Case Detail
Case Title | ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2017cv00670 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2017-04-15 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2017-08-18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge James E. Boasberg | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | The Electronic Privacy Information Center submitted a FOIA request to the IRS for Donald Trump's tax returns, arguing that the agency had authority under 6103(k)(3) to disclose such information where necessary to clear up misstatements of fact. The agency told EPIC it would not exercise its authority under (k)(3) to disclose Trump's tax returns. EPIC appealed and the agency upheld its original decision. EPIC then filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees, Public Interest Fee Waiver | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appeal | D.C. Circuit 17-5225 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Opinion/Order [18] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has ruled that the IRS properly refused to process EPIC's two FOIA requests for President Donald Trump's tax returns because EPIC had not made a proper request in compliance with the agency's regulations, which require a requester to get consent for disclosure of third-party tax returns. EPIC argued that the public interest in disclosure of Trump's tax returns was high and, further, that the agency was required to ask the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation to exercise its authority under § 6103(k)(3) to order the agency to disclose Trump's tax returns. Rejecting both claims, Boasberg explained that "the Internal Revenue Code and various Treasury regulations on FOIA well articulate what must happen for the public release of an individual's private return information. EPIC must either obtain President Trump's consent to initiate a FOIA request or, as the organization itself suggests, convince Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation to sign off on the IRS's disclosure. As neither of these key missing actions can happen in court, Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed." He noted that "absent [third-party consent], a FOIA request for confidential third-party return information is incomplete, exhaustion is wanting, and litigation is premature." He added that "without such consent to release otherwise confidential information, the conclusion of this tax syllogism is plain: EPIC simply has not perfected, or completed, its request, and its FOIA claims must therefore be dismissed for failure to exhaust." Noting that the IRS had never asked the Joint Committee on Taxation to order disclose of tax information, Boasberg pointed out that "the plain terms of [§ 6103(k)(3)], which require congressional approval, foreclose any relief from the exhaustion barrier. In other words, the central problem is that the Joint Committee on Taxation has not approved the disclosure of President Trump's tax returns â€" and, in fact, it does not appear that it has ever exercised this authority in regard to anyone. Without the Committee's authorization, this potential exception to the consent requirement could not possibly apply, and EPIC's litigation this case remains premature." Boasberg also rejected EPIC's claims under the APA. He observed that since FOIA provided an adequate remedy, the APA did not apply.
Issues: Request - Perfected request | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|