Opinion
13967-19W
08-05-2022
ATM SHAFIQUL KHALID, 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 5, 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 August 3, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161. The disposition of a motion to 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, in which petitioner argues that the Court should consider his claims in this case on their merits, does not persuade us otherwise. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction, we cannot reach the merits of the case.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion Pursuant to Rule 161 is denied.