Whistleblower Week – Designated Orders, March 2 – 6, 2020

The Whistleblower Orders

There were three orders granting summary judgment to Respondent in whistleblower cases. (There were technically four, but the orders in the unconsolidated Keane cases are essentially identical).

• Docket No. 10662-19W, Horsey v. C.I.R. (Order Here)
• Docket Nos. 22897-18W, 23240-18W, Keane v. C.I.R. (Orders Here & Here)
• Docket No. 22395-18W, Lambert v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

These cases follow the Tax Court’s decision from last fall in Lacey v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. No. 8 (2019), which held that the Court has jurisdiction under I.R.C. § 7623(b)(4) to review decisions of the Whistleblower Office to reject a claim for failing to meet threshold requirements in the regulations applicable to whistleblower claims. See Reg § 301.7623-1(c)(1), (4). The Court has long held that it has no jurisdiction to force the IRS to audit or collect proceeds from target taxpayers and that if the IRS fails to audit and collects no proceeds from the target, the Court likewise has no jurisdiction to review the decision not to audit or collect proceeds. Cohen v. Commissioner, 139 T.C. 299, 302 (2012).

In Lacey, it was undisputed that the IRS did not audit the taxpayer and collected no proceeds. However, the Court determined that an initial rejection of the whistleblower complaint without a referral to the IRS operating division could be reviewed for abuse of discretion. The Court noted that permissible reasons for rejection at this level included those threshold regulatory requirements: that the whistleblower’s complaint provides specific and credible information that the whistleblower believes will lead to collected tax proceeds; reports a failure to comply with the internal revenue laws; identifies the persons believed to have failed to comply; provides substantive information, including all available documents; and does not provide speculative information. Under the regulations, the Whistleblower Office should first determine whether the claim is deficient in this regard, and if not, forward the case to an IRS operating division (e.g., LB&I for large business taxpayers, etc.).

At that point, a “classifier” in the operating division takes over, and determines whether to proceed with an audit. However, they too could determine that the claim was deficient for any of the reasons the initial classifier could. In Lacey, the Court denied summary judgment to Respondent because the administrative record was not sufficiently clear to discern whether the Whistleblower Office considered the whistleblower’s claim at all; thus it was likewise impossible to determine why the claim was rejected.

In these three cases, however, the Court has no trouble of the kind that tripped up the IRS in Lacey. In all of the cases, the IRS neither audited nor collected proceeds from the target taxpayers. And the Whistleblower Office, in each case, did refer the case to a “classifier” in the relevant operating division. That employee, in turn, determined that the initial claim was speculative and recommended that the IRS not proceed with further investigation of the target taxpayers. Unlike Lacey, all of this information was apparently included in the administrative record, and so the Court could grant summary judgment more easily.

In Keane, Judge Jones noted that the IRS may continue to run into problems where it rejects claims using “and/or” language in the determination letter. Here, the classifier rejected the claim because “the information provided was speculative and/or did not provide specific or credible information regarding tax underpayment or violations of internal revenue laws.” This is important, because under the Chenery doctrine, the Court may only review the IRS determination for the reasons that the IRS actually relied on in making its determination. See Lacey, 153 T.C. at *14 (citing Kasper v. Commissioner, 150 T.C. 8, 23-24 (2018)). Using “and/or” language makes the grounds for the IRS determination unclear. While Judge Jones notes that the record support both reasons here, other cases might be closer.

Judge Jones cites a memorandum opinion from Judge Gustafson, who raised a similar concern earlier this year. See Alber v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-20. This aligns with his analogous view of the IRS’s practice in issuing Notices of Determination in CDP cases, where the IRS typically writes that “There was a balance due when the Notice of Intent to Levy was issued or when the NFTL filing was requested.” In a previous order (covered here), Judge Gustafson wondered whether someone at Appeals actually did verify that a balance due existed, given the lack of clarity in the notice.

What to distill from Lacey and these orders? First, the Tax Court can review an initial rejection from the Whistleblower Office—even if no proceeds are collected. Second, if an employee of the IRS operating division decides not to pursue collection after referral from the Whistleblower Office, that will generally be sufficient to resolve the case in favor of the IRS—though one might reasonably suspect a different result could lie if that classifier failed to meaningfully review the case, as potentially occurred in Lacey with the Whistleblower Office. Finally, if the administrative record provides multiple reasons for rejecting the claim in an “and/or” formulation, this could prove problematic for the IRS under Chenery if at least one reason isn’t supported in the administrative record.

