Kasper v. Comm'r

2017 T.C. Memo. 128, 113 T.C.M. 1570, 2017 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 122
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJune 29, 2017
DocketDocket No. 6748-13W.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2017 T.C. Memo. 128 (Kasper v. Comm'r) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kasper v. Comm'r, 2017 T.C. Memo. 128, 113 T.C.M. 1570, 2017 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 122 (tax 2017).

Opinion

KENNETH WILLIAM KASPER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Kasper v. Comm'r
Docket No. 6748-13W.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 2017-128; 2017 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 122; 113 T.C.M. (CCH) 1570;
June 29, 2017, Filed

Decision will be entered for respondent.

*122 Kenneth William Kasper, Pro se.
Rachel G. Borden and Patricia P. Davis, for respondent.
NEGA, Judge.

NEGA
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

NEGA, Judge: Petitioner commenced this whistleblower proceeding pursuant to section 7623(b)(4).1 The issue for decision is whether petitioner *129 satisfies the threshold requirements for a whistleblower award under section 7623(b), thereby being entitled to relief.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts are stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in Arizona when the petition was filed.

On December 6, 2012, petitioner filed with the Internal Revenue Service Whistleblower Office (Whistleblower Office) a Form 211, Application for Award for Original Information (whistleblower claim), and a Form 13909, Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral).2 On March 6, 2013, the Whistleblower Office sent petitioner a letter (2013 letter) denying his whistleblower claim and stating in pertinent part that "[w]e have considered your application for an award", "the information you provided did not result in the collection of any proceeds", and "you are not eligible for an award". On March 25, 2013, petitioner*123 timely filed a petition in this Court under section 7623(b)(4) with regard to the determination set forth in the 2013 letter. Petitioner requests that the Whistleblower Office's determination regarding his whistleblower claim be held in abeyance until the *130 Whistleblower Office considers the information submitted on both Form 211 and Form 13909.

On June 11, 2013, the Whistleblower Office sent petitioner a letter notifying him that the 2013 letter had been sent in error and that the Whistleblower Office was still considering his whistleblower claim. On March 2, 2015, the Whistleblower Office sent petitioner another letter denying his whistleblower claim and stating in pertinent part that "[w]e have now completed our consideration of your application for an award", "the information you provided did not result in the collection of any proceeds", and "you are not eligible for an award". At no time did the Whistleblower Office initiate an administrative or judicial action using the information in petitioner's whistleblower claim or collect any tax proceeds from the target taxpayer.

OPINION

The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise its jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress.*124 Sec. 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Section 7623(b)(4) provides us with jurisdiction in a whistleblower action with respect to "[a]ny determination regarding an award under paragraph (1), (2), or (3)" (including a determination to deny an award) if a petition invoking our jurisdiction over that matter is timely *131 filed. See Whistleblower 14106-10W v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. 183, 186-187 (2011); Kasper v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. 37, 41 (2011). The 2013 letter contains a determination for purposes of section 7623(b)(4), and petitioner timely filed his petition. See Cooper v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 70, 75-76 (2010) (stating that this Court has jurisdiction under section 7623 with regard to a letter where, as here, the letter was a final administrative decision because it stated that the applicant was not entitled to an award and provided an explanation for that conclusion); see also

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kasper v. Commissioner
137 T.C. No. 4 (U.S. Tax Court, 2011)
Whistleblower 14106-10W v. Commissioner
76 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 713 (U.S. Tax Court, 2011)
Ringo v. Commissioner
143 T.C. No. 15 (U.S. Tax Court, 2014)
Cooper v. Comm'r
135 T.C. No. 4 (U.S. Tax Court, 2010)
Cooper v. Comm'r
136 T.C. No. 30 (U.S. Tax Court, 2011)
Naftel v. Commissioner
85 T.C. No. 30 (U.S. Tax Court, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 T.C. Memo. 128, 113 T.C.M. 1570, 2017 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kasper-v-commr-tax-2017.