close X
03/12/2019

IRS Gives Nod to Its Regulatory Noncompliance, Doesn’t Address Real Issues

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) is notorious for flouting regulatory procedures that are designed both to legitimize the administrative state’s exercise of lawmaking power and to constrain the worst abuses of that authority through information gathering tools and judicial review.  One reason the IRS is able to avoid the traditional regulatory process is because the Anti-Injunction Act prevents most lawsuits that would invalidate rules that the IRS promulgates outside that process.

Last week, the IRS acknowledged some of those shortcomings in a policy statement announcing changes to the way it rolls out new rules.  These changes are on top of last year’s revocation of a decades-old exemption from White House pre-publication review and approval.

The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) has different processes for legislative and interpretative rules, i.e., rules that create new legal obligations on private parties and those that purportedly don’t.  The IRS has long maintained that nearly all its rules are interpretative and thus exempt from the APA and notice-and-comment regime.  This is a dubious claim, at best.  Notwithstanding this self-bestowed exemption, the IRS magnanimously still puts its supposedly interpretative rules out for notice and comment.  But it does so without following all of the required procedures, which it justifies by claiming that any process it is following is voluntary anyway, so it can follow which procedures it wants to.  In its policy statement, the IRS confirmed that it “will continue to adhere to [its] longstanding practice of using the notice-and-comment process for interpretive tax rules.”

IRS Won’t Seek Deference

An issue that has plagued the IRS is the use of subregulatory guidance to explain the IRS’s view on how it will apply statutes and regulations; these guidance documents often come in the form of revenue rulings, revenue procedures, notices, and announcements.  Although these documents are supposed to be interpretative and explanatory, in many cases they create new legal obligations and are thus actually legislative in nature.

For example, the IRS used a subregulatory mechanism to announce new “transactions of interest” that captive insurance companies must report to the IRS or face a penalty and enforcement.  This is a classic case of a new law that affects private parties that was slipped through in a policy document, without notice and comment, and which should be invalidated on those grounds.

The IRS now seems to be conceding the issue broadly, although not with regard to the example above, and announced in its policy statement that:

When proper limits are observed, subregulatory guidance can provide taxpayers the certainty required to make informed decisions about their tax obligations.  Such guidance cannot and should not, however, be used to modify existing legislative rules or create new legislative rules.  The Treasury Department and the IRS will adhere to these limits and will not argue that subregulatory guidance has the force and effect of law.  In litigation before the U.S. Tax Court, as a matter of policy, the IRS will not seek judicial deference under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) or Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), to interpretations set forth only in subregulatory guidance.

This is a positive development, but it remains to be seen whether IRS attorneys really will abide by the constraint when faced with a rule that they’re trying to save in court.  Further, the policy only applies in “litigation before the U.S. Tax Court,” and so will not apply when challenges are brought to federal district court, as many procedural challenges to rulemaking are.  Another limitation of the statement appears to be that the IRS is only forswearing seeking deference to interpretations of subregulatory tax guidance and not other rules that litigants might dispute the IRS has violated, such as the APA or the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which the IRS claims does not apply to nearly all of its rules.

“Good Cause”

One of the APA procedures the IRS sidesteps is providing “good cause” for when interim final rules become immediately effective upon publication.  Treasury and the IRS have decided to now “commit to include a statement of good cause when issuing any future temporary regulations under the Internal Revenue Code.”  This is a good, if minor, change and adherence to general practice used elsewhere in the government.

The biggest issue plaguing the IRS’s compliance with procedural rules that constrain the agency is the Anti-Injunction Act, which prevents many challenges that would clean up the IRS’s lack of compliance.  Unless and until there is a shift in judicial interpretation of that provision or Congress exempts Title 5 challenges to IRS rules, we will continue to see the IRS operate outside the bounds of standard administrative practice.  The IRS’s recent policy statement does nothing to change that.

James Valvo is counsel and senior policy advisor at Cause of Action Institute.

Media, Blog Learn More
03/12/2019

Shining a Light on Agency FOIA Policies that Contradict the Law

Some agencies have regulations that conflict with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which can lead to confusion for officials and the public, as well as the improper withholding of public information.  For instance, a few agencies still base their definition of a “representative of the news media” on language that is outdated and contradicted by both the FOIA statute and judicial authorities.  The old “organized and operated” standard that certain agencies have left in their regulations can be used to deny preferential fee treatment to nascent or non-traditional news media groups, as well as government watchdog organizations like Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute).  The current statutory definition, by contrast, is meant to broaden the universe of requesters qualifying for the news media fee category.

