Governing Statutes and Codes

Public Law 109-432

The Revised IRS Whistleblower Law codified at 26 USC 7623

Regulations

Final Regulations Governing IRS Whistleblower Program (August 12, 2014)

These regulations provide comprehensive guidance for the award program authorized under Internal Revenue Code (Code) section 7623. The regulations provide guidance on submitting information regarding underpayments of tax or violations of the internal revenue laws and filing claims for award, as well as on the administrative proceedings applicable to claims for award under section 7623. The regulations also provide guidance on the determination and payment of awards, and provide definitions of key terms used in section 7623. Finally, the regulations confirm that the Director, officers, and employees of the Whistleblower Office are authorized to disclose return information to the extent necessary to conduct whistleblower administrative proceedings. The regulations provide needed guidance to the general public as well as officers and employees of the IRS who review claims under section 7623.

Proposed Treasury Regulation 301-6103(h)(4)-1 and 301-7623-1 through 301-7623-4

Final Treasury Regulation Sections 301-7623-1(a) and (b) (February 22, 2012)

This document contains final regulations relating to the payment of rewards under section 7623(a) of the Internal Revenue Code for detecting underpayments or violations of the internal revenue laws and whistleblower awards under section 7623(b).  The guidance is necessary to clarify the definition of proceeds under section 7623.  This regulation provides needed guidance to the general public as well as officers and employees of the IRS who review claims under section 7623.

Proposed Treasury Regulation 301.7623-1(a) and (b)

Final Regulation 301.6103(n)-2; Disclosure of Return Information in Connection with Written Contracts Among the IRS, Whistleblowers, and Legal Representatives of Whistleblowers (March 15, 2011)

This document contains final regulations relating to the disclosure of return information by an officer or employee of the Treasury Department, to a whistleblower and, if applicable, to the legal representative of the whistleblower, to the extent necessary in connection with a written contract among the IRS, the whistleblower and, if applicable, the legal representative of the whistleblower, for services relating to the detection of violations of the internal revenue laws or related statuses.  The final regulations will affect officers and employees of the Treasury Department who disclose return information to whistleblowers of their legal representatives in connection with written contracts among the IRS, whistleblowers and, if applicable, their legal representatives, for services relating to the detectin of violations of the internal revenue laws or related statues.  The final regulations will also affect and whistleblower or legal representative of a whistleblower who receives return information in connection with a written contract among the IRS, the whistleblower and, if applicable, the legal representative of the whistleblower, for services relating to the detection of violations of the internal revenue laws or related statutes.

Final UTP Regulations (December 15, 2010)

This document contains final regulations allowing the IRS to require corporations to file a schedule disclosing uncertain tax positions related to the tax return as required by the IRS.

Final Regulation 301.7623-1; Rewards for Information Relating to Violations of Internal Revenue Laws (August 21, 1998)

This document contains final regulations relating to rewards for information that relates to violations of the internal revenue laws.  The regulations reflect changes to the law made by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 and affect persons that are eligible to receive an informant award.

Internal Memoranda and Notices

Procedural Alert – Award Recommendation Memo (November 24, 2014)

This Award Recommendation Memo will be used by the Whistleblower Office to document the approval of the decision/determination of all claims.  The Form 11369 will still be used to gather feedback from the field and should still be reviewed and uploaded to etrak – a summer of exams’s feedback will be included in the Award Recommendation Memo under Exam results.  Whoever, the Form 11369 will no longer be used for manager approvals and will no longer requite WO manager signatures.  The Award Recommendation Memo is for file only.  Do not send the Award Recommendation Memo to whistleblower.

Final Audit Report – The Informants’ Reward Program Needs more Centralized Management Oversight (June 2006)

This report presents the results of a review of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Informants’ Rewards Program.  The overall objective of this review, initiated at the request of the Senate Finance Committee, was to determine whether the IRS uses its Informants’ Rewards Program as a viable tool to identify, investigate, and address potential tax law violations with equitable rewards for cooperating informants.

IRS Notice 2008-4 (January 14, 2008)

This Notice was to provide guidance to the public on how to file claims under Internal Revenue Code section 7623 as amended by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-432 (120 Stat. 2958) enacted on December 20, 2006.

Large and Midsize Business Division

LMSB-4-1108-052;  Whistleblower/Informant Claims for Award (December 3, 2008)

IRC section 7623 was amended in December 2006, to encourage whistleblowers to provide the IRS with information regarding significant alleged tax noncompliance.  The new law increased the amount of the award ad whistleblower can receive and allows the whistleblower to appeal award determinations in Tax Court.  As a result of this new legislation, there has been a large increase in the number and quality of whistleblower claims for award on LMSB cases.  These claims need to be carefully reviewed.

Small Business/Self-Employed Division

SBSE-04-0909-054; Interim Guidance on IRC 7623(b) Referrals from the Whistleblower’s Office (September 28, 2009)

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide procedures for processing and examining referrals received from the Whistleblower’s Office (WBO) regarding IRC 7623(b).

Program Manager Technical Assistance

PMTA 2012-10; Scope of Awards Payable under IRC 7623 (April 23, 2012)

This memorandum addresses whether IRC 7623 authorizes the payment of whistleblower awards based on information related to violations of laws outside Title 26.  For reasons discussed in the memo, violations of non-tax laws, such as the provisions of Titles 18 and 31 for which the IRS has delegated authority, cannot form the basis of an award under section 7623.

PMTA 2011-02; Determination of Character Source and Withholding Requirements with respect to Whistleblower Awards paid to Nonresident Alien Individuals (March 22, 2011)

This legal advice was intended solely for purposes of determining the U.S. of foreign source of awards paid to whsitleblowers under section 7623 and to provide legal advice regarding the withholding obligations of the Whistleblower Office under section 1441.  They conclude that the source of such award payments is to be determined based on the facts and circumstances under sections 861(a)(3), 862(a)(3) and 863, and under Treas. Reg. 1.861-4, all relating to compensation for services.  This analysis should not be taken to imply the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the whistleblower and the United States government.  Indeed, the facts and circumstances they analyzed do not involve any direction, control, or influence of the whistleblower’s activities by the U.S. government, which merely receives the information disclosed by the whistleblower.

PMTA 2011-01; Withholding and Information Reporting under Section 7623(a) (March 11, 2011)

In a memorandum dated September 20, 2010, the Office opined that the Service may withhold and provide information reports on whistleblower awards paid under section 7623(b).  They have now been asked whether the same analysis could be applied to support withholding under section 7623(a) and whether a de minimis exception to administrative withholding is legally supportable.

