states went on national television and stated repeatedly that the i r s targets him for audits on the basis of his political views and his religious affiliation swiftly deny that the agency would ever do such a thing but the accusation was never with wrong in january twenty seventeen the president elect went on twitter and told tens of millions of followers that he had no sources of russian income and no financial entanglements with russia this claim was swiftly refuted by his own attorneys who explain after reviewing his returns that indeed the president had russian sources of incomes he's apparently statements for the fact of the fact by the president of the united states impugn the credibility of the i r s we call into doubt the ability of the agency to fairly administer the the president has never corrected the record the i r s has the ability to correct that record and it may do so under six one of the three k three of the internal revenue code epic spoiler request seeks exactly this type of record disclosure power the iris is obligated to issue a determination of that request and to sustain that request into no vote additional review if ever there were a situation that justified the use of kids this is it and we asked the to process it and so really the only thing before us is whether this was from means is that true that it made a perfect in for every class and then they had to bear the burden of coming forward and showing that they have an persuade that six one zero three is an exemption three stash which in many ways it is is just we have to figure out what to do with k three then they don't have to search for records or do any of that kind of stuff the question is just who had the burden of showing that ok three is does or does not take them out of exemption three so that they only think the horse well yes but but to to push back slightly  have legal claims to that same taxpayers and for me i'm talking about yes to either to the tax payer or taxpayers are legal surrogates or to governmental entities for state or federal for public revenue code six one zero four b the tax return information certain tax return information concerning tax exempt organizations is also subject to mandatory disclosure so there are in fact numerous circumstances in the tax code where disclosure is possible to a third party even though there has not been proof can i ask you something that is outside the record but it occurred to me in preparing for this case on are there financial disclosure forms of this information from the financial disclosure forms that were required i don't believe i don't know the answer for certain i don't believe the particular sources in amounts of income that would be reflected on the income tax return  six one of the three c this is not a request for the disclosure of records under six one of the three c the agency has no authority to apply this regulation implementing a different disclosure provision to this particular disclosure this particular request the second point is that even if that  regulation could be said to apply to this request it only requires proof of consent as appropriate in the words as appropriate as this court has made clear in consumer federation b h s when they are included in a statute or regulation they mean something they mean  only to the extent appropriate so it would be definitively not appropriate to require proof of consent where that proof of consent will have no bearing on the agency's determination of whether the records are exempt horrible will be released and that is the case here in k three and i will be the case ask you about something in your addendum on page forty one apparently this is the only thing in the record that indicates when the i r s used case three and it was back in two thousand yes and three because leaving aside who can see the disclosure i'm wondering about to whom the disclosure is made federal agency is a much more on behalf of federal agencies but there's also two other words i read disclosure two or four to mean that is what they are those are the entities to which the r s discloses something it looks as if the record indicates that the ten times that the i r s used ok three it was never to disclose it to the public eye unfortunately because of the context we don't know the exact circumstances of those disclosures we attempted to obtain records about them the timing suggests that they were related to the concerns raised by commissioner richardson in one thousand nine hundred eight that there were being there were false statements being made about  three takes some of the air out of that yes and that's is that something that falls within their burden to demonstrate in the first instance i said you said this you know of a review that we just decide now whether you're right or their right make a three creates a right to public disclosure of records that's just a question of law worse was it decided right now or do we given their perfection letter but it's not much elaboration they read ok three as it's not for you there's nothing here on this says the public has a right to information this is a right for the secretary to make no public right here so it doesn't take anything out of the overarching sixty one zero three exemption three status we could have a different discussion if you came in or pay one or am one but that's not where we three has nothing that doesn't undo the exemption three status that generally governs tax returns under sixty one no three i think that's their position in that line in the letter but they'll tell me if i'm wrong so they statute the concerns disclosure to the public at large so it is true that the k three provision does protect the interests of the i r s but it does that by assuring that in the right circumstances the public will have access to accurate information to correct damaging misstatements of to implement k through you are appropriate for your regulations it hasn't done that and it cannot deny processing of up its request on the basis of a rule that is not published that would be unreasonable as applied to this request and that it has essentially met up on the fl concluded that epic did not have a right to the information under either c or pay for difficulty is on its right where you started with the your