Case Detail
| Case Title | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2013cv01759 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2013-11-07 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2015-07-06 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Emmet G. Sullivan | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Judicial Watch requested all records related to the selection of individuals for audit based on information contained in 501(c)(4) tax exempt applications. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and indicated that it was taking an extension of time to respond. After still hearing nothing from the agency after the extension of time expired, Judicial Watch filed suit. Complaint issues: search, improper withholding, attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [25] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Emmet Sullivan has ruled that the IRS conducted an adequate search for records showing that an individual had been recommended for an audit because of a tax-exempt organization application. Based on allegations that the IRS had singled out conservative organizations for undue scrutiny of their 501(c)(4) tax-exempt applications, Judicial Watch requested records showing any individual that was referred for audit during that time period. The agency searched the records of its Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division for any indication that such a referral had occurred. After finding no records at the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, the agency proceeded to search for any referrals to its other three divisions. That search also turned up no records. While Judicial Watch did not directly challenge the search, it argued that other evidence indicated that such referrals may have been made and pointed to the fact that IRS officials had talked to the Justice Department about criminally prosecuting individuals who had allegedly provided false information on their applications. Sullivan rejected that analogy, noting that "how that bears on whether the IRS referred individuals internally for audit based on information contained in a 501(c)(4) application is entirely unexplained." Judicial Watch also claimed the IRS used names that appeared on donor lists to identify individuals for an audit. But Sullivan pointed out that "donor lists, moreover, are submitted to the IRS for other purposes, so it is meaningless that they may have been received by IRS officials. Any correlation between a name on a donor list and an audit cannot, without more, overcome the presumption that the IRS's detailed explanation of its audit-referral processes and its search thereof was complete and correct in determining that no responsive referrals occurred during the relevant time period." Judicial Watch suggested that the IRS's search was inadequate because it did not search its email system. Sullivan, however, agreed with the agency that such a search, particularly without any evidence that any responsive records would be located, was unduly burdensome. The IRS argued that such a search would require individual searches of the email accounts of 16,000 employees. Sullivan indicated that "it is speculation at best to say that there exist communications discussing decisions to audit an individual based upon 501(c)(4) applications." He concluded that "even if there was a small likelihood of success, the Court, according the IRS's affidavits the appropriate presumption of good faith, finds that the IRS has established a very significant burden that would render Judicial Watch's proposed search unreasonable."
Issues: Adequacy - Search, Search - Reasonableness of search | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
