Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Idaho has ruled that the IRS properly withheld records from Stanley Crow concerning his tax audit under Exemption 3 (other statutes), relying on § 6103, which requires the agency to withhold third party tax information. Crow's FOIA litigation stemmed from his seven-year-long examination of Crow and his company, S. Crow Collateral Corporation's business activities to determine whether he had been promoting abusive tax shelters and should be subject to penalties. As part of the investigation, the IRS sought information from third parties about Crow's participation in various financial transactions. Crow submitted a FOIA request on June 22, 2020, seeking access to "a complete copy of the Case Activity Record since February 22, 2019, with respect to the examination of Stanley D. Crow under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6700, 6707, and 6708." The IRS sent Crow a heavily redacted version of the Case Activity Report on August 19, 2020. The report was 22 pages long. One page was completely redacted, and the other twenty-one pages were partially redacted, citing a variety of exemptions, including § 6103. Crow filed an administrative appeal, which was denied. Crow then filed suit. By the time the court ruled, Crow's only remaining challenge concerned the use of § 6103. The IRS indicated that all the Exemption 3 claims "identify third-party taxpayers and their liabilities or their possible liabilities under the Internal Revenue Code." Judge David Nye began by noting that "the linchpin of this lawsuit is whether this is a case pertaining to tax administration. As will be outlined, this lawsuit does not pertain to tax administration, and consequently Crow's allegations crumble. The IRS properly redacted the information under Exemption 3." He observed that Exemption 3's applicability depends less on the detailed factual contents of specific documents and explained that the sole issue for decision under Exemption 3 is the existence of a relevant statute and the inclusion of withheld material within the statute's coverage. Nye pointed out that "notably, any material that falls within the criteria of a qualifying statute under Exemption 3 is automatically withheld 'regardless of how unwise or self-protective the statute might be.'" Crow argued that the redacted material could be disclosed because it fell within the exception of § 6103(h)(4) requiring disclosure occur in a 'judicial or administrative proceeding pertaining to tax administration.'" Nye, then noted that "while Crow's allegations in this case are cast against the backdrop of an IRS audit, this is, in reality, simply a FOIA case. The cause of action is the FOIA statue. The resolution of Crow's possible tax penalties will not occur in this case. As such, this is not a tax administration proceeding that is administering, managing, conducting, directing, or supervising the internal revenue laws relating to Crow's tax affairs, and the exemptions in § 6103(h)(4) have no bearing here." Nye added that "Crow's entire Motion for Summary Judgment revolves around FOIA analysis, not the tax code. This highlights the fact that it is, unavoidably, a FOIA case, not a tax case." Nye then agreed with the IRS that the redacted records qualified as third-party tax return information under § 6103. He indicated that "the disclosure of such third parties could lead to reluctance by third parties to speak to the IRS in the future, as those third parties would not be able to speak confidentially and could face retribution. Additionally, Crow would gain further insight into the ongoing investigation if given full unfettered access to these returns."
Issues: Exemption 3 - Limited agency discretion

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2020-11-12	1	COMPLAINT against Internal Revenue Service ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0976-2127550.), filed by Stanley D. Crow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Cover Sheet, # 8 Summons)(Krug, Haley)
2020-11-16	2	Summons Issued as to Internal Revenue Service (Print attached Summons for service.) (jp)
2020-11-16	3	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Stanley D. Crow re 2 Summons Issued as to USA, 1 Complaint, (Krug, Haley)
2020-11-25	4	AFFIDAVIT of Service for Issued Summons and Complaint served on Internal Revenue Service on 11/17/2020, filed by Stanley D. Crow. (Krug, Haley)
2020-12-14	5	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Stanley D. Crow re 2 Summons Issued as to USA, 1 Complaint, (Krug, Haley)
2021-01-15	6	STIPULATION re 1 Complaint, Stipulation to Extend Deadline to Answer or Otherwise Respond by Stanley D. Crow. (Krug, Haley)
2021-01-29	7	ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Internal Revenue Service.(Morton, Benton)
2021-02-01	8	NOTICE of Availability of Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for Stanley D. Crow, Internal Revenue Service re 7 Answer to Complaint, 1 Complaint, Consent/Objection to Magistrate due by 4/2/2021. (jp)
2021-02-04	9	MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE by Stephen D. Gardner. ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0976-2163356.)Wade L. Woodard appearing for Plaintiff Stanley D. Crow. Responses due by 2/25/2021 (Woodard, Wade)
