SCOTUS Reports

Tag: I.R.C. § 6103

  • Whistleblower 972-17W v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 159 T.C. No. 1 (2022): Disclosure of Taxpayer Information in Whistleblower Proceedings

    Whistleblower 972-17W v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 159 T. C. No. 1 (U. S. Tax Ct. 2022)

    In a landmark decision, the U. S. Tax Court ruled that the IRS must provide unredacted administrative records in whistleblower cases, affirming its jurisdiction to review whistleblower claims and interpreting I. R. C. § 6103(h)(4)(A) to allow for such disclosures. This ruling impacts how whistleblower cases are handled, emphasizing the court’s role in ensuring transparency and fairness in the award process.

    Parties

    Whistleblower 972-17W, as Petitioner, filed a petition against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, as Respondent, in the U. S. Tax Court.

    Facts

    Whistleblower 972-17W provided information to the IRS about three target taxpayers. The IRS initiated actions against these taxpayers and collected proceeds. Despite this, the IRS Whistleblower Office (WBO) denied the whistleblower’s claim for an award under I. R. C. § 7623(b). The whistleblower petitioned the U. S. Tax Court for review. The Court ordered the Commissioner to submit both redacted and unredacted copies of the administrative record, which included the target taxpayers’ returns and return information. The Commissioner complied with the redacted copy but sought to be excused from filing the unredacted copy, citing I. R. C. § 6103 confidentiality concerns. The Court ordered an in camera review of the unredacted records, prompting the Commissioner to move for modification of the order, arguing that disclosure was not permitted under § 6103.

    Procedural History

    The whistleblower filed a petition in the U. S. Tax Court after the WBO denied the claim for an award. The Court initially ordered the Commissioner to submit the administrative record, both redacted and unredacted. The Commissioner complied with the redacted record but moved to modify the order regarding the unredacted record. The Court denied this motion, ordering an in camera review of the unredacted documents. The Commissioner then requested the Court to reconsider its order, leading to the present decision.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the U. S. Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear this whistleblower case under I. R. C. § 7623(b)(4)?

    Whether I. R. C. § 6103(h)(4)(A) authorizes the Commissioner to submit the unredacted administrative record to the Court for in camera review?

    Rule(s) of Law

    I. R. C. § 7623(b)(4) grants the Tax Court jurisdiction over appeals of determinations regarding whistleblower awards under § 7623(b)(1), (2), or (3).

    I. R. C. § 6103(h)(4)(A) permits the disclosure of returns or return information in a judicial proceeding pertaining to tax administration if “the taxpayer is a party to the proceeding, or the proceeding arose out of, or in connection with, determining the taxpayer’s civil or criminal liability, or the collection of such civil liability, in respect of any tax imposed [by the Code]. “

    Holding

    The U. S. Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear this whistleblower case as per I. R. C. § 7623(b)(4), given that the IRS had proceeded with an action against the target taxpayers and collected proceeds.

    I. R. C. § 6103(h)(4)(A) authorizes the Commissioner to submit the unredacted administrative record to the Court for in camera review, as the case arose in connection with determining the civil and criminal liabilities of the target taxpayers.

    Reasoning

    The Court’s jurisdiction was affirmed based on the reasoning in Li v. Commissioner, where the D. C. Circuit established that the Tax Court’s jurisdiction depends on the IRS proceeding with an action against the target taxpayers. The Court found that the case before it satisfied this criterion, as the IRS had indeed acted and collected proceeds based on the whistleblower’s information.

    The Court interpreted I. R. C. § 6103(h)(4)(A) to allow disclosure of the unredacted administrative record. It emphasized that the phrase “in connection with” is broad, encompassing any logical or causal connection to the determination of the target taxpayers’ liabilities. The Court rejected the Commissioner’s narrower interpretation, which required a direct legal liability or sanction from the government and a pre-existing relationship between the parties. The Court found that the whistleblower’s case was inextricably linked to the determination of the target taxpayers’ liabilities, as the IRS’s actions and outcomes were direct causes of the proceeding, and the whistleblower’s contribution to those actions was central to the merits of the case.

    The Court also addressed the Commissioner’s arguments based on legislative history and statutory purpose, concluding that these did not support a narrower reading of § 6103(h)(4)(A). The legislative history provided illustrative examples but was not exhaustive, and the statutory purpose of balancing confidentiality with other interests supported the Court’s broader interpretation. The Court noted that the Commissioner could still seek redactions under other rules if necessary, but could not use § 6103(a) to resist disclosure when § 6103(h)(4)(A) applied.

    Disposition

    The Court denied the Commissioner’s motion to modify its order, affirming its jurisdiction and the applicability of I. R. C. § 6103(h)(4)(A) to authorize the submission of the unredacted administrative record for in camera review.

