FTPB 2016 Editions Discussion of Trump v. IRS and Its Resulting Machinations (8/3/26)

I am trying to wrap up the 2026 Editions of my Federal Tax Procedure Book but the ongoing drama by DOJ’s $2.77 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund and Trump and related party tax immunity does not permit an easy stopping point. But I have to stop and have just concluded all that will be in the 2026 Editions that I hope to publish later this week. I thought I would post the discussion below (the Student Edition version without footnotes by copy and paste into the blog below) and the Practitioner Edition version with footnotes that can be downloaded here.

                   2.     Examples (Including Trump v. IRS).

          A prominent example of this remedy is a suit brought by a Kenneth Griffin, a hedge fund billionaire. An employee of a third party contractor to the IRS, Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., illegally accessed and disclosed the tax return information of Griffin and others to a news organization, ProPublica, which in turn published some of the tax return information. Griffin sued the IRS under (i) § 7431, alleging violation of § 6103, and (ii) the Privacy Act. The employee was prosecuted and pled guilty, receiving a five-year sentence. Griffin and the IRS settled the civil action resulting in a dismissal with prejudice. All of the terms of the settlement are not available, but apparently there was no monetary consideration and the IRS agreed to and did issue a public apology. Another reputed billionaire brought related action against the employee’s employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.

          A more prominent example arising from the same mass disclosures is a 2026 suit Donald J. Trump filed in his nominal personal capacity for $10 billion damages (asserting both the minimum $1,000 per disclosure with disclosures at $1,000 justifying $10 billion or actual damages of $10 billion) and for punitive damages in an amount not stated. The Plaintiffs included Trump’s sons and The Trump Organization, LLC. (referred to collectively as the Trump Plaintiffs). Before the DOJ filed an answer, the Judge asked the parties to brief whether, given President Trump’s control over the Government parties (IRS and DOJ) and personal interest as Plaintiff, the case met the required Article III case or controversy requirement. The Court also appointed amici to provide independent briefing on that issue. Before the parties presented their briefing but after the amici provided its initial brief, the Trump Plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) which requires dismissal with prejudice. On May 18, 2026, the Court dismissed with prejudice, noting:

Adding to my FTPB Discussion of Civil Suits for Disclosure of Return Information for the Trump "Settlement" (5/26/26; 5/29/26)

Added 5/27/26 7:00pm and 5/28/26 3:30pm: I have added new matters at the end of this blogging. Since the issue is developing, I may update on the developments by additions below or by separate blog.

I have just finished a first draft of the portion of the working draft of my Federal Tax Procedure book 2026 discussing the civil remedy for improper disclosures of tax return information under § 7431. In the 2025 version, I have a paragraph discussing the settlement with Ken Griffin regarding disclosures of prominent (meaning wealthy) taxpayers' return information. I have not changed that paragraph, but have added immediately after it a discussion of the Trump v. IRS § 7431 suit and the settlement of Trump’s suit that has been so much in the news recently. I suspect most, perhaps all, the readers will already know the basics of the settlement that I offer. I link here a pdf with redline of the new discussion with footnotes. I copy and paste below the discussion (text only) with the new material after the Griffin paragraph (which I do not redline here).

           A prominent example of this remedy is a suit brought by a Kenneth Griffin, reputedly a hedge fund billionaire. An employee of a third party contractor to the IRS, Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., illegally accessed and disclosed the tax return information of Griffin and others to a news organization, ProPublica, which in turn published some of the tax return information. Griffin sued the IRS under (i) § 7431, alleging violation of § 6103, and (ii) the Privacy Act. The employee was prosecuted and pled guilty, receiving a five-year sentence. Griffin and the IRS settled the civil action resulting in a dismissal with prejudice. All of the terms of the settlement are not available, but the IRS agreed to and did issue a public apology. Another reputed billionaire brought related action against the employee’s employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.

