District Court Certifies Class Action in Tea Party Challenge to IRS

29 Flares Filament.io 29 Flares ×

Today we welcome as a guest blogger Stuart Bassin, principal at the Bassin Law Firm. Stu is a former Department of Justice Tax litigator with a deep and varied experience in tax litigation. He is also taking the lead oar in the rewrite of the content on unauthorized disclosures of taxpayer information in the revised Saltzman and Book treatise IRS Practice and Procedure. In today’s post, Stu discusses some of the issues relating to NorCal Tea Party Patriots v IRS, the litigation alleging that the IRS improperly disclosed confidential taxpayer information that stems from the widely-publicized allegations that IRS discriminated against conservative applicants seeking tax-exempt status. As Stu discusses, it is unusual to have a class action lawsuit against the IRS and even more unusual for a court to certify the class (though in fact just this week another district court certified a class in a challenge to the IRS’s charging user fees for PTINS). He also explains how the legal theory presented by the taxpayers raises some still unresolved issues regarding Section 6103 and civil actions for wrongful disclosure. Les

The Southern District of Ohio recently certified a class action against the Service in a lawsuit brought by taxpayers claiming that they were denied tax exempt status because of their conservative political views.  NorCal Tea Party Patriots v IRS, Case No. 1:13-cv-341 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 19, 2016).

The case arose out of allegations that the Service discriminated against conservative organizations in reviewing applications for tax-exempt status.  According to the plaintiffs, the Service gave increased scrutiny to some organizations in reviewing their applications and, in some cases, requested additional and unnecessary information from the applicants to delay review of their applications.  The plaintiffs’ remaining claims assert violations of the First Amendment and the Section 6103 prohibition against disclosure of taxpayer return information.   Plaintiffs, however, only sought class certification with respect to the alleged Section 6103 violations.

read more...

The court’s opinion certified two subclasses of plaintiffs—a principal class consisting of all groups which had been identified for increased scrutiny by the Service under specified targeting criteria and a subclass of groups which had received unnecessary requests for information such as the names of donors.  The court applied the traditional FRCP 23 criteria for class certification.   The court rejected one of the principal arguments raised by the government, challenging the typicality or commonality of the proposed class members because the facts relating to review of individual group’s applications would necessarily differ.  The other government argument rejected by the court involved a challenge to the role being played by an advocacy group in funding and directing the litigation.

The ruling is noteworthy because tax cases are almost always prosecuted by individual taxpayers and that certification of a class action against the Service is rare.  The government has usually been successful in asserting that class actions are inappropriate for tax suits because the facts concerning the existence of jurisdiction in refund suits and deficiency proceedings are almost always unique to individual taxpayers.  As this case was not subject to similar jurisdictional limitations, that argument would not prevent class certification in this case and other disputes which do not arise through the typical refund claim or audit deficiency context.

The opinion did not address the interplay between the substance of the plaintiffs’ claims and the class action allegations.  The plaintiffs’ factual claims appear to focus upon the Service’s internal processing of applications for tax-exempt status and their communications with the plaintiffs.  Yet, the legal basis for the claims being asserted by the plaintiffs is a wrongful disclosure of return information by the Service.  An interesting problem likely to arise in further litigation of this case is identification of how the Service’s actions involved an improper disclosure.

Finally, another problem likely to arise in the future conduct of this litigation also involves Section 6103.  Under the court’s order, taxpayers who are not named plaintiffs in the case are now part of this litigation and presumably a proper topic for discovery litigation.  The question will arise regarding whether the Service will be allowed or required to identify other organizations whose tax exemption applications received heightened scrutiny.  Likewise, if the Service identifies these organizations, will they have a claim against the Service for wrongful disclosure?

Comments

  1. Barry Goldwater says:

    I understand this blog is geared more toward car mechanics interested in ways to fix mufflers rather than discussions of whether cars are bad for the environment, but I must say that each post on this blog highlights the failure of our tax system and the agency that administers it. And every effort to remedy the problem creates more problems and waste and abuse.

    Ernest Hemingway said the greatest novel ever written was Anna Karenina. I disagree. The greatest fiction ever written was the Internal Revenue Code. From the fiction of “13 hours” to complete and file a tax return, to the fiction of the IRS Collection Standards to the fiction that the IRS treats its citizens fairly and is politically neutral, and on and on. The Congressmen who pass these laws are even more talented than Tolstoy and the law professors who teach this fiction are better critics than those found in the New York Review of Books.

    I have a better book. It is called the Conscious of a Conservative. It can be found in the NonFiction Stacks under “G”

    The postcard tax return is coming. The American people have had enough. And so have I.

    • Barry Goldwater says:

      Sorry for the typo, make that “The Conscience of a Conservative.”

      I was up all night preparing my tax return. 13 hours.

      • Ha! Thank you for a good laugh! I have to believe that this class action is a step in the right direction. What I am having trouble understanding though is whether Lois Lerner will ever don an orange jump suit. What she is alleged to have done is IMHO criminal.

    • Post card returns are like believing in Santa Claus. It is nice to think about but an adult look at the situation is that finances are too complicated. Yes it should be simpler but post card returns no way. What do u do with 401 k or IRA money do u just forget taxing these? There is a lot of complexity in the laws just on those items. How about sale of stocks or mutual funds or real estate do u just skip that also? How about business income do allow expenses? What constitutes income? What constitutes an allowable expense? How about tax exempt organizations, Corporations , trusts, partnerships? It is just too complicated and there is no way around some of the complexity. National sales tax presents another set of complexities. Regarding IRS I think it is amazing that Congress passes ridiculously complicated laws and then criticizes the agency that has the task of enforcing their law. Police have had there problems but u never hear anyone say -let’s abolish the police force. Well any tax system needs enforcement and to treat IRS like they work for someone else is complete apocracy. Greece is a country that did not collect taxes – cheating is rampant look how they are doing. It is clearly unfair to have only honest people pay taxes.

  2. Bob Kamman says:

    Pseudonyms are fine for people who want to hide behind them, but there perhaps should be a restriction on using names of living political operatives who, if not disgraced, at least have a dubious reputation even in their own party. Or at least add Sr. to distinguish (and yes, he was a distinguished photographer, adventurer and aviator) from Jr.

Comment Policy: While we all have years of experience as practitioners and attorneys, and while Keith and Les have taught for many years, we think our work is better when we generate input from others. That is one of the reasons we solicit guest posts (and also because of the time it takes to write what we think are high quality posts). Involvement from others makes our site better. That is why we have kept our site open to comments.

If you want to make a public comment, you must identify yourself (using your first and last name) and register by including your email. If you do not, we will remove your comment. In a comment, if you disagree with or intend to criticize someone (such as the poster, another commenter, a party or counsel in a case), you must do so in a respectful manner. We reserve the right to delete comments. If your comment is obnoxious, mean-spirited or violates our sense of decency we will remove the comment. While you have the right to say what you want, you do not have the right to say what you want on our blog.

Speak Your Mind

*