Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Daniel Villa, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Supreme Court briefApr 21, 2023
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
-- Redacted for Publication -Case Docket No.
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DANIEL ALLEN VILLA (“Pro Se”)
“Petitioner”
v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS) (“et al”)
“Respondent”
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
“UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT”
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERIORARI
Daniel Allen Villa
“Petitioner” (“Pro Se”)
1725 E Cambridge Ave Apt 105
Phoenix, AZ 85006
(602) 435-6681
- Cover “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C)
- Redacted for Publication -QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Section 704 of the Administrative Procedure Act subject's final agency actions to
mandatory judicial review if no other adequate remedy exists in any court. When
Congress enacts a specific remedy where previous remedies were tenuous, the
remedy provided is generally regarded as exclusive. The Tax Relief and Health Care
Act of 2006 provides jurisdiction for the U.S. Tax Court to review the denial of
whistleblower mandatory award applications.
The questions presented are:
1. Whether Judicial Discretion dissolves in the presence of Direct Evidence,
Statutory, and/or Procedural requirements, not otherwise defeated, among
undesirably whipsaw postured sets of similar cases prejudice by delay, and that of
which posing fully culpable of consolidation and reconsideration to economically
correct and preserve judicial impartiality?
2. Whether negative award determinations and/or threshold rejections of
whipsaw postured sets of similar whistleblower award requests, statutorily
imprisoned onto separate Administrative Files, are immune from the judicial review
process established through the Administrative Procedure Act when either case’s
administrative file contains Self- Authenticating Direct Evidence of Master Fraud,
Secretary's Administrative - Judicial Actions, and collection of eligible proceeds?
- Q.P.l - Questions Presented -
-- Redacted for Publication -
3. Whether 26 USC § 7623 grants jurisdiction to the U.S. Tax Court
(“USTC”) to review award determinations and/or rejections made under § 7623(b)
and/or § 7623(a)?
4. Whether governmental Agencie’s;
(e.g., Arizona Department of Transportation Office of Inspector
General, Securities Exchange Commission Office of Inspector General,
Arizona Attorney General (“AZAG”), Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (“CFPB”), or other executive branch empowered Agencie's)”
Otherwise responsible for the overviews, enforcements, collections, savings, and
administration of certain areas of taxation such as (e.g., Excise Tax, Fuel Tax,
Motor Fuel Tax, Income Taxes, etc.) are considered “Employee’s” and/or “Officers”
designated under, 5 USC Section 2105, as “Any investigator, agents, or other
internal revenue officers by whatever term designated, whom the Secretary charges
with duty of enforcing any of the criminal, seizure, or forfeiture provisions of
Subtitle E or of any other law of the United States pertaining to the commodities
subject to tax under such subtitle for the enforcement of which secretary is
responsible?”
- Q.P.2 - Questions Presented -
-- Redacted for Publication 5. Whether designated 5 USC Section 2105 designated investigators, agents,
or other internal revenue officers are constitutionally vested separations of powers
statutorily responsible for the collaborative and individual departmental annual
reporting requirements and fraud mitigation enforcement as designated, 26 USC §§
7701,7803, Secretary’s, other delegates of redelegated authority, or other officials
under the U.S. Secretary of Treasury pursuant to Inspector General Act of 1978 and
The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006?
6. Whether Governmental Agencie's among defined Secretary's of
redelegated authority’s under the U.S. Secretary of Treasury tasked at reviewing,
investigating, and awarding of mandatory whistleblower award claims under 26
usu 7b/!a (d) are inherently statutorily responsible at ensuring tne proper
departmental systems and procedures are implemented to abide impartially by the
Federal Rules of Evidence when intaking, classification, consideration, handling,
and storing of confidential Whistleblowers Physical and Electronically stored SelfAuthenticating Direct Evidence provided in support of the Whistleblowers requests,
certified Target Taxpayers (“T.T’s”) violations, and/or agency actions and collection
of proceeds against “T.T’s”?
7. Whether the Whistleblower’s Office "WO” of the Internal Revenue Service
(“IRS”) may avoid its statutory and regulatory responsibilities by rejecting claims
- Q.P.3 - Questions Presented -
-- Redacted for Publication -for mandatory award claims requiring judicial review, and whilst in the presence of
a timely filed Initial Form 211 signed as well as the subsequent supplemental
filings attempting perfection of the original claim's equally possessive of Direct
Evidence against the T.T’s Master Fraud, excessive willful underpayments of
misreported Taxes, and racketeering, and supportive of IRS and Secretary Agency
Actions and Collections of Proceeds against the T.T’s Certified Violations, and stare
decisis; regardless of whether a new subsequent signed Form 211 “Supplemental
Filings” accompanied said claim perfecting mailers? And, whether avoidances of
such duty’s would irreparably prejudice the U.S. Government, the American Public,
Federal and State Laws, the integrity of judicial and administrative proceedings,
and sharply defined Public Policy?
8. Whether irreparable prejudice against a party’s Constitutional Rights
underpinnings to fair and equal Justice, Liberty, Right to Property, or Due Process
would exist amongst a Courts or Agencie’s acts of failure to preserve and correct,
where impartially required, any obvious Federal Rules of Evidence violations,
negligence, and or abuses of discretion thereof, and that posture easily correctable
otherwise thru judicially economic consolidation, collective reconsideration, and
sound remand of a whipsaw postured cases full administrative record containing
Direct Evidence.
-Q.P.4- Questions Presented -
-- Redacted for Publication 9. Whether a mandatory whistleblower award request rejection letter
provided in result from a Whistleblower’s claims for award is a “Negative Award
Determination” as to an award under subsections 26 USC 7623 (b)(l)-(3)
whatsoever?
10. Whether this Court agrees with the use of the word “including”, Congress
clearly intended the list of items deemed to be collected proceeds to be nonexhaustive, and that the phrase “collected proceeds” is sweeping in scope and is not
limited to amounts assessed and collected under Title 26 USC?
11. Whether legal precedent postured to be overturned by way of forceful
rule making and definition establishment pursuant issuances of judicial orders,
writs of mandamus, and slip opinions rendered at the behest of a Justice[s]
unconstitutional and non-impartial legislation from the bench without the proper
approvals sets the grounds for a legal paradox, irreparable prejudice, and the
undermining of judicial integrity of all petitioners, American Public, Federal and
State Laws, Separations of Powers, and the Constitutional underpinnings of
fairness and equality in the deliverance of justice, liberty, property, and due
process?
- Q.f.5 - Questions Presented -
-- Redacted for Publication -12. Whether Petitioners mandatory award whistleblower claims collectively
developed Assistance Files, Direct Evidence, Actions, and Collections of Proceeds
ongoing amongst involved agencies are eligible for full oversight and monitoring
under Writ of Certiorari in forma Pauperis with status report requirements, and
regardless of whether remanded to the lower courts? Allowing for conformity in
lawful application of Federal Law, uniformity in the rendering of sound impartial
decisions regarding mandatory award, and remand eligibility onto the Lower Courts
requiring review?
13. Whether Petitioners mandatory award requests and achieved successful
administrative and judicial actions and collections against the Target Taxpayers
(“TT’s”) are awardable under 26 USC 7623(b) as required pursuant to 26 CFR §
301.7623-1 claim perfection, burden of proof satisfaction, and award eligibility
standards?
14. Whether this Court deems the United States Tax Court and the IRS
Whistleblower Office’s rulings and actions therein as they relate to the known facts
among Petitioners Claims, and thereto regardless of their continued undesirable
whipsaw posture to be capricious misapprehensions of the Law, Administrative
Procedures, and Judicial Procedures collectively?
- Q.P.6 - Questions Presented -
-- Redacted for Publication -15. Whether individual States can avoid their collective statutory and
administrative responsibilities to enforce Federal Laws and/or Acts amongst their
own exhaustion of Authority among internal Governmental Agencie’s known as
Executive, Judicial, Legislative Branches of Separate Powers? And, would the
States collective failure to act in uriison to protect the United' States of America and
its Public cause irreparable prejudice the integrity of the United States
Government, The United States Constitution, our delicate Judicial Systems
Integrity, the American People, Federal and State Laws, and gravely aggravate
sharply defined Public Policys?
RELATED CASES
• PENDING USCA CASE NO. 23-1087 DOCKETED (03/31/2023)- REVIEW ON
APPEAL: DANIEL ALLEN VILLA, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Service, Respondent, No. 2516-21W. U.S. Tax Court “USTC.” Judgement entered:
01/09/2023. Denial of concurrently filed Motions for Consolidation and Rehearing
entered: 02/09/2023.
• PENDING USCA CASE NO. 23-1088 DOCKETED (03/31/2023)- REVIEW ON
APPEAL: DANIEL ALLEN VILLA, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Service, Respondent, No. 36146-21W. U.S. Tax Court “USTC.” Judgement entered:
01/06/2023. Denial of concurrently filed Motions for Consolidation and Rehearing
entered: 02/09/2023.
- Q.P.7 - Questions Presented -
-- Redacted for Publication --
AMENDED LIST OF PARTIES
S All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of
all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this
petition is as follows:
•IRS Chief Counsel, Alicia E. Elliott (EA0142)
Phone: 602-636-9612 - Email: alicia.e.elliott@irscounsel.treas.gov
Address: 4041 N. Central Avenue Suite 112 Mail Stop 2200 PX,
Phoenix, AZ 85012
’IRS Chief Counsel, Derek S. Pratt (PD0421)
Phone: 702-868-5155 -Email: derek.s.pratt@irscounsel.treas.gov
Address: Chief Counsel - IRS Suite 301 110 N. City Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89106
’Solicitor General of the United States,
Address: Room 5616, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W.,
Washington, DC 20530-0001
• William M. Paul Acting Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service
Address: 1111 Constitution Ave, NW,
Washington, DC 20224
-- Q.P.8 -- Questions Presented -
-- Redacted for Publication --
• Francesca Ugolini, Chief, Appellate Section, Tax Division,
United States Department of Justice,
Address: Po Box 502,
Washington, D.C. 20044
e Carl D. Wasserman, U.S. Dept, of Justice Tax Division, Appellate Section,
PO BOX 502
Washington, D.C. 20044
Phone: 202-514-3361 Fax: 202-514-8456
Email: carl.wasserman@usdoj .gov
(Amended 05/03/2023 from Original 04/21/2023 Filing)
- Q.P.9 - Questions Presented -
-- Redacted for Publication --
MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
• NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY
N.C.l
• ORDER OF PROTECTION
O.P.1-2
• NOTICE OF APPEAL
N.oA. 1-3
• [UNREDACTED UNDER SEAL] “REVISED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE UNDER SEAL WITH REDACTED COPIES FOR
PUBLISHING PUBLICLY...”
