Opinion
34795-21
04-19-2022
JAMES H. FETZER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
MAURICE B. FOLEY, CHIEF JUDGE
On November 1, 2021, petitioner filed the petition to commence this whistleblower case pursuant to Internal Revenue Code section 7623. Petitioner attached to the petition a copy of a notice of determination concerning whistleblower action dated September 21, 2021, which states in relevant part: "[T]he information you provided did not result in the collection of any proceeds. Therefore, you are not eligible for any award."
On February 2, 2022, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (motion to dismiss). On March 5, 2022, petitioner filed a response to motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (response).
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 failed to comply with Rule 345(b) by refraining from including in the petition and petitioner's response identifying information with respect to the taxpayer to whom petitioner's claim relates (the target taxpayer) or fully redacting the petition and its attachments and petitioner's response as to references to the target taxpayer and provide a reference list of redacted information. Likewise, respondent's motion to dismiss fails to comply with Rule 345(b). Accordingly, the Court will seal the petition, respondent's motion to dismiss, and petitioner's response.
Turning to respondent's motion to dismiss, in the petition the Court notes that petitioner alleges "[the] amount of money falsely claimed by the [target taxpayer] and affiliates to be tax exempt is sufficient to justify the tax court acceptance of jurisdiction to conduct the trial of the case. The [target taxpayer] is no more than a for profit corporation which ought to be taxed at corporate rates." A fair reading of the allegations contained in the petition and the statements in petitioner's objection to respondent's motion to dismiss shows that petitioner challenges the IRS Whistleblower Office's determination with regard to a tax-related whistleblower award. Giving petitioner not only the benefit of every doubt as we are required to do at this stage of the proceedings and wide pleading latitude as a self-represented litigant, the allegations made by petitioner in this case are sufficient to avoid dismissal upon respondent's motion.
Upon due consideration and for cause, 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. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall add the letter "W" to the docket sheet and other records of her office and process this case to trial or other disposition according to the procedures provided by Rules 340 through345, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
ORDERED that the following documents filed in this case are sealed: (1) the petition, filed November 1, 2021; (2) respondent's motion to dismiss, filed February 2, 2022; and (3) petitioner's response, filed March 5, 2022. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall remove the documents referenced in the immediate preceding paragraph 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 except by an Order of the Court. It is further
ORDERED that in the future, when filing or lodging in this case documents that are not sealed, 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 respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is denied. It is further
ORDERED that respondent shall file an answer or move with respect to the petition on or before June 17, 2022.