Whistleblower Lawyer Blog

Section 7623(b), providing for whistleblower awards, was enacted as part of the Tax
Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (the Act). For information provided to the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) after December 19, 2006, new section 7623(b) generally
requires the IRS to pay awards on amounts in dispute over $2 million if information
provided by an individual results in the collection of tax, penalties, interest, and other
amounts. The law sets award ranges based on percentages of the collected proceeds,
with the award in particular cases to be determined by a Whistleblower Office that
operates at the direction of the IRS Commissioner. On February 2, 2007, the IRS
announced the appointment of Stephen Whitlock as the first Director of the IRS
Whistleblower Office.

Section 406(c) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a study and
report to Congress each year on the use of section 7623, including an analysis of the
use of that section and the results obtained, as well as any legislative or administrative
recommendations regarding section 7623 and its application. This is the first report
submitted in accordance with that requirement and it discusses the progress made by
the IRS Whistleblower Office in the first 12 months of its existence. The report includes
a review of the law and regulations applicable to whistleblower awards, changes made
in program administration since the Act, the status of new program guidance required
by the Act, and data on awards paid.

The overarching purpose behind the Act was to provide incentives for persons with
knowledge of significant tax noncompliance to come forward and assist the IRS. With a
few notable exceptions, pre-amendment submissions under section 7623 were
dominated by claims well below the $2,000,000 threshold set in the new law. Only 12 of
227 pre-amendment full paid claims in 2007 involved collections of more than $2 million,
and only 3 involved collections of more than $10 million. In contrast, in the twelve
months since the Whistleblower Office was established, the IRS received 116
submissions that each alleged more than $2 million in tax noncompliance, 24 of which
alleged more than $10 million. The individuals submitting this information claim to have
inside knowledge of the transactions they are reporting, often with extensive
documentation to support their claims.

Program History
Prior Law and Policy

The IRS has had the authority to pay awards to whistleblowers1 for many years. What
is now section 7623(a)2 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) has its origins in legislation
enacted in 1867. The original law provided the Secretary with the authority “to pay such
sums as he deems necessary for detecting and bringing to trial and punishment
persons guilty of violating the internal revenue laws or conniving at the same.” Prior to
1996, payments were made from appropriated funds. Amendments in that year
expanded the purposes for which awards may be paid, adding “detecting
underpayments of tax” as a basis for making an award. The 1996 amendments also
changed the source of funds from IRS operating funds to proceeds of amounts collected
from the taxpayer (other than interest).3

Prior to the 2006 amendments to section 7623, awards to whistleblowers were
discretionary, and the amount was determined based on IRS policy.4 The policy
provided a framework for assessing the contribution of the information to the collection
of proceeds from a taxpayer, and allowed for awards of 1%, 10% or 15% of proceeds,
generally not to exceed $10 million.

The Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) provided several grounds for rejecting a claim for
award, including participation in the evasion scheme that was the subject of the report
provided by the whistleblower5. Common reasons for rejecting claims were

• the information provided was of no value,
• the information was already known to the IRS or available in public records, or
• there was no collection of taxes and penalties from which an award could be
paid.

The information might be of no value because it did not provide a sufficient basis for
initiating an examination or investigation of the issue presented, or because the
examination resulted in a “no change” finding.

1 The IRS has generally referred to persons who submit information under Section 7623 as “informants,”and referred to the program as the “Informant Claims Program.” Since the law now refers to “whistleblowers,” that term will be used in this report except where the term “informant” appears in an office title or published document.

2 The 2006 amendments re-designated the prior Section 7623 as section 7623(a), added new provisions as section 7623(b), and included program administration requirements that were not incorporated into the Internal Revenue Code. The appendix to this report reprints Section 7623, as amended, as well as additional provisions in the Act that were not incorporated into the Internal Revenue Code.

3 The IRS has separate authority to pay informant expenses from appropriated funds available for confidential Criminal Investigation expenditures. Those payments are made under authorities delegated to IRS CI, and are not within the scope of the Whistleblower Office or this report to Congress.

