Souto v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 9596-19W

CourtUnited States Tax Court
Writing for the CourtPatrick J. Urda Judge
PartiesSALVADOR SOUTO, III, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket Number9596-19W
Decision Date24 February 2023

SALVADOR SOUTO, III, Petitioner
v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

No. 9596-19W

United States Tax Court

February 24, 2023


ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Patrick J. Urda Judge

Petitioner Salvador Souto, III seeks in this case a review of the notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action. The notice of determination on which this case is based states in relevant part: "The Whistleblower Office has made a final decision to reject your claim for an award. The claim has been rejected because the information submitted did not identify an issue regarding tax underpayments or violations of internal revenue laws." [Doc. 1.]

By opinion issued January 11, 2022, in the case of Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (to which all whistleblower cases under section 7623 are appealable pursuant to section 7482(b)(1)) held that the Tax Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of whistleblower cases, such as this one, in which the IRS rejects the whistleblower claim and therefore does not commence any administrative or judicial proceeding based on the whistleblower's information. Based on the holding in that case, by Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction (order of dismissal), served July 19, 2022, the Court dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction.

On August 30, 2022, the Supreme Court docketed a petition for writ of certiorari, filed by the whistleblower in Li, as of June 16, 2022. Accordingly, by Order issued served on September 1, 2022, this Court vacated and set aside the order of dismissal served on July 19, 2022, and reminded the parties that the proceedings in this case were stayed. By order issued October 31, 2022, the Supreme Court denied the whistleblower's petition for a writ of certiorari in Li. A review of the Supreme Court docket in Li reflects that a petition for rehearing of the order denying the writ of certiorari has not been docketed, as of the date of this Order. See U.S. Sup. Ct. Rule 44(2) (providing that such a petition must be filed "within 25 days after the date of the order of denial"). Accordingly, we conclude that the judgment in Li is final and will thus dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.

Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is

2

ORDERED that the stay of proceedings in this case is lifted. It is further

ORDERED that, on the Court's own motion, this case...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT