Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Internal Revenue Service
261 F. Supp. 3d 1
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- EPIC submitted FOIA requests seeking Donald J. Trump’s individual federal income-tax returns (2010 onward) and records indicating financial ties to Russia; IRS closed both requests as "incomplete" because EPIC did not provide the taxpayer’s consent.
- Treasury regulations implementing FOIA (Treas. Reg. § 601.702) require that requests for records limited by statute (e.g., I.R.C. § 6103) establish the requester’s identity and, for third-party tax returns, furnish a properly executed power of attorney, Privacy Act consent, or tax information authorization.
- EPIC argued that I.R.C. § 6103(k)(3) (allowing disclosure to correct public misstatements of fact, but only with Joint Committee on Taxation approval) authorized disclosure without the taxpayer’s consent.
- EPIC brought FOIA and two APA claims: (1) unlawful withholding/release under FOIA and (2) APA counts challenging the IRS’s closure of the requests and its failure to seek § 6103(k)(3) approval from the Joint Committee.
- The IRS moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing EPIC failed to perfect its FOIA requests (no consent) and that APA relief is unavailable or the agency action challenged is discretionary.
- The court assumed, arguendo, that Trump’s statements could be "misstatements of fact" and that disclosure could serve "tax administration purposes," but found the Joint Committee has not approved disclosure and § 6103(k)(3) therefore could not override the consent/regulatory prerequisite.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPIC’s FOIA requests were properly "perfected" so litigation may proceed | EPIC: FOIA requires only a description of records and conformity with published rules; § 6103(k)(3) makes disclosure possible without taxpayer consent | IRS: Treasury regulations require third-party consent or authorization for requests seeking return information; EPIC provided none | Held: Requests were not perfected; FOIA claims dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative requirements |
| Whether I.R.C. § 6103(k)(3) allows disclosure without taxpayer consent and circumvents Treasury consent rule | EPIC: § 6103(k)(3) authorizes disclosure to correct public misstatements and therefore negates the consent prerequisite | IRS: § 6103(k)(3) requires prior approval of the Joint Committee on Taxation; that approval has not been given | Held: Even assuming § 6103(k)(3) otherwise applied, its plain text requires Joint Committee approval; none exists, so it cannot relieve EPIC of consent/ exhaustion requirement |
| Whether FOIA requires the IRS to seek Joint Committee approval under § 6103(k)(3) to allow public disclosure | EPIC: IRS should seek Joint Committee authorization (or FOIA entitles requester to disclosure) | IRS: No statutory or FOIA obligation compels the IRS to request congressional approval; the Committee control is independent | Held: Court finds no FOIA duty forcing IRS to seek Joint Committee approval; FOIA does not require IRS to obtain congressional waivers |
| Whether EPIC’s APA claims (agency action unlawful; action unlawfully withheld) survive despite FOIA remedies | EPIC: APA can compel agency to process requests and seek Committee approval | IRS: APA remedies are precluded where FOIA provides an adequate remedy; where APA claim alleges non-discretionary duty, EPIC has not plausibly alleged one | Held: First APA claim precluded because FOIA provides an adequate remedy; second APA claim fails because § 6103(k)(3) vests discretion ("may") and imposes no mandatory duty to seek Committee approval, so APA relief cannot compel it |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (discusses FOIA’s purpose to pierce administrative secrecy)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: factual content and inferences)
- Church of Scientology of Cal. v. IRS, 484 U.S. 9 (confidentiality of tax returns under § 6103 and limited exceptions)
- Oglesby v. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir.) (exhaustion of administrative remedies in FOIA context)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ, 846 F.3d 1235 (FOIA provides an adequate remedy that precludes APA relief)
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (no APA relief unless agency failed to take a discrete, non-discretionary action)