In re: Sealed Case
931 F.3d 92
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- Appellant is a retired CPA who filed multiple IRS whistleblower claims (over 50 administrative claims and 11 Tax Court petitions) based on public SEC and financial records alleging a taxpayer underpaid tax.
- The IRS investigated confidentially and denied his whistleblower award application, finding no additional proceeds.
- The Appellant petitioned the Tax Court for review and moved under Tax Court Rule 345(a) to proceed anonymously, citing reputational, economic, familial, and political-retribution harms.
- The Tax Court denied anonymity, finding the Appellant’s harms speculative and emphasizing he is a “serial filer” who relies on public information; it concluded the public must know serial filers’ identities to assess their effect on the court.
- The Tax Court provisionally removed his name for the purpose of appeal; the Eighth Circuit transferred the appeal to the D.C. Circuit, which considered jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine and the merits on the anonymity request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeal of denial of anonymity | Denial is immediately appealable because disclosure would make relief effectively unreviewable later | Denial not appealable until final judgment | Court has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine and prior circuit precedent permitting immediate appeal of anonymity denials |
| Legal standard for anonymity in Tax Court | Apply a balancing test weighing petitioner’s anonymity interests against public/open-court interests; no novel standard | Same; parties agreed on balancing approach | Adopt balancing test (guided by multi-factor lists, including the Fifth Circuit’s James factors) with presumption of openness |
| Reliance on petitioner being a “serial filer” using public information | Number of filings and public-source basis do not justify categorically denying anonymity; disclosure not necessary to inform public about serial-filer effects | Tax Court: serial filers who rely on public information may impose disproportionate burdens; public needs names to evaluate impact | Tax Court abused its discretion in denying anonymity solely because petitioner is a serial filer using public information; public can be informed by using consistent pseudonyms or court explanations |
| Remand scope and required showing under Rule 345(a) | Appellant must be allowed to supplement if needed and Tax Court must reassess fact-specific harms under Rule 345(a) | Tax Court should re-evaluate under appropriate balancing test | Case remanded for Tax Court to determine anew whether appellant meets Rule 345(a)’s fact-specific showing for anonymity |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sealed Case, 381 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (articulating collateral order requirements for appealability)
- Microsoft v. United States, 56 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (addressing anonymity and the public interest in openness)
- James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 1993) (providing a five-factor test for evaluating anonymity requests)
- Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008) (offering a multi-factor non-exhaustive list for anonymity balancing)
- Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320 (11th Cir. 1992) (noting lawsuits are public and anonymity is exceptional)
- Washington Legal Foundation v. U.S. Sentencing Commission, 89 F.3d 897 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (discussing public interest in openness of governmental processes)
- Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas v. Babbitt, 43 F.3d 1491 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (standards for abuse of discretion review)