           An even more prominent example arising from the same mass disclosures is a 2026 suit Donald J. Trump filed in his personal (rather than Presidential) capacity for $10 billion damages (asserting both the minimum $1,000 per disclosure with disclosures at $1,000 justifying $10 billion or actual damages of $10 billion) and for punitive damages in an amount not stated. The parties plaintiff also included Trump related persons and entities. The Judge in the case asked the parties to brief whether, given Trump’s control over the Government parties (IRS and DOJ) and personal interest as Plaintiff, the case met the required Article III case or controversy requirement. The Court also appointed distinguished amicus to provide here independent briefing on that issue. Before the parties presented their briefing but after the amicus provided its initial briefing, the Trump parties moved to dismiss requiring the Court to dismiss with prejudice under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i); as required by that Rule, on 5/18/26, the Court dismissed with prejudice, the Court noted:

           Because the Notice does not reference any settlement or include a stipulation of settlement, there is no settlement of record. Additionally, Defendants—federal agencies represented by the Department of Justice, which has an independent obligation to uphold the “public’s strong interest in knowing about the conduct of its Government and expenditure of its resources” and the “fair administration of justice,” 28 C.F.R. §§ 50.9, 50.23—neither submitted any settlement documents nor filed any documents ensuring that settlement was appropriate where there was an outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed.

In short, the Court smelled a rat but under the Rule was required to dismiss with prejudice.

Could the District Court Invite or Appoint an Amicus to Present the U.S. Position in Trump v. IRS? (2/7/26; 2/12/26)

Yesterday, I posted a blog on the Amici Brief filed in Trump v. IRS, (S.D. Fla. No. 26-cv-20609), CL Docket sheet here. On Amici Brief in Trump and Related Parties Suit for Damages from Unauthorized Inspections and Disclosures of Return Information by Employee of IRS Contractor (2/6/26), here. Basically,  a principal theme of the Amici Brief is that the Trump plaintiffs are suing the Government where Trump is also the Government “decider” (to echo George Bush’s claim). That presents some major issues, some of which are discussed in the Amici Brief and I address in the prior blog.

Today, I wanted to expand on an issue that I began considering after posting yesterday’s blog: 

Can the district court sua sponte or at the urging of some Amici invite or appoint an Amicus to represent the United States if the United States at Trump’s direction aligns itself with the Trump plaintiffs?

There is precedent that might permit the district court to invite or appoint an Amicus to participate in the proceeding to represent the United States’ interest where the parties are aligned (thus perhaps not creating a case or controversy). The precedent is Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), GS here. In that case, the IRS denied tax-exempt status to two education organizations—Bob Jones and Goldsboro Christian Schools--which allegedly had a "sincerely held" religious belief that their God required them to racially discriminate. The Fourth Circuit sustained the IRS position. In the Supreme Court, the White House directed the SG’s office to disavow the IRS position that had prevailed in the Fourth Circuit. There is intrigue and high drama about the White House doing that, but I offer more on that below in order to stay on track for the main body of this posting.  Perceiving that, at that point, the parties were aligned and no one was arguing in support of the Fourth Circuit opinion, the Supreme Court invited William T. Coleman, a prominent D.C. lawyer, to brief and argue the case as Amicus Curiae;  the opinion in the case describes Coleman as follows: “William T. Coleman, Jr., pro se, by invitation of the Court, 456 U. S. 922, argued the cause as amicus curiae urging affirmance.” (As in many Supreme Court cases, there were other Amici briefs filed, but Coleman’s was likely the one that the Justices paid most attention to; I have sometimes expressed doubt as to the efficacy of Amici Briefs that often flood the Supreme Court in hot button issue cases where the Amici often just give the same or slight variations of the arguments made by the parties or Amici, often with slightly different wording; Coleman’s was different because the Supreme Court respected him andinvited it.) In the merits decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit, thus rejecting the White House’s forced position that put the parties in alignment.

The bottom-line, where in Trump v.  IRS the Trump-related parties and the Government (at the direction of Trump) have interests that are or may be aligned, the district court might invite or appoint an Amicus to assist the court in doing justice in the case. The court could do that sua sponte as the Supreme Court did in Bob Jones or it could do it on motion from Amici.

