Powell v. Internal Revenue Serv.
| Decision Date | 04 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 16–1682 (JEB) |
| Citation | 280 F.Supp.3d 155 |
| Parties | William E. POWELL, Plaintiff, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
William E. Powell, Detroit, MI, pro se.
Joseph E. Hunsader, Joycelyn S. Peyton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District JudgePro se Plaintiff William E. Powell describes this Freedom of Information Act suit as a "long journey" to obtain his own tax records and those relating to his grandfather, father, and his family's printing businesses. See ECF No. 46 (Opposition to MTD/MSJ). That journey has yielded some, but not all, of the documents he seeks. In a prior Opinion, this Court concluded that, while the Internal Revenue Service had provided numerous records, it needed to search for others. Powell v. IRS, 255 F.Supp.3d 33, 47–48 (D.D.C. 2017). Believing its task now accomplished, the IRS renews its Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment. It contends both that certain of Powell's claims are currently moot, given that the records have been produced, and that the Service's search was adequate as to the others. Agreeing, the Court will grant the Motion.
Plaintiff seems to have been propelled on this quest by the distribution of assets following the death of his father, William A. Powell, in 1992. See ECF No. 26 (Amended Complaint) at 2–3, 7 n.3; ECF No. 49 (Surreply) at 2. Powell believes that the probate trustees charged with this distribution may have breached their fiduciary duties and that certain tax records will help him determine whether to sue them. See Am. Compl. at 3; ECF No. 26–28 (July 5, 2016, RAIVS Request). He seeks his own tax records, as well as those regarding his father, grandfather, and trusts and printing companies that those two men created. See ECF No. 41 (), Exhs. 1–4 (RAIVS Requests); Am. Compl. at 14–15; Opp. at 1–2.
Plaintiff desires four general types of documents: Master file-complete transcripts, Master file-specific transcripts, TXMOD(A) transcripts, and Non–Master Files. See Am. Compl. at 14–15. A primer for the tax layperson: Master-file transcripts are "the official repository of all taxpayer data extracted from magnetic tape records, paper and electronic tax returns, payments, and related documents." ECF No. 31, Exh. 2 (Declaration of Joy E. Gerdy Zogby), ¶ 9. A "complete" transcript contains "all entity and tax module data associated with" a particular Taxpayer Identification Number for all years relevant to the taxpayer. Id., ¶ 11. The IRS can also search more narrowly for Master file-specific transcripts that contain information related to a specific tax period or type of tax return. See ECF No. 34, Exh. 2 (First Declaration of William J. White IV), ¶ 19; MTD/MSJ, Exh. 7 (Second Declaration of William J. White IV), ¶ 6. TXMOD(A) transcripts, the third type, contain information about "active taxpayer accounts" that have "ongoing tax liability issues associated with them." Second White Decl., ¶ 16. In addition, there is a Non–Master File system for "certain types of tax assessments that cannot be implemented by Master File processing." Zogby Decl., ¶¶ 10, 18.
In pursuit of these records, Powell certainly cannot be accused of lacking effort; in fact, he has filed around 89 FOIA requests. See First White Decl., ¶ 3. He has challenged Defendant's responses to his requests in several suits in federal court in Michigan, as well as in this Court. See Powell v. IRS, 255 F.Supp.3d 33 (D.D.C. 2017) ; Powell v. IRS, No. 15-11033, 2016 WL 7473446 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 29, 2016) ; Powell v. IRS, No. 15-11616, 2016 WL 5539777 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2016) ; Powell v. IRS, No. 14-12626, 2015 WL 4617182 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2015). In this suit, he takes issue with the IRS's responses to FOIA requests that he made on July 5, 15, and 19, 2016. See Am. Compl. at 14–15. In so doing, Plaintiff asserts both Privacy Act and FOIA causes of action. Id. at 1–2, 4–5.
Responding to prior defense motions in this case, the Court offered partial victories to each side. Powell, 255 F.Supp.3d at 48. More specifically, the motions were denied without prejudice as to Powell's Privacy Act claims because he had not exhausted his administrative remedies. Id. at 40–42. As to his FOIA claims, the Court interpreted Plaintiff's Complaint as requesting the following specific documents for certain years between 1988 and 2005:
Entity/Individual Transcript Request
Andrew Powell Master file-complete July 15 RAIVS Request 1
Printing Company Master file-specific for "06"
Master file-specific for Form 1065
TXMOD(A)
Powell Printing Master file-complete July 15 RAIVS Request 2
Company Master file-specific for Form 1120
TXMOD(A)
William A. Powell Master file-complete July 5 RAIVS Request
Agreement of Master file-specific for Form 1041 July 15 RAIVS Request 2
Trust TXMOD(A)
Estate of William Master file-complete July 5 RAIVS Request
A. Powell Master file-specific for Form 706
Master file-specific for Form 1041 July 15 RAIVS Request 2
TXMOD(A)
William A. Powell Master file-complete July 19 RAIVS Request
Master file-specific for Form 1040
TXMOD(A)
William E. Powell Master file-complete July 19 RAIVS Request
Master file-specific for Form 1040
TXMOD(A)
The Court dismissed several of the FOIA claims as moot because the IRS had already given Powell certain requested documents—namely, the Individual Master file-complete for William E. Powell, the Business Master file-complete for the Estate of William A. Powell, and the Business Master file-complete for the Powell Printing Company. Id. at 46. Claims regarding Non–Master files also were dismissed because Plaintiff had not alleged or provided records to show that he had requested any from the IRS. Id. at 45. The Court denied the motion, however, as to several other claims because there was not enough evidence to determine, as the IRS urged, that Powell had failed to provide appropriate documentation authorizing him to receive certain records or that he had abandoned some of his requests. Id. at 46–48.