M.L.F.S. 1-13
• [UNREDACTED UNDER SEAL] CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . . .CoC 1
• MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
M.L.P.I. - Cover -M.L.P.I. 5
• CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
CoC 1
• QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Q.P. 1-7
• RELATED CASES
Q.P. 7
• LIST OF PARTIES
Q.P. 8-9
• TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
TA. 1-6
• Cases
TA. 1-3
• Constitutional Provisions
TA. 3
• Statutes
T.A. 3-5
• Federal Acts
T.A. 5-6
• Other Publications
- T.C. 1 - Master Table of Contents -
T.A. 6
-- Redacted for Publication -• OPINIONS BELOW
1
• JUDICIAL NOTICE
2
• JURISDICTION
3-4
• CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
4
• STATUTORY PROVISIONS
4-6
• STATEMENT OF THE CASE
6-32
• A. Introduction
6-11
* B. Procedural Posture
11- 22
» C. Relevant Factual Background
22-23
• D. Abuse of Discretion
23-27
• E. Judicial Economy and Prejudicial Delay[s]
27-32
• REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
32-40
• A. Whether § 7623(b) Rejections Are Reviewable Has Divided Federal Appellate Courts
32-34
• B. The Administrative Procedure Act Prohibits Threshold of Whistleblower Award Requests from Being Immune to Judicial Review
34-37
• C. Congress and the Collection of Proceeds
37-40
• D. This Case Squarely Presents the Questions Presented, And Is an Ideal Vehicle for Resolving the Recent Circuit Split
• CONCLUSION
40
40
- T.C. 2 - Master Table of Contents -
- Redacted for Publication --
TABLE OF APPENDICES
• APPENDIX A: ORDER'S AND ORDER’S OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION REGARDING PETITIONER’S UNITED STATES TAX COURT
PETITION CASE DOCKETS 2516-21W AND 36146-21W FILED 01/06/2023 AND
01/09/2023
App. A-l - App. A-3
• APPENDIX B: OPINION OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, FILED JANUARY 11, 2022 IN, “Li v.
Commissioner No. 20-1245," UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
App. B1 - App. B5
• APPENDIX C: ORDER'S REGARDING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDERS OF THE
UNITED STATES TAX COURT PETITION CASE DOCKETS 2516-21W AND
36146-21W FILED 02/09/2023
App. Cl - App. C4
• APPENDIX D: [UNREDACTED UNDER SEAL]
App. D Title - App. D4a
• APPENDIX E: [UNREDACTED UNDER SEAL]
App. E Title - App. E6z4
• APPENDIX F: [UNREDACTED UNDER SEAL]
App. F Title - App. F2a
• APPENDIX G: [UNREDACTED UNDER SEAL]
App. G Title - App. G2a
• APPENDIX H: VOLUMINOUS CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY, AND
REGULATORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED (Pursuant to Rule 14.1 - Indented
Quotations - llpt Font Format)
-T.C.3- Master Table of Contents -
App. Hi- App. H122
-- Redacted for Publication • APPENIX I: ORDER’S REGARDING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS OF ORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT PETITION
CASE DOCKETS 2516-21W AND 36146-21W
- T.C. 4 - Master Table of Contents -
App. I Title - App. 13
- Redacted for Publication TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page’s
Cases
• Batazzi v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. 664 F.2d 49,50 (5th Cir. 1981)
28
• Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Pol. Consultants, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 2335, 2347 n.5 (2020)
7
• Baugher v. Kadlec Health Sys. No. 4:14-CV-5118-TOR and No. 4:15-CV-5043-TOR
(Judge Granted Consolidation Surviving Case No. 4:14-CV-5118-TOR)
30
• Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 903 (1988)
23
• Brown v Whole Foods Mkt Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 151, (D.C. Cir. 2015)
2
• Cambridge v. United States, 558 F.3d 1331,1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
35
• Cannon v. Nicholas, 80 F.2d 934, 936 (10th Cir. 1935)
39
• Cooper v. Comm’r, 135 T.C. 70, 75(2010)
33-34,20,21
• Central Motor Co. v. United States, 583 F.2d 470 (10th Cir. 1978).
28
• Cohen v Comm’r, 176 F.2d 394 (10th Cir. 1949)
28
• C.f. Dep’t of Com. v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2567-69 (2019)
7
• Dacosta v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 549, 552 (2008).................
22,32-33
• Dunaway v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 80, 91-92 (2005)
39
• Epstein v. Comm’r T.C. Docket No. 28731-15W and Docket No. 2965-18W
23
• Epstein v. Comm’r T.C. Memo. 2019-81.
7
• Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 425 (2006)
40
• Haines v. Kerner, 404 US at 520 (1980); Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592 (1981)
2
- T.A. 1 - Table of Authorities -
- Redacted for Publication • Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir 1985)
29
• Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 on reh’g 753F.2d 1081(9th Cir. 1984)
29
• Hinck v. United States, 550 U.S. 501 (2007)
35
• Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent Dist. of California, 877 F.2d777 (9th Cir. 1989)
28
• Kennedy v. Comm’r,121 T.C.M. (CCH) 1008 (T.C. 2021) (pending appeal to D.C.Cir.)
33-34
• Lacey v. Comm’r, 153 T.C. 146, 166-67 (2019)
20-21, 33
• Lewis v. Comm’r, T.C.M. (RIA) 2022-047 (T.C. 2022)
22
• Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022)
passim, 8,19-21, 34-37
• Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)”
20
• McCrory v. Comm’r, 156 T.C. 90, 94 (2021))
23
• McLain v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 775 (1977) ...
...... 28,29
• Meidinger v. United States, 989 F.3d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
32
• Meidinger v. Comm’r, 662 F. App’x 774, 776 (11th Cir. 2016)!
33
• Odend’hal v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 400 (1980)
29
• Portland Cement Ass’n, 665 F.3d at 189,194,
30
• Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
31
• Todd A. White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. Case No. 05-71201 and Case No. OS13636. (Ref; Judge Granting Consolidation)
- T.A. 2 - Table of Authorities -
29
- Redacted for Publication • United States v. A1 Capone, October 17, 1931.”
9
• United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012)”
7
• United States v. Lee, 106 US 196,220 [1882]
3
• Ware v. Comm’r, 499 F. App’x 957, 959 (11th Cir. 2012)
32-33
• Whistleblower 769-16W v. Comm’r, 152 T.C._,_(slip op.
At 14) (Apr. 11, 2010)
23
• Wolf v. Comm’r, 93 T.C.M. (CCH) 1273 (T.C. 2007)
22-23
• Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498, 506 (2011) ,
39
• Zhe v. UCBH Holdings Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049,1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
29
Constitutional Provisions
• U.S. Constitution (“U.S Const.”) Amendments V, XI, and -XIV Sec. 1
passim, 3-4, 7-10, 24-26, 36, 40
• Equal Protection, Civil Rights of Whistleblowers
passim, 3-4, 6-10, 24-26, 36, 40
• U.S. Const. Article III — Section 1 - Judiciary Act of 1789
4, 35
•Arizona Constitution (“AZ Const.”)
Article 2 - Section 4, and Section 5
passim, 3-4, 7-10, 24-26, 36, 40
Statutes
• 26 U.S. Code (“USC”) Section 7623 (b)(1), (4), (6) and (c - Proceeds) - Awards to whistleblowers (Mandatory)
passim, 4, 7-12, 17-20, 32-34, 36-38, 40
*
- T.A. 3 -- Table of Authorities --
- Redacted for Publication -
• 26 USC §§ 7701,7801,7803, 4481, 4611, 4999, 280G, 7201, 7202, 7206, 275,162,
7212, 7203, 7232, 7482, 7623, 7165
4-12, 15-23, 25, 27, 32-40
•5 USC §§ 704, 553,2105
passim, 4, 9, 22
• 5a USC - Compiled Act 95-452. INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978 - § §
(2)(4) (5) (6) (8) (8D) (8E) (8G) (12)
passim, 5-6, 8-9, 27
* 12 USC § 5565
passim, 5, 40
• 15 USC §§ 45, 12 - 27, 41-58 15, 78u-6
5, 6, 15,16,
• 18 USC §§ 2, 242, 286-287, 371, 372, 656, 665, 1001,1002, 1005,1031
1033, 1040,1341, 1343-1344,1347-1349,1517, 1511,1621, 1951,- 1952,1956, 1957,
,1959, 1961(1)(A)(B)(C)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9), 1962, 2113,2314
5,14-16,
* 28 USC §§ 1254, 2071-2077, 455
3, 5, 14, 20, 22, 35
•31 U.S. Code §§ 330, 3801-3812
...... 5, 15, 16
•34 USC § 20101
5, 38
•41 USC §§ 8702, 8706
5, 15
* 42 USC §§ 7470-7477, 7541(2)(3)
5, 15
* Internal Revenue Manual (“IRM”) 30.9U.4.4, IRM 25.1.6.1.7, IRM 25.1.6.4,35.11.1-72, 35.3.9.5
passim, 4, 5, 14, 18, 24, 27, 30
• Title 5 Code of Federal Regulation (“CFR”) § 185.101
• Title 12 CFR - Part 1002 Equal Credit -
- T.A. 4 - Table of Authorities -
passim, 5,15
- Redacted for Publication Opportunity (Regulation B)
.passim, 5, 15
• Title 12 CFR Part 1026 (Regulation Z)- Truth in Lending Act §§ 1026.1, 1026.17,
1075.100, 1075.103,1075.104, 1026.24, 1071.100 - 1071.104
passim, 5, 15
* Title 26 CFR §§ 301.7623-1 (a),(b),(c), and (d), 301.7623-3 (e)(2)(iii)(iv), 1.165-1, 1.162 18
passim, 5, 13, 15-18, 26, 36
• Title 17 CFR § 240.21F-2
passim, 6, 16, 40
• The Department of Justice's - Code of Conduct for United States Judges Canons (1)(2)(3)(3A)(3B(4))(5)
passim, 6, 19, 35
* Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) Rules - Rule 902 (11)(13) (14), Rule 401, Rule 103(a)(f)
passim, 6,10, 11, 14, 17-19 25-27, 29, 31, 35
• AZ Rev Stat (“ARS”) §§ 28-4410.01, 28-4412, 28-4409, 44-1402, 44-1403, 44-1408;
44-1211, 44-1217, 44-1218, 44-1220, 44-1223, 44-1263, 44-1264, 44-1267, 47-2314
49-550, 49-542.03, 49-542 (D)
Federal Acts
passim, 6,14-16
passim, 4-9, 11, 14-16, 18, 22-23, 27, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40
• • • The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 • • • The Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act of 1970) • • • Dodd-Frank Act- and Consumer Financial Protection Act - Title X - Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection. • • • Clause 21 of Rule XXIII, House of Official Conduct • • • Major
Fraud Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-700, § 2, 102 Stat. 4631) • • • Inspector General Act of
- T.A. 5 -- Table of Authorities -
- Redacted for Publication 1978 • • • Securities Exchange Act of 1934* • • Fair Trade Commission Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 41-58, as amended • • • The Sherman Antitrust Act • • • Insider Trading
Act of 1988 • • • Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, Public Law No. 99-509 • • • The
Clean Air Act (CAA)(1963) * • • The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 (15 U.S.C. §§ 12 27) • • • Judicial Public Policy Doctrine • •
Tax Court Rules (TCR”) 161, 52,
345(b) • • • The Federal Rule of Civil Procedures (FRCP) Rule 60, 42(a), 12 (f.) and
34 .... Administrative Procedures Act (APA)
• •
Other Publications
• THE FEDERALIST NO. 78 (Alexander Hamilton), supra note 2, at 473 , NO. 48(James Madison), at 300
9
• Pub.L. No. 109-432, Div. A, Title IV, § 406(a), 120 Stat. 2958 (2006)
23
•Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109- 432, div. A, sec. 406(b),
' 120 Stat. at 2959-2960
6-8, 22-23, 38
• Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2381 (1971)
28, 32
• Joint Comm. On Taxation, 109th Cong., Technical Explanation of H.R. 6408, p. 89
33
- T.A. 6 - Table of Authorities --
- Redacted for Publication IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
“Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the United
States (US) Tax Court Judgement’s below pending District Court appeal review.”
