Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-01794/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-01794-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Aloe Vera of America, Inc., et. al., ) No. CV 99-1794-PHX-JAT

)

Plaintiffs, ) ORDER

)

vs. )

)

United States of America, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Pending before this Court are the Yamagata Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment Regarding Liability (Doc. #480), the Maughan Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment (Doc. #482), and Defendant United States of America's Motion for

Summary Judgment (Doc. #485). The Court now rules on the Motions.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case arises from certain disclosures made by the Internal Revenue Service to the

Japanese National Tax Administration (NTA). The United States made these disclosures

pursuant to a convention with Japan that allows the exchange of information in revenue

collection effort. Following these disclosures, stories appeared in the Japanese media

regarding the joint examination of Plaintiffs by the IRS and the NTA. The articles about

Plaintiffs contained information that was at least partially false.

Plaintiffs argue that the information disclosed by the United States to the NTA was

not an "authorized disclosure" under federal law; and, therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to

Case 2:99-cv-01794-JAT Document 526 Filed 02/02/07 Page 1 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

damages for Defendant's breach of confidentiality. Plaintiffs filed this suit on October 6,

1999. Defendant filed its first Motion to Dismiss in December 1999, claiming lack of subject

matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion to dismiss

Plaintiffs' Complaint on statute of limitations grounds with leave to amend, but denied the

motion on all other grounds. Specifically, with regard to Count II, the Court found that if the

"IRS knew or should have known, based on the alleged prior history of mutual relations with

the NTA, that the latter routinely failed to comply with the terms and conditions of secrecy

mandated by the Convention, the IRS's disclosure of any return information . . . to the NTA

was not authorized by the Convention or by the statute." (Doc. #26)

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on October 6, 2000. Defendant filed

a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in November of 2000. On June 18, 2001, the

Court denied the motion to dismiss, but specifically refrained from ruling on whether

Plaintiffs stated a claim "by alleging that false information cannot be pertinent information."

(Doc. #65). Plaintiffs have amended their Complaint twice more since the June 18, 2001

Order.

II. Analysis and Conclusion

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary

judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Thus, summary judgment is mandated,

"...against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an

element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof

at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 

Initially, the movant bears the burden of pointing out to the Court the basis for the

motion and the elements of the causes of action upon which the non-movant will be unable

to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 323. The burden then shifts to the

non-movant to establish the existence of material fact. Id. The non-movant "must do more

Case 2:99-cv-01794-JAT Document 526 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Defendant argues the Court should not allow Plaintiffs to introduce evidence of the

first alleged false statement because Plaintiffs did not specifically list the statement in their

Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs counter that they timely and properly disclosed the

false statement to Defendant during discovery and that notice pleading allows for factual

development of claims. The Court will overrule Defendant's objection.

- 3 -

than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts" by

"com[ing] forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'"

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) (quoting

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). A dispute about a fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The non-movant's bare assertions, standing alone, are

insufficient to create a material issue of fact and defeat a motion for summary judgment. Id.

at 247-48. However, in the summary judgment context, the Court construes all disputed facts

in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072,

1075 (9th Cir. 2004).

B. Count I

All Plaintiffs have moved for partial summary judgment on Count I. Defendant also

moves for summary judgment on Count I. In Count I, Plaintiffs allege the Defendant

violated 26 U.S.C. §6103(a) by providing false information to the NTA. Plaintiffs base their

motions on two allegedly false statements: 1) the IRS's Simultaneous Examination Proposal

(SEP) estimated that Plaintiffs Aloe Vera of America and Rex G. Maughan had unreported

income in the United States from Japan-related transactions for the years 1991 and 1992 of

$32,116,000;1

 and 2) notes of a presentation to the NTA stating that although the cost of the

aloe vera product to FLP Japan Ltd. (FLPJ), Plaintiffs' distributing entity in Japan, varied

over the years, the commissions paid to Plaintiffs Maughan and Gene Yamagata remained

the same. 

26 U.S.C. §6103(a) prohibits employees of the United States from disclosing any tax

return or return information obtained in the course of their employment. 26 U.S.C.

Case 2:99-cv-01794-JAT Document 526 Filed 02/02/07 Page 3 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The Court is not convinced that false information can never further a joint project.

For example, a partner at a law firm tells a junior associate that the partner promised to give

a draft of a summary judgment motion to the client by Tuesday. In fact, the partner knew she

did not have to give a draft to the client until Wednesday. Because the partner gave a false

- 4 -

§743(a)(1) provides a private cause of action for taxpayers whose confidential tax

information has been wrongfully disclosed. Section 6103 provides several exceptions to the

general non-disclosure rule. The exception relevant to this case, section 6103(k)(4), reads:

A return or return information may be disclosed to a competent authority of a

foreign government which has an income tax or gift and estate tax convention,

or other convention or bilateral agreement relating to the exchange of tax

information, with the United States but only to the extent provided in, and

subject to the terms and conditions of such convention or bilateral agreement.

