Magbual v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Full title: JOHN N. MAGBUAL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Court: United States Tax Court

Date published: Jan 5, 2023

No. 6321-20W (U.S.T.C. Jan. 5, 2023)

Opinion

6321-20W

01-05-2023

JOHN N. MAGBUAL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge.

ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge.

Petitioner seeks in this case review of a notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action. The notice of determination on which this case is based 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."

By opinion issued January 11, 2022, in the case of Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 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 therefore does not commence any administrative or judicial proceeding based on the whistleblower's information. Based on the holding in that case, by Order and Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction (order of dismissal), issued July 5, 2022, the Court dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction.

On August 30, 2022, the Supreme Court docketed a petition for writ of certiorari, filed by the whistleblower in Li, as of June 16, 2022. Accordingly, by Order issued September 1, 2022, this Court vacated and set aside the order of dismissal and stayed the proceedings in this case. By order issued October 31, 2022, the Supreme Court denied the whistleblower's petition for a writ of certiorari in Li. 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").

Accordingly, we conclude that the judgment in Li is now final and will thus dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.

Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the stay of proceedings in this case is lifted. It is further

ORDERED that, on the Court's own motion, this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.