2021-02-04	10	MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE by Clint E. Massengill. ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0976-2163362.)Wade L. Woodard appearing for Plaintiff Stanley D. Crow. Responses due by 2/25/2021 (Woodard, Wade)
2021-02-04	11	MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCE by Kathleen M. Pakenham. ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0976-2163364.)Wade L. Woodard appearing for Plaintiff Stanley D. Crow. Responses due by 2/25/2021 (Woodard, Wade)
2021-02-05	12	DOCKET ENTRY ORDER Approving 9 , 10 , & 11 Applications for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of attorneys Kathleen M Pakenham, Stephen D Gardner, & Clint E Massengill for Stanley D. Crow. Per Local Rule 83.4(e), out-of-state counsel shall immediately register for ECF. (Notice sent to CM/ECF Registration Clerk) (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)
2021-02-10	13	NOTICE of Appearance by Ryan O'Connor McMonagle on behalf of Internal Revenue Service (McMonagle, Ryan)
2021-04-05		The 60 day deadline has expired. Case will remain with District Judge. No more notice of availability or assignment will be sent out. Consent deadline(s) termed. (jp)
2021-09-01	14	MOTION for Summary Judgment Haley Krug appearing for Plaintiff Stanley D. Crow. Responses due by 9/22/2021 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Undisputed Facts)(Krug, Haley)
2021-09-17	15	STIPULATION re 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment to Withdraw Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Enter Agreed Briefing Schedule by Internal Revenue Service. (McMonagle, Ryan)
2021-09-20	16	ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ENTER AGREED BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (alw)
2021-11-01	17	MOTION for Summary Judgment Haley Krug appearing for Plaintiff Stanley D. Crow. Responses due by 11/22/2021 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 3 Affidavit Massengill)(Krug, Haley)
2021-11-01	18	MOTION for Summary Judgment Ryan O'Connor McMonagle appearing for Defendant Internal Revenue Service. Responses due by 11/22/2021 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Steven Mark Edwards, # 4 Affidavit Declaration of Melissa Avrutine, # 5 Exhibit A (Delegation Order), # 6 Exhibit B (Delegation Chart), # 7 Exhibit C (Excerpts from Internal Revenue Manual))(McMonagle, Ryan)
2021-11-29	19	MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Internal Revenue Service. Replies due by 12/13/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Separate Statement of Disputed Facts, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Ryan O. McMonagle)(McMonagle, Ryan)
2021-11-29	20	RESPONSE to Motion re 18 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Stanley D. Crow. Replies due by 12/13/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Response to IRS's Separate Statement of Material Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment)(Krug, Haley)
2021-12-13	21	REPLY to Response to Motion re 18 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Internal Revenue Service.Motion Ripe Deadline set for 12/14/2021.(Morton, Benton)
2021-12-13	22	REPLY to Response to Motion re 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Stanley D. Crow.Motion Ripe Deadline set for 12/14/2021.(Krug, Haley)
2022-01-24	23	DOCKET ENTRY NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 18 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing set for 3/29/2022 at 11:00 AM (MST) via zoom before Judge David C. Nye. Members of the public may use the following to attend via Audio ONLY: 1-669-254-5252, Meeting ID: 161 257 6053, Meeting Password: 633827. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition under federal law and Local Rule 83.1 against Photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings(pr)
2022-02-04	24	NOTICE of Change of Address by Haley Krug (Krug, Haley)
2022-03-25	25	NOTICE by Internal Revenue Service re 18 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Southern Poverty Law Center v. Internal Revenue Service))(McMonagle, Ryan)
2022-03-29	26	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David C. Nye: Motion Hearing held on 3/29/2022 re 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Stanley D. Crow, 18 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Internal Revenue Service: Court heard oral argument, matter taken under advisement with a written decision to be forthcoming. (Court Reporter/ESR Anne Bowline.) (pr) (Entered: 03/31/2022)
2022-04-04	27	NOTICE by Stanley D. Crow of Withdrawal of Stephen D. Gardner (Krug, Haley)
2022-05-20	28	MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - The Internal Revenue Services Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 18 ) is GRANTED. Crows Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 17 ) is DENIED. A Judgment in favor of Defendant shall be attached herewith. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jd)
2022-05-20	29	JUDGMENT - In accordance with the Courts Memorandum Decision and Order entered concurrently herewith, NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant, and this case closed. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jd)
Hide Docket Events