No. 23-413

Michael Lissack v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2023-10-19
Status: GVR
Type: Paid
Relisted (2)
Tags: administrative-action administrative-law agency-discretion chevron-deference discretion internal-revenue-service statutory-interpretation tax-law tax-whistleblower whistleblower-award
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Environmental
Latest Conference: 2024-07-01 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the IRS is required to pay a whistleblower award where the whistleblower's information caused the IRS to open an audit but the IRS ultimately made an adjustment to a different tax issue

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Section 7623 of Title 26 governs the Internal Revenue Service’s (hereinafter the “IRS”) ability to pay awards to whistleblowers. Prior to 2006, awards under § 7623 were entirely discretionary and failed to attract well placed whistleblowers due to the difficulty in actually receiving an award. In order to attract well placed whistleblowers, Congress amended § 7623 in 2006, requiring the IRS to pay awards where the IRS proceeds with any administrative or judicial action based on the whistleblower’s information, removing the IRS’s discretion of whether to pay an award when § 7623(b) applies. The statutory question underlying this petition is whether the IRS is required to pay an award where a whistleblower’s information causes the IRS to open an audit of the taxpayer, but the IRS ultimately makes an adjustment to an issue other than the issue raised by the whistleblower. Under well-established principles of statutory construction, the answer would appear to be yes, as the IRS has proceeded in an administrative action based on the whistleblower’s information (the audit) and collected additional proceeds from that administrative action. A panel of the D.C. Circuit answered “no” under Chevron because “the statute does not conclusively answer whether examinations into distinct tax issues” can be separate administrative actions. The questions presented are: 1. Whether, under a proper application of Chevron, § 7623(b) requires the IRS to pay an award where the only reason the IRS opened the audit of the ll taxpayer was the whistleblower’s information, but assessed additional tax on a different issue. 2. Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that where Congress acts to remove discretion from an agency, regulations promulgated thereunder should not be deferred to.

Docket Entries

2024-08-05
Judgment Issued.
2024-07-02
Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of <i>Loper Bright Enterprises</i> v. <i>Raimondo</i>, 603 U. S. ___ (2024).
2024-06-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/1/2024.
2024-02-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/23/2024.
2024-02-02
2024-01-19
Brief of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue in opposition filed.
2023-12-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 19, 2024.
2023-12-14
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 20, 2023 to January 19, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-10-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 20, 2023.
2023-10-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 20, 2023 to December 20, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-10-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 20, 2023)

Attorneys

Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Michael Lissack
Erica Lynn Brady-GitlinThe Ferraro Law Firm, Petitioner
Erica Lynn Brady-GitlinThe Ferraro Law Firm, Petitioner