IRS Whistleblower Office Releases its Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2013
The IRS Whistleblower Office made leaps forward in fiscal year 2012. Fiscal year 2012 marked the year that the IRS made a $104 million payment to Bradley Birkenfeld, which is believed to be the largest award paid to a single whistleblower. This was one of three awards paid in Fiscal Year 2012 and one of five paid under the new law. Fiscal 2012 was also the year that the IRS issued final regulations that clarified the definitions of “proceeds of amounts collected” and “collected proceeds” for purposes of section 7623. The IRS also issued interim guidance that incorporated the Treasury Regulations and added additional provisional timing of award determinations and for award computation, established procedures for tax withholding on award payments, and revised and updated procedures for administrative proceedings. Some of the highlights from the report are:
- The number of submissions in fiscal year 2012 (332) remained relatively stable from fiscal year 2011 (314), as did the number of taxpayers identified (2011 – 734 Taxpayers Identified, 2012 – 671 Taxpayer identified). See the charts below.
- Three awards were paid under section 7623(b).
- The IRS issued proposed regulations and is seeking comments on the comprehensive regulations that are intended to revise the current regulations implanting section 7623 to reflect the remaining 2006 amendments to section 7623.
- The IRS Whistleblower Office incorporated the Informant Claims Examination (“ICE”) Unit. The ICE Unit is responsible for case management and administration of the discretionary award program under what is now section 7623(a).
Going Forward
The Fiscal Year 2012 Whistleblower Office Report indicates that the IRS whistleblower program also has significant changes planned in fiscal year 2013. According to the annual report, the IRS Whistleblower Office appears to be moving away from sorting whistleblower cases as 7623(a) claims and 7623(b) claims, and moving towards classifying claims based on the Operating Division responsible for making the tax administration decisions with respect to the issues raised by whistleblowers. “With LB&I and SB/SE general examination programs receiving the vast majority of whistleblower claims and each processing their inventory differently because of differences in the characteristics of the typical claims referred to those organizations, the Whistleblower Office will change its intake process in FY2013.” The IRS will stop projecting potential results for claims when they are received, as claims will stay in the Whistleblower Office regardless of size. Instead, assignment of claims to a Whistleblower Office analysts for monitoring and coordination will be based on factors such as the need for coordination within or among operating divisions to address multiple issues or taxpayers identified in a whistleblower submission. It is expected that future reports will separate statistics for each Operating Division.
There appears to be some concern over the ability of the IRS to control what is released to whistleblowers in discovery and the ability to limit additional disclosures of confidential taxpayer information after the IRS has disclosed such information. The IRS has sought protective orders from the Tax Court in some cases, but the Tax Court has not ruled in those requests.

Comments (6)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endBubba Shawn - February 13, 2013 5:18 PM
The big surprise in the FY 2012 report is there is an open question in the IRC defining "disputed amounts" as they apply to classifying between 7623(a) and 7623(b) claims. The IRS is asking that the statue be change to replace "disputed claims" with "collected proceeds".
anon - February 13, 2013 5:50 PM
Unbelievable,
Reuters has reported, and many news outlets have recited, the following exact sentence:
"In a letter accompanying the report sent to Senator Charles Grassley, IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller voiced commitment to the program and predicted the pace of awards paid would increase."
Yet page 6 of the very report to congress that accompanied Commissioner Miller's letter states the following:
"The number of payments made under the section 7623(b) program is not projected to grow dramatically in FY 2013."
How does Commissioner Miller make a statement in a letter to a ranking US Senator and then attach a report that flatly contradicts what he has just said in the letter? Am I missing something or can you reconcile this for us Ms. Brady?
(drawing a distinction between 7623(a) and 7623(b) claims and arguing that Commissioner Miller could technically be correct if he meant that the pace of 7623(a) payments would pick up while 7623(b) claims would not would be a stretch at best)
Regards,
Anon
Roy J. Meidinger - February 14, 2013 10:25 AM
IRS Denied to Collect $1.2 Trillion Tax a year despite Information on Tax Evasion Scheme
The IRS denied acting on 3000 cases of tax evasion filed by a whistleblower. Sources revealed that a whistleblower has filed 211 forms to the IRS revealing the tax evasion scheme being put into work by numerous hospitals and insurance companies, the latter giving health related services to the former.
According to credible information, the scheme started in 1983 when the concerned hospitals and insurance companies have, in conspiracy with each other, willingly suppressed information on condoned indebtedness. Said condoned indebtedness, under the law is taxable and must be reported to the IRS.
The IRS was left in the dark when it never monitored the exact condoned indebtedness concerned. By information received from a whistleblower, the IRS was stunned to know as to how huge the taxable amount is. Said amount has accumulated since 1983 and resulted to $ 12 Trillion for the past ten years, worth of uncollected revenues.
However, the IRS, despite having received the reliable information, complete in form and other supporting documents of the tax evasion scheme, never acted on the same. The whistleblower filed a whistleblower’s claim case with prayer for mandamus and declaratory relief to the Tax Court, Docket No. 016513-12. The whistleblower’s claim was founded on the IRS omission to act on the information relayed by the whistleblower which is tantamount to a clear breach of contract.
The whistleblower has devoted all of the available resources in order to conduct an investigation of the scheme and to gather evidence to support the information. In the case filed, the whistleblower is claiming damages for breach of contract in the amount of over a TRILLION DOLLARS, which amount increases to a BILLION DOLLARS each day. The case is still pending with the Washington Tax court, waiting for Summary Judgment.
Contact Information:
Name: Roy J. Meidinger
Contact No. _239-694-5597
Disappointed Whistleblower - February 20, 2013 9:30 PM
Did your firm comment on the Regulations? I did not see it in the docket file.
Erica L. Brady - February 21, 2013 7:05 PM
We did file comments. You can find our comments either through Scott's recent post or at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=IRS-2012-0051-0463
Disappointed Whistleblower - February 21, 2013 9:37 PM
Did your firm comment on the Regulations? I did not see it in the docket file.