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.

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.

Public Interest Entity Fails in FOIA Attempt to Force IRS to Disclose President Trump's Tax Returns (8/29/17)

In Electronic Privacy Information Center, v IRS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131911 (D. D.C. 2017), here, the court rejected the EPIC's attempt to obtain the tax returns of President Donald J. Trump.  I have added the following footnote to p. 144 of the Practitioner Edition after the sole paragraph in (there is no change to the Student Edition), but provide the entire text paragraph (for context) and the footnote:

Ch. 4.  Confidentiality and Disclosure of Return Information.
IV.  Exceptions–Must be Congressionally Approved.
H. Other Permitted Disclosures

Section 6103 contains a plethora of other permitted disclosures. All are grounded in some perception of national priority that trumps the general need for secrecy. I do not expect you to know these other exceptions for this class.  You should, however, know that, when you practice in this area, you simply have to slug through the various and many permitted disclosures to assess risks of disclosure for your client and remedies that may be available for wrongful disclosure.  Your intuition based on the foregoing examples should also give you a sense of when a national priority exists for which Congress might have provided an exception.  But you still must read the statute, because sometimes Congress' sense of national priorities may be different than what you think it is or should be. fn. 611a 

fn. 611a.  There is one disclosure authority within this general grouping that is worth a passing mention because of its topical interest in 2017 when this footnote was prepared.  Section 6103(k)(3) permits the IRS, upon approval of the JCT, to disclose return information “with respect to any specific taxpayer to the extent necessary for tax administration purposes to correct a misstatement of fact published or disclosed with respect to such taxpayer’s return or any transaction of the taxpayer with the Internal Revenue Service.”  Notice the qualifiers for this authority: (i) approval by the JCT; and (ii) necessity for tax administration.   See § 6103(b)(4) (defining tax administration).  Merely some national emergency does not fit this exception; rather the necessity must arise from tax administration and it is solely to correct a misstatement of fact.  It is hard to imagine this authority being invoked with these limitations, and so far as I am aware, it has never been invoked.  See for a failed attempt to require the IRS to exercise this authority to release President Donald J. Trump’s tax returns, Electronic Privacy Information Center, v IRS, ___, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131911 (D. D.C. 2017) (calling this exception a “rara avis” and also stating that the Court is aware of no instance of its actual use, but (i) noting two instances where preliminary moves were made to obtain the required permission but the permission from the JCT were not granted and (ii) other citings in cases appear to have been errors).  This case also held that, under the APA or otherwise, there is no requirement that the IRS seek the approval of the JCT to make the disclosures.

I also revised footnote 555 on p. 135 as follows and offer the sentence in the text and the footnote:

The IRS generally “may” also disclose return information to the taxpayer or his or her representative or designee unless it determines that the disclosure would “seriously impair Federal tax administration.” fn 555

fn. 555 § § 6103(c) (as to taxpayer’s representative) and § 6103(e)(7) (as to taxpayer and others otherwise having access).  Regs. § 601.702(c)(5)(iii)(C) (“In the case of an attorney-in-fact, or other person requesting records on behalf of or pertaining to other persons, the requester shall furnish a properly executed power of attorney, Privacy Act consent, or tax information authorization, as appropriate.”).  For an interesting application of this limitation where the FOIA suit was dismissed because the requester seeking the returns of President Donald J. Trump did not provide President Trump’s consent to the disclosure, see Electronic Privacy Information Center, v IRS, ___, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131911 (D. D.C. 2017).

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.