Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

Federal tax privacy law prohibits the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from sharing taxpayer return information with other federal agencies unless strict statutory requirements are met. In 2025, after a request from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the IRS developed and implemented a new protocol, known as the Data-Exchange Procedure, for responding to ICE’s mass requests for the addresses of over a million undocumented individuals. This streamlined process did not ensure that ICE’s requests satisfied the statutory prerequisites, such as providing a taxpayer’s actual address or identifying an appropriate point of contact personally involved in a criminal investigation. Using this flawed procedure, the IRS disclosed over 47,000 taxpayer records to ICE.The Center for Taxpayer Rights, joined by other organizations, sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing the IRS’s actions violated federal law and harmed their missions by eroding trust in the tax system, deterring immigrant engagement, and diverting resources. The district court found that the IRS had, in fact, adopted a new policy, concluded plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits, and issued a preliminary injunction halting further disclosures under the new procedure unless statutory requirements were strictly followed and the court was notified of any future requests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The appellate court held that the IRS’s Data-Exchange Procedure constituted final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), did not comply with statutory requirements, and that the relief available under the Internal Revenue Code did not preclude APA review. The court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored preliminary relief. The preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRS" on Justia Law

Charles Littlejohn, seeking to influence the outcome of a presidential election and raise support for tax policy changes, obtained employment as a consultant with the Internal Revenue Service in 2017 for the purpose of unlawfully accessing and leaking confidential tax returns. He stole and leaked the tax returns of then-President Donald Trump, as well as the tax records of approximately 7,600 wealthy Americans and 600 entities. Littlejohn provided these records to media outlets, including the New York Times and ProPublica, resulting in substantial reputational, economic, and personal harm to numerous victims. He attempted to conceal his actions by destroying evidence and deleting files. The leaks caused ongoing distress, with unpublished data still held by ProPublica, leaving victims fearful of further exposure.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia accepted Littlejohn’s guilty plea to one count of unauthorized disclosure under 26 U.S.C. § 7213(a)(1). The court calculated a Sentencing Guidelines range of one to one-and-a-half years, after considering an upward departure due to the scope and harm of the offense. At sentencing, the court imposed the statutory maximum of five years in prison, three years of supervised release, and monetary penalties, citing the targeted nature of the offenses, elaborate planning, and continuing harm to victims.Reviewing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit examined procedural and substantive challenges to the sentence. The court found no procedural error, determining the district court did not predetermine the sentence, rely on erroneous facts, improperly consider outside influence, or fail to explain its variance. Substantively, the appellate court concluded the sentence was reasonable given the gravity and scope of the offenses. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that both the procedural and substantive aspects of Littlejohn’s sentence satisfied legal standards. View "USA v. Littlejohn" on Justia Law

The appellant submitted a whistleblower claim to the Internal Revenue Service alleging that two taxpayers, a corporation and its majority shareholder, had underpaid taxes from 2004 to 2012. She also requested that the IRS consider similar conduct for the years 2013 through 2017 when determining any award. The IRS had already begun investigating the conduct she reported and ultimately collected proceeds from both taxpayers. However, the IRS’s Whistleblower Office denied her claim, asserting that her application had not contributed to the collection of any proceeds, largely because much of her information was considered “tainted”—that is, potentially privileged or unlawfully obtained.Upon seeking review in the United States Tax Court, the appellant requested supplementation of the administrative record or discovery relating to the later tax years (2013–2017), arguing that the IRS had used her information in those years. The Tax Court denied her requests, citing failure to comply with its procedural rules for discovery, and granted summary judgment to the IRS. The court found that the administrative record supported the IRS’s determination and declined to supplement the record, ruling that there was no showing that relevant documents were deliberately or negligently excluded.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the Tax Court’s summary judgment de novo, applying the Administrative Procedure Act’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard. The court held that the IRS’s rationale for denying the whistleblower award for tax years 2013 through 2017 was unsupported by the record; the agency relied on a bare assertion of taint rather than a reasonable inquiry into the merits. The court concluded that the IRS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and reversed the Tax Court’s judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Trongone v. Cmsnr. IRS" on Justia Law

