government about third parties who have underpaid their taxes or otherwise violated the internal revenue laws.

Section 7623 Background Section 7623 provides for awards to individuals who provide the IRS with information regarding third parties found to have underpaid their taxes or otherwise violated the internal revenue laws.

On January 13, 2020, petitioner timely appealed the WBO’s determination to this Court pursuant to section 7623(b)(4).

Consistently with Myers, we hold that we have jurisdiction to consider this case.

Held: Consistent with our holding in Lippolis v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION JONES, Judge: In these whistleblower cases,1 petitioner seeks review pursuant to section 7623(b)(4) of the determinations by the Whistleblower Office 1By order dated March 18, 2019, we consolidated docket nos.

Background Pursuant to section 7623(b)(4), petitioner Joseph A.

Whistleblower Framework Section 7623 provides for awards for individuals who alert the Government about third parties who underpay their taxes.

SERVED Mar 16 2020 - 2 - [*2] MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: In these two consolidated cases,¹ petitioner Walter Nicklaus Cline has appealed, pursuant to section 7623(b)(4),² two determinations ofthe Whistleblower Office ("WBO") ofthe Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") that decline to make awards to him.

SERVED Mar 16 2020 - 2 - [*2] MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: In these two consolidated cases,¹ petitioner Walter Nicklaus Cline has appealed, pursuant to section 7623(b)(4),² two determinations ofthe Whistleblower Office ("WBO") ofthe Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") that decline to make awards to him.

Moynihan, have appealed, pursuant to section 7623(b)(4),¹ the determination of the Whistleblower Office ("WBO") ofthe Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") that denies them a whistlebloweraward.

Pursuant to section 7623(b)(4), petitioner has appealed the determination of the Whistleblower Office to reject his claim for a nondiscretionarywhistleblower award.

Consistently with Myers, we hold that we havejurisdiction to consider this case.

- 3 - [*3] MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: Petitioner John Worthington has appealed, pursuant to section 7623(b)(4),¹ the determination ofthe WhistleblowerOffice ("WBO") of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") that denies him a whistleblower award.

SERVED Jan 30 2020 - 2 - [*2] MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge: Pursuant to section 7623(b)(4),¹ petitioner Christian Bernd Alber has appealed the determination ofthe Whistleblower Office ("WBO") ofthe Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") to reject his claim for a nondiscretionary whistleblower award.

Both cases arise from petitioner's 2013 SERVED Jul 08 2019 - 2 - [*2] claim for an award pursuant to section 7623.¹ In 2015 the Whistleblower Office (Office) issued petitioner a determination letter denying his claim, and he timely petitioned for review.

Both cases arise from petitioner's 2013 SERVED Jul 08 2019 - 2 - [*2] claim for an award pursuant to section 7623.¹ In 2015 the Whistleblower Office (Office) issued petitioner a determination letter denying his claim, and he timely petitioned for review.

OPINION ASHFORD, Judge: The petition in this case commenced a whistleblower proceeding pursuant to section 7623(b)(4).¹ Shortly thereafter, respondent moved to dismiss this case for lack ofjurisdiction on the ground that petitioner had failed to file his petition within the time prescribed by that section.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GUY, Special Trial Judge: This whistleblower action, commenced pursuant to section 7623(b)(4),¹ is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary ¹Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to sections ofthe Internal Revenue Code, as amended and in effect at all times relevant to this proceeding, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and (continued...)

OPINION GERBER, Judge: This whistleblower award case, brought pursuant to section 7623(b)(4),¹ is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION NEGA, Judge: Petitioner commenced this whistleblowerproceeding pursuant to section 7623(b)(4).¹ The issue for decision is whether petitioner ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times.

Section 7623 Requires Both an Action and Collected Proceeds.

Section 7623 (WhistleblowerAwards) Section 7623 provides for awards to those individuals (i.e., whistleblowers) who provide information to the Government about third parties who are underpaying their tax.

OPINION HALPERN, Judge: This case is brought pursuant to section 7623(b)(4),¹ appealing respondent's determination not to make an award to petitioners for information provided by them and leading to the recovery ofunpaid taxes and other amounts (a so-called whistlebloweraward).

We hold that we.do.3 Background The following background is drawn from the petition and respondent's motion to dismiss for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction and responses filed by both parties.

We hold that we do.3 Background The following background is drawn from the petition and respondent's motion to dismiss for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction and responses filed by both parties.

