William E. Powell, acting pro se, has filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking records pertaining to himself and his family under the Privacy Act. Powell initially submitted a request on September 19, 2021, for specific IRS records linked to his Social Security number but did not receive a response. Following the lack of response, he filed a complaint with the court to compel the IRS to provide the requested records. Subsequently, he submitted a second request for different IRS records, again without receiving a response, which led to an amended complaint reiterating his demand for the records.
The IRS claims to have processed Powell's requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and asserts that it has provided all the records requested, thus moving to dismiss the case as moot. However, the court finds that the IRS's assertion is not entirely accurate. In evaluating the IRS's motion to dismiss, the court applies a standard that treats the allegations in Powell's complaint as true and provides him all reasonable inferences from those facts. The court notes that it will not accept legal conclusions as factual allegations and will only consider supported inferences when determining the validity of the motion to dismiss.
Article III of the Constitution restricts federal court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies that must exist at all stages of review, not just when a complaint is filed. If circumstances arise that eliminate a plaintiff's personal stake in the lawsuit, the case becomes moot and must be dismissed. In the context of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), if the government releases the requested documents, the case is moot concerning those documents. The IRS claims that Powell’s suit is moot because it has provided all requested information, but this assertion is contested.
The Court evaluates each of Powell's requests individually, starting with his first request for records accessed via command codes “INOL(E)” and “INOL(I)” for the years 1987 to 2021. Powell asserts he did not receive these records, while the IRS contends it sent them. The discrepancy may stem from issues regarding the requested command codes, as “INOL(I)” appears not to exist, and Powell may have meant “IMFOLI,” which aligns with the expected output described. Additionally, the request for “INOL(E)” likely refers to “INOLE,” which requires a specific definer to return accurate information.
Powell's first request for "INOL(E)" lacked a specific definer, making it unclear what records he sought. Previously, in 2018, he explicitly requested "Master File entity data" with all definers, but his current request was ambiguous. In a previous case, it was noted that without specification, definer “S” was most appropriate for his requests. The Court may determine he inadequately identified the records sought, potentially failing to exhaust administrative remedies, which could lead to dismissal. However, since the IRS did not argue this point and claimed it produced all responsive records, the Court favors Powell, concluding he requested records that the IRS has not provided, meaning his first request will not be dismissed.
Regarding his second request for codes INOLES, IMFOLI, and IMFOLE from 1987 to 1993, Powell asserts the IRS did not provide all records, citing missing information for 1987, expectations of additional information, and concerns over authenticity. The claim regarding the 1987 records is valid as the IRS did not include them, which means his request is not moot. Under FOIA, the IRS is required to provide all responsive documents, claim exemptions, or demonstrate an adequate search. Powell's second request specified printouts from 1987 to 1993, but the transcripts received did not cover 1987, indicating the IRS failed to fulfill his request or demonstrate a proper search.
The IRS claimed that all records responsive to Powell’s requests were fully released on April 22, 2022, but failed to explain the omission of any records from 1987. The court infers that the IRS likely did not disclose such records and denies the Motion to Dismiss Powell’s claims related to those records. Powell also contends that the records he received were missing expected information; however, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), agencies are only required to provide existing records, not create documents to meet a requestor's expectations. Similarly, the Privacy Act mandates that agencies provide information they possess about the requester, not what the requester hoped to find. Consequently, Powell's objections regarding the INOLES and IMFOLE transcripts from years other than 1987 are dismissed as he cannot state a claim based on the absence of anticipated content. The IRS’s compliance with FOIA is affirmed since they conducted an adequate search and released all non-exempt responsive information, rendering Powell’s challenges moot. Additionally, questions regarding the authenticity of documents do not fall within the court's FOIA jurisdiction, and mere speculation about document authenticity does not constitute a valid claim.
Powell raises several concerns regarding the IRS's response to his records requests, but none are persuasive. First, he contends that the case is not moot due to the IRS's insufficient explanation of its search for documents. However, the IRS has fulfilled its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act by demonstrating that it conducted a search that was “reasonably calculated” to locate the requested documents, as evidenced by the documents it did find and provide. While the IRS must explain its search for documents it did not locate, it is not required to detail how it found those it did.
Second, Powell argues that the IRS has failed to send him additional records he claims to have requested. However, he did not request these records; his original requests were for specific documents using particular command codes, not a blanket request for any records related to his Social Security Number (SSN) or other codes. To obtain those additional records, he would need to submit a new request.
Lastly, Powell asserts a continuing controversy because he filed his request under the Privacy Act, but the IRS processed it under FOIA. This claim is incorrect as the agency is obligated to process requests under both statutes to ensure that the requester receives all entitled records. Therefore, the processing of his request under FOIA does not negate his rights under the Privacy Act.
Injury to Powell stems from the discrepancy between the documents he requested and those provided by the IRS, rather than the statutory method of request. The IRS did not invoke any exemptions, indicating Powell would have received the same records regardless of whether his request was made under FOIA or the Privacy Act. Powell did not contest this point, and the IRS opted to process his request under FOIA, which allows broader access to records than the Privacy Act. Consequently, Powell cannot claim injury from the method of document retrieval. As a result, the Court will deny the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss regarding Powell’s claims for specific transcripts from 1987 to 2021, but will grant the Motion for all other claims. A separate order will be issued accordingly.
