Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Kasper v. Comm'r

United States Tax Court

January 9, 2018, Filed

Docket No. 22242-11W.

Opinion

 [*9]  HOLMES, Judge: In this case a whistleblower seeks an award of over $11 million. Kenneth Kasper informed the IRS that his former employer failed to pay overtime wages to its employees and that it therefore didn't withhold or remit the taxes associated with the unpaid wages. The IRS determined that Kasper's tip wasn't related to a federal tax issue and denied his award application. Kasper then petitioned this Court to challenge that determination. He claims that the IRS used his information to keep "held open" a bankruptcy claim against his former employer that eventually led to a $37.5 million payment to the United States Treasury. He wants a share.

FINDINGS OF FACT

While working for his former corporate employer (target), Kasper detected what he thought was a long-term pattern of forced and uncompensated overtime. At first he complained internally about this [**2]  "no overtime policy," but he then decided to ask the IRS to investigate his allegations. He filed a Form 211, Application for Award for Original Information, in January 2009. On this form he claimed that the target owed its employees millions of dollars in overtime pay and told the IRS that if the target were required to pay the overdue wages, the IRS would benefit because it would receive the payroll taxes withheld on that compensation. What happened to the Form 211 for nearly a month is unclear, but it was eventually received by the IRS's Whistleblower Office (WBO) in late February 2009. Because the Form 211 identified both the target and its chief executive officer (CEO) in the alleged violation, the WBO assigned Kasper's information two claim numbers--one for the target  [*10]  (target claim) and one for the CEO (CEO claim). The next day the WBO forwarded the Form 211 to the IRS's Information Claims Examination (ICE) Unit in Ogden, Utah, where it was decided that Kasper's claims should be evaluated by the Large Business and International (LB&I) Unit.

The Form 211 ended up on the desk of LB&I Classifier Brett Roskelley in May 2009. Roskelley is one of three classifiers in the LB&I Unit. [**3]  His job is that of a gatekeeper--he looks at information as it comes in and decides if it should be forwarded to other parts of the unit for investigation. When Kasper's information came in, Roskelley thought about it and decided that Kasper had identified a Department of Labor issue, not an IRS issue. He therefore did not pass the Form 211 on for investigation but recommended sending letters to Kasper rejecting his claims.

OPINION

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

150 T.C. 8 *; 2018 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 2 **; 150 T.C. No. 2

KENNETH WILLIAM KASPER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Prior History: Kasper v. Comm'r, 137 T.C. 37, 2011 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 36 (July 12, 2011)

CORE TERMS

whistleblower, target, novo, default, unpaid, innocent-spouse, withholding, mailed, reward

Tax Law, Federal Tax Administration & Procedures, Audits & Investigations, Tax Court, Jurisdiction, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Standards of Review, De Novo Standard of Review, Tax Credits & Liabilities, Deficiencies, Tax Court Redetermination, Administrative Record, Reviewability, Arbitrary & Capricious Standard of Review, Tax Court, Civil Procedure, Parties, Intervention, Abuse of Discretion, Judicial Review, Hearings in Tax Court

Tax Law, Federal Tax Administration & Procedures, Audits & Investigations, Tax Court, Jurisdiction, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Standards of Review, De Novo Standard of Review, Tax Credits & Liabilities, Deficiencies, Tax Court Redetermination, Administrative Record, Reviewability, Arbitrary & Capricious Standard of Review, Tax Court, Civil Procedure, Parties, Intervention, Abuse of Discretion, Judicial Review, Hearings in Tax Court