Opinion
6418-20W
07-29-2022
LIZ 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 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 6, 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 27, 2022, petitioner filed a document titled "Motion Amended for Reconsideration". While it is not clear from a reading of petitioner's motion what relief petitioner seeks, we will treat that motion as a motion for reconsideration of the Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction entered July 6, 2022.
The disposition of a motion such as petitioner's 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 does not persuade us otherwise.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion Amended for Reconsideration is denied.