On Amici Brief in Trump and Related Parties Suit for Damages from Unauthorized Inspections and Disclosures of Return Information by Employee of IRS Contractor (2/6/26)

On 2/20/26 at 12:30am, an update has been added to the bottom of this blog entry to note another Amici Curiae Brief filing by public interest organizations.

I assume that most readers of this blog will already have seen news about Trump’s suit against the IRS for “damages” arising from the disclosure of his tax return information by an employee of an IRS contractor who was subsequently criminally convicted by plea agreement and sentenced to five years’ incarceration. E.g., Trump sues IRS and Treasury for $10 billion over leaked tax information  (NPR 1/30/26), here. The suit is titled Trump v. IRS (S.D. Fla. No. 26-cv-20609), CL Docket sheet here. (Reminder: Access to the Court Listener docket sheet is free and will have links to the documents provided that some CL member has downloaded them from PACER.)

The key documents to date are

• the complaint (CL here) and
• a new Amici Curiae Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae by Former Government Officials and Public Interest Organizations, here. The interests of the Amici are (Br 1-2, footnote omitted):

          Amici are four former government officials with combined decades of experience in federal tax law, each of whom joins this brief only in their personal capacity, and two public-interest organizations. They have sought leave to submit this brief to aid the Court in its management of this important case.

          John Koskinen served as the 48th Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. He was confirmed to the position by the Senate in 2013, and he served in the position until 2017. Prior to his service as IRS Commissioner, he served in a number of positions in the public and private sector, including as the non-executive chairman of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) from 2008 to 2012.

          Kathryn Keneally served as the Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Tax Division. She was confirmed to the position by the Senate in 2012, and she served in the position until 2014. Prior to her service in the Department of Justice, she practiced tax law in private practice for thirty years and served as chair of the American Bar Association’s Section of Taxation’s Committees on Civil and Criminal Tax Penalties and Standards of Tax Practice.

          Nina Olson served as the National Taxpayer Advocate from 2001 to 2019. In that role, she led the Taxpayer Advocate Service, an independent organization within the Internal Revenue Service. Prior to serving in that role, she had over two decades of experience representing individual taxpayers at all levels of income.

          Gilbert Rothenberg served as the Chief of the U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section. He joined the Department as a line attorney in the Appellate Section in 1975 and served in the Section until his retirement in 2019.

          Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy by working to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest. Common Cause has over 1.5 million members nationwide and local organizations in 23 states.

          Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is a nonpartisan, independent watchdog that investigates, exposes, and champions reforms on systemic corruption, abuse of power, and waste. [*2] POGO envisions a federal government that is effective and accountable—governed by just laws, operating with integrity, and committed to serving the public. Government ethics and public trust in the federal government are at the heart of POGO’s mission.

I will not write on the merits of the Complaint. I will editorially comment that, in my opinion, this is just another Trump attempt to monetize Trump’s presidency which has already unlocked mega-millions for Trump and his family (not to mention his “friends,” such as pardon attorneys close to him). Rather, I address in this blog the Amici Brief.

The judge on the case is Kathleen M. Williams, an Obama appointee. See Wikipedia here. Pretrial responsibilities have been assigned to Magistrate Judge Enjolique A. Lett. I could find no current information on her in a quick Google search; I did find, for example, that Judge Roy K. Altman assigned her to handle pretrial non-dispositive matters in The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust v. Capital One, N.A. (S.D. Fla. 1:25-cv-21596), here. (This suit against Capital One asserts a “de-banking” claim that appears to  be another classic Trump case to monetize his presidency; although Trump does not directly control both sides, he can control the levers of power by directing Government action, directly or indirectly, against the defendant; tongue-in-cheek, maybe Trump and the related parties will give up the suit if Capital One names its corporate headquarters the Trump Building or even the name of the organization as Trump Bank.)