4 Regulations implementing what is now section 7623(a) appear at 26 CFR 301.7623-1. The most recent version of the policy was issued in 2004, as Policy Statement P-4-27, and reprinted as Publication 733.

5 IRM 25.2.2.17

- 1 –
6/24/2008

New Law

Section 7623(b) was created by section 406 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of
2006 (the Act) (PL 109-432). Section 7623(b) established a mandatory whistleblower
award program that included a new Whistleblower Office. The Whistleblower Office
operates at the direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. It coordinates and
consults with other divisions of the IRS as directed by the Commissioner, analyzes
information submitted, and makes award determinations. The Whistleblower Office may
investigate the matter itself, or assign it to the appropriate IRS office for investigation.
Determinations by the Whistleblower Office may be appealed to the US Tax Court.

A whistleblower must meet several conditions to qualify for the mandatory award
program6. In order to qualify for a whistleblower award, the information must:

• relate to a tax noncompliance matter in which the tax, penalties, interest,
additions to tax and additional amounts in dispute exceed $2,000,000;
• relate to a taxpayer, and in the case of an individual taxpayer, one whose gross
income exceeds $200,000 for at least one of the tax years in question; and
• substantially contribute to a decision to take administrative or judicial action that
results in the collection of tax, penalties, interest, additions to tax and additional
amounts.

If the above conditions are met, the whistleblower must receive an award of at least 15
percent but not more than 30 percent of the collected proceeds resulting from
administrative or judicial actions (including related actions) or from any settlement in
response to an administrative or judicial action. The maximum award percentage is
reduced to 10 percent for cases based principally on specific allegations disclosed in
listed information sources (such as government audit reports), and may also be reduced
if the whistleblower planned and initiated the actions that led to the underpayment of
tax.

Implementing the New Law

On February 2, 2007, the IRS announced the appointment of Stephen Whitlock as the
first Director of the Whistleblower Office. One of his first actions was to participate in a
forum sponsored by the Senate Finance Committee, which brought together
Government and private sector stakeholders to share their perspectives and
expectations regarding the whistleblower program. Almost immediately, the IRS began
to receive submissions from whistleblowers with allegations of tax noncompliance well
in excess of the $2 million threshold in section 7623(b). Thus, the IRS began
processing cases under the new law even as it was working on the most basic
questions of program design.

6 If the submission does not meet the criteria for 7623(b) consideration, it may be considered for an award under the pre-Act discretionary authority (what is now section 7623(a)).

- 2 –
6/24/2008

Actions Taken in the First Twelve Months

Staffing: The Whistleblower Office has a staff of eight, that includes six analysts with
decades of experience in a broad array of IRS compliance programs.
Program Analysis: The IRS reviewed the pre-amendment Informant Awards Program to
understand its strengths and weaknesses, the existing program controls, and the status
of improvement initiatives. This included a comprehensive study of regulations, policies
and guidelines, prior internal and external oversight reports, and case files on recent
award decisions. The Director of the Whistleblower Office and staff met with IRS
employees familiar with the Informant Awards Program, including those involved in
receipt and analysis of whistleblower submissions, those who conduct or supervise
examinations and investigations based on those submissions, and those involved in
award decisions and payment. They also met with attorneys who represent
whistleblowers to discuss individual cases as well as broader program perspectives.
This analysis, which is continuing, has influenced decisions on initial case processing
protocols as well as longer term program design priorities.

Program Design: A top priority for the whistleblower program was the intake and
analysis of whistleblower submissions. This aspect of the program required immediate
attention because whistleblower submissions began arriving almost immediately after
section 7623(b) was enacted.