OPINIONS BELOW
* Issued onto US Tax Court (“USTC”) Petition 1 Docket 2516-21W:
01/09/2023: (UNPUBLISHED) The decision of the (“USTC”) - Order of Dismissal for
Lack of Jurisdiction Entered, Chief Judge Kerrigan (“CJK”); Stay is lifted. On the
Court's own motion, case is dismissed of lack of jurisdiction; 02/09/2023:
(UNPUBLISHED) The decision of the (“USTC”) - Motion for Reconsideration of
Order DENIED; 02/09/2023: (UNPUBLISHED) The decision of the (“USTC”) Motion to Consolidate DENIED as moot; and 03/29/2023: (UNPUBLISHED) The
(“USTC”) Order - Motion to Stay Proceedings DENIED. Pend. USCA No. 23-1087.
* Issued onto “USTC” Petition 2 Docket 36146-21W:
01/06/2023: (UNPUBLISHED) The decision of the ('USTC”) - Order of Dismissal for
Lack of Jurisdiction Entered, Chief Judge Kerrigan (“CJK’) ; Stay is lifted. Motion
to dismiss is Granted; 02/09/2023: (UNPUBLISHED) The decision of the ('USTC”) Motion for Reconsideration of Order DENIED; 02/09/2023: (UNPUBLISHED) The
decision of the (‘USTC”) - Motion to Consolidate DENIED as moot; and 02/22/2023:
(UNPUBLISHED) The (USTC”) Order - Motion to Stay Proceedings DENIED as
moot. Pending review under USCA Case No. 23-1088.
-1-
- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C)
- Redacted for Publication JUDICIAL NOTICE
Petitioner respectfully asks the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that
Petitioner is “Pro Se” without counsel, is not schooled in the law and legal
procedures, and is not licensed to practice law. Therefore, Petitioners pleadings
must be read and construed liberally and in “toto” to determine whether they “set
out allegations sufficient to survive dismissal. See; Haines v. Kerner, 404 US at 520
(1980); Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592 (1981); See also: Brown v Whole Foods Mkt Grp.,
Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 151, (D.G. Cir. 2015) (reversing the district court because it failed
to consider allegations found in a pro se plaintiffs opposition to a motion to dismiss).
JURISDICTION
[ * ] For Courts from Federal Courts:
The date on which the United States Tax Court (“USTC”) decided Petitioner’s
Cases were 01/06/2023 and 01/09/2023.
[ * ]Timely Petition/Motion for consolidation and rehearing was denied by the
“USTC” on the following date 02/09/2023 per both of Petitioners undesirably
whipsaw postured cases.
[ * JTimely Petition/Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending “Petition for Writ
of Certiorari/Appeal In Forma Pauperis” and “Motion for Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis” for Review of the (“USTC’s“) Decisions was filed onto each
Docketed case, and was DENIED by the (“USTC”) on the following dates,
~2-
-- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) --
- Redacted for Publication 02/22/2023, per Dockets 36146-21W and 03/29/2023, per No. 2516-21W
[ * ] Timely appeals Pending USCA 23-1087-USCA 23-1088 filed 03/31/23.
Petitioner’s beliefs resonate that This Court has a responsibility and legal duty to
protect any and all of Petitioners and other U.S. Citizens Constitutional and
Statutory Rights. See; United States v. Lee, 106 US 196,220 [1882].
Whereby, the Judicial Powers of the Lower Courts erroneously and abusively
exhibited herein are exercised in such an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion, bias, prejudice or personal hostility' and such exercise is so patent and so
grave as to amount to a positive duty, and is a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of the law. And furthermore, such nonimpartial rendering of unlawful, capricious, and erroneous orders and malfeasances
in office patently represent abuses of discretion so grave and patent to justify the
issuance of writ allowing re-examination of action of an inferior officer or tribunal.
Wherefore, the broader interest of justice so requires as pure questions of law are
involved, and Public Welfare, sharply defined public policies, and the advancement
of said public policies dictates. As patently required by law...
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 USC § 1254(1) and Rule 11.
Furthermore, where in the best interests of efficiency, judicial economy, prevention
of irreparable prejudice to the Constitutional underpinnings of Fair and Equal
Justice, Liberty, Due Process, and the Right to Property of the American Public,
(US Const. Amendments 5,11, 14; AZ Const. Article 2 Sect. 4, 5) and the impartial
-3-
- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication rendering of sound conclusions effecting sharply defined Public Policy. Jurisdiction
thereby rests solely invoked onto (“SCOTUS”) pursuant to Supreme Court Part VII (Rule 39) and Part III (Rules 10-16), Tax Court Rules (54) (345) (161) and (162),
IRM 36.2.2, IRM 36.2.5, IRM 36.2.5.3 (1)(2)(3), 26 USC §§ 7481-7482, 28 USC §
1254, Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Title V. Extraordinary Writs - (Rule 21), and
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 24-Proceedings in forma Pauperis).
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
“The following Voluminous Constitutions, Statutes and Regulations are involved in this
case. Due to their length, the pertinent sections of their text shall be set forth in the
appendix, and at the corresponding page numbers as economically feasible:”
Pages
•U.S. Constitution (“U.S Const”) - Amendments V, XI, andXIV Sec. 1
• Equal Protection, Civil Rights of Whistleblowers,
App. H-1
App. H-l- App. H-2
• U.S. Const. Article III — Section 1 - Judiciary Act of 1789
App. H-2
•Arizona Constitution (“AZ Const”) Article 2 Section 4, and Sec. 5... App. H-2 - H3
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
• 26 U.S. Code (“USC”) Section 7623 (b)(1), (4), (6) and (c - Proceeds) - Awards to
whistleblowers (Mandatory)
App. H-3
• 26 USC §§ 1691, 7701,7801,7803, 4481, 4611, 4999, 280G, 7201, 7202, 7206, 275,
162, 7212, 7203, 7232, 7482, 165
App. H-3 - App. H-21, App. H-95
•5 USC §§ 704, 553,2105
App. H-3, and App. H-21 - App. H-22
~4«
- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication • 5a USC - Compiled Act 95-452. INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978 - § §
(2)(4)(5)(6)(8)(8D) (8E) (8G) (12)
App. H-22- App.
H-48
* 12 USC § 5565
App. H-48 -App. H-49
•15 USC §45, 12-27, 41-58
App. H-49 - App. H-59
* 18 USC §§ 2, 242, 286-287, 371, 372, 656, 665, 1001,1002, 1005,1031, 1033,1040,
1341, 1343-1344,1347-1349,1517, 1511,1621, 1951,1952, 1956,1957, 1959,
1961(1)(A)(B)(C)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9), 1962, 2113,2314
App. H-59 - App. H-82
* 28 USC §§ 1254, 2071-2077, 455
App. H-82 - App. H-84
•31 USC §§ 330, 3801-3812
App. H-84 - App. H-86
•34 USC § 20101
App. H-86 - App. H-89
•41 USC§§ 8702, 8706
App. H-89
• 42 USC §§ 7470-7477, 7541(2)(3)
App. H-89 - App. H-91
• Internal Revenue Manual (“IRM”) 30.9.1.4.4, IRM 25.1.6.1.7, IRM 25.1.6.4,
35.11.1-72, 35.3.9.5, 25.1.2.8, 25.1.2.8.5
App. H-92 - App. H-95
* Title 5 Code of Federal Regulation (“CFR”) § 185.101
App. H-95
• Title 12 CFR - Part 1002 Equal Credit Opportunity (“ECOA”) (Reg. B)
App. H-95 - App. H-97
* Title 12 CFR Part 1026 (Reg Z)- Truth in Lending Act §§ 1002.16, 1026.1, 1026.17,
1075.100, 1075.103,1075.104, 1026.24, 1071.100 - 1071.104
.. 5 ..
- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C)
App. H-97 - H-102
- Redacted for Publication • Title 26 CFR §§ 301.7623-1 (a),(b),(c), and (d), 301.7623-3 (e)(2)(iii)(iv), 1.165-1,
1.162-18
App. H-103 -App. H-105
* The Department of Justice's - Code of Conduct for United States Judges Canons
App. H-105 - App. H-109
(1)(2)(3)(3A)(3B(4))(5)
• Fed. Rules of E vidence (“FRE”) - Rules Rule 902 (11)(13)(14), Rule 401, Rule 103(a)(f)
App. H-91 - App. H-92
• AZ Rev Stat (“ARS”) §§ 28-4410.01, 28-4412, 28-4409, 44-1402, 44-1403, 44-1408,
44-1211, 44-1217, 44-1218, 44-1220, 44-1223, 44-1263, 44-1264, 44-1267, 47-2314,
App. H-112 - App. H-122
49-550, 49-542.03, 49-542 (D)
• • • The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 • • • The Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act of 1970) • * • Dodd-Frank Act- and Consumer Financial Protection Act - Title X - Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection. e e • Clause 21 of Rule AAlII, House of Official Conduct • • « Major
Fraud Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-700, § 2, 102 Stat. 4631) • • • Inspector General Act of
1978 • • • Securities Exchange Act of 1934* • • Fair Trade Commission Act, 15 USG
§§ 41-58, as amended • • • The Sherman Antitrust Act • • • Insider Trading Act of
1988 • • • Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, Public Law No. 99-509 • • • The Clean
Air Act (CAA)(1963) * • • The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 (15 USC §§ 12 — 27) • • •
Judicial Public Policy Doctrine • • • • Tax Court Rules (“TCR”) 161, 52, 345(b) • • e
The Federal Rule of Civil Procedures (“FRCP”) Rule 60, 42(a), 12 (f.) and 34 • • • •
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) • • • •
App. H-l - App. H-122
-6-
- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. Introduction: This case arises under Section 406 of the Tax Relief and Health
Care Act of 2006, 26 USC § 7623(b), and presents grave issues of Public and
Constitutional importance regarding judicial review of wrongful rejections of claims
by federal agencies. Stare decisis and the separation of powers are indispensable
elements of the American system of government. Before overruling precedent, the
Court often requires that a party first request the overruling: See; Barr v. Am. Ass’n
of Pol. Consultants, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 2335, 2347 n.5 (2020). An agency decision to
reject a claim, prior to reaching a decision not to institute enforcement proceedings,
is not an action committed to agency discretion and is not immune from judicial
review where Congress has provided the Court with ‘law to apply.” See; “C.f. Dep’t
of Com. v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2567-69 (2019); See also: United States v.
Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012)”
Wherein, 'Whistleblower awards are preconditioned on the Secretary's
proceeding with an administrative or judicial action," which did timely happen here.
— See; “EPSTEIN v. COMM’R T.C. Memo. 2019-81." But, for one particular
precedent and one particular agency, these ordinary judicial, and administrative
principles apparently do not apply. Public citizens who volunteer to assist the IRS
and the U.S. Secretary of Treasury collectively with recapturing missing tax dollars,
but who are later rejected by offices responsible for considering their offers of help,
instead face differing legal standards throughout the country regarding whether
their rejections are eligible for and/or required of judicial review.
- 7“Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C)
- Redacted for Publication Some courts, like the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh and Federal Circuits
and the pre-2021 Tax Court, follow the plain language of the governing statute, 26
USC § 7623. These courts vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Tax Court over all
claims rejected under 26 USC § 7623. Other courts, such as the post 2020 Tax
Court, take a narrower approach to judicial review. Those courts assert that judicial
review is available only for determinations made under 26 USC § 7623(b).
In the opinion referenced herein, See; “Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014
(D.C. Cir. 2022)”, the District of Columbia Circuit transferred itself from the plain
language group of courts to the narrower approach camp. The majority opinion
concluded that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals from threshold
rejections of whistleblower award requests. But, in doing so, the D.C. Circuit
overturned twelve-year-old precedent that neither party requested of the court. The
text of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (“TRHCA”) does not support this
narrower interpretation of 26 USC § 7623. To the contrary, this recent version
frustrates the command that courts set aside agency action that is an abuse of
discretion.
Petitioner contends that any Courts failure to properly acknowledge, respect,
and adhere to the true statutory depth and parameters of the command that courts
set aside agency among qualifying Title 26 USC Defined “Secretary’s, Officers, and
other delegates,” and their respective eligible Government Agency’s command,
status, and role as a Separation of Power, and joint Reporting Authorities vested
amongst them thereof. In part, as exampled herein, are statutorily defined as
-8-
— “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) —
- Redacted for Publication inclusive of the varying Agency’s e.g. Departments of Transportation, Attorney
Generals, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau CFPB, Securities and Exchanges
Commission (SEC), Fair Trade Commission (FTC), Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
US Secretary of Treasury collectively, and more. As per the specified annually
reporting agency’s statutory reporting requirements pursuant under the Auspices of
the U.S. Inspector General Act of 1978 and “TRHCA” governing annual reporting of
activities including collaborative fraud remediation efforts directly to the U.S.
Secretary of Treasury and Congress as “USC Title 26 § 7701 - Definitions” Defined
“Secretary’s, other “redelegated authority’s,” and Title 5 USC § 2105 - Employee's
or Officers engaged in the performance of a Federal function under authority of law
or an Executive act. See; “United States v. Al Capone, October 17, 1931 .’’See also;
THE FEDERALIST NO. 78 (Alexander Hamilton), supra note 2, at 473, NO. 48
(James Madison), at 300.
In turn, this type of Judicial failure and undermining of Constitutional
underpinnings on Rights and Separation of Powers amongst “Any Court” would
inevitably set the grounds for a form of legal paradox of unethical, contradictive,
and capricious legal precedence in the forms of erroneous judicial and economical
disservice and grave prejudice to all Petitioners in their pursuit of Fair and Equal
Constitutional Rights to Justice, Liberty, Due Process, and Rights to Property (e.g.,
US Const. Amendments 5, 11, 14; AZ Const. Article 2 Sect. 4, 5) among all
Whistleblower Claims comparable to their respective and statutorily required
- 9“Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C)
- Redacted for Publication Qualifying Agency Actions and Collections of Proceeds successfully achieved, timely
reported, and passively Contended therein.
Conclusively, these results hamper any realm of possibility of eligibility for
any and all Whistleblower’s award redemption claims and Petitions, and otherwise
renders Petitioners to be left to endure undesirable capricious, gravely delayed,
and/or whipsaw postured disputes regarding 26 USC 7623(b)Whistleblower Claims
Tax Courts Jurisdiction and endure the negligible misapprehension of laws by
opposing Parties in relevance to the facts amongst varying Petitioners case[s]
collectively. Versus, being dealt the correct Tax laws apprehension and application
Constitutionally protected and afforded. And, additionally therein potentially to no
avail despite any form of Self-Authenticating Direct Evidence of Actions and or
Proceeds Collected against the Target Taxpayers (“T.T’s”) pursuant to timely filed
and/or supplemented Claims with the Internal Revenue Service Whistleblower
Office (‘WO”) in support of eligibility for mandatory whistleblower award as per 26
USC Title - 7623(b).
At issue are the Whistleblower Office’s (‘WO’”) actions in rejecting valid
claims because, “The Whistleblower Office has made a final decision to reject your
claim for an award. The claim has been rejected because the IRS [Internal Revenue
Service] decided not to pursue the information you provided” (Dated 12/14/2020).
And, in contradiction the later issued Whipsaw Postured ‘WO’s” response “The
Whistleblower Office has made a final decision to reject your claim for an award.
The claim has been rejected because the information submitted was not completed
- 10 - “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication in its entirety and did not contain one or more of the following: • Taxpayer’s Name,
• the Taxpayers address and telephone number, • The Form 211 lists the Taxpayer
and whistleblower the same individual” (Dated 07/13/2021)
Specifically, this Court must determine whether § 7623(b)(4) and the
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) apply to appeals from
threshold rejections of award determinations of whistleblower award requests. The
disposition of this case will affect the legal rights of the Public, other whistleblowers
with pending appeals, and will resolve a circuit split.
With courts applying inconsistent statutory interpretations, whistleblowers
must navigate a labyrinth of conflicting jurisdictions to effectuate judicial review of
their rejected wrongfully Whipsaw Postured Title 26 USC 7623(b) eligible “WO’s”
Award claims. And, especially within the duration whipsaw postured cases worthy
and requested of due consolidation, a court may adopt one statutory interpretation
upon initial review but find itself applying a second contradictive statutory
interpretation negligent obvious statutory precedent and Direct Evidence held
among the unconsolidated facts between similar 26 USC - 7623(b) cases, as is the
case in this instant matter. (See;“FRE”902,402,104(a))
This Court should grant a writ of certiorari to provide impartial clarification
and uniformity to this unsettled and irreparably prejudiced areas of law. Both are
immediately necessary and jointly contend against the ongoing defrauding of the
U.S. Government and its Public, its Public Policies, and its internal Programs and
Controls.
- 11 -
-- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) --
- Redacted for Publication B. Procedural Posture
These are Whistleblower Cases brought by Petitioner (Pro Se) - filed on 01/13/21
and served 03/26/21, and subsequently filed on 08/03/21 served 01/14/22
establishing docket 36146-21W pursuant to 26 USC § 7623(b)(4). Petitions, filed in
the United States Tax Court, disputing specific IRS actions, “Notices of
Determination Under 26 USC 7623(b) Concerning Whistleblower Actions.”
The respondent is the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS
Comm’r”)(et al). On November 20th 2020, the IRS ‘WO” issued a letter, and the
letter states, “Dear Daniel Allen Villa, We received your information you furnished
and have assigned the above claim number(s). We will evaluate the information you
provided to determine if an investigation is warranted and an award is appropriate.
Please retain this notice for future reference.” (“MASTER CLAIM ID:{REDACTED],
[REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED],” for Tax Years 2012-Current for
amounts exceeding 2 million dollars pursuant 26 USC 7623(b))
On December 14th 2020, the IRS ‘WO” issued the first of two award
determination letters, and that letter alleges that (1.) the WO” "Internal Revenue
Code section 7623 provides that an award may be paid only if the information
provided results in the collection of tax, penalties, interest, additions to tax, or
additional amounts. The Claim has been rejected because the IRS decided not to
pursue the information you provided!" And, (2.) The WO” considered the rejection
of Petitioner’s (Pro Se) claim as “a final determination for purposes of filing a
petition with the United States Tax Court.”
- 12 -
-- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) --
- Redacted for Publication On July 13th 2021, the IRS “WO” issued its contradictive and whipsaw
positioned subsequently issued negative award determination letters, and that
letter alleges “The Whistleblower Office has made a final decision to reject your
claim for an award. The claim has been rejected because the information submitted
was not completed in its entirety and did not contain one or more of the following:
•Taxpayer’s Name, • the Taxpayers address and telephone number, ‘The Form 211
lists the Taxpayer and whistleblower the same individual.” And, (2.) The ‘WO”
considered the rejection of Petitioner’s (Pro Se) claim as “a final determination for
purposes of filing a petition with the United States Tax Court.” (Resulting newly
created 5th “WO’s” Claim ID - [REDACTED])
Line 11 of Form 211 instructs an individual claimant to “attach a detailed
explanation and include all supporting information in your possession and describe
the availability and location of any additional supporting information not in your
Possession.” 26 CFR § 301.7623-1 (c)(4) Perfecting claim for award instructs the
‘WO’s” to notify the whistleblower of the deficiencies and provide the whistleblower
an opportunity to perfect the claim for award. Otherwise, if a whistleblower does
t
not perfect the claim for award within the time period specified by the ‘WO” then
the ‘WO” may reject the claim. And, if the "WO" rejects a claim for the reasons
described in the specified paragraph, then the whistleblower may perfect and
resubmit the claim.
