Opinion
9922-19W
04-19-2023
SUZANNE JEAN MCCRORY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Elizabeth A. Copeland, Judge.
In this case, Petitioner, Suzanne McCrory, seeks review, under section 7623,of the Internal Revenue Service's Whistleblower Office's (IRS) decision to reject her multiple claims for award involving multiple notices of determination. The notices of determination upon which this case is based are similar in that they each state, in relevant part, either: "The Whistleblower Office has made a final decision to reject your claim for award. . . The claim has been rejected because the IRS decided not to pursue the information you provided[,]" or
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.), in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The Whistleblower Office has made a final decision to reject your claim for award.
The claim has been rejected because the information provided was speculative and/or did not provide specific or credible information regarding tax underpayments or violations of internal revenue laws.
By opinion issued January 11, 2022, in the case of Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (to which all whistleblower cases under section 7623 are appealable pursuant to section 7482(b)(1)) held that the Tax Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over whistleblower cases, such as this one, in which the IRS rejects the whistleblower claim and therefore does not commence any administrative or judicial proceeding based on the whistleblower's information.
Accordingly, in an Order issued July 6, 2022 (order of dismissal), we dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction. At the time, two filings were pending with the Court:
(1) Petitioner's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed on June 28, 2021; and
(2)Respondent's Motion for Leave to File Amendment to Answer, filed on October 28, 2021, along with an "Amendment to Answer," which was lodged with the Court. In addition to dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction, we denied both filings as moot.
On August 30, 2022, the Supreme Court docketed a petition for writ of certiorari, filed by the whistleblower in Li, as of June 16, 2022. Because a party timely sought a writ of certiorari, Li was not final. Accordingly, by Order issued September 30, 2022, we vacated our order of dismissal and instructed the parties to file "joint or independent status reports and memoranda of law," setting forth their respective views in light of the Supreme Court's judgment and its impact on this case, including the two pending filings which we denied as moot. Such status reports and memoranda of law were due to be filed no later than 60 days after the Supreme Court entered judgment.
By order issued October 31, 2022, the Supreme Court denied the whistleblower's petition for a writ of certiorari in Li. A review of the Supreme Court docket in Li reflects that a petition for rehearing of the order denying the writ of certiorari has not been docketed, as of the date of this Order. See U.S. Sup. Ct. Rule 44(2) (providing that such a petition must be filed "within 25 days after the date of the order of denial").
Accordingly, we conclude that the D.C. Circuit's judgment in Li is now final and will therefore reinstate our order of dismissal. In so doing, we again deny as moot the two aforementioned filings, discharge the parties of their obligation to file status reports and memoranda of law, discharge petitioner's obligation to file response to respondent's motion, and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed on June 28, 2021, is denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED that Respondent's Motion for Leave to File First Amendment to Answer, filed on October 28, 2021, is denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED that the parties other obligations, as directed in the Court's Order dated September 30, 2022, are discharged, namely: (1) the parties are discharged from their obligation to file joint or independent status reports and memoranda of law; and (2) petitioner is discharged from her obligation to file a response to Respondent's Motion for Leave to File First Amendment to Answer. It is further
ORDERED that this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.