T.C. Memo. 2017-128



                         UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               KENNETH WILLIAM KASPER, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



      Docket No. 6748-13W.                         Filed June 29, 2017.



      Kenneth William Kasper, pro se.

      Rachel G. Borden and Patricia P. Davis, for respondent.



            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



      1
      Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times.
                                         -2-

[*2] 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 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


      2
       We omit the substance of petitioner’s whistleblower claim because it is not
necessary to our decision herein.
                                         -3-

[*3] 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. Sec. 7442; Naftel v.

Commissioner, 

, 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
                                         -4-

[*4] filed. See Whistleblower 14106-10W v. Commissioner, 

, 186-

187 (2011); Kasper v. Commissioner, 

, 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, 

, 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 Ringo v. Commissioner, 

, 300 (2014); Kasper v.

Commissioner, 137 T.C. at 41.

      Generally, an individual who provides information that leads the

Commissioner to proceed with an administrative or judicial action and that results

in the collection of proceeds shall receive an award equal to a percentage of the

collected proceeds. See sec. 7623(b)(1). A whistleblower award depends upon

both initiation of an administrative or judicial action and collection of tax

proceeds. Cooper v. Commissioner, 

, 600 (2011). Section

7623(b)(4), which provides our jurisdiction, does not contemplate that we review

the Commissioner’s determination of the alleged tax liability to which the claim

pertains, nor does section 7623 confer authority to direct the Commissioner to
                                          -5-

[*5] commence an administrative or judicial action. Cooper v. Commissioner, 136

T.C. at 600.

      The Whistleblower Office completed its consideration of petitioner’s

whistleblower claim, and at no time did it initiate an administrative or judicial

action or collect any tax proceeds from the target taxpayer. Accordingly, the

section 7623(b) threshold requirements have not been met, and petitioner is not

entitled to relief regarding the determination set forth in the 2013 letter.

      To reflect the foregoing,


                                                Decision will be entered

                                        for respondent.