Points about the Amici Brief:

Repeat Tax Player and Republican Presidential Candidate Loses Unauthorized Return Information Disclosure Suit on Appeal (12/24/25)

As I close out my postings for the year, I decided to report on Castro v. United States, 2023 WL 8825316 (5th Cir. 12/21/23), unpublished (CA 5 here; GS here). The Fifth Circuit panel did not think it worthy of publication, so I initially decided to forego making it a topic of a blog. But then I learned that the plaintiff, John Anthony Castro, has been “player” in a series of tax cases is a presidential candidate, a Republican seeking to take Trump’s place as the frontrunner and ultimate nominee. See Castro’s Wikipedia page here (i) offering significant discussion of his playing in tax cases and (ii) noting that his status as a licensed attorney may be in doubt. So, I’ll discuss the recent 5^th Circuit opinion, for its discussion of settled law that do not justify a precedential opinion. In this opinion, Castro appears as plaintiff rather than as attorney (although, I suppose, he could be pro se attorney for himself).

In order avoid recreating the wheel with new discussion (with no temptation to plagiarize or make up new words without value) and given that brevity of the relevant discussion in the opinion, I just quote the opinion (using the cleaned up technique to eliminate parts that are not relevant to the point I want to make).

During an IRS criminal investigation into Castro, criminal investigative agent Tuan Ma (“Agent Ma”) contacted two potential witnesses to obtain information in furtherance of his investigation. The parties dispute whether Agent Ma disclosed to the two potential witnesses that Castro was under criminal investigation but that the investigation did not target the two potential witnesses. For the purpose of summary judgment, we assume that Agent Ma did in fact disclose such information to the two potential witnesses. The two potential witnesses submitted affidavits indicating that they spoke with Agent Ma after he reassured them that they were not under investigation.

            Even accepting as true that Agent Ma made the alleged disclosures in violation of §6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, a safe harbor provision shields the Government from liability if the agent's disclosure was based on “a good faith, but erroneous, interpretation of section 6103[.]” 26 U.S.C. §7431(b)(1) (“No liability shall arise under this section with respect to any inspection or disclosure . . . which results from a good faith, but erroneous, interpretation of section 6103[.]”). This circuit uses an objective standard to evaluate the applicability of this “good faith” exception to liability under the Internal Revenue Code.

District Court Denies Government Request to Certify 6103 Issue on Republishing Public Information (11/2/21)

In United States v. Zak (Dkt. 1:18-cv-05774 Entry 330 Dated 10/22/21), Cl here and the CL Docket Entries are here, the Court denied the Government’s motion to certify appeal to the 11^th Circuit on an issue that has split the Appellate Courts.  One of the defendants, Clark, asserted a counterclaim against the United States for damages from violating § 6103’s prohibition on disclosure of return information.  See § 7431 (permitting damages)

The alleged disclosure was the republication of return information from the Government’s complaint.  In a motion to dismiss, the Government argued the information was publicly disclosed in the complaint and therefore its republication of already public information did not give rise to damages.  Clark argued that the Government could still be liable if the immediate source for the return information disclosed was the IRS’s files subject to § 6103 rather than from other public information.

In a July 6, 2021 order, the court held for Clark (Slip Op. 3):

In that Order, the Court emphasized that the Eleventh Circuit has never recognized the Ninth Circuit's “implicit exception” to § 6103's confidentiality requirement for “all tax return information that has become a matter of public record,” and that several other Circuits had expressly refused to do so. (Id. at 9, 13.) The Court was more persuaded by the narrower approach taken by the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits, under which liability under § 6103 depends on the immediate source of the disclosed information rather than its public or non-confidential status. (Id. at 11–12.) The Court also expressed doubts that the Seventh Circuit's rule permitting the subsequent republication of return information contained in a judicial opinion would similarly apply to the republication of return information contained in a complaint that was prepared by the Government's own lawyers. (Id. at 14–15.)

