William S. Scott v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service

── William S. Scott v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-10509 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10509 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ WILLIAM S. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-24123-CMA ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: William Scott, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Scott argues that the court had jurisdiction over his appeal from the USCA11 Case: 25-10509 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 25-10509 Internal Revenue Service’s denial of his whistleblower award appli- cation. He also argues that the district court judge’s failure to recuse herself necessitates reversal. We affirm. I. This case arises from the IRS’s denial of an award for a whis- tleblower claim. Scott submitted a Form 211 application for a whis- tleblower award. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b), where the IRS acts based on a whistleblower’s information, the whistleblower will re- ceive between fifteen and thirty percent of the amount collected as a result of the action. The IRS denied Scott’s claim. According to its letter, Scott was ineligible for an award because the information he provided did not result in the collection of any proceeds. Scott subsequently sued the Commissioner of the IRS, seeking an injunction directing the IRS to investigate his application for a whistleblower award. He framed his case as arising under the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court dismissed his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Citing this Court’s decision in Stone v. Commis- sioner, it held that it lacked jurisdiction because Scott’s suit was barred by sovereign immunity. 86 F.4th 1320 (11th Cir. 2023). Alt- hough the APA provides a waiver of sovereign immunity, this waiver does not apply where the agency’s action is committed to discretion by law. 5 U.S.C. § 701. In Stone, we held that the IRS’s decision whether to act on a whistleblower’s information is com- mitted to its discretion by law. 86 F.4th at 1328-29. Accordingly, the district court held that sovereign immunity barred Scott’s suit. USCA11 Case: 25-10509 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 3 of 4 25-10509 Opinion of the Court 3 Scott timely appealed. While his appeal was pending, he filed a renewed motion for remand “based on new evidence from the 2026 release of the Epstein documents.” II. We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject mat- ter jurisdiction de novo. Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222, 1225 (11th Cir. 2006). We review a district court judge’s decision not to recuse herself for abuse of discretion. Jenkins v. Anton, 922 F.3