597

WILLIAM PRENTICE COOPER, III, PETITIONER v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 

RESPONDENT

Docket Nos. 24178–09W, 24179–09W. Filed June 20, 2011. 

P filed two claims for a whistleblower award with R under 

sec. 7623(b)(4), I.R.C., and R sent a letter to P denying the 

claims because an award determination could not be made 

under sec. 7623(b), I.R.C. We earlier denied R’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, holding that R’s letter was a 

determination conferring jurisdiction on this Court. Cooper v. 

Commissioner, 135 T.C. 70 (2010). R subsequently filed an 

answer to each petition P filed seeking review of R’s denial of 

the whistleblower claims. R attached a memorandum summarizing the facts, legal analysis and legal conclusion for R’s 

denials of P’s claims. R moves for summary judgment. P 

objects, asking us to undertake a complete re-evaluation of 

the facts and take whatever steps are necessary to detect an 

underpayment of tax. Held: Our jurisdiction in whistleblower 

cases does not include opening an administrative or judicial 

action to predetermine the tax liability. P failed to meet the 

threshold requirements for a whistleblower award. 

Joseph G. Giannola and Robert J. Mauceri, for petitioner. 

Holly H. Styles and Alex Shlivko, for respondent. 

OPINION 

KROUPA, Judge: These cases are before the Court on 

respondent’s motions for summary judgment filed pursuant 

598 136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (597) 

1 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code), as amended, and all Rule 

references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 

to Rule 121. 1 Respondent contends that he is entitled to 

summary judgment as a matter of law because petitioner has 

not met the threshold requirements for a whistleblower 

award under section 7623(b). We shall grant respondent’s 

motions. 

Background

The following information is stated for purpose of resolving 

the pending motions. At the time of filing the petitions, petitioner resided in Nashville, Tennessee. 

Petitioner, an attorney, submitted two Forms 211, Application for Award for Original Information (whistleblower 

claims), to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2008 concerning alleged violations of the Code. He alleged in the two 

claims that certain parties had failed to pay millions of dollars in estate and generation-skipping transfer tax. Petitioner alleged in one claim that a trust having over $102 million in assets was improperly omitted from the gross estate 

of Dorothy Dillon Eweson (Ms. Eweson), resulting in a possible $75 million underpayment in Federal estate tax. He 

alleged in the other claim that Ms. Eweson impermissibly 

modified two trusts as part of a scheme to avoid the generation-skipping transfer tax. The trusts at issue had a combined value of over $200 million at the time of Ms. Eweson’s 

death in 2005. 

Petitioner obtained the information reported in the claims 

by representing the guardian of a purported trust beneficiary. He verified the information by examining the public 

records and the records of his client. Petitioner submitted 

additional supporting information several months after 

submitting the claims. 

Respondent’s Whistleblower Office (Whistleblower Office) 

notified petitioner that it had received the whistleblower 

claims. The Whistleblower Office explained that petitioner’s 

information would be used to determine whether to further 

investigate the alleged violations. The Whistleblower Office 

also told petitioner that he would be informed at the conclusion of the review and investigation whether his information 

met the criteria for paying an award. 

(597) COOPER v. COMMISSIONER 599

2 Respondent filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that respondent 

had not issued award determination notices to petitioner. We determined that the Whistleblower 

Office’s letters to petitioner constituted determination notices and denied respondent’s motions 

to dismiss. See Cooper v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 70 (2010). 

3The memorandum was not filed in docket No. 24178–09W. 

The Whistleblower Office reviewed the information petitioner provided in the whistleblower claims. The Whistleblower Office forwarded the information to the IRS office with 

subject matter jurisdiction over the issues raised. After that 

office reviewed the information provided by petitioner, 

respondent concluded that no administrative or judicial 

action would be taken against the taxpayer. 

The Whistleblower Office sent petitioner a letter stating 

that respondent had considered petitioner’s whistleblower 

claims. It explained that a section 7623(b) award determination could not be made for either claim because petitioner did 

not identify any Federal tax issues upon which the IRS would 

take action. The letter further explained that an award was 

not warranted for either claim because petitioner’s information did not result in the detection of any underpayments of 

tax. 

