Opinion
8753-20W
01-19-2023
ROBIN W. CARLSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Alina I. Marshall Judge
Petitioner Robin W. Carlson seeks review of a notice of determination under section 7623, which states in relevant part: "The Whistleblower Office has made a final decision to reject your claim for an award. The claim has been rejected because the IRS [Internal Revenue Service] decided not to pursue the information you provided." In the petition, filed July 10, 2020, petitioner "requests the IRS re-evaluate his Whistleblower Complaint, open an audit, and hold [a target] responsible."
All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
On May 16, 2022, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (respondent's motion). In that motion, respondent states that "the IRS did not proceed with any administrative or judicial action based on petitioner's claim" and therefore "this Court has no jurisdiction to review the Whistleblower Office's letter rejecting petitioner's claim." Respondent cites Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022). On May 23, 2022, the Court directed petitioner to file a response to respondent's motion on or before June 17, 2022. To date, petitioner has not filed any such response.
In Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (to which all whistleblower cases under section 7623 are appealable pursuant to section 7482(b)(1)) held that the Tax Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over whistleblower cases, such as this one, in which the IRS rejects the whistleblower claim and does not commence any administrative or judicial proceeding based on the whistleblower's information. On October 31, 2022, the Supreme Court denied the whistleblower's petition for a writ of certiorari in Li v. Commissioner. A review of the Supreme Court docket in Li reflects that a petition for rehearing of the order denying the writ of certiorari has not been docketed as of the date of this order. See U.S. Sup. Ct. Rule 44(2) (providing that such a petition must be filed "within 25 days after the date of the order of denial"). We conclude that the judgment in Li is now final and will thus dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed May 16, 2022, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that all other pending motions are denied as moot.