PMTA 2011-33; Powers of Attorney in the Context of Whistleblower Cases (October 22, 2010)

The question had been raised whether the Form 211R complies with the Requirements and can be accepted by the Services as a valid power of attorney.  Conclusion: It is well-settled that whistleblower representation constitutes practice before the Service and, therefore, is governed by the Requirements.  Accordingly, and power of attorney used in the context of that representation must adhere to the standards set forth in the Requirements.  From 2848 was specifically designed to comply with the Requirements.  In contrast, Form 211R, as currently written, does not adhere to the Requirements and cannot be accepted by the Service as a valid power of attorney.

PMTA 2011-32; Powers of Attorney in the Context of Whistleblower Cases (September 30. 2010)

The question has been raised if the Whistleblower’s Office may accept a Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative, or other power of attorney that has been altered and/or modified such that the power of attorney does not comply with the established rules and regulations regarding powers of attorney when the practitioner represents a whistleblower.  The answer is no, the modifications to the Form 2848 are not operative and all such modified Forms 2848 must be returned to the practitioners, who should be directed to submit Forms 2848 and/or powers of attorney that fully comply with, and do not conflict with, Circular 230, the Conference and Practice Requirements (sections 601.501 et seq.), Form 2848 and the instructions to Form 2848.

PMTA 2010-63; Withholding Recommendations (September 20, 2010)

This discusses whether the Service is permitted to withhold income tax on Whistleblower awards under section 7623(b) of the Internal Revenue Code.  While challenges to withholding may conceivably be raised, the Service may withhold on Whistleblower awards.  Withholding at the highest individual income tax rate provided under section 1 is legally defensible.

PMTA 2010-62; Payment of Refund Protection and Credit Reduction claims (September 1, 2010)

This memorandum reconsiders whether IRC 7623 authroizes the payment of an award to a whistleblower where the whistleblower’s information leads to the denial of a refund claim that otherwise woudl have been paid or the reduction of a credit balance that would have been applied to offset other tax liabilities.  The conclusion is that “collected proceeds” under the statute can include denied refunds and the reduction of an overpayment of a credit balance when the information provided by the whistleblower prevents the IRS from paying the refund or applying a credit balance to offset other tax liabilities.

PMTA 2010-60; Criminal Fines and Whistleblower Awards (February 22, 2010)

This responds to question of whether criminal fines may be used for the payment of whistleblower awards under IRC 7623.  It discusses that criminal fines, which must be deposited unto the Crime Victims Fund (CVF). can not be used for the payment of whistleblower awards.

PMTA 2011-31; Whistleblower Office Disclosures of Tax Return Information (February 1, 2010)

This memorandum responds to a request for the Office’s opinion as to whether, in administering the Service’s whistleblower award program pursuant to Section 406 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-432 (120 Stat. 2922), employees of the Whistleblower Office are authorized to disclose taxpayer information (1) in making determinations pursuant to second 7623, and/or (2) by providing status updates to whistleblowers regarding pending, unprocessed, or dismissed claims under section 7623.

Tax Court Decisions

Scott v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2018-133 (August 22, 2018)

This case was before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment filed April 11, 2018, pursuant to Rule 121.  Petitioner filed his response in opposition to motion for summary judgment on May 7, 2018.  The Court concluded that there is no dispute as to a material fact and thus this case is ripe for summary adjudication.

Scott v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2018-134 (August 22, 2018)

This case was before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment filed April 16, 2018, pursuant to Rule 121.  Petitioner filed his response in opposition to motion for summary judgment on May 7, 2018.  The Court concluded that there is no dispute as to a material fact and thus this case is ripe for summary adjudication.

Goldstein v. Commissioner, Order of Dismissal and Decision, Docket No. 361-18W (August 14, 2018)

This case is a whistleblower action commensed by petitioner pursuant to section 7623(b)(4).  Pending before the Court were two motions: (1) respondent’s Motion To Dismiss for Failure to State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, file February 22, 2018, pursuant to Rule 40; an (2) petitioner’s Motion To Compel Production of Documents, filed March 22, 2018, pursuant to Rule 104.  Each party has filed an Objection to the granting of the other party’s motion.  A hearing on the parties’ motions was held on May 23, 2018, in Chicago, Illinois, at which petitioner and his counsel appeared, as did counsel for respondent, but neither party chose to call any witnesses.  Subsequent to the hearing respondent filed, at the Courts direction, both a response and a supplemental response (with accompanying declaration) more fully explaining codes, abbreviations, and other aspects of respondent’s Exhibit A, which exhibit was filed May 14, 2018, prior to hearing.  Such exhibit was central to the disposition of the parties’ two pending motions.

Whistleblower 7208-17W v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2018-118 (July 31, 2018)

Petitioner brought this action pursuant to section 7623(b)(4) for the Court to review the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Whistleblower Office’s (Whistleblower Office) denial of his claims for a whistleblower award. This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion to proceed anonymously (motion), filed March 30, 2017, pursuant to Rule 345(a). Respondent objects to petitioner’s motion. For the reasons stated herein, petitioner has not satisfied his burden of showing that the risk of harm to him outweighs the public’s right to know who is using the Court. The Court will deny petitioner’s motion.

Vallee v. Commissioner, Order, Docket No. 13513-16W (July 31, 2018)

It was ordered that the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice.  It was further ordered that petitioner’s motion to compel production of documents shall be held in abeyance.  It was further ordered that, no later than August 31, 2018, the Commissioner shall file (1) what it contends constituted the complete administrative record, appropriately certified as to its genuineness and completeness, and (2) the Commissioner’s response to petitioner’s challenge (as inferred above) to the sufficiency of the administrative record.  It was further ordered that petitioner may, no later than September 28, 2018, file with the Court, (1) a response to the Commissioner’s filing of the administrative record, alleging, with as much specificity as possible, and factual disputes concerning the contents or completeness of the administrative record, and (2) reply to the Commissioner’s response to the challenge to the sufficiency of the administrative record.

Insigna v. Commissioner, Order, Docket No. 16575-16W (July 25, 2018)

This is a “whistleblower” case filed pursuant to I.R.C. section 7623(b).  In his petitioner, Joseph A. Insigna sought an award for having given the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) information leading to the collection of tax from a “target” taxpayer referred to as “AmSub” (a pseudonym).  But on July 16, 2018, Mr. Insigna filed a motion (Doc. 20) to dismiss his own petition.  On July 19, 2018, the Commissioner filed a response (Doc. 23) objecting to the motion.  The Court thinks there is less to this dispute than meets the eye, and will order further filings by the parties to determine whether that is so.

Insigna v. Commissioner, Order, Docket No. 16575-16W (July 17, 2018)

On July 16, 2016, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss his own complain.  The motion states that the respondent objects.

It was ordered that, no later than July 30, 2018, respondent shall file a response to petitioner’s motion to dismiss.  If the respondent objects, then the response shall state the respondent’s view as to how the case should be resolved, given petitioner’s willingness that the case be dismissed.