Petitioner filed two separate petitions in this Court in 

response to respondent’s denials of the whistleblower 

claims. 2 Respondent filed answers to the petitions. 

Respondent attached an undated memorandum from Norman 

Wilson, an IRS estate tax attorney (ETA), as an exhibit to the 

answer in docket No. 24179–09W. 3 The memorandum 

summarizes the facts, legal analysis and legal conclusion for 

respondent’s denials of petitioner’s claims. 

Respondent filed the summary judgment motions that are 

presently before the Court. Petitioner objects to the motions. 

Discussion

We are asked to decide whether summary judgment is 

appropriate in this whistleblower matter. Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary 

and expensive trials. See, e.g., FPL Group, Inc. & Subs. v. 

Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001). A motion for summary 

judgment will be granted if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and other acceptable 

materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show that 

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a 

600 136 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (597) 

decision may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 

121(b); Elec. Arts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 226, 238 

(2002). The moving party has the burden of proving that no 

genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Rauenhorst v. 

Commissioner, 119 T.C. 157, 162 (2002). We grant summary 

judgment cautiously and sparingly, and only after carefully 

ascertaining that the moving party has met all requirements 

for summary adjudication. See Associated Press v. United 

States, 326 U.S. 1, 6 (1945). 

Respondent moves for summary judgment on the grounds 

that there remain no genuine issues of material fact for trial. 

Petitioner asserts that there are genuine issues of material 

fact because respondent failed to properly investigate facts 

relevant to petitioner’s whistleblower claims. He argues further that respondent failed to apply the correct law in determining the merits of his claims. Petitioner asks us to direct 

respondent to undertake a complete re-evaluation of the facts 

in this matter, begin an investigation, open a case file, and 

take whatever other steps are necessary to detect an underpayment of tax. 

Generally, an individual who provides information to the 

Secretary that leads the Secretary to proceed with an 

administrative or judicial action shall receive an award equal 

to a percentage of the collected proceeds. Sec. 7623(b)(1). 

Thus, a whistleblower award is dependent upon both the 

initiation of an administrative or judicial action and collection of tax proceeds. 

Petitioner seeks to litigate whether any Federal estate tax 

or gift tax is due from the taxpayer. Our jurisdiction in a 

whistleblower action is different from our jurisdiction to 

review a deficiency determination. We have jurisdiction in a 

deficiency action to redetermine whether there is any income, 

estate or gift tax due. See sec. 6214(a). In a whistleblower 

action, however, we have jurisdiction only with respect to the 

Commissioner’s award determination. See sec. 7623(b). Our 

jurisdiction under section 7623(b) does not contemplate that 

we redetermine the tax liability of the taxpayer. 

Moreover, although Congress authorized the Court to 

review the Secretary’s award determination, Congress did 

not authorize the Court to direct the Secretary to proceed 

with an administrative or judicial action. Congress has 

(597) COOPER v. COMMISSIONER 601

charged the Secretary with the responsibility of seeking tax 

revenue in every possible situation. Secs. 7601 and 7602. 

Respondent has explained why he determined that there was 

no estate or gift tax due on the facts petitioner presented. 

Petitioner may disagree with respondent’s legal conclusions 

for why there was no Federal estate or gift tax due. Nevertheless, whistleblower awards are preconditioned on the Secretary’s proceeding with an administrative or judicial action. 

Sec. 7623(b)(1). If the Secretary does not proceed, there can 

be no whistleblower award. 

Finally, respondent properly processed petitioner’s whistleblower claims but did not collect any amount of tax, interest 

or penalty from the taxpayer based on petitioner’s information. Because a whistleblower award is calculated as a 

percentage of collected proceeds, if the Commissioner collects 

no proceeds there can be no whistleblower award. Sec. 

7623(b)(1). We shall grant summary judgment to respondent 

in each docket. 

Appropriate orders and decisions will be 

entered. 

f