Docket No. 722-19L, Jenkins v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

This short order from Judge Gale deals with a defective limited entry of appearance. Counsel attempted to file a motion to dismiss for Petitioners based on an electronically filed “limited” entry of appearance. However, the Tax Court’s previous administrative order authorizing limited entries of appearance only allowed her to do so on paper, and then only at the trial session itself. So, the Court struck the motion. Counsel found an easy remedy here, however, and simply entered an appearance normally, filed the motion to dismiss; the Court granted it days later.  

On May 29, the Court issued a new administrative order that authorizes the filing of a limited entry of appearance electronically, at any time during the pendency of a Tax Court case. It offers much more flexibility for practitioners to limit their representation to a prescribed proceeding. This includes the trial session itself, as did the previous order, but can also include motion hearings, pre-trial conferences, and other matters at anytime between the issuance of the Notice Setting Case for Trial until the adjournment of the trial session. Because the end of representation isn’t necessarily as clear-cut under this new order, the attorney must file a Notice of Completion at the end of the limited appearance; the Court is not required to approve the end of the representation.

Docket No. 18705-18S, Patten v. C.I.R. (Order Here)

This is the order that keeps a tax attorney up at night. It explains, in minute detail, the process by which an attorney missed the 90-day jurisdictional deadline to file a Tax Court petition in a deficiency case.

The Notice of Deficiency was dated June 22, 2018; the Petition was filed with the Tax Court on September 21, 2018: the 91^st day after June 22. Apparently, Respondent’s counsel didn’t notice this in filing the Answer, but Judge Leyden’s chambers did. She issued an order to show cause, directing Respondent to provide the “postmarked U.S. Postal Service Form 3877 or other proof of mailing” regarding the notice of deficiency. After all, it’s not the date listed on the Notice of Deficiency that controls under the statute; it’s the date of mailing of the Notice of Deficiency. See I.R.C. § 6213(a).

Chief Counsel responded to the order and attached Form 3877 showing that the Notice was indeed mailed to Petitioner’s last known address by certified mail (along with two other addresses). The Notice sent to the last known address was returned, as was one of the other notices. But it looks like one notice was successfully delivered. (Of course, that’s irrelevant to the validity of the Notice itself, as Respondent established that the Notice was sent to the taxpayer’s last known address by certified mail. See I.R.C. § 6212.)

Respondent also showed that Petitioner, through his attorney, mailed the petition to the Court on September 19, 2018. As we know, the Court received it on September 21, 2018—one day late. Ordinarily, documents are “filed” when they are received—either by the IRS or the Tax Court.

So, can’t the mailbox rule under I.R.C. § 7502 save the taxpayer’s petition? Not here. Petitioner’s attorney, in his response to the order, acknowledged that the petition was mistakenly sent via FedEx Express, rather than FedEx Overnight due to an “office slipup”. While section 7502(f) allows taxpayers to use private delivery services, such as FedEx, UPS, or DHL, instead of the USPS, practitioners and petitioners alike must ensure that they are using a “designated delivery service.”

What’s a designated delivery service? Section 7502(f)(2) defines the type of services that the Secretary may designate, and Reg. § 301.7502-1(e)(2)(ii) describes the process of designating the service (i.e., publishing it in the Internal Revenue Bulletin). And in practice, the Secretary does so periodically—most recently in Notice 2016-30. The list also appears more accessibly on the IRS website.

So, does FedEx Express appear on this list of designated delivery services? No. Therefore, it can’t trigger the mailbox rule under section 7502. The petition is filed late, and the Tax Court has no jurisdiction to decide the case. Judge Leyden therefore dismisses the case—which involves liabilities for four separate tax years—for lack of jurisdiction.

The lesson for practitioners? Mail the petition so the Court receives it before the deadline. Otherwise, mail the petition via USPS certified mail. Train your office staff to only mail petitions to the Tax Court via USPS certified mail. Is there a good reason to ever use a private delivery service when mailing a Tax Court petition? I don’t see one, given the very real risks involved that bear out here.