The United States has an income tax treaty with Japan. Article 26 of the US/Japan

Income Tax treaty provides that the competent taxing authorities of the United States and

Japan "shall provide such information as is pertinent to carrying out the provisions of this

Convention or preventing fraud or fiscal evasion in relation to the taxes which are the subject

of this treaty." Defendant claims that the 6103(k)(4) exception covers both allegedly false

statements because it provided tax return information in the SEP to Japan pursuant to the

US/Japan tax treaty. Plaintiffs argue that the false disclosures do not fall under the exception

because false information could never be pertinent to carrying out the treaty; and, that

relevance is a term or condition of the treaty.

The Court notes that Plaintiffs survived a motion to dismiss by arguing that false

information constitutes return information under 26 U.S.C. §6103(b)(2)(A). In its September

20, 2000 Order the Court held that because the information the IRS allegedly disclosed to the

NTA was prepared by the Secretary with respect to the determination of the possible

existence of tax liability, the information constituted "return information" within the

definition of §6103(b)(2)(A). Section 6103(k)(4) allows the IRS to disclose "return

information" to treaty partners like Japan. Plaintiff nonetheless claims that the IRS cannot

disclose false information, i.e., tax information, because false information could never further

the purposes of a tax treaty.2

Case 2:99-cv-01794-JAT Document 526 Filed 02/02/07 Page 4 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

deadline, she had more time to review the draft and improve it. And the client received a

better product. This is one example where providing false information furthered a project.

- 5 -

The United States urges the Court to adopt an expansive view of the tax treaty

exception. Defendant argues that the US-Japan Tax Convention authorizes the broad

disclosure of return information and that the Convention does not require the accuracy of the

information exchanged. And that the treaty requires the IRS to transmit any information that

is relevant.

The Court finds that the tax treaty exception of §6103(k)(4) should be interpreted very

broadly. See Bacardi Corp. of America v. Domenech, 311 U.S. 150, 163 (1940) (stating,

"[Courts] should construe the treaty liberally to give effect to the purpose which animates

it."). Free and open disclosure best serves the purposes of tax treaties - - ensuring that

taxpayers correctly report and pay their domestic and foreign taxes. To require the United

States to guarantee the accuracy of all information conveyed to treaty partners, especially in

the preliminary stages, would have a chilling effect on furthering the purposes of the treaty.

The IRS would not propose simultaneous examinations for fear of lawsuits for any

misinformation contained in the proposal. 

While deliberately providing knowingly false information to a tax treaty partner

might serve as the basis for a cause of action under 26 U.S.C. §743(a)(1), the Court does not

need to reach that question in this case. Plaintiffs have presented evidence that creates a fact

issue regarding whether the Defendant negligently conveyed incorrect information to the

NTA, but not evidence that demonstrates a deliberate attempt by the IRS to provide false

information to the NTA. The Court holds that negligently providing incorrect information

in the course of a simultaneous examination does not rise to the level of actionable conduct.

Estimate of Unreported Income

The IRS included in section III of its SEP an estimate of Plaintiffs' potential

unreported income, referring back to the issues in section II, which addressed royalty and

commission expenses and other issues. Plaintiffs claim that Defendant had finished its audit

Case 2:99-cv-01794-JAT Document 526 Filed 02/02/07 Page 5 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

of Plaintiffs before sending the SEP and knew that Plaintiffs had reported the

royalty/commissions income for 1991 and 1992, but included the estimate to bias the NTA

against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs note that the amount of estimated unreported income for 1991

and 1992 equals exactly the royalty amounts disallowed as expenses by the IRS.

Defendant emphasizes that this was merely an estimate, and an estimate, by its nature,

is neither false nor true. The Yamagata Plaintiffs counter by citing a case that stated an

estimate without any basis can constitute a falsehood. The case, Harrison v. Westinghouse

Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776 (4th Cir. 1999), is distinguishable. That case involved

estimates submitted with contract bids, bids that the parties relied on to award contracts. 

The Court agrees with Defendant that an estimate under these circumstances cannot

be categorized as either false or true; it is just a prediction. If the IRS estimates a taxpayer

will owe a certain amount, but the actual amount owed is either higher or lower, does that

make the original estimate a falsehood, or just an inaccurate forecast? The Court finds the

latter.

International Examiner Rick Smith could not remember how he chose the estimate,

but stated that the IRS had concerns other than the payment of royalties and commissions

from FLPJ to Aloe Vera of America, Inc. (AVA), including whether Plaintiffs had set up

another tax conduit entity like Batrax. Section II, to which Section III referred, listed more

issues than just the royalties and commissions. Plaintiffs point out that the note in section

three specifically mentions royalty and commission payments and that the estimates equaled

the amounts of royalty and commission payments in question.