Whistleblower 972-17W v. Commissioner, Order, Docket No. 972-17W (July 9. 2018)

This whistleblower action was commenced pursuant to section 7623(b)(4).  By Order dated January 17, 2018, the Court directed the parties to attempt to stipulate to the administrative record.  The parties subsequently reported to the Court that they are unable to stipulate to the administrative record.

By Order dated April 27, 2018, the Court directed respondent to file the administrative record as compiled by the Whistleblower Office.  On May 17, 2018. petitioner filed a motion for leave to conduct discovery.  On June 11, 2018, respondent filed a response opposing petitioner’s motion, and on June 20, 2018, petitioner file a reply to respondent’s response.

On June 25, 2018, petitioner’s motion for leave to conduct discovery was called for hearing in Washington, D.C.  Counsel for both parties appeared and were heard.

It was ordered that petitioner’s motion for leave to conduct discovery, filed May 17, 2018, is granted in that, on or before August 17, 2018, respondent shall respond to petitioner’s interrogatories and request for production of documents as set forth more fully in this Order.

Birkenfield v. Commissioner, Order, Docket No. 9896-17W (July 9. 2018)

Upon due consideration of respondent’s Motion to Remand, filed July 6, 2018, it was ordered that, on or before July 30, 2018, petitioner shall file an Objection, if any, to respondent’s above-referenced motion.  Failure to file an objection may result in the granting of respondent’s motion.

Krug v. Commissioner, Order, Docket No. 13502-17W (June 13, 2018)

Respondent has moved for summary judgment (motion).  By order dated May 29. 2018. the Court set the motion fro hearing at the trial session of the Court starting on June 4, 2018, in Los Angeles, California.  There was no appearance by on on behalf of petitioner.  Counsel for respondent appeared and was heard on the motion.  As indicated in the transcript of the hearing, the Court was not satisfied with counsel’s explanation of why payments for the services of inmates are not subject to withholding for employment taxes.  The court said it would order respondent to provide a better explanation.  The Court also instructed counsel to consider Kasper v. Commissioner, and the discussion therein of what constitutes an adequate explanation of the Whistleblower Offices’ determination to reject an award application.  See, in particular, the discussion in Kasper, slip, op. p. 27, of the explanation why an award was denied (“because the tip was about unpaid wages *** a Department of Labor issue, not an IRS issue because no tax is owed on unpaid wages.”).  The court held that the explanation “was neither arbitrary no capricious nor an abuse of discretion.” The explanation allowed the Court to find no error in the Whistleblower Office’s rejection of the whistleblower’s reward application.

Therefore it was ordered that respondent shall on of before August 3, 2018 file a memorandum addressing the Court’s concerns with respect to the motion.  It was further ordered that petitioner shall on or before August 2, 2018 file with the Court a memorandum in support of his position relating to the motion.  I was further ordered that respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed February 7, 2018 is taken under advisement.

Whistleblower 18370-16W v. Commissioner, Order, Docket No. 18370-16W (June 5, 2018)

The case is brought to appeal respondent’s determination regarding a whistleblower award.  It was Ordered that, on or before July 5, 2018, the parties shall file (1) a stipulation of facts that shall include the administrative record, or (2) a status report describing the then-current status of the parties’ attempts to agree to the contents of the administrative record.  It was further Ordered that, if the parties are unable to stipulate to the contents of the administrative records, respondent shall serve petitioner with an index listing the documents respondent believes should be in the administrative record, and on of before July 26, 2018, petitioner shall provide respondent with any evidence petitioner believes should be added to the administrative record but is not currently included in respondent’s index.  If the parties are unable to come to an agreement, the Court intends to limit any trial to the proper limits of the administrative record.  It will hear any arguments from both parties about whether or not respondent abused their discretion in issuing the determination.

Ringo v. Commissioner, Order, Docket No. 29562-12W (June 1, 2018)

On March 19, 2015, that parties filed a joint Motion to Remand.  That motion has been held in abeyance; according to the Status Report filed on April 3, 2018, petitioner’s claim remains under consideration by respondent’s Whistleblower Office.  It appears, however, that the parties no longer agree whether the case should be remanded.  By Order and Order To Show Cause dated May 9, 2018, the Court directed the parties to show cause, in writing, why the joint Motion to Remand, filed March 19, 2015, should not be stricken from the record in this case.  The parties’ responses indicate that they do not object.

Upon due consideration, it was ordered that the Court’s Order and Order to Show Cause dated May 9, 2018, is hereby made absolute and the parties’ joint Motion to Remand, filed March 19, 2015, is hereby deemed stricken from the record in this case.

Scott v. Commissioner, Order, Docket No. 7809-17W (May 31, 2018)

For cause and for the reasons discussed at the hearing held before the Court on May 21, 2018, it was ordered that, on or before June 18, 2018, respondent’s counsel shall inform the Court in a written statement (1) whether after February 12, 2014, i.e., the date petitioner submitted his whistleblower claim in docket No. 7809-17W, the Internal Revenue Service examined or proceeded with any other administrative or judicial action with respect to any individual or entity involving the bond issuances at issue, including but not limited to, the conduit borrower, any insurance provider(s), and any record owner(s) of the bonds; (2) whether any changes were made to the above mentioned individual’s or entity’s Federal income tax liabilities after February 12, 2014; and (3) whether any monies were paid to the Government by the above mentioned individual or entity as a consequence of such examination(s) or proceeding(s) by the Internal Revenue Service.  Respondent’s counsel shall make the above mentioned statements regardless of whether respondent believes the action too place, or proceeds were collected, on the basis of the information that petitioner provided.

Krug v. Commissioner, Order, Docket No. 13505-17W (May 29. 2018)

The Court found that it required a better understanding of the reasons relied on to deny the petitioner an award.  It was ordered for a hearing to be set on June 4, 2018.

Ringo v. Commissioner, Order and Order to Show Cause, Docket no. 29562-12W (May 10, 2018)

On March 19, 2015, the parties filed a joint Motion To Remand. That motion has been held in abeyance; according to the Status Report filed on April 3, 2018, petitioner’s claim remains under consideration by respondent’s Whistleblower Office.

On May 4, 2018, respondent filed a Motion for Leave To File Supplement to Motion To Remand and Respondent’s First Supplement To Motion To Remand. Respondent indicates that petitioner does not object to the granting of the motion for leave but does object to the motion to remand. Because a motion for leave should be resolved prior to the filing ofthe supplement, the First Supplement to Motion To Remand should have been lodged rather than filed.

Although the motion to remand was filed jointly, by both parties, it appears petitioner now objects to the remand. Generally, a joint motion may be supplemented jointly but may not be supplemented by one party only. If the parties no longer agree on the joint motion, respondent should file his motion to remand rather than supplement the joint motion. Accordingly, the Court will deny respondent’s motion for leave.

