Opinion
20287-18W
03-13-2023
MONIQUE EPPERSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Elizabeth A. Copeland Judge
There are two motions awaiting the Court's decision in this whistleblower case: (1) Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on December 3, 2021, and (2) Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed on February 28, 2023. For the reasons stated below, we will grant the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and deny as moot the Motion for Summary Judgment.
In referring to this Motion for Summary Judgment, we also refer to the filings that support the motion, i.e., the Declaration of Jennifer Graf in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on December 3, 2021, and the Exhibits filed on December 6, 2021.
Petitioner, Monique Epperson, commenced this case under section 7623(b)(4),after the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) Whistleblower Office (WBO) issued a letter titled "Final Decision Under Section 7623(a)," rejecting her five claims for award "because the information provided was speculative and/or did not provide specific or credible information regarding tax underpayments or violations of internal revenue laws." On September 5, 2019, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking summary adjudication in his favor as to all five claims on the ground that the WBO did not err in rejecting those claims. In an Order dated October 29, 2020 (the October 2020 Order), we granted summary judgment as to the Family Court claim and denied summary judgment as to the Contractors claims. After we issued the October 2020 Order, Respondent filed a Motion to Remand, which we granted.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C. or Code), in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
We incorporate herein by reference the background section of our October 2020 Order. The terms "Family Court" and "Contractors" are defined in that Order.
On remand, the WBO forwarded the Contractors claims to the IRS's Small Business and Self-Employed operating division (SB/SE). The claims were then reviewed by an SB/SE classifier, who recommended that those claims be denied. As such, the WBO then issued a "Supplemental Determination Under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 7623(b) - Denial," to Ms. Epperson denying the Contractors claims reasoning that the claims did not "result in the collection of proceeds because [the IRS did not] take any action based on the information provided."
Respondent then filed (for the second time) a Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking summary adjudication in his favor as to the Contractors claims on the ground that the WBO did not err in denying those claims. Relying on the rationale in Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022), Respondent then filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, arguing that we lack jurisdiction over this case.
In Li, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that we lack subject matter jurisdiction over whistleblower cases, in which the WBO rejects the whistleblower's claim for award and therefore does not proceed with any administrative or judicial action based on the whistleblower's information. See Li, 22 F.4th at 1017. In Shands v. Commissioner, No. 13499-16W, 160 T.C., slip op. at 7-9, we held that we likewise lack jurisdiction over whistleblower cases in which the WBO denies the claim for award because the IRS had not proceeded with any administrative or judicial action based on the whistleblower's information. Here, the IRS did not proceed with an administrative or judicial action against any of the target taxpayers (i.e., the Contractors) identified by Ms. Epperson. Further, the rejection and denial letters are similar to the letters issued in Li and Shands, respectively. See Li, 22 F.4th at 1015; Shands, 160 T.C., slip op. at 5. This case is analogous to Li and Shands; therefore we lack jurisdiction. For the foregoing, it is
Absent stipulation to the contrary, this case (and all whistleblower cases) are appealable to the D.C. Circuit, see I.R.C. § 7482(b)(1), and we thus follow its precedent. See Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 756-57 (1970), aff'd, 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971).
ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed on February 28, 2023, is granted. It is further
ORDERED that Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on December 3, 2021, is denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED that this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.