Working with the IRS Operating Divisions, the Criminal Investigation Division, and the
Office of Chief Counsel, the Whistleblower Office has designed an intake process that
includes initial review by Whistleblower Office staff and an evaluation by Operating
Division subject matter experts. The Operating Division subject matter experts
determine whether the information submitted by the whistleblower warrants initiation of
an examination of the issues reported. Each IRS Operating Division also has a Division
Counsel. Division Counsel attorneys provide advice on technical tax issues as well as
any legal issues that could limit the IRS’s ability to use some or all of the information
provided by the whistleblower. For example, documents submitted by a whistleblower
are sometimes marked “attorney-client privileged.” A Division Counsel attorney would
need to determine whether the asserted privilege may legitimately be claimed for the
document and whether an exception to that privilege may apply. In addition, as part of
the subject matter expert’s analysis, the whistleblower may be asked to meet to discuss
the submission, to ensure that the IRS fully understands the issues raised and to ensure
that all relevant information has been submitted.

Program guidance: Notice 2008-47 provided initial guidance on how to submit
information to the IRS, and was accompanied by a revision to Form 211 “Application for
Award for Original Information.8” The Notice addressed the most pressing guidance
requirements—how to submit information, and the criteria that will be applied to
determine whether the information qualifies under the Act. It includes the requirement
that the information be submitted by an individual, under penalty of perjury, and it
defines ineligible submissions. A submission may be ineligible because the person

7 http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=176632,00.html
8 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f211.pdf
- 3 –
6/24/2008

submitting it is disqualified (e.g., a Federal employee who learned of the tax
noncompliance in the course of performing his/her duties), or because the information
does not provide a basis for IRS action. The latter category includes information that is
speculative or is already known to the IRS. The Notice also described information that
should be included by the whistleblower that will be needed to evaluate the submission.
The Form 211 revision incorporates the provisions of the law and the Notice, and is
intended to help whistleblowers present information that is essential to evaluate whether
a submission meets the requirements of section 7623(b). One change to the form, a
new address for submissions, reflects an important change in processing whistleblower
information. The Form 211 is now sent to the Whistleblower Office, where all
submissions are reviewed to determine whether they appear to qualify under section
7623(b). Those that do not appear to qualify are sent to the Informant Claims
Examination Unit in Ogden, UT, for processing as potential 7623(a) claims.

The IRS completed a Privacy Impact Assessment and a Privacy Act System of Records
Notice for the whistleblower program. Both were essential steps in establishing
program controls required by law and regulation.

The IRS adapted an existing correspondence control system as an interim case
management system for the Whistleblower Office. Actions to acquire a commercial-off the-
shelf case management system have been taken, with pilot testing scheduled for
the third quarter of FY 2008.

The IRS established a working group led by the Whistleblower Office, with
representatives from the Operating Divisions, Criminal Investigation Division, and the
Office of Chief Counsel. The working group is addressing the detailed steps needed to
implement the changes in the law, including updates, revisions or replacements for the
regulations, policies, operating procedures, and forms related to whistleblower awards.
Program Operations: Fiscal Year 2007 was a year of significant transition for the
whistleblower program. In addition to the substantial changes in the law and the
creation of a new Whistleblower Office, the Service continued to implement program
changes that started in Fiscal Year 2006. Informant claims operations formerly
assigned to five IRS Campuses were consolidated at the Ogden Informant Claims
Examination (ICE) unit in FY 2006. Actions to complete the consolidation continued into
FY 2007.

By January 31, 2008, the IRS had received 116 whistleblower submissions that each
appeared to meet the $2 million of tax, penalties, interest, and additions to tax threshold
in section 7623(b), 24 of which alleged more than $10 million. An additional 29 did not
include a specific amount9. The individuals submitting information to the IRS claimed to
have inside knowledge of the transactions they were reporting, often with extensive
documentation to support their claims. It is too early to tell how many of these 116
cases will be sustained after examination or investigation by the IRS. However, to put
this in context, under the old Informant Award Program only 12 of 227 full paid claims in

9 These numbers reflect submissions received by the Whistleblower Office. Additional submissions were made to other IRS offices prior to the revision of Form 211, which directs that the forms be sent to the Whistleblower Office. The IRS is consolidating information about these other cases in the Whistleblower Office.