As instructed, initially Petitioner sent the IRS ‘WO’s” (Dated 09/16/2020)
signed “Form 211 Application for Award for Original Information” and “Form 14242
- 13 -
-- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) --
- Redacted for Publication Report Suspected Abusive Tax Promotions or Preparers” attached with detailed
explanations of the confirmed violations of Income Tax: State, and Federal Laws,
existing Administrative and Judicial enforcement Reviews and Actions actively
ongoing against the Target Taxpayers (“T.T’s”) confirmed acts of Master Frauds,
and Violations against Sharply Defined Public Policy; including 6 pages in Opening
Letter Format inclusive of Petitioner’s reported and initiated Agency Investigation
Cases “Case Numbers” and a MicroSd Card copy of the Electronic Master File
containing Certified Self-Authenticating Evidence supporting information in
Petitioner’s possession and the T.T’s perjuriously filed income tax returns not
available in Petitioner’s possession for exhibition. (See;“FRE”902, 402,104(a).)
At that time the Federal Judicial and Administrative Actions contended by
Petitioner as ongoingly reviewed and enforced against the TT’s were then
summarized as; ’’The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) an interim
agency under Department of Treasury’s Complaint ID [REDACTED], ’’(Dated
08/31/2020) • • • “AZ Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General
Dealer Investigation Unit (“DOT-OIG”) - Complaint Incident Number [REDACTED
] (Notarized, filed, and Dated September 5th 2020),” • • • “Securities and Exchanges
Commission (“SEC”) Whistleblower Review Initial Tips ID - [REDACTED] "(Dated
08/31/2020) • • • “The Better Business Bureau” Consumer Advocate and Business
Behavioral Oversight Committee’s Complaint ID [REDACTED] Dated(08/31/2020).”
The claims issued by the IRS “WO” under appeal review by the “USTC”
surface from Petitioners independent investigation, discovery, and timely reporting
- 14 -
“Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication of original information regarding the enforced against Target Taxpayers (“T.T’s”)
confirmed interstate fraud violations as summarized;
“Organized Crime - Racketeering activity - RICO Act of 1970 (18 USC §§
1952,1957, 1959,1962, ARS 44-1403) • • • Master Fraud (e.g., Major Fraud
Act of 1988, IRM 25.1.6.1.7, IRM 25.1.6.4, 18 USC § 286, 287, 1031,1040,
1341,1343 1344) • * • Mass vehicle Title and Registration Fraud — Curbing or
Curbstoning of illegally non-emission certified - vehicle sales (e.g. Clean Air
Act; 42 USC § 7541,18 USC § 1952, ARS §§ 49-542, 49-542.03) • • • Mass Tax
Fraud Scheme and Knowledgeable Evasions - (e.g., 26 USC §§ 162, 4611
4481, 7201, 7203, IRM 25.1.2.8, IRM 25.1.2.8.5, 26 CFR § 1.165-1 - Losses)
• • • Mass underpayments of income tax on misreported illegally earned
income (18 USC §§ 1621,1957, 1959,1961) • • • Illegal Bribes and Kickbacks
(e.g., 26 CFR § 1.162-18, 26 USC §§ 4999, 280G, 41 USC §§ 8702, 8706) • • •
False Claims, Statements, Deductions, Credits, Allowances - (e.g., Losses,
Healthcare Plan Costs, Business Expenses (e.g., 26 CFR § 1.165-1, 31 USC §
3802, 26 USC §§ 7206, 275, and 18 USC §§ 287, 286, 1001) • • • Fair Trade
and Consumer Protection Laws (e.g., Consumer Financial Protection Act,
Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”, Dodd-Frank Act, 15 USC § 45,12
CFR - Part 1026 Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), Unfair, Deceptive, or
Abusive Acts, or Practices Act (UDAAP) or (UDAP), 12 CFR-Pt. 1002
(ECOA), ARS Title §§ 28 4410.01, 28-4412, 28-4409) • • • Mass Bank Fraud,
Money Laundering, Embezzlement, and Robbery (e.g., 18 USC §§ 656, 665,
- 15 - “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication 1956, 1957, 2113, 2314, ARS §§ 44-1217, 44-1211) • • • False Bank Entries,
reports, and transactions (e.g.,18 USC §§ 665, 1005, 1002, 2314, 26 USC §§
7232, 7206, 162, ARS § 44-1223) « « • Sharply Defined Public Policy (e.g.,
Clean Air Act “CAA”, Dodd-Frank Act,, Clayton Act, UDAAP, and Judicial
Public Policy Doctrine, Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act, The
Sherman Antitrust Act) • • • Mass Insurance Plan and Program Fraud (e.g.,
18 USC § §1033,1040, 5 CFR § 185.101, ARS § § 28-4412 (2020), 47-2314, 441263, 44-1264, 44-1267, 44-1220) • • * Conspiracy to defraud the U.S.
Government, United States of America, and to impede or injure officer, (e.g.,
18 USC §§ 286, 371, 372,1002,1349, ARS 44-1402 (2020)) • • • Federal
Program Fraud (e.g., 31 USC §§ 3801-3812, 26 USC § 7212, 18 USC §§ 1511,
1517, Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (“PFCRA”)) • • • Securities and
Insider Trading Fraud (e.g.,15 USC 78u-6 Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Insider Trading Act, 26 USC § 7232,18 USC § 1348)”
Pursuant 26 CFR § 301.7623-1 (c)(4) and the “WO’s” own explicit instructions in its
initial letter instructing, “if you move or change the address to which you want
correspondence directed you must inform this office in writing of the change of
address.” (Dated 11/20/2020). And, subsequently pursuant 26 CFR § 301.7623-1
(c)(4) and the ‘WO’s” own 03/29/2021 letter requesting for more information alleging
“Dear Daniel Allen Villa, We received your correspondence dated 12/19/2020. Your
correspondence indicates you wish to be considered for an award under section 7623
for the information you submitted to the IRS. In order for our office to process a
- 16 - “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication claim for an award under section 7623, you must complete Form 211, Application
for Award for Original Information, in its entirety. Please return a completed Form
211 within 30 days of this letter. A copy of Form 211 is enclosed with this letter. To
be considered for an award, a Form 211 must include specific and credible
information concerning the person(s) that you believe have failed to comply with tax
laws and which lead to the collection of unpaid taxes. This information should
include a description of the amount(s) and tax year(s) of federal tax claimed to be
owed, and facts supporting the basis for the amount(s) claimed to be owed.”
Petitioner mailed the “WO” the Supplemental Information Mailer 1 (“SIM1”)
(Dated 12/19/2020) to update Petitioners Mailing Address and Perfect the
09/16/2020 original Claims Administrative Record File. Petitioner, despite having
previously followed the “WO’s” instructions and 26 CFR § 301.7623-1 (c)(4)
procedures timely, and with proper issuance of the initial Signed Form 211 mailer
(Dated 09/17/2020) inclusive of the required information transferred Petitioners
claims into the perfection eligible camp. Following “WO’s” explicit instructions,
Petitioner, sent the following subsequent claim perfecting supplemental files
intended to perfect the Original Claim Numbers provided “MASTER CLAIM ID:
[REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED],” as summarized;
“Supplemental Info. Mailer 1 (“SIMl”) No included Form 211 (Dated 12/19/2020)
• • • (“SIM2”) Form 211 Supplemental Info. (Dated 04/04/2021)
• • •
(“SIM3”) Form 211 Supplemental Info. (Dated 07/21/2021).” Proceeding the
supplemental mailers trackable receipt by “WO” agents the only perfection granted
- 17 -
- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication to Petitioner pursuant 26 CFR § 301.7623-1 (c)(4) procedures is the requested
address update which poses conflict to outcomes the procedures that govern IRS
“WO” Petitioners claim perfection requires.
Petitioner’s subsequent mailers to the “WO” since 12/19/2020 were
additionally inclusive of Certified MicroSd Card copies of the full Electronic Master
File containing Certified Self-Authenticating Evidence See;“FRE”902, 402, 104(a).
Expanding on other successfully achieved 26 USC 7623(b) eligible Agency Actions
and collections of proceeds among Petitioners ongoing investigations and
whistleblowing efforts against the T.T’s in use of the same certified evidence.
Petitioner's successful ongoing 26 USC Secretary Agency's actions and collections of
proceeds against our “T.T’s” summarized as; “Cease and Desist Orders and
Citations (Issued to T.T.’s 11/10/2020) yielding Collections of Proceeds via Arizona
(“DOT-OIG”)- Complaint Incident Number [REDACTED], etc” ••• (“CFPB”)
Secondary Complaint ID [REDACTED],” (Dated 09/19/2020), 4 = ° “The Office of the
Arizona Attorney General Civil Litigation Division Consumer Protection &
Advocacy Section Case ID: CIC: [REDACTED]” (Dated 10/05/2020) Administrative
review and overwatch • • • “SEC” Inspector General Whistleblower Tips Series of 11
Tips remanding original Tip ID: [REDACTED] "(Dated 08/31/2020) • • •
These very actions and Self- Authenticating evidence have since resulted and
developed into the subsequent T.T’s public filing of admission of guilt for negligently
violating State Laws as pursuant to State of Illinois Secretary of Treasury’s
Settlement with the T.T’s. And these actions thus far have occurred without the
- 18 - “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C)
- Redacted for Publication “IRS or WO’s” full collective assistance as statutorily required since Petitioner
submitted his request and claims for award thereof. (IRM - 30.9.1.4.4 - Assistance
Files) Neither has the IRS or ‘WO” provided proper assistance to any interim
Agencie's under the US Secretary of Treasury involved since the varying State’s
separately initiated further administrative and judicial actions of License
Revocations, Suspensions, Citations, and Collections of Proceeds (e.g., Arizona
Penalties, California $850,000+ Penalty, Illinois $250,000+ Bond Revocation,
Michigan, Florida, etc.) against our T.T’s have begun to develop and advance
independently.
Petitioner “filed two petitions with the US Tax Court” (“Pi” Docket 2516-21W
Dated filed on 01/13/21 and served 03/26/21, and subsequently on “P2”
Docket 36146-21W dated filed 08/03/21 served 01/14/22 because Petitioner
“disagree [d] with the “WO’s” misapprehensions, mishandlings, and erroneous
determinations.” Resulting from the overturn of 12-year-old Precedent in Li v.
Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) at the whim of non-impartial
unbenign Code of Conduct for US Judges acts in legislation from the bench, on
03/14/2022, the IRS Commissioner moved for “Motion for Dismissal for Lack of
Jurisdiction” contradictive of the Self Authenticating Facts among the
Administrative Record, to which Petitioner objected in Petitioners Motion to Strike
accompanied with “memorandum of law in support of...’’(Dated 03/21/2021),
“Motions for Reconsiderations...” (Dated 07/25/2022 and 02/02/2023), and “Motions
to Consolidation Cases Dockets 25126-21W and 36146-21W" (Dated 02/02/2023)
- 19 -
- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication because the Respondent, the Tax Court, and “WO” “did not give adequate
consideration to Petitioners full length of Administrative Files inclusive of all
allegations, confirmed violations, Certified Self Authenticating Evidence, Actions,
and or Collections of Proceeds eligible of Mandatory Whistleblower Award under 26
USC 7623(b).” See; “Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)”
Despite Petitioners objections and beyond the grave effects of extensive
prejudicial delay among Petitioner cases being held under stay and in abeyance
caused by the then pending, appealed, and later Writ of Certiorari reviewed Li v
Comm’r case, the Tax Court concluded pursuant opinion and mandate issued
January 11, 2022, in the case of Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (to which all
whistleblower cases under section 7623 are appealable pursuant to section
7482(b)(1) except as provided in 28 USC § 1254) held that the Tax Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction of whistleblower cases, such as this one, in which the
IRS rejects the whistleblower claim and therefore does not commence any
administrative or judicial proceeding based on the whistleblower’s information.
On 03/14/2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
Based on the holding in Li v Comm’r, by “Order and Order of Dismissal for Lack of
Jurisdiction (order of dismissal), issued 07/11/2022,” “USTC” granted IRS Comm’r
Respondents motion and dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction.” Subsequently,
despite Petitioners objections and requests for Consolidation and Reconsideration
dated filed onto each case 02/02/2023 as aforementioned, the Tax Court, concluded
- 20 - “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) --
- Redacted for Publication “Motion for Reconsiderations of Order DENIED, and Motion to Consolidates
DENIED as moot.”
In finality the Tax Court granted onto both Whipsaw Postured cases “The
IRS Commr’s” Motion for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction and sustained the WO’s
final determinations rejecting the set of Petitioners “WO’s” claims.
In Li v. Commissioner, 22 F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022); “Li appealed the Tax
Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. Both the Commissioner and Li confirmed, and did not dispute, the Tax
Court’s authority over the earlier proceeding in their opening briefs. Li Br. 5,
Comm’r Br. 2. Nevertheless, the D.C., Circuit appointed amicus curiae “to assist the
court by addressing this court’s jurisdiction.” . Order (June 15, 2021).
Court-appointed amicus alleged that “[although the parties have not challenged this
Court’s or the Tax Court’s jurisdiction, this Court has jurisdiction to determine both
given its ‘jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Tax Court.” 26 USC §
7482(a)(1)(b).” “Amicus Br. 1. The D.C. Circuit subsequently dismissed Li’s appeal
after concluding that “the Tax Court had no jurisdiction to review [the WO’s
rejection of] Li’s Form 211” and that “Cooper and Lacey were wrongly decided.” Li v.
Comm’r, 22 F.4th 1014, 1017 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (citing Cooper v. Comm’r, 135 T.C. 70
(2010), Lacey v. Comm’r, 153 T.C. 146 (2019))”
Unequivocally, resulting in the rendering of Petitioner’s undesirably whipsaw
postured Claims and Cases here, and without any form of appeal eligibility, or
eligibility of any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
- 21 -
- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication law. Petitioner filed a “Motion to Stay Proceedings...” (“MSPW”) (Dated 02/13/2023)
onto each case docketed, and subsequently the Tax Court rendered Orders Denying
as Moot on Dates 02/22/2023 (36146-21W) and 03/29/2023 (Docket 2516-21W).
Whereby, Pursuant to 28 USC § 1254(1), Petitioner filed the Petition for Writ
of Certiorari in forma pauperis and Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
with the United States Supreme Court Dated 03/17/2023.
C. Relevant Factual Background
In 1867, Congress first enacted a whistleblower program, which authorized the IRS
to pay rewards to informants who reported tax law violations. Dacosta v. United
States, 82 Fed. Cl. 549, 552 (2008). Prior to December 20, 2006, the U.S. Tax Court
had no jurisdiction to review the IRS Commissioner’s discretion in giving or denying
rewards under 26 USC § 7623. Wolf v. Comm’r, 93 T.C.M. (CCH) 1273 (T.C. 2007).
In 1946, Congress provided a general authorization for review of agency
action in the district courts, pursuant to the APA 5 USC § 704.
At the time the APA was enacted, a number of statutes creating administrative
agencies defined the specific procedures to be followed in reviewing a
particular agency’s action. Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 903 (1988).
In 2006, Congress provided specific authorization for review of reward claim
denials in the U.S. Tax Court, pursuant to the TRHCA. Wolfv. Comm’r, 93 T.C.M.
(CCH) 1273 (T.C. 2007). The Tax Court’s jurisdiction is “dependent upon a finding
that a ‘determination’ has been made by the Commissioner.” Lewis v. Comm’r,
« 22 -
-- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) --
- Redacted for Publication T.C.M. (RIA) 2022-047(T.C. 2022) (citing McCrory v. Comm’r, 156 T.C. 90, 94
(2021)).
The TRHCA also amended 26 U.S.C. § 7623 in two additional ways: (1) the
former section 7623 became what is now subsection 7623(a), and (2) new
subsections were added, providing for nondiscretionary awards in certain
circumstances. Pub.L. No. 109-432, Div. A, Title IV, § 406(a), 120 Stat. 2958(2006).
D. Abuse of Discretion
Assuming arguendo that the “WO” abused its discretion among the initial issuance
of letters and determinations, mishandling of initial and supplementally filed
information and documents therein, misapprehension of tax laws and facts relevant
to the Claims, and the subsequent reissuance of the conflicting supplemental
information requests and conflicting final determination letters to Petitioner, “the
likely remedy would be remand to the Whistleblower Office for reconsideration.”
See; Epstein v. Comm’r T.C. Docket No. 28731-15Wand Docket No. 2965-18W(case
consolidation granted); He?& therein: See; Whistleblower 769-16W v. Comm’r, 152
T.C._,_(slip op. At 14) (Apr. 11, 2010)
In Short, as thoroughly supported amongst each case presented by the
Petitioner. The ‘WO” responded to Petitioners Claims Supplemental Filings and
Change of Address, Petitioner, sent to the ‘WO” dated December 19th 2020. The
‘WO’s” response to this mailer requested Petitioner to resubmit the Supp'll filings
accompanied with Form 211 Supp. Information allowing for the ‘WO” to remand the
original 4 Claim ID’s est. Sept. 17th 2020, and therein properly establishing the
- 23 -
-- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) --
- Redacted for Publication “Full Administrative Record” for review as governing statutes, procedures, and
precedent dictates. For the benefit of review amongst their Office and/or for review
under a filed Petition with the "USTC” as per statutory law and notice of appeal
rights listed among the first issuance of a Negative Award Determination also
known as a Threshold Rejection as was sent to Petitioner from the “WO” dated
December 14th 2020.
These “USTC” Appeals Cases Respondents (“IRS Comr.’s”) concur as is
proven via (“IRS Comr.’s”) own filed case exhibits detailing Etrack records (App. G)
of the “WO’s” original four claims ID’s case memos among the Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction dated 03/14/22 (Docket 36146-21W). Of which, detailed the
“WO” receipt of Petitioners mailer and then notates the “WO’s” unfounded acts of
losing and thereafter failing to recover Petitioners “SIMl”mailer sent to the “WO”
April 5th 2021 as part of Petitioners response to the “WO’s” very own request for
information to r6niu.n.d Potitionors Docoinbor 2XS^ 2020 Muilor 3.nci in turn
remanding the original filing dated Sept. 17th 2020 as Due Process, Federal
Statutes, Tax Court Rules, and IRM Rules governing “Submissions perfecting a
claim for award” would normally dictate.
Furthermore, once the “WO” was notified of Petitioners filing of Petition 1 2516-21W the “WO” further abused their discretion in negligently failing and
refusing to reallocate, properly handle the storing of protected and
classified/confidential information, and the remand of such information contained in
- 24 -
-- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) --
- Redacted for Publication the mailer onto the original claim ID’S thereby directly impacting Petitioners
Constitutional Fair and Equal Due Process and Rights to Property Claims.
Despite the “WO” being sent additional Claim Perfecting supplemental filings
(Dated 07/21/2021). Fully containing not only replicas of the first three series of
evidenced documents and information, but also contained additional self
authenticating supplemental physical and electronic information resulting from
Petitioners successful and ongoing additional Whistleblower Award Eligible Title 26
USC Secretary Agency Actions and Collections of Proceed for further remand of the
Administrative Record under the original claim numbers. See;“FRE”902,402,104(a).
Rather, instead of following protected Legal Precedent among
Constitutionally afforded equal Due Process and Property Claim Rights in
accordance to remanding and perfecting a Claimants original claim[s] thereby
correcting the “WO’s documented error of losing Petitioners April 2021 mailer to the
“WO.” Whereby the “WO” also persisted to provide a conflicting, inconsistent, and
contradictive negative award determination letter [s] thereby establishing the Fifth
Claim ID[REDACTED] “est. 07/13/2021.” The Fifth “WO’s” Claim Number directly
contributing to the establishment of an Undesirable Erroneous, Non-Impartial, and
Whipsaw Position being in that it required Petitioner to file for a Secondary Petition
Docket 36146-21W gravely laying waste to The Courts, Respondent’s, Petitioner’s,
and “WO’s” own resources, time, and further delaying deliberation efforts to
collectively have both cases impartially and soundly decisioned as one.
