Opinion
21052-22
01-26-2023
ROBERT DAVID BACSIK, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On September 19, 2022, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case. Petitioner indicates therein that he seeks review of a notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action. The parties are reminded that, under Rule 345(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, in a filing with the Court in a whistleblower action, the party making the filing "shall refrain from including, or shall take appropriate steps to redact, the name, address, and other identifying information of the taxpayer to whom the claim relates." Rule 345(b) further provides that the party "filing a document that contains redacted information shall file under seal a reference list that identifies each item of redacted information and specifies an appropriate identifier that uniquely corresponds to each item listed."
Petitioner did not refrain from including in the petition identifying information with respect to the taxpayers to whom petitioner's claim relates (the target taxpayers) or fully redact the petition and its attachments as to references to the target taxpayers and provide a reference list of redacted information. In addition, respondent failed to redact identifying information of the target taxpayers in his answer, filed November 21, 2022. Accordingly, the Court will seal the petition and answer.
On January 20, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Remand. Respondent states that petitioner does not object to the granting of that motion. The Court addressed remand in whistleblower cases in Whistleblower 769-16W v. Commissioner 152 T.C. 172, 179-180 (2019) (Whistleblower 769-16W I). In that case, we held that in appropriate circumstances, the Court may remand a whistleblower case to the Whistleblower Office for further consideration of the whistleblower's claim while retaining jurisdiction of the case. Subsequently, in Whistleblower 769-16W v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 159 T.C. No. 2, 2022 WL 3106645 (Aug. 4, 2022) (Whistleblower 769-16W II), the Court held that we have discretion to remand a petitioner's claim to the Whistleblower Office for further consideration without retaining jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the petition in this case shall be treated as a Petition for Whistleblower Action Under Code Section 7623(b)(4). It is further
ORDERED that the caption of this case is amended by adding the letter "W" to the docket number and the Clerk of the Court shall process this case to trial or other disposition according to the procedures provided by Rules 340 through 345, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
ORDERED that the petition, filed September 19, 2022, and answer, filed November 21, 2022, are sealed. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall remove the petition and answer from the Court's public record and they shall be retained by the Court in a sealed file which shall not be inspected by any person or entity not a party to this case, except by an Order of the Court. It is further
ORDERED that, when filing or lodging unsealed documents in this case in the future, the parties shall refrain from including, or take appropriate steps to redact the name, address, and other identifying information of the target taxpayer and, when appropriate, either (1) concurrently file or lodge under seal a reference list that identifies each item of redacted information and specifies an appropriate identifier that uniquely corresponds to each item listed or (2) concurrently file or lodge under seal an unredacted version of any redacted document that is filed or lodged. Documents filed under seal must be submitted to the Court in paper form.
If utilizing the first method, the parties shall file or lodge redacted versions of documents accompanied by a reference list of redacted information, which must be filed or lodged under seal and specifically identify and state each item of redacted information (for example, when the target taxpayer's name is redacted, the reference list must identify that redaction and also state the target taxpayer's name). Subsequent references in the case to a listed identifier will be construed to refer to the corresponding item of information.
If utilizing the second method, the versions shall be clearly marked as "Unredacted" or "Redacted", as appropriate, and the redacted version shall be an exact duplicate of the corresponding unredacted version, including attachments and exhibits, except for the redactions made with respect to the identifying information of the target taxpayer. It is further
ORDERED that, on or before February 17, 2023, respondent shall file a supplement to his Motion to Remand and therein set forth and fully discuss his position concerning whether this Court should retain jurisdiction of this case during any remand.