After the issuance of the Opinion, Defendant conducted a new search for records responsive to the remaining claims. IRS Senior Disclosure Specialist William J. White IV, who was tasked with this effort, first realized that the IRS had already released the following documents to Plaintiff on January 15, 2015:
Second White Decl., ¶¶ 9–11; id., Exh. A (January 15, 2015, Letter to William Powell).
To search for the remaining records, White used a database called the Information Data Retrieval System (IDRS). See Second White Decl., ¶ 6. IRS employees use the IDRS to request Master-file and TXMOD(A) transcripts. Id. White searched this database for Powell's requested records, using various command codes and identification numbers "depending on the type of record sought." Id. Specifically, he searched using the following command codes and information: (1) "TXMOD(A), [Social Security Number/Employer Identification Number], [Type of tax return], [Specific tax period]" to find TXMOD(A) transcripts; (2) "MFTRA, [Social Security Number/Employer Identification Number]" for complete transcripts; and (3) "MFTRA, [Social Security Number/Employer Identification Number], [Type of tax return], [Specific tax period]" for specific transcripts. Id.
These searches turned up several responsive documents. White found the Master file-complete transcript for the William A. Powell Agreement of Trust, a Master file-specific transcript for Form 1040 for William E. Powell for tax year 1992, and a Master file-specific transcript for Form 706 for the Estate of William A. Powell for tax year 1993. Id., ¶¶ 12–13. On August 25, 2017, these records were released to Plaintiff. See Motion, Exh. 5 (August 25, 2017, Letter to Powell).
The above-described searches did not, however, locate the following: (1) any records for the Andrew Powell Printing Company or William A. Powell; (2) any TXMOD(A) transcripts for any entity or individual; (3) Master file-specific transcripts for Form 1041 for the William A. Powell Agreement of Trust for tax years 1992, 1995, 2000; (4) Master file-specific transcripts for Form 706 for the Estate of William A. Powell for tax years 1992, 1994, and 1995; or (5) Master file-specific transcripts for Form 1041 for the Estate of William A. Powell for tax years 1992–95. See Second White Decl., ¶¶ 15–17.
These searches having now been accomplished, Defendant again moves to dismiss or for summary judgment. The IRS argues that several of Powell's claims are moot because it has already given him the requested records. MTD/MSJ at 4–7. As to the rest of the requests, it argues that its search was adequate. Id. at 7–11; ECF No. 47 (Reply) at 4–10.
As the Court decides the matter under the summary-judgment standard, it lays out the law relating only to that type of motion. Summary judgment may be granted if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heffernan v. Azar
...they do not provide the requisite "averment that all locations likely to contain responsive records were searched," Powell v. IRS, 280 F.Supp.3d 155, 162 (D.D.C. 2017) ; see also Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68. The defendant's declarants simply state that "Gormley was the person to most likely [to......
-
New Orleans Workers' Ctr. for Racial Justice v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
...First, the defendant has failed to "aver[ ] that all locations likely to contain responsive records were searched." Powell v. IRS, 280 F.Supp.3d 155, 162 (D.D.C. 2017) ; see Iturralde, 315 F.3d at 313–14. Rather, the defendant asserts only that it identified "[three] offices likely to have ......
-
Prop. of the People, Inc. v. Dep't of Justice
...it does not provide the required "averment that all locations likely to contain responsive records were searched," Powell v. IRS , 280 F. Supp. 3d 155, 162 (D.D.C. 2017) ; see also Oglesby , 920 F.2d at 68. Instead, the first declaration avers that the agency "contact[ed] the FBI components......
-
Powell v. Internal Revenue Serv.
...2018); Powell v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control, 317 F. Supp. 3d 551, 553 (D.D.C. 2018); Powell v. IRS, 280 F. Supp. 3d 155, 157-59 (D.D.C. 2017). It will not recount the history of those clashes here but will instead focus on the procedural background relevant to t......