- 25 -
- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication In result, Statutorily the Courts, Respondent, and Petitioner have been
baselessly imprisoned to the confines of two separate partially established
Administrative Records both consisting of common and vitally expanded upon SelfAuthenticating Physical and Electronic Evidence supportive of direct evidence of
Tax, Other Major Fraud, and thereby Whistleblower Eligible Actions/Collections of
Proceeds, and also were statutorily incapable of association to one another as
separately petitioned and established Administrative Files. Thus, inevitably
causing unnecessary prejudicial delay, cost, and confusion, and in conclusion an
Undesirable Erroneous, Non-Impartial, and Whipsaw Position, Review, and
Deliberation amongst The Courts. (26 CFR 301.7623.1(c)(4)
Therefore, in assuming arguendo that the ‘WO” abused its discretion then
given Petitioners cases clearly similar circumstances and lengths of disregarded yet
timelv suoolemented aualifvinsr information. The WO’s” negligible actions.
misapprehension of Tax Law, and disregard towards the proper applicability of
Constitutional Fair and Equal Due Process and Property Rights Laws, Federal
Laws, and Tax Fraud Laws would and has inevitably, directly, and negatively
contributed to the prevention of accurate consideration of Petitioners Whistleblower
Award Eligible Administrative and Judicial Actions and Collections of Proceeds as
has since been poised to clearly amount well beyond the statutory 2 million dollar
minimum of collected proceeds and required actions for mandatory award thereof,
and well before the WO” had rendered an “initial” determination letter. A
rendered WO” determination under such reality would be thereby considered a, as
- 26 -
-- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication statutorily defined, “Negative Award Determination” also known as “A Threshold
Rejection.”
As well, such rejection of duty poses further preventative of the proper and
timely submission onto and the resolve thereof of the proper internal and other
external investigative units' collaborative presentment of the Self-Authenticating
Direct Evidence of Fraud Physically and Electronically filed onto the “WO” and
other Title 26 USC Secretary Agency's for proper and thorough review, action,
collection of tax, and filing as IRM defined “Assistance Files.” (IRM 30.9.1.4.4)
Of which, in Petitioners cases are inclusive of early and ongoing successfully
‘WO” award eligible Administrative and Judicial Actions and Collections of
Proceeds against our Target Taxpayers. Such as e.g. November 2020 AZ Dept. Of
Transportation Office of Inspector General Dealer Investigation Unit (Per
Petitioners Complaint Incident Number [REDACTED] notarized, filed, and
established September 5th 2020) ongoing investigation and the’successful
administering of Administrative/Judicial Action via issuances of Cease-and-Desist
Orders, “SEC” Whistleblower Tips Series of 11 Tips remanding original Tip ID:
[REDACTED] "(Dated 08/31/2020), and extensive collections of proceeds against our
Target Taxpayers Acts of Master Fraud. (Refd; Inspector General Act of 1978
Reporting Secretary’s and Agency under U.S. Secretary of Treasury)
E. Judicial Economy and Prejudicial Delay[s]
‘FRCP”Rule 42(a) provides that ‘When actions involving a common question or law
or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all
- 27 -
-- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication the matters in issue in the actions; it may order the actions consolidated; and it may
make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary
costs or delay.
The purpose of Rule 42(a) "is to give the court broad discretion to decide how
cases on its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be
dispatched with expedition and economy while providing justice to the parties."
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2381 (1971). Even if there are
some questions that are not common, consolidation is not precluded. See; Batazzi v.
Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. 664 F.2d 49,50 (5th Cir. 1981); See Central Motor Co. v.
United States, 583 F.2d 470 (10th Cir. 1978).
The Question of Consolidation and Reconsideration rests in the sound
discretion of the Tax Court. See; Cohen v Comm’r, 176 F.2d 394 (10th Cir. 1949)
See Also; Investors Research Co. V. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent Dist. of California, 877
F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). Moreover, this Court may, on its own motion, consolidate
for trial, briefing, and opinion when warranted by circumstances. See; McLain v.
Commissioner, 67T.C. 775(1977)
Odend’hal v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 400 (1980) In this Case the Judge[s] Grant the
Motions to Consolidate Cases, and among the varying numbered justifications
supporting the Judge’s decision the granting of the motion relies heavily in part on
reiterated references to the formerly annotated case Petitioner referenced in
Paragraph E (1.) herein. See; McLain v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 775 (1977).
- 28 - “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) --
- Redacted for Publication Whereby, in the case See; McLain v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 775 (1977) this
Court, on its own Motion, consolidated two Fraud cases for trial over the objections
of the parties. In exercising this discretion, a court should weigh the time and
effort consolidation would save with any inconvenience or delay it would cause.
Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir 1985).
Moreover, the burden to the parties, and the Courts would be significant if
separate reviews, conferences, and/or trials were postured to be conducted further.
This would be especially so given each review, conference, and/or trial would be
conducted in close proximity to each other. See; Todd A. White v. Baxter Healthcare
Corp. Case No. 05-71201 and Case No. 08-13636. (Ref; Judge Granting
Consolidation)
In determining whether to consolidate and/or reconsider cases, the Court
should “weigh the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay,
confusion, and prejudice.” See; Zhe v. UCBH Holdings Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d
1049,1052 (N.D. Cal. 2010) See also; Huenev. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 on
reh’g 753 F.2d 1081(9th Cir. 1984) See also; Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.,
776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985).
Wherefore, consolidation will not Prejudice the Parties as both matters are in
similar procedural postures, involving the same supplemented factual allegations
and evidence, present no conflicts of interest, and because resolution of the cases
together will ensure consistency in the findings and conclusions of the Court. See;
- 29 -- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) --
- Redacted for Publication Baugher v. Kadlec Health Sys. No. 4:14-CV-5118-TOR and No. 4:15-CV-5043-TOR
(Judge Granted Consolidation Surviving Case No. 4:14-CV-5l 18-TOR).
Here, because of the Courts previously issued orders ordering stay of
proceedings to be held in abeyance (Dated 04/01/2022, 04/22/2022, 09/02/2022),
Petitioners, Respondents, This Court, and other intervenors are irreparably
prejudiced by any delay, as this Court’s policies recognize. -Internal Revenue
Service Manual (IRM) 35.9.1.2.4 and (IRM) 35.11.1-72 (recognizing that expedition
via consolidation and reconsideration may be important “to minimize possible harm”
where a Whipsaw Position is issued).
Likewise, in Portland Cement Ass’n, 665 F.3d at 189, 194, this Court
consolidated the reconsideration case with the main case before the conclusion of
briefing and on a schedule that would not necessitate delaying the argument. No.
10-1358 (July 25, 2011) (granting motion to sever and consolidate, and for
supplemental briefs and maintaining the preexisting oral argument date).
Consolidation and Reconsideration would have reduced confusion,
particularly by allowing Petitioner, who acts Pro Se, to focus all of Petitioners
arguments and factual allegations into a single case instead of attempting to split
them between two cases. Consolidation will not delay the disposition of this case.
In fact, it will minimize delays, and further prevent Whipsaw, erroneous, and
thereby frivolous responses currently experienced resulting from the distortion of
the cases split Administrative Records. Both containing the same correlated self
authenticating Initial and Supplemental information regarding the same case as
- 30 -
- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) --
- Redacted for Publication per (FRE) Rule 103, 401, and “902 — Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating.”
Provided with Petitioners advance notice, documented knowledge, and evidence in
support thereof, This Court, failed to exhaust the same fundamental application of
legal precedent in posturing itself in favor of Judicial Economy to avoid costly
burdens, untimely delays, and among that whipsaw filing positions held needlessly
amongst both cases filed simultaneously in close proximity of one another ongoing
for approximately 2-3 years now.
Controversially at the heart of these and other similar matters the United
States Government and We the People suffer the most prejudice when “Courts lose
legitimacy when they stop acting like Courts!” (“See Refd Quotes per Supreme
Court Justice Elena Kagan on Roe v Wade” ) Kagan said, “a court is legitimate
“when it’s acting like a court.” “A court does not have any warrant, does not have
any rightful authority, to do anything else than act like a court”
Wherefore, in contrary to the aforementioned judicial principles and legal
precedents filed on both the “USTC’s” Order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction”
filed onto dockets dated 01/06/23 and 01/09/23 “using explicit language from
different Dockets and their separated Administrative Record Files and Form 211 ‘WO” Negative Award Determination Response Letters is statutorily incapable of
being used comingled in conjunction to one another prior to an order or granted
motion for consolidation. Establishes grounds for bias prejudice, is severely
erroneous, diminishes the integrity of the Court, and is a blatant irreparable
violation of all Petitioners equal rights to Justice, Liberty, Property, and Due
- 31 “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication Process (US Const. Amendments 5, 11,14; AZ Const. Article 2 Sect. 4, 5) regarding
varying Petitioners claims. The Courts Actions in deciding to render erroneous
Orders as described herein were postured farthest from being dispatched with
expedition and economy while providing justice to the parties." Wright & A. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2381 (1971).
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
A. Whether § 7623(b) Rejections Are Reviewable Has Divided Federal
Appellate Courts
Federal appellate courts issue conflicting opinions concerning the review authority
granted to the U.S. Tax Court, pursuant to 26 USC § 7623. Some courts follow the
plain language of § 7623(b)(4), while other courts infer statutory limitations that
restrict judicial review to a subset of final determinations. As a result,
whistleblowers, whose claims are rejected by the WO, face differing legal standards
throughout the country regarding whether their rejections are eligible for judicial
review.
For example, the Eleventh Circuit states, “if the whistleblower disputes the
determination regarding an award, the whistleblower may appeal the
determination to the Tax Court.” See; Ware v. Comm’r, 499 F. App’x 957, 959 (11th
Cir. 2012). Until 2006, the Court of Federal Claims decided such appeals.
Meidinger v. United States, 989 F.3d 1353,1356 (Fed. Cir. 2021). But the
Commissioner himself agreed in the previous forum that jurisdiction over the denial
of an award determination lies with the Tax Court. Daeosta v. United States, 82
« 32 -
-- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication Fed. Cl. 549, 554 (2008) (citing Staff of the Joint Comm. On Taxation, 109th Cong.,
Technical Explanation of H.R. 6408, p. 89 (“The provision [ § 7623(b)(4) ] permits an
individual to appeal the amount or denial of an award determination to the United
States Tax Court”)). The Federal Circuit’. Court agrees with the Eleventh Circuit.
“The Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction over claims based on § 7623.” The
Eleventh Circuit further clarifies, “appeals from the denial of a Form 211
application are to be filed with the Tax. Court.” Meidinger v. Comm’r, 662 F. App’x
774, 776 (11th Cir. 2016). “26 USC § 7623(b)(4) makes [that] clear.”
Prior to the D.C. Circuit issuing the opinion below, the Tax Court also
followed the plain language of § 7623(b)(4). “Having been given jurisdiction
over “[a]ny determination regarding an award”, sec. 7623(b)(4), and having
been charged with the review of the WBO’s exercise of its discretion, we do
have authority to review its abuse of discretion in a decision to reject a claim
for failure to meet threshold requirements without referring it to an / IRS
operating division.”
Lacey v. Comm’r, 153 T.C. 146, 166-67 (2019). “We find that our jurisdiction ...
includes any determination to deny an award.” Cooper v. Comm’r, 135 T.C. 70,
75(2010).
