Case Detail
| Case Title | MIDDLE EAST FORUM v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY et al | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2017cv02010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2017-09-29 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2018-11-19 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge John D. Bates | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | MIDDLE EAST FORUM | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | The Middle East Forum submitted a FOIA request to the IRS for records concerning a possible criminal investigation of Islamic Relief USA. The Middle East Forum told the agency that it was not requesting tax return information. The IRS interpreted the request as one for tax return information and refused to process it. The Middle East Forum then filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Opinion/Order [11] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge John Bates has ruled that the IRS must conduct a search for non-tax return-related records concerning Islamic Relief USA. The Middle East Forum requested communications between the IRS Office of Criminal Investigation and other agencies concerning Islamic Relief USA. The agency declined to search without third-party authorization because it concluded the records constituted protected tax return information. MEF appealed, arguing that some of the responsive records did not constitute tax return information. The IRS refused once again to search and MEF filed suit. Bates sided with MEF. He noted that "even if the IRS was justified in rejecting MEF's initial FOIA request as imperfect, MEF's response (whether it constituted an appeal or a renewed request) clarified that the request was for any information not protected by statute. A 'liberal interpretation' of MEF's request indicates that MEF was seeking only non-'return information' and that no third-party authorization was therefore required." Bates faulted the agency for providing a single affidavit supporting its position. He pointed out that "without a more detailed explanation of the IRS's process in determining that all information responsive to MEF's request would be protected information, this affidavit is insufficient to support the IRS's motion. This is all the more true because the IRS seeks not to withhold information on a summary judgment motion after a search, but rather to dismiss MEF's claim without conducting a search in the first place. It is difficult to take the IRS at its word that all information responsive to MEF's request would fall within the return information exception when the IRS has not run a search to see if that is, indeed, the case." The IRS argued that MEF's request did not sufficiently describe the records sought. Bates observed that "the IRS claims that MEF's request was not reasonably specific because it did not include Islamic Relief USA's taxpayer identification number or location, or the system of records to be searched. However, MEF's request included the name of the group, subject matter, IRS office where responsive files would be found, date range, and the types of records sought." He added that "here, the IRS never requested additional information beyond the authorization form, and its immediate identification of 'all of the information. . .requested' as 'return information' indicates that the request sufficiently identified the records MEF sought." The agency contended that denying MEF's request because it did not provide a third-party authorization was not appealable. Bates disagreed, noting that "because MEF disputes that the information it sought in the request was protected return information, it had 'no choice but to refuse to provide the consent and appeal the IRS's determination.' Given that MEF has filed a perfected FOIA request, and has not failed to exhaust the administrative process, the IRS must conduct the request search."
Issues: Adequacy - Search, Request - Perfected request | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
