Opinion ID: 787764
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Taxpayer D

Text: 49 Coons also alleges he made a protected disclosure regarding a possible fraudulent refund for Taxpayer D. The Merit Systems Protection Board held that even if Coons made the statements he alleges he made to Ah Nee, the disclosures are not protected. The Board held that the event 50 amounted to a normal disagreement between managers over a debatable matter of internal policy, and that a disinterested observer, with knowledge of the essential fact known to and readily ascertainable by the appellant, could not reasonably have concluded that it evidenced government wrong doing of the type contemplated by the [Whistleblower Protection Act]. 51 Coons made disclosures regarding the manual processing of a large refund that he believed to be fraudulent for Taxpayer D under highly irregular circumstances. Coons's disclosure cannot reasonably be characterized as a normal disagreement between managers over a debatable matter of internal policy. A disinterested observer with knowledge of the essential facts ... reasonably [would] conclude that a disclosure alleging that the IRS, whose mission is to collect taxes, improperly processed a large, fraudulent refund for a wealthy taxpayer is an allegation of gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, [or] an abuse of authority. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8); Lachance, 174 F.3d at 1381. Therefore, we hold that the Merit Systems Protection Board's interpretation of this allegation as a policy disagreement, rather than a protected disclosure, is contrary to law.