The appellant submitted a whistleblower application to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) alleging that two taxpayers had underpaid taxes from 2004 to 2012 and requested that the IRS also consider similar conduct for 2013 through 2017 when determining any award. The IRS had already begun investigating much of the reported conduct and ultimately collected proceeds from the taxpayers. However, the IRS’s Whistleblower Office denied the claim, reasoning that the information provided was either previously known or “tainted”—meaning it was unlawfully obtained or privileged—and asserted it did not rely on this information when auditing the later years.After receiving this denial, the appellant sought review in the United States Tax Court. The appellant requested to supplement the administrative record or conduct discovery regarding the audits for 2013 through 2017, arguing that the record did not adequately show whether her information was used. The Tax Court denied these requests, citing procedural deficiencies in how discovery was sought, and granted summary judgment to the IRS, finding the administrative record sufficient to support the IRS’s determination.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the IRS’s rationale for denying the whistleblower award for tax years 2013 through 2017 was not supported by the administrative record, which was largely silent regarding those years. The court concluded that the IRS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because it did not reasonably investigate or explain whether the whistleblower’s application contributed to the audits for those years. The court reversed the Tax Court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Trongone v. Cmsnr. IRS" on Justia Law

A group of organizations challenged the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) policy permitting the sharing of taxpayer address information with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for immigration enforcement. The plaintiffs initiated suit after reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was seeking addresses from the IRS to locate undocumented immigrants. The IRS and DHS subsequently formalized an agreement (Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU) specifying procedures for ICE to request taxpayer addresses from the IRS for use in nontax criminal investigations, provided statutory requirements were met.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. After denying a temporary restraining order, the District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The District Court found that at least one plaintiff had standing and concluded the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their claims. Specifically, the court found that 26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(2) unambiguously allowed the IRS to disclose address information in response to valid requests, and that the IRS’s prior internal guidelines to the contrary did not have the force of law. The court also determined that the MOU was a nonbinding policy statement, not a final agency action subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs likely had standing, but were unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court ruled that § 6103(i)(2) clearly authorizes the IRS to disclose taxpayer address information, and that the MOU was not a reviewable agency action. It further held that any challenge to the agency’s change of interpretation was not viable because the court’s interpretation of the statute controls. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent" on Justia Law

Rowena Joyce Scott served as both the president of the board and general manager of Park Southern Neighborhood Corporation (PSNC), a nonprofit that owned a large apartment building in Washington, D.C. During her tenure, Scott exercised near-total control over PSNC’s finances and operations. She used corporate funds for personal expenses, including luxury items and services, and made significant cash withdrawals from PSNC’s accounts. After PSNC defaulted on a loan, the District of Columbia’s Department of Housing and Community Development intervened, replacing Scott and the board with a new property manager, Vesta Management Corporation, which took possession of PSNC’s records and computers. Subsequent investigation by the IRS led to Scott’s indictment for wire fraud, credit card fraud, and tax offenses.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia presided over Scott’s criminal trial. Scott filed pre-trial motions to suppress statements made to law enforcement and evidence obtained from PSNC’s computers, arguing violations of her Fifth and Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied both motions. After trial, a jury convicted Scott on all counts, and the district court sentenced her to eighteen months’ imprisonment, supervised release, restitution, and a special assessment. Scott appealed her convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of her suppression motions.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Scott forfeited her statute of limitations defense by not raising it in the district court. It found the evidence sufficient to support all convictions, including wire fraud and tax offenses, and determined that Scott was not in Miranda custody during her interview with IRS agents. The court also concluded that the search warrant for PSNC’s computers was supported by probable cause, and that Vesta’s consent validated the search. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

