Opinion
4962-20W
07-20-2022
JOHN N. MAGBUAL, 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 Tax Court whistleblower cases are appealable pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 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, because the record reflects that petitioner's whistleblower claim was rejected and no administrative or judicial action was commenced based on petitioner's information, we dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction. On July 15, 2022, petitioner submitted a document which the Court filed as a Motion to Vacate. On July 18, 2022, petitioner submitted a document which the Court filed as a First Supplement to Motion to Vacate.
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, as supplemented, does not persuade us otherwise.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Vacate, as supplemented, is denied.