31 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart B, Appendix
C: Privacy Act Amendment to IRS Records (HOT!)
IRS Website: IRS Freedom of Information
A Citizens Guide to Using the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 to Request Records, Form #03.001(OFFSITE LINK) -SEDM
IRS Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request, Form #03.014 (OFFSITE LINK)-SEDM
Freedom of Information Act Requests, Form #09.030 (OFFSITE LINK)-SEDM
Freedom of Information Act Requests Training Audio, Form #03.030 (OFFSITE LINK)-SEDM
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552
Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552a.
The Privacy Act, FOIA, and the IRS-article from Antishyster News
Magazine
To obtain information from the Internal Revenue Service under either of the two above acts, refer to the following website for the place to file your request:
American Jurisprudence 2d, Freedom of Information Acts, § 1 Federal Freedom of Information Act [37A Am Jur 2d FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACTS]
The federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was enacted to open the administrative process to the scrutiny of the press and the general public. 1 The purpose of the FOIA is to allow public access to official information unnecessarily shielded from the public view. 2 The statute is broadly conceived, seeking to permit access to official information long shielded unnecessarily from public view and attempting to create a judicially enforceable public right to secure such information from possibly unwilling official hands. 3 The basic purpose of the FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed. 4 A purpose of the Act is to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny, by requiring agencies to adhere to a philosophy of full disclosure, under a belief that such a philosophy, when put into practice, will help to insure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society. 5 The Act seeks to provide a workable and balanced formula which makes available information that ought to be public, and, at the same time, protects certain information which must remain confidential in order to protect legitimate governmental functions. 6 The emphasis of the Act is nonetheless on disclosure, 7 since the Act clearly states 8 that nothing therein authorizes the withholding of information or limits the availability of records to the public, except as specifically stated therein. 9 It is axiomatic that the government is required to release any information which is properly requested unless it is exempt. 10 Virtually every document generated by an agency is available to the public in one form or another under FOIA, unless it falls within one of the Act's nine exemptions. 11 Accordingly, the policy of the Act requires that its disclosure provisions be construed broadly 12 and its exemptions be construed narrowly. 13
FOIA is a successor to the information provisions of the original Administrative Procedure Act. 14 FOIA was designed to strengthen the disclosure requirements of the old law 15 by eliminating ambiguous terms and loopholes, 16 such as the language in the former Act that matters of official record shall be made available to persons properly and directly concerned, except information held confidential for good cause found. This language was often cited in support of agency decisions not to disclose agency records. 17 FOIA was amended in 1974 and 1976 18 in order to strengthen its disclosure requirements and to overcome Supreme Court constructions of Exemptions 1, 19 3, 20 and 7 21 which did not meet congressional approval. It has been noted that these amendments narrowed the scope of government privileges previously recognized, such as the state secrets and official information privileges, and that the redefinition of these privileges by FOIA may also have profound effects in the area of evidentiary privileges. 22
Besides clarifying the former law, FOIA also created a judicially enforceable public right to secure information. 23 In order to eliminate expensive hurdles to the assertion of this right, the Act also provides that attorneys' fees may be awarded to a substantially prevailing party. 24 Congress also retains some oversight regarding the implementation of FOIA, since it requires that each agency file an annual report containing information regarding its efforts to administer fully the Act, including such items as the number of information requests refused, the number of administrative appeals, the persons responsible for the denial of records, and the results of any disciplinary proceedings taken against agency employees who do not comply with the Act. 25 The Attorney General must also submit an annual report detailing the number of cases litigated, the exemption involved in each case, the disposition of the case, the costs, fees, and penalties assessed against the government, and any other efforts undertaken by the Department of Justice to encourage agency compliance with the Act. 26 Of course, nothing within the Act is authority for the withholding of information from Congress. 27
________________________
Footnotes
Footnote 1. Renegotiation Bd. v Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 US 1, 39 L Ed 2d 123, 94 S Ct 1028.
Footnote 2. Parton v United States Dept. of Justice (CA8 Mo) 727 F2d 774 (criticized on other grounds by Johnson v United States Dept. of Justice (CA10 Wyo) 739 F2d 1514).
Footnote 3. John Doe Agency v John Doe Corp., 493 US 146, 107 L Ed 2d 462, 110 S Ct 471, 17 Media L R 1225, 35 CCF ¶ 75737, reh den 493 US 1064, 107 L Ed 2d 966, 110 S Ct 884.