But after the D.C. Circuit, sua sponte, overruled both Cooper and Lacey
earlier this year, the Tax Court inferring statutory limitations that restrict judicial
review to a subset of final determinations. For example, in Kennedy v. Comm’r, the
Tax Court now announces, “a whistleblower may appeal a determination made
- 33 -- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) --
- Redacted for Publication under sec. 7623(a) to this Court, but our review in that instance is limited to
determining whether the “WO” erred in classifying claims as not meeting the
threshold limitations.” 121 T.C.M. (CCH) 1008 (T.C. 2021) (pending appeal to D C.
Cir.). Judicial review “is available only for determinations made under sec. 7623(b).”
The D.C. Circuit has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceedings.
Thus, the Court should exercise supervisory power to resolve whether judicial
review is available for all final determinations, including those made under §§
7623(b) and/or-7623(a).
B. The Administrative Procedure Act Prohibits Threshold Rejections of
Whistleblower Award Requests from Being Immune to Judicial Review
In Li v. Comm’r, 22 F.4th 1014, 1017 (D.C, Cir. 2022). The D.C. Circuit held
that the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals from threshold rejections of
whistleblower award requests. But the fact that the Tax Court is precluded from
hearing this instant appeal does not remove the statutory obligation to provide
some form of judicial review of the “WO’s” final decisions. If threshold rejections of
whistleblower award requests are not reviewable by the Tax Court, then another
court must have the judicial review authority. Take away judicial review entirely,
and threshold rejections of whistleblower award requests are immune from judicial
review.
Agency actions, including claim denials and rejections, are not immune from
judicial review. Cambridge v. United States, 558 F.3d 1331,1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (J.
.. 34 ..
-- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) --
- Redacted for Publication Newman, dissenting) ("discretion accorded to the IRS... is reviewable within that
framework”). This Court has found jurisdiction in the Tax Court over the denial of
similar claims. See; Hinck v. United States, 550 U.S. 501 (2007) (“the Tax Court
provides the exclusive forum for judicial review of a refusal to abate interest’).
Furthermore, the D.C. Circuit acting out among non-impartial grave
violations of USC Title 28 USC 2072 - Rules of procedure and evidence; power to
prescribe, 26 USC § 7482, Rules Enabling Act of 1934 (28 USC § 2071- 2077).- (The
Act authorized the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure, which have the
force and effect of law), The Judiciary Act of 1789, The “APA”, and last but not least
The Department of Justice's - Code of Conduct for US Judges Canons
(1)(2)(3)(3A)(3B)(5). Whereby, the D.C. Circuit opinion issued January 11,2022, in
Li v. Comm’r, 22F.4th 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2022) succeeded to establish and make
narrow via illegal rule making leading the attempt of prescribing the creation,
establishment, and obstructive use of Statutory Legal Definition around words and
phrases such as “Negative Award Determination” and “Threshold Rejection.”
Both phrasings of which bare no legal binding Statutory Definition legally
referrable to outside the phrases/words ordinary meanings being that of regards to
“Negative” “Determinations” regarding “Claims of Specific, Credible, and NonVague or Non-Speculative Information” provided by a IRS Whistleblower Award
Claimant supported by Judicial and Administrative Action and Collection of
Proceeds against our Target Taxpayers by 26 USC § 7701 Secretary of Redelegated
Authority’s under the Secretary of Treasury.
- 35 -- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) --
- Redacted for Publication Whereas, not to the contrary as the reviewing District Court of Appeals
Justices attempt to define while attempting to assume the role of a Supreme Court
Justice and trying to give the same force and effect of a binding statutory definition
by means of contractively narrowing the specified phrases ordinary definition and
effect of a natural threshold rejection or negative award determination to be only
that of “non-speculative" information. Wherein, the District Court of Appeals
attempt and succeed at conclusively defining as a requisite to deeming a Claimants
Claim for Award as Eligible and Reviewable by the US Tax Courts Jurisdiction.
Which in fact holds majorly, erroneous, arbitrarily, capriciously, and statutorily
inconsistent to the true statutory requirements and definitions of Statutory IRS
Whistleblower Eligibility Requirements as per “26 USC 26 Section 7623(b)(5) and
USC Title 26 CFR 301.7623-1 Eligibility Requirements,” and as well the past and
present legal precedents that the unlawful actions run heavily in conflict with.
Thus, subjecting all 7623(a)(b) “WO” Petitioners, the American Public* the United
States Government, and sharply defined public policy's to Irreparable Harm, Bias
Prejudice of sorts by way of legal paradox, and the continuing deprivation of
Judicial Review and Constitutional Equal Rights to Justice, Appeal, and Due
Process among the command of the reviewing and approving Justices of opinion
issued January 11, 2022, in the case of Li v. Commissioner, 22 31 F.4th 1014 (D.C.
Cir. 2022).
In this instant matter, the issue is not whether the Tax Court has
jurisdiction, but whether the appeal of the WO’s final decision here received
- 36 “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication sufficient judicial review to satisfy statutory requirements. It did not receive such
7623(b) review, based on the Tax Court’s grant of the “Orders of Dismissal for Lack
of Jurisdiction Entered, Chief Judge Kerrigan; Stay is lifted. Motion to dismiss is
Granted” judgments’ ‘Motion for Reconsideration of Order DENIED,” and “Motion
to Consolidate DENIED as moot” thus the Court should exercise its Certiorari
Jurisdiction to review the “USTC’s” whipsaw postured decisions under the
“Opinions Below,” the “Question(s) Presented,” and the question: whether the APA’s
judicial review provisions apply to threshold rejections of 26 USC 7623(b)
whistleblower award claims?
C. Congress and the Collection of Proceeds
If Congress had wanted to limit collected proceeds to USC Title 26 collections, it
could, and would, have done so. Moreover, Petitioner disagrees that internal
revenue laws are limited to laws codified in USC Title 26. To the contrary, none of
the provisions cited by US Tax Court or “IRS Comm.’r” Respondent states, or even
implies, that internal revenue laws are limited to those laws codified in title 26.
There are numerous instances where internal revenue laws are found outside
title 26. One instance relates to relief from employment tax obligations. So called
“section 530 relief’ from employment tax does not refer to section 530 of the Code
(which governs Coverdell 32 education savings accounts), but rather to section 530
of the Revenue Act of 1978. Another instance; Although section 6212 is the Code
provision relating to notices of deficiency, it is section 3463(a) of the Internal
- 37 -
-- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112
Stat. at 767, which provides that “[t]he Secretary * * * shall include on each notice
of deficiency under section 6212 * * * the date determined Jc •k "k as the last day on
which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court.” And perhaps the most
telling instance: The very provisions establishing the Whistleblower Office are
found outside the Code. See; Tax Relief and Health Care Act of2006, Pub. L. No.
109- 432, div. A, sec. 406(b), 120 Stat. at 2959-2960; See also, 34 USC § 20101)
Finally, the phrase “internal revenue laws” dates from the earliest version of the
whistleblower statute enacted in 1867. At that time, the modern title 26 did not
exist; internal revenue laws meant all revenue laws. Petitioner thinks it erroneous
to impose a post facto restriction on the meaning of the phrase not intended by
Congress when it enacted the legislation. In sum, the phrase “internal revenue
laws” is not limited to those laws codified in Title 26 USC. “IRS Comm.r”
Respondent argues; “Neither section 7623 nor its legislative history [respondent
refers to the legislative history of sec. 7623(a)] provides a basis to conclude that
Congress intended the terms penalties, additions to tax, and additional amounts in
section 7623 to have meaning different than that set forth in section 6665.
Penalties, additions to tax, and additional amounts under section 7623(b) pertain to
amounts assessed under Title 26 that increase the total amount of tax liability.
More broadly, these terms have a well-established meaning under Subtitle F of the
Code-they are, in fact, the title of Chapter 68 and refer to those penalties, additions
to tax, and additional amounts.”
- 38 -
- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) -
- Redacted for Publication In making this argument, respondents ignore the fact that the first word in
the parenthetical listing those items deemed to be collected proceeds is “including”.
And the Code itself provides that “the terms ‘includes’ and ‘including’ when used in
a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things
otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.” Sec. 7701(c); see also Wnuck v.
Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498, 506 (2011) (“Anyone fluent in English knows that the
word ‘includes’ cannot be assumed to mean ‘includes only’.”); Dunaway v.
Commissioner, 124 T.C. 80, 91-92 (2005) (quoting Cannon v. Nicholas, 80 F.2d 934,
936 (10th Cir. 1935)). By using the word “including”, Congress clearly intended the
list of items deemed to be collected proceeds to be non-exhaustive. Moreover, the list
of items deemed to be collected proceeds includes the word “penalties”. In several
places the Code interposes the word “fine” with the word “penalties”. See, e.g., sec.
7201 (“Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax
* ie k
shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law k k k be fined not more
than $100,000 [.]”); sec. 162(f) (“No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a)
for any fine or similar penalty paid to a government for the violation of any law.”).
In sum, we herein hold that the phrase “collected proceeds” is sweeping in
scope and is not limited to amounts assessed and collected under title 26. To
paraphrase the Court of Appeals: Congress’ not supplementing the comprehensive
phrase “collected proceeds” with an exclamatory “and we mean all proceeds
collected” does not lessen the force of the statute’s plain language. B. Section
- 39 -
— “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C)
- Redacted for Publication 7623(b)(1) Uses Collected Proceeds to Calculate the Amount of the Award.(See; 26
USC 7623(b); See also, 12 U.S. Code § 5565; See also, Section 21F(b)-Exchdnge Act)
D. This Case Squarely Presents the Questions Presented, And Is an Ideal
Vehicle for Resolving the Recent Circuit Split
Petitioner contends exposing misconduct is a matter of considerable importance.
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 425 (2006). Obligations arising from applicable
whistleblower statutes provide checks on agencies who may otherwise order
inappropriate actions. The Court should exercise its Certiorari Jurisdiction to
rebalance our delicate system, for the benefits of assisting the US Tax Court in
making sound and impartial conclusions, and to refortify the underpinnings of Fair
and Equal Constitutional Rights irreparably prejudiced in this matter.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, In the interests of efficiency, impartiality, and judicial economy,
‘Petitioner,” Prays, for the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Certiorari.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: 06. 23 .2023
Signature:
[REDACTED VERSION FOR PUBLIC PUBLISHING]
Daniel Allen Villa - “Petitioner” (“Pro Se”)
1725 E Cambridge Ave Apt 105, Phoenix, AZ 85006
Phone: 602-435-6681
- 40 -
-- “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (P.W.C) --
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.