In Cause of Action v. Federal Trade Commission,  a monumental decision in 2015 that resulted with an appellate court victory for Cause of Action Institute, the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the Federal Trade Commission’s outdated and narrow definition of a “representative of the news media” and confirmed the current statutory standard.  The FTC had tried to deny CoA Institute its proper fee categorization and a public interest fee waiver.

In March 2018, CoA Institute submitted a comment to the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a small agency tasked with delivering foreign aid to combat global poverty, on the agency’s proposed rule revising its FOIA regulations.  Among other things, CoA Institute suggested that the MCC correct its definition of a “representative of the news media.” In July of that year, MCC finalized a rule implementing the recommended revisions and taking a step towards effective and transparent oversight.  CoA Institute has had similar success with FOIA reform at other agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of the Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Agency for International Development, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

This is but one example of the work CoA Institute performs to advance government transparency and protect the rights of the American public, taxpayers and our collective ability to hold our government accountable for its actions.

Matt Frendewey is Director of Communications at Cause of Action Institute.

 

Media, Blog Learn More
03/11/2019

Cause of Sunshine – Day One of Sunshine Week

Today marks the beginning of Sunshine Week, a nationwide celebration of government transparency and accountability.

Since our founding, Cause of Action Institute has been at the forefront of government transparency, using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to shed “sunshine” on the inner workings of our local, state and federal government. As fundamental as our right to vote, an open and transparent government is necessary to ensure the health of our democracy.

The hard work of our investigators and lawyers has resulted in public officials caught violating the law, government policies and procedures, and our litigation and public reports have improved the public’s right to understand and see how their government operates.

This week, we’ll highlight some of Cause of Action’s most important FOIA and open government cases, recommended reforms to the existing law, and highlight some of our ongoing investigations as we demonstrate our commitment to ensuring the economic and individual rights of tax payers remain protected from the administrative state.

Matt Frendewey is Director of Communications at Cause of Action Institute.

Media, Blog Learn More
03/7/2019

Records Show Former FBI Chief of Staff Sent White House National Security Council Documents to Personal E-mail Account

Former FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki forwarded a White House-originated e-mail with a draft speech for then-President Obama to a personal e-mail account in December of 2015. The FBI withheld in full the content of the draft speech after consulting with the White House National Security Council about its release. The e-mail was part of the last production of FBI documents in Cause of Action Institute’s FOIA litigation against the FBI regarding the work-related use of personal e-mail accounts by former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki.

The final FBI production also includes e-mails from former Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Administrator and FBI Chief of Staff Chuck Rosenberg, who repeatedly used a private e-mail account for official business in conversations with former FBI Director James Comey.
It’s concerning to see high ranking officials violating government policies – setting a poor example to those they’re responsible for supervising and undermining the public trust that all public business can be properly archived and disclosed. When public officials conceal their work – the economic and individual rights of taxpayers is at risk, which is why Cause of Action remains vigilant and committed to holding all government officials accountable.

You can view and download the documents from this production here:

The first document production can be viewed here, the second here, and the third here.

Kevin Schmidt is Director of Investigations for Cause of Action Institute. You can follow him on Twitter @KevinSchmidt8



Final Release Fourth Production 2 28 2019 (Text)

Media, Blog Learn More
03/5/2019

Federal Court Rules Agency Actions within Congressional Review Act Subject to Judicial Review

In a positive decision that will be felt throughout the federal government, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho recently ruled that agency compliance with the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is subject to judicial review. First signed into law in 1996, the CRA requires that agencies submit new and amended rules to Congress for review, creating an essential check on the increasingly powerful administrative state. The CRA was used effectively in the first year of the Trump Administration to overturn numerous Obama Administration rules. But language in the CRA raises a question about whether courts can review agency compliance.

In this case, a cattle-ranching operation based in Oakley, Idaho was adversely affected by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Department of Agriculture, and the Forest Service’s controversial amended rules regarding land use in 11 western states, including Idaho. The ranchers alleged that because the agencies never properly submitted the land use amendments to Congress, the agencies violated the CRA. In an attempt to evade oversight that could potentially limit agency power, the government argued that the ranchers’ motion should be dismissed, claiming that an agency’s violations of the CRA are not subject to judicial review and thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction. The district court rejected the government’s argument, stating that “such un-checked authority does not make sense, defeats the general purpose of the act, is contradicted by the legislative history, and ultimately leaves third parties without any remedy at law against violations of the act itself.”[1] If the Court had ruled that agency compliance with the CRA is not subject to judicial review, it would have opened the door for agencies throughout the federal government to ignore the law’s constraint on their authority.