Footnote 4. John Doe Agency v John Doe Corp., 493 US 146, 107 L Ed 2d 462, 110 S Ct 471, 17 Media L R 1225, 35 CCF ¶ 75737, reh den 493 US 1064, 107 L Ed 2d 966, 110 S Ct 884; NLRB v Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 US 214, 57 L Ed 2d 159, 98 S Ct 2311, 98 BNA LRRM 2617, 3 Media L R 2473, 84 CCH LC ¶ 10643 (criticized on other grounds by United States Dept. of Justice v Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press, 489 US 749, 103 L Ed 2d 774, 109 S Ct 1468, 16 Media L R 1545).
Footnote 5. United States Dept. of Justice v Tax Analysts, 492 US 136, 106 L Ed 2d 112, 109 S Ct 2841, 16 Media L R 1849, 89-1 USTC ¶ 9386, 63 AFTR 2d 89-1492, later proceeding (DC Dist Col) 759 F Supp 28, 18 Media L R 1943, affd (App DC) 296 US App DC 130, 965 F2d 1092, 20 Media L R 1531.
Footnote 6. Department of Air Force v Rose, 425 US 352, 48 L Ed 2d 11, 96 S Ct 1592, 1 Media L R 2509; Administrator, Federal Aviation Admin. v Robertson, 422 US 255, 45 L Ed 2d 164, 95 S Ct 2140, 1 Media L R 2465; Environmental Protection Agency v Mink, 410 US 73, 35 L Ed 2d 119, 93 S Ct 827, 4 Envt Rep Cas 1913, 1 Media L R 2448, 3 ELR 20057.
Footnote 7. Department of Air Force v Rose, 425 US 352, 48 L Ed 2d 11, 96 S Ct 1592, 1 Media L R 2509.
Footnote 8. NLRB v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 US 132, 44 L Ed 2d 29, 95 S Ct 1504, 89 BNA LRRM 2001, 1 Media L R 2471, 76 CCH LC ¶ 10803.
Footnote 9. 5 USCS § 552(d).
Footnote 10. Garside v Webster (SD Ohio) 733 F Supp 1142.
Footnote 11. NLRB v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 US 132, 44 L Ed 2d 29, 95 S Ct 1504, 89 BNA LRRM 2001, 1 Media L R 2471, 76 CCH LC ¶ 10803.
FOIA exemptions are discussed in greater detail in §§ 74 et seq.
Footnote 12. Stokes v Brennan (CA5 Ga) 476 F2d 699, 22 ALR Fed 317; Soucie v David, 145 US App DC 144, 448 F2d 1067, 2 Envt Rep Cas 1626, 1 Media L R 2435, 1 ELR 20147; Bristol-Myers Co. v Federal Trade Com., 138 US App DC 22, 424 F2d 935, 1970 CCH Trade Cases ¶ 73120, cert den 400 US 824, 27 L Ed 2d 52, 91 S Ct 46 and (criticized on other grounds by Dudman Communications Corp. v Department of Air Force, 259 US App DC 364, 815 F2d 1565, 13 Media L R 2450).
Footnote 13. Department of Air Force v Rose, 425 US 352, 48 L Ed 2d 11, 96 S Ct 1592, 1 Media L R 2509.
For a further discussion of the construction of FOIA exemptions, see § 75.
Footnote 14. The former statute is set out in the 1967 amendment note to 5 USCS § 552.
Footnote 15. Soucie v David, 145 US App DC 144, 448 F2d 1067, 2 Envt Rep Cas 1626, 1 Media L R 2435, 1 ELR 20147.
Footnote 16. American Mail Line, Ltd. v Gulick, 133 US App DC 382, 411 F2d 696, 7 ALR Fed 840.
Footnote 17. SR 89-813; HR 89-1497.
Footnote 18. See the amendment notes to 5 USCS § 552.
Footnote 19. §§ 80 et seq.
Footnote 20. §§ 105 et seq.
Footnote 21. §§ 287 et seq.
Footnote 22. Louisell and Mueller, Federal Evidence §§ 224-232.
As to the effect of FOIA on discovery privileges, see §§ 29, 30.
Footnote 23. Department of Air Force v Rose, 425 US 352, 48 L Ed 2d 11, 96 S Ct 1592, 1 Media L R 2509.
Judicial enforcement of FOIA is discussed in §§ 487 et seq.
