PANUTHOS,
Petitioner resided in New York at the time he filed the petition.
On or about January 24, 2011, petitioner filed a Form 211, Application for Award for Original Information, with respondent's Whistleblower Office. The Whistleblower Office denied petitioner's whistleblower claim in a letter dated March 3, 2011, (the March 3 determination). Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the March 3 determination on March 11, 2011, when he called the IRS to dispute denial of his claim. 2011 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 213">*214 The Whistleblower Office subsequently mailed two additional letters to petitioner, dated March 23 and April 11, 2011, both of which affirmed the March 3 determination. The March 23, 2011, letter responded to a letter from petitioner dated March 14, 2011, asking the IRS to reconsider the March 3 determination denying his whistleblower claim. The April 11, 2011, letter responded to a telephone call from petitioner.2 The petition arrived at the Court and was filed April 13, 2011. The petition was sent in a FedEx Express envelope bearing a FedEx Standard Overnight label with a ship date of April 12, 2011.
To invoke the Court's jurisdiction, an individual must appeal the amount or denial of an award to this Court within 30 days of such a determination by the Whistleblower Office.
Respondent relies upon the March 3, 2011, date to commence the period for petitioner to file a timely petition. Respondent has not offered any evidence of the date and fact of mailing. See
In the context of a notice of deficiency, where a taxpayer receives actual notice without prejudicial delay and with sufficient time to file a petition, the Court has found that the notice is effective.
In 2011 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 213">*217 his response, petitioner asserts the March 23, 2011, letter is the "determination" and the petition was thus filed timely. Contrary to petitioner's argument, however, the March 3 letter constituted the determination because it was a final administrative decision regarding his whistleblower claim. See Here, * * * [the whistleblower] received four letters from the Whistleblower Office. The first letter denied * * * [the whistleblower's] whistleblower claim. The subsequent three letters merely reaffirmed the initial determination in the first letter. Moreover, the Whistleblower Office stated in a letter to petitioner that he would have to appeal the determination through the court system, not the Whistleblower Office. Accordingly, we find that * * * [the first Whistleblower Office] letter to * * * [the whistleblower] constituted a determination within the meaning of
In his response, petitioner alleges for the first time that the Whistleblower Office erroneously advised him in writing to appeal the denial of his claim to the Court of Federal Claims. A review of the record shows no such written advice.62011 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 213">*219
As noted in
On the basis of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the petition was not timely filed. Therefore, we need not reach the issue of whether petitioner's claim met the monetary threshold requirement of
To reflect the foregoing, the Court will grant respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. The record does not reflect whether the Apr. 11, 2011, letter was in response to petitioner's Mar. 11, 2011, phone call or another phone call petitioner made to the IRS.↩
3. The 30th day was Apr. 2, 2011, a Saturday. The final date to petition the Tax Court in this case which was not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday was Monday, Apr. 4, 2011. See
4. In the notice of deficiency context, when the date of mailing of a notice cannot be proven, some Courts of Appeals have held that the time to file a petition in response to the notice would begin to run from the date of receipt.
5. Petitioner was also the whistleblower in
6. It appears petitioner was advised in writing to appeal a different whistleblower claim to the Court of Federal Claims in docket