Upon due consideration and for cause, it was ordered that respondent’s Motion for Leave To File Supplement to Motion to Remand, filed May 4, 2018, is denied.  It was further ordered that respondent’s First Supplement to Motion to Remand, filed May 4, 2018, is hereby stricken from the Court’s record in this case.  It was further ordered that, on or before May 31, 2018, the parties shall show cause, in writing, why the joint Motion To Remand, filed March 19, 2015, should not be stricken from the record in this case.  If, upon review of the parties’ responses, the Court will make this Order to show cause absolute, a party wishing to seek remand would be able to file an appropriate motion.

Whistleblower 8032-17W v. Commissioner, Order, Docket No. 8032-17W (May 10, 2018)

In Kasper v. Commissioner, it was determined that the Court’s review is limited to the administrative record but that the record may be supplemented where if it is found incomplete.  It was ordered that the parties shall confer and then, on or before May 31, 2018, file separate written reports regarding whether this case is susceptible to submission to the Court for decision based on the administrative record (and if so, when it would be ready for such submission and what briefing schedule the party would prefer) or whether trial is necessary.  If the latter, the party shall state why, on what basis. and on what specific issue(s) or matter(s) trial is required: also the party shall provide an estimate of time needed for trial.

Scott v. Commissioner, Order, Docket No. 1224-17W (May 4, 2018)

On May 1, 2018, respondent filed a Motion to Quash of Modify Subpoena with respect to subpoena duces tecum served on Taxpayer 1 and Taxpayer 2, respectively.  The Court held a conference call with respondent’s counsel to discuss the motion.  It was ordered that the case is calendared for a special session on May 21, 2018.

Scott v. Commissioner, Order, Docket No. 1224-17W (May 4, 2018)

It was ordered that this case was calendared for a hearing on respondent’s motion at a Special Session of the Court scheduled to commence on May 21, 2018.  This Order constituted an official notice to the parties.  It was further ordered that, in addition to regular service on the parties, the Clerk of the Court would serve a copy of this Order on Diana Erbsen.

Whistleblower 972-17W v. Commissioner, Order, Docket No. 972-17W (April 30, 2018)

In an Order dated January 17, 2018, the Court directed the parties to attempt to stipulate the administrative record.  Petitioner has provided respondent with a list of documents that petitioner believes should be included in the administrative record and suggested that discovery is necessary to further supplement the documents comprising the administrative record.  It was ordered that, on or before May 10, 2018, respondent will file with the Court (in redacted and unredacted form) the administrative record as compiled by the Whistleblower Office.  It was further ordered that, on or before May 17, 2018, petitioner shall file a motion for leave to conduct discovery, if deemed necessary.

Dostart v. Commissioner, Order of Dismissal Docket No. 10588-17W (March 14, 2018)

It was ordered that petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss, filed February 7, 2018, was granted and the case was dismissed.

Birkenfeld v. Commissioner, Docket No. 13957-17W (February 9, 2018)

It was ordered that, on of before March 9, 2018, the parties shall file (1) a stipulation of facts that shall include the administrative records, or (2) a status report describing the then-current status of the parties’ attempts to agree to the contents of the administrative records.  It was further ordered that if the parties are unable to stipulate to the contents of the administrative record, on or before March 9 2018, respondent shall serve petitioner with an index listing the documents respondent believes should be in the administrative record, and on or before March 30, 2018, petitioner shall provide respondent with any evidence petitioner believes should be added to the administrative record but that is not currently included in the respondent’s index.  If the parties do not settle the case by June 4, 2018, the Court intends to limit any trial to the proper contents of the administrative record.  It will also hear any arguments from both parties about whether or not respondent abused his discretion in issuing the determination.  The Court will also entertain motions to submit the case fully stipulated under Rule 122 or for summary judgment.

Whistleblower 25829-16W v. Commissioner Order (January 17, 2018)

It was ordered that, on or before March 1, 2018, the parties shall file (1) a stipulation of facts that shall include the administrative record, or (2) a status report describing the then-current status of the parties’ attempts to agree to the contents of the administrative record.  It was further ordered that, if the parties are unable to stipulate to the contents of the administrative record, on or before March 1, 2018, respondent shall serve petitioner with an index, listing the documents respondent believes should be in the administrative record, and on or before March 15, 2018, petitioner shall provide respondent with any evidence petitioner believes should be added to the administrative record but that is not currently included in the respondent’s index.  It was further ordered that, if the parties remain unable to stipulate to the content of the administrative record, on of before March 30, 2018, the parties shall file a joint status report describing the then-current state of the parties’ attempts to agree to the contents of the administrative record.

Whistleblower 972-17W v. Commissioner Order (January 17, 2018)

It was ordered that, on or before March 1, 2018, the parties shall file (1) a stipulation of facts that shall include the administrative record, or (2) a status report describing the then-current status of the parties’ attempts to agree to the contents of the administrative record.  It was further ordered that, if the parties are unable to stipulate to the contents of the administrative record, on or before March 1, 2018, respondent shall serve petitioner with an index, listing the documents respondent believes should be in the administrative record, and on or before March 15, 2018, petitioner shall provide respondent with evidence petitioner believes should be added to the administrative record but that is not currently included in respondent’s index.  It is further ordered that if the parties remain unable to stipulate to the contents of the administrative record, on of before March 20, 2018. the parties shall file a joint status report describing the then-current status of the parties’ attempts to agree to the contents of the administrative record.

Kasper v. Commissioner, Docket No. 22242-11W (January 9, 2018)

It was held that when reviewing respondent’s determinations under I.R.C. section 7623(b) the Court will limit the scope of their review to the administrative record.  Further, it was held that the administrative record could be supplemented if it was incomplete.  It was held further that the applicable standard of review for determination under I.R.C. section 7623(b) is abuse of discretion.  Further, it was held that respondent did not abuse her discretion in rejecting petitioner’s claim for a whistleblower award.

Whistleblower 11099-13W v. Commissioner (December 14, 2017)

Before the Court were four motions: Petitioner’s motions to (1) compel production of documents, (2) compel responses to interrogatories, and (4) impose sanctions.  Respondent objected to each.  Also before the Court was respondent’s motion for extension of time to produce documents.

Smith v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. No. 21 (June 7, 2017)

 The Tax Court held that the “amounts in dispute” referenced in the I.R.C sec. 7623(b)(5)(B) threshold are the total amount of the liability that respondent proposed with respect to a taxpayer’s examination that was commenced using the information provided by a whistleblower and are not limited to the part of the “collected proceeds” attributable to the whistleblower’s information of specific allegations.  Further, it was held that the $2 million threshhold of I.R.C. sec. 7623(b)(5)(B) was met, and petitioner’s whistleblower reward should be determined under I.R.C. sec. 7623(b).

 Gonzalez v. Commissioner, T.C Memo. 2017-105 (June 7, 2017)

Summary Judgement denied, where respondent’s motion and related documents did not address whether additional records may exist in other IRS departments and offices that are relevant to the question whether the “amount in dispute” in this matter exceeded $2 million.