Regardless of whether the estimate of unreported income equaled the amounts of

commissions and royalties disallowed, the fact remains that the estimate was just that - an

estimate. When taxpayers file for an extension on their income taxes, they have to make a

payment of estimated tax. If they overpay, they are not liable for the amount of their

estimate, the IRS has to refund the overpayment. The Court finds that in the tax context, an

estimate cannot serve as a predicate for liability for a knowingly false disclosure.

Case 2:99-cv-01794-JAT Document 526 Filed 02/02/07 Page 6 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

Costs remained the same in 1988 and 1989.

- 7 -

Commission vs. Price

The second alleged false statement involves notes from an IRS presentation to the

NTA allegedly concerning commissions paid to Maughan and Yamagata on AVA sales of

aloe vera products to FLPJ verses the cost of the products. IE Smith made a presentation to

the NTA regarding the commission issue and other issues in August of 1996. Manager Pat

Sturgis's notes of the meeting state that the cost of the product to Japan from AVA changed

over the years from over $30 to $15, approximately, but the commissions always stayed the

same at $8.10. Manager Sturgis testified that her notes regarding the specific statement in

question were "poor" and she didn't know whether she understood what Smith was saying.

She was taking notes strictly for her own benefit. IE Smith testified that he did not remember

making the statement Sturgis attributed to him.

Analyst Sally Warner also took notes at the meeting. Her notes state,"through the

years the sales price of the product changed quite a bit. The commission always stayed the

same." It is unclear whether this note refers to sales to FLPJ. And the fax transmitting

Warner's notes reads, "Attached are the notes that I took during the meeting. As you will be

able to see, there are some weak spots and I did miss parts of the second day and the last

day." Warner testified that she emphasized recording what the NTA wanted, not what the

U.S. representatives were saying.

The evidence shows that from 1985 to 1989 both the cost of the product and the

commissions changed, but the commissions did stay the same in 1987, 1988, and 1989,

despite changes in cost from 1987 to 1988.3

 So, if they describe the cost of sale from AVA

to FLPJ, the two sets of notes would be inaccurate except for the years 1987 and 1988. But

the Court is not willing to hold the United States liable for intentional falsehoods based on

notes taken by two different attendees of a meeting - attendees who admitted to the weakness

of their notes. 

Case 2:99-cv-01794-JAT Document 526 Filed 02/02/07 Page 7 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Plaintiffs argue the Court should consider NTA leaks of domestic tax information

because Japan has the same obligation to keep domestic tax information confidential as it

- 8 -

The Court will not impose liability on the United States for intentional disclosure of

false information based on a tax estimate included in the SEP or the presentation notes taken

by attendees who both questioned the reliability of their notes. The Court therefore grants

summary judgment to Defendant on Count I.

C. Count II

Defendant has also moved for summary judgment on Count II. In Count II of the

Complaint, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant violated section 6103 by providing confidential

tax information, whether false or true, to the NTA because the IRS knew or should have

known that the NTA would leak the information. Defendant argues that it has no duty to

ensure that the NTA maintains the confidentiality of the information provided by the U.S.

pursuant to the U.S./Japan treaty. The Court has twice rejected this argument, and does so

again. 

 In its September 20, 2000 Order, the Court found, "if as Plaintiffs allege, the IRS

knew or should have known, based on the alleged prior history of mutual relations with the

NTA, that the latter routinely failed to comply with the terms and conditions of secrecy

mandated by the Convention, the IRS's disclosure of any return information - - whether true

or false - - to the NTA was not authorized by the Convention or by the statute." Pursuant to

that Order, to survive summary judgment on Count II, Plaintiffs must set forth specific facts

demonstrating a genuine issue regarding whether: 1) the IRS knew or should have known

prior to the October 1997 leaks of Plaintiffs' tax information that the NTA routinely leaked

tax treaty information; and 2) the NTA actually leaked the news stories involving Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs attempt to meet their burden on the first issue, in substantial part, with

evidence regarding the NTA's leak of domestic audit information. The Court finds that

alleged leaks of Japanese domestic audits, even of American companies, are irrelevant.4

Case 2:99-cv-01794-JAT Document 526 Filed 02/02/07 Page 8 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

does to keep tax treaty information confidential. This argument ignores the express language

of the September 20, 2000 Order that allowed Plaintiffs to survive a failure to state a claim

challenge. The Court found that the Plaintiffs would state a cause of action for disclosing

any information to the NTA only if they demonstrated the NTA "routinely failed to comply

with the terms and conditions of secrecy mandated by the Convention." (emphasis added).

- 9 -

Only evidence that the NTA routinely leaked information covered by the confidentiality

provisions of the U.S./Japan tax treaty prior to the October 1997 leaks can satisfy Plaintiffs'

burden.

