Hull v. IRS, US DEPT. OF TREASURY
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18083
10th Cir.2011Background
- FOIA request to IRS (VCRP-related) sought US West’s 1996 submission and related records, including the Compliance Statement issued Aug. 28, 1996.
- IRS withheld the records as third-party return information under FOIA Exemption 3 and 6103, requiring US West’s consent for disclosure.
- IRS determined the requested materials are taxed as return information because they pertain to US West’s deductions, liabilities, and potential tax implications.
- District court granted summary judgment for IRS, holding the information was third-party return information without consent.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing exhaustion and that the records were not plainly return information; court reviews merits de novo and addresses exhaustion as prudential.
- Court ultimately affirms IRS’s withholding and denies in-camera review, concluding the face of the request sought return information and consent was missing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FOIA request facially seeks third-party return information | Hull contends request seeks plan operation info, not return data | IRS: request seeks third-party return information; requires consent | Yes; facially seeks return information and consent missing |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies under FOIA | Exhaustion met; pursued appeals to agency | Exhaustion is prudential; need waiver and final agency action | Exhaustion treated as prudential; merits reached |
| Whether the information is return information under 6103(b)(2)(A) | Information not clearly tied to tax liability or returns | VCRP submissions relate to potential liability and deductions; fall within return information | Yes; information falls within return information scope |
| Whether IRS could rely on unspecific affidavits without reviewing records | IRS did not review records; affidavits were conclusory | Affidavits sufficiently describe why records are return information; no need for in-camera review | Yes; affidavits adequate to place documents within exemption without in-camera review |
| Duty to conduct in-camera review or segregate nonexempt parts | Should review records or segregate nonexempt info | No segregation possible; entire set constitutes return information | District court did not err in not conducting in-camera review; information appropriately withheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Church of Scientology of Cal. v. IRS, 792 F.2d 146 (D.C.Cir. 1986) (return information confidentiality under 6103; confidentiality protects disclosure unless consent or statute allows)
- Landmark Legal Found. v. IRS, 267 F.3d 1132 (D.C.Cir. 2001) (broad definition of return information includes data about possible liability and third-party requests)
- DeSalvo v. IRS, 861 F.2d 1217 (10th Cir. 1988) (6103 as exemption; return information protection analysis)
- Batton v. Evers, 598 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2010) (illustrates limits of conclusory affidavits; need document-specific description or in-camera review)
- Kamman v. IRS, 56 F.3d 46 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholds challenge when affidavits fail to show the document is return information)
- Elliott v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 596 F.3d 842 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (search obligation context for FOIA exemptions; relevance to reasonable search)