Opinion
22935-18W
08-02-2022
DON HOU, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (to which all whistleblower cases under I.R.C. section 7623 are appealable pursuant to I.R.C. section 7482(b)(1)) recently held that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in cases in which the IRS Whistleblower Office rejects a whistleblower claim and no administrative or judicial action is commenced based on the whistleblower's information. See Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022). Accordingly, on July 1, 2022, we dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction as the record demonstrated that petitioner's whistleblower claim had been rejected and no administrative or judicial action was commenced based on petitioner's information.
On July 7, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Order. In petitioner's motion, petitioner asserts that the Court's dismissal of this case for lack of jurisdiction was in error and continues to argue the merits of his whistleblower claims. The disposition of a motion to reconsider, vacate or revise a decision rests within this Court's discretion. See, e.g., Vaughn v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 164, 166-167 (1986). A motion to reconsider or to vacate typically is not granted in the absence of substantial error or unusual circumstances, such as mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. Knudsen v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 185 (2008); Brannon's of Shawnee, Inc. v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 999 (1978). None of those factors appear present in this case. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration does not persuade us otherwise. Petitioner's motion appears primarily to be based upon a misapprehension concerning the phrase "added a new claim action to each claim", used by certain IRS personnel when adding information concerning petitioner's claims to the IRS' e-trak system (which is used by IRS personnel to track whistleblower claims). The record, however, is clear that petitioner's whistleblower claims were rejected and the IRS commenced no judicial or administrative proceeding against the target taxpayer as a result of petitioner's information.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Order is denied.