This case is not the only instance where government agencies have avoided complying with the CRA. In 2017, Cause of Action Institute released a list of 835 economically significant rules and regulations that appeared in the Federal Register but were not submitted to Congress, as required by the CRA. As Congress continues to delegate more and more authority to agencies, it is crucial that the CRA is used to ensure that agencies aren’t abusing their power and risking Americans’ economic freedom and prosperity. By recognizing that judicial review exists, this decision will require agencies to be accountable for their actions and will hopefully encourage them to submit all proposed rules to Congress for review.

 

Libby Rudolf is a litigation support analyst at Cause of Action Institute.

 

[1] Tugaw Ranches, LLC v. United States Department of Interior, et al., 2019 WL 938865 (D. Idaho 2019)

Media, Blog Learn More
03/1/2019

D.C. Court of Appeals Puts Free Speech, Media at Risk

Court refuses to rehear anti-SLAPP decision, exposing media outlets and nonprofits to defamation lawsuits

After a lengthy two-year delay, today the D.C. Court of Appeals denied the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s (“CEI”) motion for rehearing en banc asking the full court to review a decision that will expose media and nonprofit organizations throughout D.C. to lawsuits claiming their stories and commentary are defamatory.

The original decision arose from a lawsuit filed by Michael Mann, a climate scientist embroiled in the scandal to “hide the decline” in the Earth’s temperature record, against CEI and others who criticized his work.  CEI moved to dismiss the case under D.C.’s Anti-SLAPP statute, a law designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits that are used to harass people exercising their free-speech rights; in this case, their First Amendment right to debate important issues of public policy.  The D.C. trial court refused to dismiss the lawsuit, and CEI appealed.  The appellate court upheld the initial ruling and refused to dismiss the case.

CEI then moved for rehearing en banc and dozens of amici from across the ideological spectrum urged the D.C. Court of Appeals to rehear the case because of the significant impact on First Amendment rights and the huge amount of public policy debate that occurs in the District.  Cause of Action Institute filed one of those amicus briefs on behalf of Dr. Judith Curry, a climate scientist who Michael Mann has consistently harassed using methods similar to those he complains CEI used against him.  Today, the court refused to rehear the case, without a single judge asking for rehearing.  The court’s decision in effect declares open season on media and nonprofit organizations located in the District of Columbia.

It would appear the two options available to CEI now are either to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case or to go back to the trial court and fight the case on the merits.

James Valvo is counsel and senior policy advisor at Cause of Action Institute.

Media, Blog Learn More
02/14/2019

CoA Institute Sends Letter to Secretary Ross Requesting Public Confirmation of Controversial Fishery Regulation

The importance of an open and transparent government is rooted in the federal government’s ability to choose winners and losers, create barriers to economic freedom, and limit personal liberties. Family-owned fishing firms in New England recently had their economic freedom put at-risk when it was revealed that the government had secretly approved a proposal to impose new, and statutorily unauthorized, costs on their fishing operations. That’s why Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) sent a letter to U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross yesterday, criticizing his office’s lack of transparency and inadequate analysis surrounding the controversial fishery management regulations.

In January, CoA Instituted published a previously unreported letter, which revealed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S Department of Commerce (Commerce) approved the New England Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment (Omnibus Amendment), but without providing any reasoned responses to public comments.  The approval also came in the midst of a second public comment period for implementing regulations. The Omnibus Amendment is estimated to impose new costs of up to $810-per-day on certain herring fishermen.  These costs, which will be used to fund a third-party monitoring scheme, would have  devastating economic consequences—especially for small and family-owned fishing operations.

Commerce’s failure to address the valid and pressing concerns raised by several interested parties in the first round of public comments, including questions about the statutory authorization for industry-funded monitoring raised by CoA Institute, is particularly egregious.  CoA Institute has repeatedly argued that the government lacks statutory authority to force commercial fishermen on the East Coast to pay for at-sea monitoring. The Secretary of Commerce was responsible for reviewing the Omnibus Amendment for compliance with applicable laws as well as considering public comments. The Secretary appears to have failed to do so in this case.  Government officials also are expected to conduct rulemaking in a manner that promotes accountability and transparency.  This is meant to protect the openness of the regulatory process. That transparency was seriously lacking in this instance.

CoA Institute’s letter requests that Secretary Ross (1) publicly confirm his approval of the Omnibus Amendment (2) and publish responses to the issues raised during the initial comment period. CoA Institute also requests that Commerce disapprove the implementing regulations for the Omnibus Amendment, which are expected to be finalized later this spring.  We look forward to a response addressing these concerns.

A copy of the letter to Secretary Ross can be found here. Additional background on this issue can be found here, here, and here.

Blog, Media Learn More