 Lippolis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo, 2017-104 (June 7, 2017)

Summary judgment denied where respondent was the moving party and asserted an affirmative defense on which respondent bore the burden of proof. The facts alleged in respondent’s motion did not preclude the existence of other records showing that the amount in dispute exceeded $2 million.

 Whistleblower 4496-15W v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. No. 19 (May 25, 2017)

 The Tax Court held that the Office’s issuance of the check to petitioner constituted its “determination” that he was entitled to an award in the agreed-upon amount.  I.R.C sec. 7623(b)(4).  Because petitioner filed his petition within 30 days of the date on which the check was mailed to him, the Court has jurisdiction to decide whether his waiver of his judicial appeal rights was valid and binding.  Further, it was held that petitioner’s agreement with the Office, whereby he explicitly waived his right to see judicial reviews of the award, is binding on him, and he is precluded from challenging the the amount of the award in that Court.

Whistleblower 16158-14W v. Commissioner, T.C. No. 12 (April 17, 2017)

The Court held that because there were no collected proceeds for 2006 through 2008, W is not entitled to an award for those years.  Further, it was held that there was no administrative or judicial action with respect to years after 2008 because the IRS took no action with respect to those years.  Further, it was held that the Commissioner is not required to monitor a taxpayer’s voluntary change in reporting for years which there was no action.

Whistleblower 6121-16W v. Commissioner, Order of Dismissal, Docket No. 6121-16W (March 22, 2017)

It was ordered that all documents in the Court’s record in this case, with the exception of this Order of Dismissal, are sealed.  It was further ordered that the Clerk of the Court shall remove from the Court’s public record all documents in the Court’s record in this case, with the exception of this Order of Dismissal, and the documents shall be retained by the Court in a sealed file which shall not be opened for inspection by any person or entity except by an Order of the Court.  It was further ordered that the temporary seal of the record in this case is lifted.  It was further ordered that petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss filed February 27, 2017, is granted and this case is dismissed.

 Whistleblower 12568-16W v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. No. 7 (March 22, 2017)

 The Tax Court held that petitioner could proceed anonymously until and unless the Court determined differently.

Insigna v. Commissioner, Order, Docket No. 9011-13W (January 27. 2017)

This is a “whistleblower” case brought under section 7623(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.).  By a previous order (Doc. 109) the Court granted in part petitioner’s motions (Docs. 11, 19) to compel discovery from respondent, as to which respondent’s compliance is due March 1, 2017 (see Doc. 156).  Now before the Court is petitioner’s motion (Doc. 138) to determine the sufficiency of respondent’s responses to requests for admissions concerning to entities, referred t as “A, Inc.”, and “V Inc.”.  Respondent opposed the motion (Doc. 152), and petitioner replied (Doc. 154).  The Court will grant the motion in part and will otherwise deny it.

Whistleblower 26876-15W v. Commissioner, 147 T.C. No. 12 (November 9, 2016)

It was held that W properly exercised his authority under Delegation Order 25-7 when he executed Form 11369 approving the denial of P’s claim for an award.  Nothing in that delegation order (or anywhere else) required that W personally sign the letter informing P that his claim had been denied.  It was further held that the May 30, 2014 determination letter as originally mailed to P was invalid because it was not mailed to P’s last known address and P did not actually receive it.  It was further held that P timely filed his petition because he filed it within 30 days of October 15, 2015, the date on which the notice of determination was properly remailed to him.

 Whistleblower 21276-13W v. Commissioner, 147 T.C. No. 4 (August 3, 2016)

 The Tax Court held the criminal fine and civil forfeitures are collected proceeds for purposes of an award under I.R.C. sec. 7623(b).

Whistleblower 11099-13W v. Commissioner, 147 T.C. No. 3 (July 28, 2016)

Whistleblower petitioned for review of the IRS’ decision not to make an award to him for information that purportedly led to the collection of unpaid taxes and other amounts.  He moved to compel production of documents.  R objects principally on grounds of relevance.

It was held that R’s claim of lack of relevance presents an unsettled question of law as to when the IRS proceeds on the basis of information provided by a whistleblower.  See I.R.C. sec. 7623(b)(1): sec. 301.7623-2(b). Proced & Admin. Regs.  It was further held that the Court will not in the context of this discovery dispute decide a question of law; if respondent is interested in a pretrial ruling on matters of law, his proper course of action under Court Rules would be to file a motion for summary judgment.  It was further held that R has failed to carry his burden of showing that the documents need not be produced.  It was further held that the Court will grant the motion.

Insigna v. Commissioner, Order, Docket No. 9011-13W (July 27, 2016)

It was ordered that petitioner’s motion to compel the depositions of Robert Gardiner, Robert Piatka and Steven Mitzel is hereby denied without prejudice.  It was further ordered that petitioner’s motion to compel production of documents, as supplemented, is hereby granted in part, and that no later than August 31, 2016, respondent shall produce to petitioner, from IRS audit, Appeals, and collection records, any documents that have not already been produced that show any direct relation to the transactions that petitioner reported for each of the target taxpayers: A Inc., B Corp., C LLC, D Co., V Inc., X, Inc., Dutch Bank, French Bank, and the 94 Mideo transactions. In response to the interrogatories (see below) respondent shall include a sworn assurance, by one or more IRS employees with personal knowledge, that all responsive documents have been produced (or that such documents do not exist).  It was further ordered that petitioner’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories, is hereby granted in part, and that no later than August 31, 2016, respondent shall give sworn answers to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 12, and 13. As to Interrogatory No. 5, respondent shall give a sworn answer with respect to each taxpayer identified by the petitioner in his submission (consisting of A Inc., B Corp., C LLC, D Co., V Inc., X, Inc., Dutch Bank, French Bank, and the 94 Mideo transactions), as to any actions undertaken by the IRS since 2007 to collect any tax liability, including additions, subsequent to the petitioner’s original submission with respect to each such taxpayer, stating whether or not such collection efforts were the result of any “administrative action” taken as a result of the information provided by the petitioner.  It was further ordered that after respondent has complied with the previous directions of this order, and no later than September 26, the parties shall jointly initiate a telephone conference call with the Court to discuss whether supplemental memoranda should be filed in connection with the parties’ motions for partial summary judgment.  It is further ordered that the parties are reminded that the protective order issued on August 8, 2013, remains in full force and effect.

 Whistleblower 22716-13W v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. No. 6 (March 14, 2016)

 The Tax Court held that the term “additional amounts” as used in I.R.C. sec. 7623(b)(5)(B) means the civil penalties set forth in C. 68, subch. A, of the Internal Revenue Code, captioned “Additions to the Tax and Additional Amounts.”  It was further held that FBAR civil penalties are not “additional amounts” within the meaning of I.R.C. sec. 7623(b)(5)(B), and they are not “assessed, collected *** [or] paid in the same manner as taxes.”  I.R.C. sex 6665(a)(1).  FBAR payments must therefore be excluded in determining whether the $2 million “amount in dispute” has been satisfied.