Held: In accordance with our decision in Cooper v.

While we havejurisdiction to review the IRS' award determination, section 7623 gives us no authorityto direct the IRS to commence an administrative orjudicial action.

While we havejurisdiction to review the IRS' award determination, section 7623 gives us no authorityto direct the IRS to commence an administrative orjudicial action.

Accordingly, we must decide whether the preliminary award recommendation issued to petitioner constitutes a “determination” within the meaning of section 7623(b)(4). II. “Determination” Within the Meaning of Section 7623(b)(4) Section 7623 does not clearly define what constitutes a “determination” or require that the whistleblower be issued any particular form of notice. Kasper v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. at 41; see Whistleblower 22231-12W v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-157, at *11. As a result,

Court ofAppeals decision which is squarely in point where appeal from our decision lies to that Court of -52- Appeals and to that court alone." This doctrine applies only where the position of a Court ofAppeals signals inevitable reversal upon appeal and does not apply where the precedent contains distinguishable facts or law. See, e.g., Tigers Eye Trading, LLC v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 67, 75 (2012), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds and remanded sub nom. Logan Tr. v. Commissioner,

Unlike subsection (a), which requires that an award "shall be paid from" a specific funding source, subsection (b) sets forth how to calculate the whistleblower's award. Paragraph (1) directs that the whistle- blower "shall * * * receive as an award at least 15 percent but not more than 30 percent ofthe collected proceeds * * * resulting from the action (including any related actions) or from any settlement in response to such action." The difference in wording between subsections (a) and (b) of

Unlike subsection (a), which requires that an award "shall be paid from" a specific funding source, subsection (b) sets forth how to calculate the whistleblower's award. Paragraph (1) directs that the whistle- blower "shall * * * receive as an award at least 15 percent but not more than 30 percent ofthe collected proceeds * * * resulting from the action (including any related actions) or from any settlement in response to such action." The difference in wording between subsections (a) and (b) of

Awards Under Section 7623 An individual may be entitled to an award under section 7623(a) for providing the IRS with information leading to the detection of underpayments of tax or the detection and bringing to trial and punishment persons guilty of violating the internal revenue laws.

- 7 - [*7] pertains, nor does section 7623 confer authority to direct the Commissioner to commence an administrative orjudicial action.

Awards to Whistleblowers.-- (1) In general.--Ifthe Secretary proceeds with any administrative orjudicial action described in * * * [section 7623](a) based on information brought to the Secretary's attention by an individual, such individual shall, subject to paragraph (2), receive as an award at least 15 percent but not more than 30 percent ofthe collected proceeds (including penalties, interest, additions to tax, and additional amounts) resulting from the action (including any

"ultra vires" and "null and void." Under Delegation Order 25-7 (Rev. 1), Internal Revenue Manual pt. 1.2.52.8(2) and (3) (July 1, 2008), the Commissioner has delegated to the Director ofthe Office the authority to approve or disapprove awards under section 7623. Petitioner notes that the May 30, 2014, determination letter was signed by Ms. Loren, not by Mr. Whitlock, the Director ofthe Office at the time. Because this letter was allegedly signed by the wrong person, petitioner contends that it

ing that FBAR penalty payments, because they are made pursuant to Title 31 ra- ther than Title 26 ofthe U.S. Code, are not "collected proceeds" eligible for a non- discretionary award under section 7623(b)(1). See Scope ofAwards Payable - 5 - Under I.R.C. Section 7623, PMTA 2012-10. Viewing this as a de facto denial of his Taxpayer 1 claim, petitioner sought immediate review in this Court. We grant- ed respondent's motion to dismiss that case for lack ofjurisdiction, concluding that the Office h

Failure to.file within the 30 days deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. The Whistleblower Office issued petitioner its determination on November 13, 2009. Petitioner thereafter had 30 days to file an appeal with this Court, which he failed to do. Petitioner eventually filed a petition on June 18, 2010, that is, 217

United States Tax Court 163 T.C. No. 6 JOHN F. CARTER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ————— Docket No. 9379-22W. Filed October 3, 2024. ————— R denied P’s whistleblower award claim under I.R.C. § 7623. After filing a Petition in this Court for review of the denial, P filed for bankruptcy. The Internal Revenue Service filed a claim in P’s bankruptcy case for unpaid tax P owed for pre-Petition year(s). P alleges that an automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(8) a

the provision of an award under section 7623 was entirely dis- cretionary.” Confidential Informant 59-05071, 121 Fed.