In this case, an individual provided the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with information about tax-avoidance schemes involving two corporations, based on his work at a foreign bank. The information included credit applications that indicated the bank had made loans, not factoring transactions, to the corporations, which was relevant to whether the companies could claim certain tax deductions. The IRS used this information to issue a summons to the bank, gather further evidence, and ultimately settle with both corporations for underpaid taxes. The whistleblower sought an award for his contribution under the statutory whistleblower program.The United States Tax Court reviewed the whistleblower’s appeal after the IRS Whistleblower Office denied his claim. The Tax Court granted summary judgment to the IRS, holding that the administrative record was sufficient and that the Whistleblower Office had not applied the wrong legal standard. The Tax Court also found that the whistleblower’s information did not substantially contribute to the IRS’s actions against the corporations, relying on the record as designated by the Whistleblower Office.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the Tax Court’s decision. The appellate court held that the Tax Court erred by applying the correct legal standard itself, rather than remanding the case to the Whistleblower Office after finding that the Office had applied an incorrect, overly restrictive standard. The court also found that the Tax Court abused its discretion by refusing to supplement the administrative record with relevant documents that were omitted but material to the whistleblower’s claim. The case was remanded to the Whistleblower Office to apply the correct “substantial contribution” standard to a complete administrative record. View "Estate of Insinga v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service" on Justia Law

Adam Steele and Krystal Comer, tax return preparers, challenged the IRS's requirement to obtain or renew a Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) by completing Form W-12, which involves paying a fee and disclosing personal information. They initially joined a class action in 2014 contesting the IRS's authority to impose these fees and the amount of information required by Form W-12. However, class counsel later withdrew these claims. Steele and Comer then attempted to revive these claims in a separate lawsuit.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed their complaint, citing the rule against claim-splitting, which prevents duplicative litigation between the same parties asserting the same claims, even without a final judgment in the first case. The district court found that Steele and Comer had already raised and then withdrawn these claims in the ongoing class action and were denied leave to amend the complaint to reassert them.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) does not bar judicial review of the IRS's authority to demand information through Form W-12, but the rule against claim-splitting still precludes the plaintiffs' suit. The court emphasized that claim-splitting bars duplicative litigation filed before final judgment and that Steele and Comer had a fair opportunity to litigate their claims in the earlier class action. The court concluded that the district court's dismissal was proper to prevent strategic end runs around procedural rulings and to preserve the integrity of the adjudicative process. View "Steele v. United States" on Justia Law

Patrick Kennedy and Roy J. Meidinger, Sr. filed whistleblower claims with the IRS, alleging significant tax violations by various entities. Kennedy's claims involved three corporations, while Meidinger's claim was based on a theory that healthcare provider discounts to insurance companies constituted untaxed debt relief. Both claims were initially reviewed by the IRS Whistleblower Office (WBO) and forwarded to IRS operating divisions for further action.The IRS operating divisions did not take substantive action on Meidinger's claim or on two of Kennedy's claims. Meidinger's claim was deemed speculative, and Kennedy's first two claims were either outside the operating division's jurisdiction or involved a defunct entity. Kennedy's third claim led to an audit of the targeted taxpayer, but the IRS found no tax violations and collected no proceeds.The United States Tax Court dismissed Meidinger's case for lack of jurisdiction, as the IRS had not proceeded with any administrative or judicial action based on his information. The Tax Court also dismissed Kennedy's first two claims for the same reason but reviewed his third claim on the merits, ultimately denying it because the IRS collected no proceeds.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the consolidated appeals. The court held that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction over Meidinger's claim and Kennedy's first two claims, as the IRS had not taken any substantive action against the taxpayers based on their information. However, the court affirmed the Tax Court's decision on Kennedy's third claim, agreeing that no proceeds were collected, and thus, no award was warranted. The court dismissed Meidinger's appeal and Kennedy's first two claims for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the denial of Kennedy's third claim on the merits. View "Kennedy v. Cmsnr. IRS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit seeking damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, alleging that IRS employees barred him from representing taxpayers before the Service without due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The district court dismissed the case because the Internal Revenue Code's remedial scheme for tax practicitioners foreclosed a Bivens action. The court did not reach the issue and ruled on the alternative ground that plaintiff failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because his complaint contains no allegation that defendants deprived him of a constitutionally protected interest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bowman v. Iddon" on Justia Law