Court orders IRS to release records in Schiff FOIA fight

Peter Schiff V. IRS. USDC for The District of Columbia. Docket No. 1:24-CV-02230

The Court allowed the IRS to retain the results of its first search but ordered the agency to release additional records. The IRS had not properly explained why it withheld documents under FOIA, and was wrong to call most of Schiff’s second request too vague.

Holding

The district Court gave both sides a partial win. It found the IRS did a proper search for Schiff’s first FOIA request but did not justify withholding records under Exemptions 5, 7(A), and 7(E). The IRS must process most of Schiff’s second request, except for one broad part about unnamed foreign tax authorities.

Why It Matters

• This decision is a significant FOIA setback for the IRS. While the agency succeeded on the search issue, it lost on the more important question of disclosure.

• The opinion makes clear that generic explanations are insufficient to satisfy FOIA exemptions. Agencies have to explain why an exemption applies and how releasing the records would actually cause harm.

• The Court draws a practical line on broad keyword requests. Requests tied to specific names or terms can be valid even if they are large.

• This case is not about tax enforcement against Schiff or Euro Pacific Bank. It is about how the IRS must handle records requests under FOIA.

Key Facts

Peter Schiff sent two FOIA requests to the IRS after Euro Pacific International Bank was shut down in 2022. This happened after public statements from the Joint Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement (J5), an international group that includes the IRS.

Schiff’s first request, filed in 2023, asked for records related to two J5 press conferences. He wanted things like recordings, transcripts, media lists, website materials, and communications involving former IRS Criminal Investigation chief Jim Lee.

The IRS found 473 pages of records that matched the request. It withheld 264 pages in full and withheld parts of another 172 pages.

The second request, filed in June 2024, was much wider in scope. It asked for twenty types of records mentioning Schiff, his bank, J5, “Atlantis,” “OCIF,” and different tax authorities.

The IRS said the second request was too broad and not clearly described. Since the parties could not reach an agreement, both sides asked the Court to decide the case.

Statutory Framework

FOIA requires agencies to produce nonexempt records when the request “reasonably describes” the records sought.

An agency defending its response generally must show two things:

• It ran a search reasonably calculated to find responsive records.

• Any withheld records fall within a FOIA exemption.

After FOIA’s 2016 amendment, that is still not enough. The agency must also show foreseeable harm, meaning a concrete reason disclosure would harm the interest protected by the claimed exemption.

The exemptions at issue were:

• Exemption 5, which covers certain privileged internal agency materials, including predecisional deliberations.

• Exemption 7(A), which protects law enforcement records whose release could interfere with enforcement proceedings.

• Exemption 7(E), which protects law enforcement techniques, procedures, and certain investigative guidelines.

Arguments

Taxpayer argued:

• The IRS did not conduct an adequate search in response to the first request.

• The IRS improperly withheld records under FOIA exemptions.

• The second request was clear enough for the IRS to process.

Government argued:

• Its search for the first request was reasonable.

• Exemptions 5, 7(A), and 7(E) justified withholding many of the responsive records.

• The second request was overly broad and failed to provide a reasonable description of the records sought.

Court’s Reasoning

• The IRS succeeded on the search issue because it identified which offices likely held the records, conducted electronic searches of Jim Lee’s materials, performed manual searches elsewhere, and explained these steps in sufficient detail.

• Schiff’s challenge to the search did not succeed because he mainly claimed it was inadequate without showing what the IRS did wrong.

• The IRS lost on Exemption 5 because it used vague descriptions of many withheld documents and failed to connect them to a real deliberative process with sufficient specificity.

• The IRS also did not meet the foreseeable-harm rule for Exemption 5. The argument that releasing the records would discourage internal discussion or cause confusion was too vague and speculative.

• The IRS lost on Exemption 7(A) because it only mentioned “ongoing investigations” without saying which enforcement action or investigation would be affected by disclosure.

• The IRS also lost on Exemption 7(E) because it largely repeated the law’s language and did not explain which specific law enforcement technique or procedure would be revealed.

• For the second request, the Court held that seeking records mentioning “Peter Schiff,” “Euro Pacific Bank,” “Euro Pacific International Bank Inc.,” “J5,” “Atlantis,” “Operation Atlantis,” “OCIF,” and similar terms was sufficiently specific. The IRS could find these records using keyword searches.

• The Court disagreed with the IRS’s argument that the requests were too large. A request is not invalid just because it covers a lot, as long as the records can be identified.

• However, the Court agreed that Schiff’s request for records mentioning the “tax authority, or authorities” of the United States and several foreign countries was too vague. This wording was not clearly linked to a subject, entity, or specific set of records.

• The Court also dismissed the IRS’s objections about the time frame. It found that, based on the context, Schiff’s request covered records dating back to January 1, 2020.

Result

The Court ordered the IRS to release records it wrongly withheld from the first request and to process most of Schiff’s second request, except for the last part about unspecified tax authorities in several countries.

The Takeaway

This opinion is more important for FOIA practice than for tax law, but it still helps tax professionals who deal with IRS records requests. The Court made it clear that the IRS cannot rely on generic exemption claims or vague statements about harm. Broad searches based on names are valid if they clearly show what to look for. Institutions often claim a request is too much work or not specific enough, but the Court recognized these are not the same.

List of Citations

• 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A), FOIA reasonable-description requirement for records requests.

• 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A)(i), foreseeable-harm requirement added by the 2016 FOIA amendments.

• 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), Exemption 5 for privileged inter-agency or intra-agency materials.

• 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A), Exemption 7(A) for law enforcement records that could interfere with enforcement proceedings.

• 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E), Exemption 7(E) for law enforcement techniques, procedures, and guidelines.

• Truitt v. Dep’t of State, 897 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1990), adequacy-of-search standard.

• Oglesby v. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990), agency affidavits can establish a reasonable search if they are detailed enough.

• Reps. Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. FBI, 3 F.4th 350 (D.C. Cir. 2021), foreseeable-harm requirement demands a focused and concrete showing.

• Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ, 746 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2014), generic statements do not justify Exemptions 7(A) and 7(E).

• Shapiro v. CIA, 170 F. Supp. 3d 147 (D.D.C. 2016), name-based requests can reasonably describe records.

• Dale v. IRS, 238 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2002), sweeping requests lacking specificity can fail FOIA’s reasonable-description requirement.