Kasper v. Commissioner Docket No. 6748-13W (October 8, 2015)

Respondent filed a motion for Summary Judgment, contending that petitioner did not meet the threshold requirements for a whistleblower award under section 7623(b) of the Internal Revenue Code and therefore not entitled to an award.  As the moving party, respondent bears the burden of proving no genuine dispute exists.  The motion included factual assertions which are not supported by a declaration of a type described in Rule 121(d), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.  Statements in briefs do not constitute evidence.  Exhibits attached to respondent’s motion had not been properly authenticated as required by rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  In addition, those exhibits appeared to be hearsay under Rule 801, Federal Rules of Evidence, and respondent had failed to show that they qualify as an exception under Rule 803(6) or (8), Federal Rules of Evidence, or any other exception.  Questions remained as to whether respondent undertook an administrative examination of the taxpayers, whether such an examination was initiated on the basis of or aided by the information provided by petitioner, and whether any proceeds were collected as a result of the examination.  Summary adjudication was deemed no appropriate.

 Whistleblower One 10683-13W, Whistleblower Two 10683-13W, and Whistleblower Three 10683-13W v. Commissioner, 145 T.C. No. 8 (September 16, 2015)

 The Tax Court held that even if they were to agree with respondent that the Court’s scope of review is the administrative record, respondent cannot unilaterally decide what constitutes that record, and respondent’s response indicates that the purported record is incomplete.  It was further held that the Court would issue an appropriate order granting the motions.

 Whistleblower 21276-13W v. Commissioner, 144 T.C. No. 15 (June 2, 2015)

 The Tax Court held that TRHCA sec. 406(b) does not endow the Whistleblower Office with exclusive authority to investigate the individual or entity that is the subject of an application for an award.  The fact that petitioners supplied their information to other Federal agencies, including an IRS operating division, before submitting the information to the Whistleblower Office on Form 211 does not, as a matter of law, render petitioners ineligible for an award under I.R.C sec. 7623(b).

Lippolis v. Commissioner, 143 T.C. No. 20, Docket No. 18172-12W (November 20, 2014)

It was held that the $2 million requirement is an affirmative defense and is not jurisdictional.  The Court will deny R’s motion and allow time for R to file an appropriate motion for leave to amend the answer.

Ringo v. Commissioner, 143 T.C. No. 15, Docket No. 29561-12W (October 6, 2014)

It was held that a November 7, 2012 letter was a determination and the Court has jurisdiction with respect to the matter.  It was further held that the fact R continued to consider P’s application after sending the November 7, 2012 letter does not terminate this Court’s jurisdiction.

Comparini and Comparini v. Commissioner, 143 T.C. No. 14, Docket No. 6674-13W (October 2, 2014)

Ps filed with R’s Whistleblower Office (W) a claim for a whistleblower award under I.R.C. sec. 7623(b). In 2012 W mailed four essentially identical letters to Ps stating that Ps are not eligible for an award and inviting Ps to contact W with any questions.

Ps later submitted additional information to W in support of Ps’ claim. In 2013 W sent a letter (2013 letter) to Ps stating that W “determined your claim still does not meet our criteria for an award”, “[o]ur determination remains the same”, and “we are closing this claim.” Ps petitioned this Court under I.R.C. sec. 7623(b)(4) within 30 days after receiving the 2013 letter.

R moved to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.

It was held that the 2013 letter constitutes a determination for purposes of I.R.C. sec. 7623(b)(4). R’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction will be denied.

 Whistleblower 22231-12W v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-157 (August 4, 2014)

Holding that the IRS whistleblower had not yet made a determination and thus the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction.

 Whistleblower 11332-13W v. Commissioner, 142 T.C. No. 21 (June 4, 2014)

 The Tax Court held that is has jurisdiction to review respondent’s whistleblower claim award determinations where the whistleblower has alleged that the whistleblower provided information to respondent before and after the effective date of I.R.C. sec. 7623(b).  Further, whistleblower satisfied whistleblower’s pleading burden by alleging facts that respondent proceeded with an action against the target taxpayers using information brought to respondent’s attention by whistleblower both before and after the effective date of I.R.C. sec. 7623(b), Dec 20, 2006.  It was further held that respondent’s motion to dismiss would be denied.

 Whistleblower 10949-13W v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.  2014-106 (June 4, 2014)

Tax Court has jurisdiction to review respondent’s whistleblower claim award determinations where the whistleblower alleges they provided information both before and after the enactment of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (TRHCA), and that the information allegedly provided after was significant.

 Whistleblower 11332-13W v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.  2014-92 (May 20, 2014)

Court held sealing the record was appropriate in this circumstance because failure to do so could result in severe physical harm to the whistleblower.  The whistleblower has also demonstrated that proceeding anonymously is necessary to protect the whistleblower’s professional reputation, economic interests and personal safety.

 Whistleblower 13412-12W v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.  2014-93 (May 20, 2014)

Court allowed petitioner to proceed where disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity could result in the risk of retaliation, social and professional stigma and economic duress.  If target learned the whistleblower’s identity, it could possibly withhold or terminate the whistleblower’s retirement benefits.  Moreover, the whistleblower might face professional ostracism and difficulty securing future employment.  In short, the nature of the potential harm to the whistleblower outweighs the societal interest in knowing the whistleblower’s identity.

 Whistleblower 10949-13W v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-94 (May 20, 2014)

Court allowed petitioner to proceed where disclosure disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity could result in the risk of retaliation, social and professional stigma and economic duress.  Most importantly, disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity would place the whistleblower at risk of physical harm.  Targets are alleged to have ties to terrorist organizations and have already used armed men to raid the whistleblower’s offices.

 Cohen v. Commissioner, 139 T.C. No 12 (October 9, 2012)

 Respondent denied petitioner’s whistleblower award claim under I.R.C. sec. 7623(b).  Petitioner concedes that information he provided respondent has not led to respondent instituting an action or collecting proceeds.  Petitioner filed a petition requesting that the Court order respondent to reopen his award claim.  Respondent moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  The Tax Court held that I.R.C. sec. 7623(b) does not authorize petitioner’s requested relief.  Further, it was held that petitioner did not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

 Whistleblower 14106-10W, Petitioner v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. No. 15 (December 8, 2011)

 The Tax Court held that a summary judgment may properly be rendered even though a motion for a protective order is pending and discovery has not commenced.  Further, because petitioner failed to meet the threshold requirements for an award, respondent’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.  Further, because the potential harm from disclosing petitioner’s identity as a confidential informant outweighed the public interest in knowing petitioner’s identity in this case decided on summary judgment, petitioner’s request for anonymity would be granted.  Further, it was held that the parties will be ordered to redact from the record both petitioner’s and taxpayer x’s names and any identifying information about petitioner and taxpayer x.  Because granting petitioner’s request for anonymity and redacting identifying information adequately protects petitioner’s legitimate privacy interests as a confidential informant, petitioner’s request to seal the record would be denied.