reasoning which completely surrounds that one sentence that this was not a perfect you request and what difficulty is it seems like the i r s is collapsing in the requirements for perfect and for a request with winning establishing on the merits there that their position on exemption three and that seems to shift the burden to it's not there not within the existing thought there's no exemption for the problem provided the concerns prove us on  three rather than the one thing we've said time and time again is that six one o three goes to the same for your property statute and so when you get a four requests it says i would like documents the answer isn't show us why you're not in the exemption three if everything else is fine with the free press the the burden is not on the government to say no exemption three applies and that didn't seem to happen here i'm not sure that's exactly right your honor it seems quite reasonable for the i r s and the treasury department to establish as a regulation under four that in order to perfect a fair request an individual has to establish some sort of right to the information before the i that's all it's just a procedural problem i agree with you that there's a procedural issue here your honor and i think the way to look at it is that for also requires requesters to comply with the agency's reasonable rate procedural regulations and it is quite reasonable for  requirement for consent of the taxpayer under case three and he would be ludicrous to require consent of the taxpayer under case three it's not in the statute it would make no sense since the whole point is for the secretary to be able to disclose information which is the media exemption for lost tax payers in the ransom case where the first circuit required was the individual to establish that they were in fact a member of the media that they were not not case and so the first circuit decided that the i r s did not need to process t he did not need to do anything with the four best not to search the records produce the records in any way decide whether the records exist to possibly redactor segre if the room was able to cut it off as a legal determination i get that it wasn't but our circuit has been quite clear about th ordinary for a process in this what applies even under six hundred thirty so i'm trying to understand how you can see conceptualize their burden under k three if they don't they don't have to do is show the exemption for he doesn't apply he would agree with that under four people can ask for records and they don't have to include in their request exemption one doesn't apply them to doesn't hide something fried in the pie they don't have to do that they just say i'd like these documents correct as a perfect for a request i'd like these documents generally speaking although not in this context because the agency has established a reasonable regulation requiring the the plaintiffs to establish some rights which makes a lot that here would you so if you're for your regulation said anybody who requests to have a perfect in for your request you must show not only that you're seeking records that fall with some definition under foyer but you must also disprove the occupation of an exemption from the statute that would be perfectly fine you are there's probably a limit to what can be a reasonable regulation but the idea that an individual needs to stop with some right to the information not just white with what you're saying the problem is you're saying the way they didn't show the right is they did not disprove exemption three that's what your regulation is you're telling me now says the reason they didn't have a perfect for their questions they did not disprove foil you must disprove that exemption three applies would that regulation be permissible i'm not sure exactly what that i don't want to pass a regulation that i have not read a review of does not exist your honor but what i can say is three as an example of a statute as part of your firing last well actually that's what this regulation so that's asking the question so if in general in general for regulation statues do not say that a particular age particular question i say that exemption say seven or exemption five does not apply but it is quite reasonable for individual it's an agency to have a regulation that requires the individual to identify the records that is but trying to request that ronson that's why though this is a very important question i think that you're asking this a little bit as a report of academic in this case because there really is no dispute the k three is not satisfied and so the individuals do not have a right to the just haven't gotten to that you didn't get to that marriage determination letters they haven't gotten i think they very much to dismiss her case three would apply here it's just a question of ordering like you who goes to the well i don't think they've argued that the joint committee has not has an authorization right in that circumstance would have to focus on whether pay three provided a right that could be triggered by part private parties that is whether the secretary could be forced to do something under k three which i think is which is henderson was asking my colleagues on the other side we don't really have to focus on that question here we don't have to decide that issue and that's why just those very didn't really address some of these very important but detailed questions the easiest way to resolve this case is to say ok three simply is not satisfied because there's no joint committee provides a for requirement a proof of consent were in fact there is no requirement for consent in the case three provision the terms right of access was discussed in the foyer regulations they just want to clarify that those terms don't mean that the requestor has to demonstrate an absolute unqualified right of access to the records at the outset of a foyer process they simply mean that if the agency makes a disclosure the requester is the type of party that can receive those records it has a right to access the ot six one of three i want to underscore here that even if there were some limit to the reach of foil to the k three uniques unique facts of this case you could damaging the statements made by a person who occupies the