For an overview of section 7623, see Rogers v.

17] Second, petitioner contends that “the documents in the Administrative Claim File are incomplete and insufficient to conclude whether no taxes, interest and penalties from Taxpayers 1, 2 and 3 were collected ass [sic] that term is defined by IRC Section 7623 as amended in 2018.” In his response to respondent’s motion for summary judgment, petitioner complained that “[n]o information is provided in the Administrative Claim File that would permit the Petitioner to conclude what the taxable inco

held that successive letters that purport to be a final determination can confer on the recipient successive opportunities to file a petition. In Comparini v. Commissioner, 143 T.C. at 275, the Comparinis filed a series of whistleblower claims under section 7623. The Commissioner issued letters stating that their claims had been considered, but their information did not result in collected proceeds. Id. at 275-276. The letters concluded, therefore, that the Comparinis were not entitled to an awa

Therefore, you are not eligible for an award.” In response to the Whistleblower Office’s final determination letter petitioner timely filed a petition for review of the final determination under section 7623.2 Petitioner resided in the State of Florida when his petition was filed with this Court.

ginal Information,2 dated July 19, 2014. The WBO denied his claim in a letter sent by certified mail to his last known address on March 8, 2018. The ¹(...continued) Code of 1986, as amended. 2Whistleblowers must file Form 211 to claim an award under sec. 7623. Sec. 301.7623-1(c)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs. - 3 - [*3] Court received the petition appealing the denial on May 14, 2018, in an envelope bearing a U.S. Postal Service postmark ofApril 30, 2018. Respondent filed the pending motion on Augus

orityto analyze petitioner's information. Under Delegation Order 25-7 (Rev. 3), IRM pt. 1.2.2.14.7(8) (July 14, 2016), the Commissioner has delegated to the Director ofthe WBO the authority"to receive, analyze, and assign information pursuant to IRC § 7623". This delegation order goes on to state: "This authorityto receive and assign is redelegated to employee ofthe Initial Claims Evaluation unit." Id. pt. 1.2.2.14.7(11). Petitioner suggests that because the power to "analyze" information is exp

While we havejurisdiction to review the IRS' award determination, section 7623 gives us no authorityto direct the IRS to commence an administrative orjudicial action.

By contrast, in a case under section 7623, our inquiry focuses on the determination made by the Whistleblower - 19 - Office, and an order to enforce our decision would not require a review of ancillary matters, such as, for example, the whistleblower's own outstanding tax liabilities.

While we havejurisdiction to review the IRS' award determination, section 7623 gives us no authority to direct the IRS to commence an administrative orjudicial action.

406 amended section 7623 to require the Secretaryto pay whistleblower awards under certain circumstances.

While we havejurisdiction to review the IRS' award detenmination, section 7623 does not give us authority to direct the IRS to com- mence an administrative orjudicial action.

Respondent Docket Nos. 24178-09W, 24179-09W. Filed June 20, 2011. P filed two claims for a whistleblower award with R under sec. 7623(b) (4), I.R.C., and R sent a letter to P denying the claims because an award determination could not be made under sec. 7623 (b), I.R.C. We earlier denied R's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, holding that R's letter was a determination conferring jurisdiction on this Court. Cooper v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 70 (2010). R subsequently filed an answer to e

If the March 3 determination was mailed to petitioner at his last known.address on March 3, 2011, the 30-day period for filing a timely petition with the.Court under section 7623 (b) (4)_ expired on April 4, 2011.3 Respondent relies upon the March 3, 2011, date to commence the period for petitioner to file a timely petition.

70 (2010). Respondent has not issued a determinati n regarding petitioners' whistleblower claim, and there is no evidence that they filed a Form 211. Without a determination regarding petitioners' whistleblower claim, or even evidence that they actually filed such a claim, this Court lacké jurisdiction with respect to the whistleblower claim under section 7623 (b) . To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate order and order of dismissal will be entered.

It .explainedrrthat "an award determination * * * [could not] be made -under section 7623 (b) , 2 because petitioner .

Discussion Prior to December 20, 2006, section 7623 provided that respondent may give to individuals who provide information relating to Federal Tax Code violations monetary rewards payable from the proceeds of tax revenue collected as a result of such information.