 Friedland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-217 (September 7, 2011)

Court repeated its holding in Cooper that a letter from the whistleblower office denying the petitioner’s claim constituted adetermination because it was a final administrative decision regarding the taxpayer’s whistleblower claims, even if not investigation was undertaken.  Appeal filed more than 30 days after determination was denied, even though petitioner alleged he had been led to believe by the whistleblower office that his appeal should be filed in Claims Court.

 Kasper v. Commissioner 137 T.C. No. 4 (July 12, 2011)

 The Tax Court holds that in according with the Court’s decision in Cooper v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 70 (2010), each Whistleblower Office letter that denies a whistleblower claim is a determination within the meaning of sec. 7623(b)(4), I.R.C.  Further, respondent must prove by direct evidence the date and fact of mailing of the determination to the whistleblower.  Magazine v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 321, 326 (1987).  The 30-day period of sec. 7623(b)(4), I.R.C., within which a whistleblower must file a petition in response to a Whistleblower Office determination begins on the date of the mailing of the determination by the Whistleblower Office.  The Petitioner filed his petition with the Court within the 30-day period specified by sec. 7623(b)(4), I.R.C., the Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

 Cooper v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 30 (June 21, 2011)

 The Tax Court held that their jurisdiction in whistleblower cases does not include opening an administrative or judicial action to predetermine the tax liability.  Petitioner failed to meet the threshold requirements for a whistleblower award.

 Friedland v. CIR T.C. Memo.  2011-90 (April 25, 2011)

Court repeated its holding in Cooper that a letter from the whistleblower office denying the petitioner’s claim constituted adetermination because it was a final administrative decision regarding the taxpayer’s whistleblower claims, even if not investigation was undertaken.  Appeal filed more than 30 days after determination was denied, even though petitioner alleged he had been led to believe by the whistleblower office that his appeal should be filed in Claims Court.

 Cooper v. Commissioner 135 T.C. No. 4 (July 8, 2011)

 The Tax Court held that respondent’s letter was a determination conferring jurisdiction on the Court.  They would therefore deny respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

 Dacosta v. United States No. 07-807T (July 11, 2008)

For reasons set forth in this document, defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1) was granted, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complain without prejudice.  See RCFC 41(b) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction does not operate as an adjudication on the merits).  Paintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to RCFC 12(c) is denied was moot.

 Wolf v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2007-133 (May 30, 2007)

Because petitioner’s information about alleged tax violations was provided to the IRS well before the date the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (TRHCA) became effective on December 20, 2006, the tax court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.

Annual Reports by Whistleblower Office

IRS Whistleblower Offices Fiscal 2017 Annual Report

IRS Whistleblower Offices Fiscal 2016 Annual Report

IRS Whistleblower Offices Fiscal 2015 Annual Report

IRS Whistleblower Offices Fiscal 2014 Annual Report

IRS Whistleblower Offices Fiscal 2013 Annual Report

IRS Whistleblower Offices Fiscal 2012 Annual Report

IRS Whistleblower Offices Fiscal 2011 Annual Report

IRS Whistleblower Offices Fiscal 2010 Annual Report

IRS Whistleblower Offices Fiscal 2009 Annual Report

IRS Whistleblower Offices Fiscal 2008 Annual Report

Whistleblower Office First Report to Congress

Internal Revenue Manual Guidance re Whistleblower Cases

Internal Revenue Manual 25.2.2 Whistleblower Awards (June 18, 2010)

Updates to Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 25.2.2 Information and Whistleblower Awards, Whistleblower Awards (WO-25-0612-01) (June 7, 2012)

This interim guidance memorandum was issued to communicate changes to procedures for collected proceeds, corresponding with the whistleblower and the representative, confirming that the representative has been terminated, timing of award determination, processing of Form 211 Claim for Award, Award Computation and Funding Awards.

Updates to Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 25.2.2 Information and Whistleblower Awards, Whistleblower Awards (WO-25-0612-02) (June 7, 2012)

This interim guidance was issued to communicate changes to the Whistleblower Award Determination Administrative Proceeding.

Updates to Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 25.2.2 Information and Whistleblower Awards, Whistleblower Awards (WO-25-0612-03) (June 7, 2012)

The purpose of this interim guidance memorandum was to provide new guidance on the Whistleblower Withholding Program.  It provided guidance to whistleblowers on the application process and provides guidance to Internal Revenue Service personnel on the application review process.

Updates to Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 25.2.2 Information and Whistleblower Awards, Whistleblower Awards (WO-25-0613-01) (June 7, 2013)

The purpose of this memorandum was to reissue the interim guidance dated June 7. 2012, with control number WO-25-0612-01.

Updates to Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 25.2.2 Information and Whistleblower Awards, Whistleblower Awards (WO-25-0613-02) (June 7, 2013)

The purpose of this memorandum was to reissue the interim guidance dated June 7, 2012, with control number WO-25-0612-02.

Updates to Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 25.2.2 Information and Whistleblower Awards, Whistleblower Awards (WO-25-613-03) (June 7, 2013)

The purpose of this memorandum was to reissue the interim guidance dated June 7, 2012, with control number WO-25-0612-03.

Updates to Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 25.2.2 Information and Whistleblower Awards, Whistleblower Awards (WO-25-0614-01) (June 6, 2014)

The purpose of this memorandum was to reissue the interim guidance dated June 7, 2013, with control number WO-25-0613-01.

Updates to Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 25.2.2 Information and Whistleblower Awards, Whistleblower Awards (WO-25-0614-02) (June 6, 2014)

The purpose of this memorandum is to reissue the interim guidance dated June 7, 2013, with control number WO-25-0613-02.

Updates to Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 25.2.2 Information and Whistleblower Awards, Whistleblower Awards (WO-25-0614-03) (June 6, 2014)

The purpose of this memorandum is to reissue the interim guidance dated June 7, 2013, with control number WO-25-0613-03.

Chief Counsel Notices

Chief Counsel Advice (December 1, 2017)

This Notice answers a question raised in training, “Should the entire administrative record be submitted to the Court on an MSJ”.

