Tax Whistleblower Blog

Pro se Whistleblower Misses Opportunity to Challenge Sufficiency of Reward

Every once and awhile, a case comes out that reinforces the addage that, if you represent yourself in litigation without an attorney, “You have a fool for a client.”  The Court of Federal Claims has dimissed the case of a pro se (”representing himself without an attorney”) Whistleblower who desired to challenge the sufficiency of a reward granted under the Tax Whistleblower Reward Program, I.R.C. section 7623.  The Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the pro se informants’ claims that the IRS was required to pay him at least 15% of the amount of tax recovered as result of information he provided to the IRS in connection with an ongoing tax case.  Although the pro se Whistleblower sufficiently showed that the IRS acted on information that the Whistleblower had provided after enactment of the Tax Whistleblower Reward Program, vested jurisdiction to decide the issue resides exclusively in the U.S. Tax Court.  Thus, the pro se Whistleblower had filed his action in the wrong court.  The Court of Federal Claims finished by stating that it did not have authority to transfer the case to the U.S. Tax Court.  Because a Whistleblower must file a petition in the U.S. Tax Court within 30 days of the IRS making a determination of the reward, the pro se Whistleblower was barred from bringing his case in the U.S. Tax Court subsequent to the dismissal.  Why would an individual, who is developing what could have been the largest payday of his life, risk it all by going forward without an attorney?  I am sure that he is asking himself the same question right now.  He tried to save a few bucks and ended up losing it all.  Dacosta v. U.S., 102 AFTR2d 2008-5071 ( Fed. Cl. July 11, 2008).