    Significance/Impact

    This decision significantly impacts whistleblower litigation by affirming the Tax Court’s jurisdiction over cases where the IRS has acted on whistleblower information and collected proceeds. It also clarifies the scope of § 6103(h)(4)(A), allowing for the disclosure of unredacted administrative records in such cases, which enhances transparency and the ability of whistleblowers to challenge WBO determinations effectively. The ruling may influence future cases by setting a precedent for the interpretation of “in connection with” in the context of tax administration proceedings, potentially affecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information in whistleblower cases.

  • Whistleblower One v. Comm’r, 145 T.C. 204 (2015): Scope of Discovery in Whistleblower Award Cases

    Whistleblower One 10683-13W v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 145 T. C. 204, 2015 U. S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 38, 145 T. C. No. 8 (U. S. Tax Court, 2015)

    In a landmark ruling, the U. S. Tax Court expanded whistleblower rights by allowing discovery beyond the administrative record in claims under I. R. C. § 7623(b). The court ruled that the IRS cannot unilaterally define what constitutes the administrative record, thus whistleblowers can compel production of relevant documents and interrogatory responses. This decision significantly broadens the scope of evidence whistleblowers may access, potentially increasing their ability to substantiate claims for tax evasion awards.

    Parties

    Whistleblower One 10683-13W, Whistleblower Two 10683-13W, and Whistleblower Three 10683-13W, as petitioners, filed their claim in the U. S. Tax Court against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, as respondent.

    Facts

    In 2006, the petitioners filed a whistleblower claim with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), alleging a tax evasion scheme (TES) by a specific target corporation. They claimed that their information led to an IRS investigation, which initially disallowed the TES and issued a legal memorandum disallowing similar transactions. However, the IRS later reversed its decision on the target’s use of the TES as part of a larger compromise that involved over $50 million in tax adjustments. The petitioners also informed the IRS of a related sham debt obligation, which resulted in a disallowed loss deduction of over $20 million. The petitioners sought discovery to ascertain who reviewed their information, details of the IRS’s investigation, the issuance of the legal memorandum, and the collection of proceeds from the target.

    Procedural History

    The petitioners moved to compel the production of documents and responses to interrogatories under I. R. C. § 7623(b)(4). The respondent objected, arguing that the requested information was outside the administrative record and not discoverable. The U. S. Tax Court reviewed the motions and objections, applying a standard of relevancy as governed by Fed. Tax Ct. R. 70(b). The court issued an order granting the motions, finding the requested information relevant to the whistleblower’s claim.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the scope of discovery in a whistleblower award case under I. R. C. § 7623(b)(4) is limited to the administrative record as defined by the respondent, or whether the court can compel production of documents and responses to interrogatories that are relevant to the petitioners’ claim but outside the respondent’s purported administrative record?

    Rule(s) of Law

    Fed. Tax Ct. R. 70(b) provides that the scope of discovery includes “any matter not privileged and which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending case,” and it is not a ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at trial if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. I. R. C. § 7623(b) mandates awards to whistleblowers who provide information leading to the collection of tax proceeds, and the entitlement to an award hinges on whether there was a collection of proceeds attributable to the whistleblower’s information.

    Holding

    The U. S. Tax Court held that even if the court’s scope of review were limited to the administrative record, the respondent cannot unilaterally decide what constitutes the administrative record. The court further held that the requested information was relevant to the petitioners’ claim and granted the motions to compel production of documents and responses to interrogatories.

    Reasoning

    The court’s reasoning was grounded in the liberal standard of relevancy in discovery, as established in Melea Ltd. v. Commissioner, 118 T. C. 218 (2002). The court rejected the respondent’s argument that discovery should be limited to the administrative record, citing Thompson v. DOL, 885 F. 2d 551 (9th Cir. 1989), and Tenneco Oil Co. v. DOE, 475 F. Supp. 299 (D. Del. 1979), which state that an agency cannot unilaterally define the administrative record. The court emphasized that the requested information was essential to determining whether collections of proceeds were attributable to the whistleblowers’ information, a key inquiry under I. R. C. § 7623(b). The court also noted that the respondent’s lack of response to the motions suggested an incomplete administrative record, further justifying the need for discovery. The court addressed confidentiality concerns by including specific protective order provisions in its order granting the motions, as per the requirements of I. R. C. § 6103.

    Disposition

    The U. S. Tax Court granted the petitioners’ motions to compel production of documents and responses to interrogatories, with instructions for the respondent to comply under the specified protective order.

    Significance/Impact

    The Whistleblower One decision significantly impacts the field of tax whistleblower law by broadening the scope of discovery available to whistleblowers. It underscores the court’s authority to review and compel evidence beyond what the IRS may consider part of the administrative record, thereby enhancing whistleblowers’ ability to substantiate their claims. This ruling may encourage more whistleblowers to come forward with information on tax evasion schemes, knowing they have a greater chance of accessing necessary evidence to support their claims for awards. The decision also sets a precedent for other administrative law cases, where the completeness and accuracy of an administrative record may be challenged through discovery. Subsequent courts have cited this case when addressing the scope of review and discovery in administrative proceedings, indicating its doctrinal importance and practical implications for legal practice.