- 4 –
6/24/2008

2007 involved collections of more than $2 million, and only 3 involved collections of
more than $10 million.

The Whistleblower Office also received a number of requests for status reports on preamendment submissions, as well as some requests for reconsideration of decisions on
pre-amendment submissions. While the Whistleblower Office had no authority to make
decisions on pre-amendment submissions, it made inquiries to determine the status of
open cases and to ensure that informant claims policies had been followed in a number
of closed cases.

Outreach and Communications: The IRS developed a communications plan to address
outreach to both the public and IRS personnel regarding changes in the whistleblower
program. The plan includes efforts to identify opportunities for improvement, potential
barriers to change, and manage expectations regarding the scope and pace of change.
The Whistleblower Office has a page on the IRS intranet to make information available
to IRS personnel, and will continue to provide articles for internal newsletters and
speakers for professional education events to reach employees who are most likely to
deal with a whistleblower case. A dedicated page on the public IRS.GOV website
provides a description of the law, links to Notice 2008-4 and Form 211, and other
information about what a whistleblower should expect when making a submission. The
Whistleblower Office will continue to make presentations to professional groups
involved in representation of taxpayers and whistleblowers, both to describe program
developments and to obtain outside perspectives on the program.

Priorities for Fiscal Year 2008

The IRS has four priority initiatives for the whistleblower program in Fiscal Year 2008.
The first initiative is to complete a comprehensive revision of IRM provisions relevant to
whistleblower awards. The existing IRM guidance was developed to address the
discretionary awards program under what is now section 7623(a). The revision will
incorporate the changes required as a result of the new law, as well as a re-examination
of policies and procedures that were not directly affected but have not been critically
examined for some time.

The second initiative is to develop criteria for making determinations on award eligibility
and award percentages. Section 7623(b) provides for an award range of 15 percent to
30 percent of collected proceeds, and it provides for two exceptions. While each case
must be considered on the specific facts, the criteria will be used to guide the analysis
and provide some transparency in the Whistleblower Office decision process.
The third initiative is to continue to reach out to external stakeholders for feedback and
recommendations on program development and implementation issues, such as the
development of the criteria noted above. This outreach will inform our efforts to develop
new regulations for the program, which will be included on the next Department of
Treasury priority guidance plan.

The fourth initiative is to conduct pilot testing and then deploy a new case management
system. The IRS has identified a commercial-off-the-shelf system that is well suited to
the needs of the whistleblower program, and expects delivery and pilot testing in the
fourth quarter of FY 2008.

- 5 –
6/24/2008

Whistleblower Awards Paid

The chart below reflects information on informant claims that the Service has reported
to Congress each year. As the successor to the five Campus organizations from prior
years, the ICE unit is responsible for processing the payment of all claims under what is
now section 7623(a), based on evaluations of the contributions made by informants and
a determination of the applicable award percentage.10 There is no correlation between
the year of claim submission and the year when an award is paid, because the IRS
must complete an investigation or examination of the underlying tax matter (including
any appeal by the taxpayer) and must collect proceeds before it can pay an award. It
would be very rare to complete this process in the same year that a claim is submitted.
Year-to-year fluctuations in the amount of awards paid and the amount collected are
attributable to a small number of large cases closed in 2006 and 2007.

[TABLE HERE IS NOT FORMATTED: ORIGINAL REPORT MAY BE FOUND HERE: Download file
]

Receipts and payments, FY 2003-2007
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Cases
Received 4,765 5,380 2,740 4295 2751
Awards Paid 190 259 169 220 227
Collections
over $2
million
NA NA NA NA 12
Amount of
Awards Paid
11
$4,057,476 $4,585,143 $7,602,685 $24,184,458 $13,600,205
Amounts
Collected $61,556,175 $74,130,794 $93,677,606 $258,590,435 $181,784,287

10 All of the claims paid in FY 2007 were based on information received prior to December 20, 2006, the date of enactment of Section 406 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. Thus, the applicable award percentages were those established in IRS policy, not the higher percentages set in the new law.