Footnote 24. Werner-Continental, Inc. v Farkas (SD Ohio) 478 F Supp 815, 104 BNA LRRM 2366, affd (CA6 Ohio) 661 F2d 935, 108 BNA LRRM 2811.
Attorneys' fees are discussed in §§ 580 et seq.
Footnote 25. 5 USCS § 552(e).
Footnote 26. 5 USCS § 552(e).
Footnote 27. 5 USCS § 552(d).[American Jurisprudence 2d, Freedom of Information Acts, § 1 Federal Freedom of Information Act [37A Am Jur 2d FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACTS]]
American Jurisprudence 2d, Freedom of Information Acts, § 4 --Constitutional issues [37A Am Jur 2d FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACTS]
It has been noted that the right to access to public records is not of constitutional dimension, but is derived from the common law and applicable statutes. 42 An argument has been made that the First Amendment right of freedom of the press also implies a right to gather information so that the public can be informed. 43 While, traditionally, the First Amendment and comparable state constitutional provisions dealing with freedom of speech and the press have not been seen as providing significant constitutional support for compelling government disclosure, some read a case dealing with the right of the public to attend a criminal trial 44 as recognizing that the First Amendment guarantees some public right to access to public information, 45 and some cases recognize that freedom of speech and press clauses of the federal and state constitutions support a constitutional right of access to public records. 46 The express provisions of some state constitutions may also mandate the disclosure of public records. 47
In upholding a state freedom of information law, a court has noted that such a law establishes a public policy concerning governmental disclosure, and that such disclosure would not constitute an unlawful contribution of public funds contrary to a state constitution, since meeting the public's legitimate right of access to information concerning government fulfills a governmental obligation, and is not the gift of, or waste of, public funds. 48
__________________
Footnotes
Footnote 42. Mississippi Publishers Corp. v Coleman (Miss) 515 So 2d 1163, 14 Media L R 2005 (holding that no one has rights under the public records act which would deprive a criminal defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial).
The First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of access to information not yet available to the public generally; the press's right to such information is no more and no less than what the legislature has decided to grant in the public records disclosure act. Tacoma v Tacoma News, Inc., 65 Wash App 140, 827 P2d 1094, review den 119 Wash 2d 1020, 838 P2d 692.
Footnote 43. Redding v Jacobsen (Utah) 638 P2d 503.
Footnote 44. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v Virginia, 448 US 555, 65 L Ed 2d 973, 100 S Ct 2814, 6 Media L R 1833.
Footnote 45. Redding v Jacobsen (Utah) 638 P2d 503 (holding that however that right is delimited, a statute making individually identifiable salary data confidential was justified by a compelling state interest and was constitutional).
Footnote 46. The Rake v Gorodetsky (RI) 452 A2d 1144 (stating that a freedom of information act enhances this First Amendment interest); Caledonian-Record Pub. Co. v Walton, 154 Vt 15, 573 A2d 296, 18 Media L R 1965 (the public and media have a constitutional right to access to information relating to law enforcement and crime); Sheridan Newspapers, Inc. v Sheridan (Wyo) 660 P2d 785, 9 Media L R 2393.
Footnote 47. Oberman v Byrne (1st Dist) 112 Ill App 3d 155, 67 Ill Dec 894, 445 NE2d 374 (citing Ill Const Art VIII § 1, on the disclosure of records relating to the use of public funds, and noting that this provision was implemented by an amendment to the Local Records Act); Montana Health Care Ass'n v Montana Bd. of Directors etc., 256 Mont 146, 845 P2d 113 (citing Montana Const Art II § 9, providing that no one may be deprived of the right to examine documents except when the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure).
The right of the public to have access to public records is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Louisiana Constitution of 1974. Hatfield v Bush (La App 1st Cir) 572 So 2d 588, 18 Media L R 2145, on reh, en banc (La App 1st Cir) 1991 La App LEXIS 156, cert den (La) 576 So 2d 49.
Footnote 48. Doolan v Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Second Supervisory Dist., 48 NY2d 341, 422 NYS2d 927, 398 NE2d 533.[American Jurisprudence 2d, Freedom of Information Acts, § 4 --Constitutional issues [37A Am Jur 2d FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACTS]]
Internal Revenue Manual (IR.M.), Section 11.3.13.9: Special Issues (HOT!)
Part 11. Communications and Liaison
Chapter 3. Disclosure of Official Information
Section 13. Freedom of Information Act (Cont. 1)
11.3.13 Freedom of Information Act (Cont. 1)
11.3.13.9 Special Issues