The Government then moved to certify the following issue to the 11^th Circuit (Slip op. 6):

Whether 26 U.S.C. § 6103 prohibits publication by the government of taxpayer information that has already been lawfully and publicly disclosed by the government in a judicial proceeding pertaining to tax administration?

In the Order discussed here dated 10/22/21, the District Court denied (Slip op. 6-11) the request to certify because the Government “failed to establish a genuine doubt as to the correct applicable legal standard here,” so the Government “failed to show the requisite substantial ground for difference of opinion to warrant an interlocutory appeal.”  The Court also held (Slip op. 11-13) that the immediate appeal would  not advance the litigation. 

IRS Not Liable for Opening FBAR Investigation Based on Return Information Subject to Section 6103 (10/4/13)

In Hom v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142818 (ND CA 9/30/13), the taxpayer brought suit for damages for alleged IRS violations of Section 6103.  The amount of damages sought was "$40,874,000 in damages and "at least" $500,000 in punitive damages."  The claim was that the IRS was conducting an IRS examination and, based on information discovered in the IRS investigation, improperly opened an FBAR investigation without authority or making the determination required to do so.  I quote the court's entire analysis:

1. Unauthorized Disclosure Under Section 6103. 

Plaintiffs are authorized to file this suit under 26 U.S.C. 7431. Plaintiffs argue that, under 26 U.S.C. 6103, the use of information discovered in the tax return investigation cannot be used for an FBAR investigation. Section 6103(a) states: 

[r]eturns and return information shall be confidential, and except as authorized by this title —
(1) no officer or employee of the United States . . . shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his services as such an employee or otherwise or under the provisions of this section . . . .

Defendant's motion to dismiss argues that Section 6103(h)(1) provides an exception that allows such a disclosure:

[r]eturns and return information shall, without written request, be open to inspection by or disclosure to officers and employees of the Department of the Treasury whose official duties require such inspection or disclosure for tax administration purposes.

Tax administration is defined as "the administration, management, conduct, direction, and supervision of the execution and application of the internal revenue laws or related statutes . . . and includes assessment, collection, enforcement, litigation, publication, and statistical gathering functions under such laws, statutes, or conventions." 26 U.S.C. 6103(b)(4). 

Thus, the issue here is whether Section 5314 is either an internal revenue law or related statute (either designation would make the disclosure permissible). The United States argues that Section 5314 is a "related statute" under Section 6103 (Dkt. No. 13 at 6). This is correct. Congress intended for Section 5314 to fall under "tax administration." See Staff of Joint Comm. on Taxation, 108th Cong., General Explanation of the Tax Legislation Enacted in the 108th Congress, 378 (Comm. Print 2005) ("The Congress . . . believed that improving compliance with this reporting requirement is vitally important to sound tax administration . . ."). Section 5314 is therefore a related statute under Section 6103 and the disclosures at issue in this action were lawful. 

Plaintiffs' opposition argues that the IRS did not follow the proper procedure pursuant to the Internal Revenue Manual ("IRM") Sections 4.26.17.2 and 4.26.14.2.2. The IRM states: "[w]ithout a related statute determination, Title 26 information cannot be used in the Title 31 FBAR examination. Any such use could subject the persons making the disclosure to penalties for violating the disclosure provisions protecting Title 26 return information." IRM 4.26.17.2(1)(G). Plaintiffs argue that defendant IRS failed to properly obtain a related statute determination because they did not follow the stated procedure for doing so. 

Plaintiffs' argument fails because the IRM holds no legal significance. Our court of appeals has held that "[t]he Internal Revenue Manual does not have the force of law and does not confer rights on taxpayers." Fargo v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 447 F.3d 706, 713 (9th Cir. 2006). Even assuming that the IRS did not follow its own procedures, plaintiffs have no claim for relief. 