Chief Counsel Notice CC 2010-004 (February 17, 2010)

This Notice clarifies CC Notice 2008-011 as it applies to the advice to be given to the Internal Revenue Service as to the limitations on contacts with an informant who is a current employee of a taxpayer and who is providing the IRS with information regarding the informant’s employer.  This Notice also provides additional guidance relating to evidentiary issues that may arise when reviewing potentially privileged information provided by an informant.  In addition, for purposes of convenience, this Notice restates the discussion in CC Notice 2008-011 regarding the advice to be given to the IRS regarding the limitations on contacts with an informant who is acting as the taxpayer’s representation in an examination or other proceeding pending before the IRS.  This Notice applies to, but is not limited to, contacts with informants who have filed claims with the IRS pursuant to I.R.C. 7623.  Finally, this Notice applies only to civil tax cases, whether at the administrative level or in litigation, and is intended to assist Chief Counsel attorneys in providing advice regarding contacts with informants in those cases.  It does not apply to criminal matters.  For guidance with respect to criminal matters, refer to IRM 9.4.2, Sources of information.

Chief Counsel Notice CC 2008-011 (February 27. 2008)

This Notice discusses the advice to eb given to the Internal Revenue Service regarding the limitations on contacts with an informant (1) who is a current employee of a taxpayer and who is providing the Service with information regarding the informant’s employer that has been obtained in the course of the informant’s employment, or (2) who is acting as the taxpayer’s representative in an examination or other proceeding pending before the Service.  This Notice includes, but is not limited to, contacts with informants who have filed claims with the Service pursuant to I.R.C. 7623.  This Notice applies to the conduct of Counsel employees in dealing with informants in the categories described above at the administrative level or in litigation.  The Service is iun the process of issuing instructions to its employees that include a requirement to coordinate the current employee and taxpayer representative informant issues with Counsel, consistent with this Notice.

Chief Counsel Notice CC 2008-001 (November 1, 2007)

This Notice provides guidance relating to a new cause of action in the Tax Court for review of award determinations made by the Service’s Whistleblower Office, pursuant to section 7623.

TIGTA and GAO Reports

TIGTA Report 2016-30-059 (August 30, 2016)

The Whistleblower Program Helps Identify Tax Noncompliance; However Improvements are Needed to Ensure that Claims are Processed Appropriately and Expeditiously

TIGTA Report 2012-40-106 (September 10, 2012)

The Process for Individuals to Report Suspected Tax Law Violations is not Efficient or Effective

TIGTA Report 2012-30-045 (April 30, 2012)

Improved Oversight is Needed to Effectively Process Whistleblower Claims

TIGTA Report 2009-30-114 (August 20, 2009)

Final Audit Report- Deficiencies Exist in the Control and Timely Resolution of Whistleblower Claims

GAO 16-155 (February 2016)

IRS Referral Programs: Opportunities Exist to to Strengthen Controls and Increase Coordination across Overlapping Programs

GAO 16-20 (October 2015)

IRS Whistleblower Program: Billions Collected, but Timeliness and Communication Concerns may Discourage Whistleblowers

GAO 11-683 (August 2011)

Tax Whistleblowers: Incomplete Data Hinders IRS’s Ability to Manage Claim Processing Time and Enhance External Communication

IRS Field Directives

Field Directive re: IRS Whistleblower Program (August 20, 2014)

Outline of a review to improve timeliness and quality of decisions as the Service evaluates and acts on whistleblower information

Field Directive re: IRS Whistleblower Program (June 20, 2012)

Outline of a review to improve timeliness and quality of decisions as the Service evaluates and acts on whistleblower information

Correspondence

Letter to Commissioner Shulman (September 13, 2011)

Written to address concerns about several issues raised by the report on the whistleblower program released the week prior by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).  There were also concerns about the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) provisions regarding whistleblower claims.

Letter to Commissioner Shulman (August 18, 2011)

RE: IRM 25.2.2.12 and PMTA 2010-62 – Conflicting Guidance Has Been Issued by Chief Counsel with Respect to Whether “Collected Proceeds” Under Section 7623 Include Denied Claims for Refund, and When Whisteblower Award Determinations are Eligible to be Made.

Letter to Secretary Geithner (June 21, 2010)

Grassley was writing to express his concerns and disappointment about the lack of notice regarding the changes to the whistleblower program in the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) dated June 18, 2010, a posted on IRS.gov.  He was particularly frustrated that this guidance was issued while his staff’s requests during the few weeks prior for the most recent annual whistleblower report to Congress had gone unanswered.

Press releases and statements

Tax Court Memorandum Opinion, Whistleblower 23711-15W v. Commissioner (March 20, 2018)

This whistleblower award case is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by the IRS (respondent).  Respondent contends that they are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because the IRS did not initiate “any administrative or judicial action” on the basis of the information petitioner supplied and did not collect any proceeds as a result of that information.

IRS Commissioner Koskinen: Statement on IRS Whistleblower Program (August 2014)

“It is clear that the IRS Whistleblower Program has been making important contributions to the tax system: over the last three fiscal years, the IRS has paid out more than $186 million in awards, on collection of more than $1 billion based on whistleblower information.  These collections, and the awards that followed from them, came about through the dedicated efforts of our field agents and managers, and demonstrate the IRS’ commitment to taking appropriate action on whistleblower submissions and compensating whistleblowers under the law.”

Memo to Reporters and Editors: GAO report on improved IRS whistleblower offices (September 9, 2011)

Memo to Reporters and Editors: First recovery of tax dollars under improved IRS whistleblower office (April 8, 2011)

The Associated Press reported that an in-house accountant who raise a red flag about a tax lapse that his employer then ignored, leading him to tip off the IRS, received $4.5 million in the first whistleblower award under the new, improved IRS whistleblower office, with a recovery for the taxpayers of a net $20 million in taxes and interest from the financial-services firm.

Announcement: Reporting of Uncertain Tax Positions (2010)

In a series of Announcements the Internal Revenue Service announced that it was developing a schedule requiring certain business taxpayers to report uncertain tax positions on their tax returns and requested comments both on the proposal and on a  draft schedule and instructions.  Comments were taken into consideration and the final schedule and instructions make a number of significant changes in order to address burden and other concerns expressed by commentors.

Announcement: Requests for Documents Provided to Independent Auditors, Policy of Restraint and Uncertain Tax Positions (2010)

The Internal Revenue Service is expanding its policy of restraint in connection with its decision to require certain corporations to file Schedule UTP, uncertain Tax Position Statement, and will forgo seeking particular documents that relate to uncertain tax positions and the workpapers that document the completion of Schedule UTP.

Press Release: Amended Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure re: whistleblower actions and electronic service (October 3, 2008)

In 2006, Congress amended section 7623 by adding new subsection (b), which authorizes the Whistleblower Office of the IRS to determine the amount of awards to whistleblowers based on a percentage of the tax collected.  Section(b)(4) confers jurisdiction on the Court over appeals of the award determinations, effective for determinations with respect to information provided on or after December 20, 2006.  Accordingly, Rules 13, 34, and 182 are amended and new Title XXXIII (Rules 340-344) is adopted to provide procedures for commencing a whistleblower action.

Former Whistleblower Program

Amended Tax Court Rules

Other

The Whistleblower Claim Process