Checksfield v. IRS, No. 21-1180, 2024 WL 21549 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2024) (Suddaby, J.)

Checksfield v. IRS, No. 21-1180, 2024 WL 21549 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2024) (Suddaby, J.)

Re:  Request for certain third-party tax records

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; granting defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 3:  “Regarding Plaintiff’s repeated arguments that Exemption 3 was misapplied, the Court finds that [defendant’s] Declaration . . . is sufficiently specific to place the requested documents (assuming that the documents even exist) within FOIA Exemption 3.”  The court relates that defendant relies on 26 U.S.C. § 6103, which states that “‘[r]eturns and return information shall be confidential . . . .’”  “Defendant argues that 26 U.S.C. § 6103 plainly prohibits the disclosure of any tax records or return information for any ‘individual, [ ] trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.’”  Additionally, “Defendant argues that, 26 U.S.C. § 6103 does not include any provisions allowing for segregation, and binding Supreme Court precedent prohibits such segregation.”  “[R]egarding Plaintiff’s ex parte subpoena arguments, [the court finds that] even a cursory reading of 26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(1) reveals that tax records can be disclosed only to federal employees (and, on rare occasions, state officials investigating missing and exploited children) engaged in criminal investigations.”  “Plaintiff is not a federal employee, and – despite his assertions that he is investigating a felony purportedly perpetrated by S.B. and his insurance company – Plaintiff is not actually engaged in a criminal investigation.”  Finally, “regarding Plaintiff’s arguments that the requested records should be segregated, the Court notes that there is ample caselaw that refutes his argument.”

• Exemption 6:  The court finds that “Plaintiff’s attempt to assert FOIA Exemption 6 is without merit.”  Regarding plaintiff’s argument that the public interest element of Exemption 6 would be served by release of the requested records, the court finds that “a private individual cannot . . . assert a FOIA exemption to compel disclosure from a federal agency: rather, a federal agency asserts a FOIA exemption in an effort to prevent disclosure to a private individual.”

• Litigation Considerations, In Camera Inspection:  The court finds that “Defendant did not misapply Exemption 3, and, accordingly, the Court declines to review the requested documents (if the documents do exist) in camera.”