Plaintiffs also argue that the IRS reports contained false statements and that these false statements are "actionable" under Section 6103 of Title 26. In support of this argument, plaintiffs cite Aloe Vera v. United States, 699 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2012). Aloe Vera is not dispositive here because that decision analyzed the disclosure under Section 6103(k)(4), which exempts information that is authorized by treaty. Id. at 1163. The treaty in Aloe Vera authorized the disclosure of "pertinent" information. The court in Aloe Vera held that "knowingly false information" could not be pertinent under the treaty. Id. at 1163-64. Aloe Vera is irrelevant here because neither Section 6103(k)(4) nor the treaty are at issue.

IRS Disclosures of Knowingly False Return Information is Subject to Civil Action for Wrongful Disclosure (11/24/12)

In Aloe Vera of America, Inc. v. United States, 699 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2012), here, the Ninth Circuit addressed the application of the two year time limit for filing a suit for wrongful disclosure of return information.  Section 6103, here, titled Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information, generally requires that return information -- virtually everything the IRS knows about a taxpayer -- be confidential, with certain specified exceptions.  Section 7431, here, titled Civil damages for unauthorized inspection or disclosure of returns or return information, provides a taxpayer a civil remedy the IRS's disclosures of return information not authorized by Section 6103.  Section 7431(d) provides that the suit must be brought "within 2 years after the date of discovery by the plaintiff of the unauthorized inspection or disclosure."  The question addressed by the Ninth Circuit was when the limitations period begins.

The Court (with Judge Sidney R. Thomas, here, as author of the majority opinion) starts its exegesis with a crisp statement of the issue and the holding:

This appeal presents the question, among others, of what event triggers the running of the statute of limitations for a claim for wrongful disclosure of a tax return pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7431(d). We conclude that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the government's allegedly unauthorized disclosures. We also conclude, in the circumstances presented by this case, that the statute of limitations did not begin to run when the plaintiffs became aware of a pending general investigation that would involve disclosures, but only later when they knew or should have known of the specific disclosures at issue. Applying these principles to the facts of this case, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

Former IRS Agent Charged with Conflict of Interest and Disclosing Return Information Including Whistleblower Name (9/27/12)

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Charges Former IRS Official With Violating Conflict Of Interest Laws And Illegally Disclosing Whistleblower’s Identity (USAO SDNY Press Release 9/27/12), here.

Here is a cut and paste of the described conduct and charges:

From June 2010 until August 2011, LERNER worked as an International Examiner in the New York office of the IRS. For several months leading up to his resignation from the IRS, one of LERNER’s chief responsibilities involved conducting an audit of an international bank (“Bank 1”) related to approximately $1 billion in allegedly unreported income. This audit was triggered by confidential whistleblower information LERNER reviewed during the course of his IRS employment. Shortly before his resignation, LERNER led negotiations on behalf of the IRS which resulted in a proposed $210 million settlement between Bank 1 and the IRS. The settlement was still pending final approval at the time of his departure. Unbeknownst to his colleagues and supervisors, LERNER applied and interviewed for the position of Tax Director at Bank 1 during the time period in which he was representing the IRS in the Bank 1 settlement discussions. He also sent multiple emails to an individual in which he expressed both his dissatisfaction with his job at the IRS and his hope that he would secure the Bank 1 job. At no time did he notify the IRS of his efforts to obtain employment with Bank 1. 

After LERNER announced his resignation from the IRS, he received written notification of certain restrictions imposed on former IRS employees regarding improper contacts with current IRS officials. However, when the IRS sent Bank 1 additional inquiries regarding the audit after he began working as Tax Director in September 2011, LERNER subsequently placed numerous phone calls to IRS employees and initiated meetings with them regarding the continuing audit. LERNER persisted with attempts to encourage IRS employees to provide information regarding the audit, and to approve the settlement between the IRS and Bank 1, despite warnings that he should not be participating in the audit or settlement discussions.
LERNER also engaged in improper disclosure of IRS tax return information during the time period that he worked as an IRS International Examiner. Specifically, LERNER divulged the identity of a whistleblower who had provided the IRS with confidential information regarding Bank 1 that had triggered the audit to someone not employed by the IRS, and provided details regarding pending IRS audits of other companies to individuals who were not employed by the IRS.