Plaintiffs submitted 228 Statements of Fact and hundreds of pages of exhibits with

their Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court will attempt to

succinctly summarize the evidence purporting to satisfy Plaintiffs' burden of proof with

regard to the IRS's foreknowledge of the NTA's allegedly routine leaks of tax treaty

information. For ease of organization, the Court will address the evidence in the order and

manner presented in the Plaintiffs' Opposition.

Hedgpeth/Ng

Plaintiffs claim that immediately after the October 1997 media leaks, Competent

Authority ("CA") Official Hedgpeth stated that the NTA disclosures continue and that the

disclosures seem to happen on every large high profile case. First, this is a statement found

in the notes of International Examination Manager Charles Mason of messages from CA

Hedgpeth, not a direct statement by Hedgpeth. Second, the alleged statement does not

indicate that the so-called "high profile" cases were tax treaty cases. And the Court has

found that only prior leaks of tax treaty information are relevant. 

The email sent out by Hedgpeth on October 19, 1997 stating that the IRS was

suspending the exchange of information with Japan under the treaty because of the

complaints by Plaintiffs, "combined with past episodes of U.S. taxpayer information being

improperly disclosed in Japan" suffers from similar deficiencies. The email does not provide

any details regarding the "past episodes." Moreover, Hedgpeth testified at his deposition that

he meant past episodes of improper disclosure in Japan, "as reported by practitioners,"not

Case 2:99-cv-01794-JAT Document 526 Filed 02/02/07 Page 9 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

that the disclosures had actually occurred. Further, any actions the IRS took after the

October 1997 leaks to ensure the confidentiality of taxpayer information are not probative

of what the IRS knew before those leaks. 

Plaintiffs also note that CA Lyons testified that Lyons thought Hedgpeth believed

NTA press leaks happened on every high-profile case. Again, Lyons does not state that the

high profile cases were cases conducted pursuant to the US/Japan tax treaty. And Lyons

goes on to testify that he did not agree that NTA leaks occurred on every profile case and

stated that no one could ever produce sufficient evidence of a NTA leak to him.

Plaintiffs again point to Mason's notes to attribute a quote to Frank Ng, the Revenue

Service Representative (RSR) for Tokyo. In his notes Mason writes the line "Does not

surprise Frank," and underneath that, "Any multi-national or important case seems to get

out." Assuming these notes accurately reflect what RSR Ng said, they still do not indicate

how the cases "get out", i.e., the notes do not state the NTA leaks every important case.

Ward/Tsujimoto

Both Assistant RSR Ward and RSR Tsujimoto testified that American taxpayers,

including members of the American Chamber of Commerce, often complained about the

NTA leaking Japanese domestic audit information. The Court notes that evidence regarding

complaints about and rumors of leaks is different from evidence of actual leaks. In any case,

this evidence is irrelevant because it involves the disclosure of Japanese domestic audits.

RSR Tsujimoto also testified about an alleged NTA leak that occurred at a Pacific

Area Tax Administrators (PATA) meeting in Australia in the early 1990s. RSR Tsujimoto

testified he recalled news articles in the international press about what the parties discussed

at the PATA meeting. The NTA had discussed things in a press conference that the other

parties did not appreciate. While this testimony does concern a leak by the NTA, it does not

concern a leak of information under the US/Japan tax treaty.

Johnson

CA Analyst Johnson testified that he knew of the disclosure of a transfer pricing

examination and an NTA proposed adjustment in Japan that both occurred prior to the

Case 2:99-cv-01794-JAT Document 526 Filed 02/02/07 Page 10 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

"Q: Okay. So if an employee of the Internal Revenue Service stationed at the

embassy in Tokyo said that in his experience in the early 1990s, that situations which were

alleged to be NTA leaks on American taxpayers or companies that were multinationals had

occurred three to four times a year, would that be enough to constitute a customary practice?

A: If in fact this is based on facts, if the three or four leaks are happening on a year-over-year

basis, then perhaps it can be said that it is. But, however, if that's not based on the facts and

in fact the leaks occurred from time to time, then you could not say that that was a customary

practice." Komamiya Depo., Ex. 68, pp. 78-79, to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's

Motion for Summary Judgment. 

- 11 -

October 1997 leaks. But Johnson did not testify that the NTA was responsible for those

disclosures.

Lyons

CA John Lyons testified that someone approached him in October 1995 and suggested

the NTA might have leaked some confidential information. He said that press releases

appeared in the Japanese media in October of 1997 and people made allegations similar to

the allegations made by Plaintiffs here. It is unclear from Lyons's testimony, but the October

1995 press releases could have discussed treaty information. But Lyons testified that no one

ever proved to him that the NTA was the source of the October 1995 leaks or any other leak.

Komamiya

Plaintiffs questioned Defendant's designated liability expert Fumihiro Komamiya

about what he would consider a customary practice. In their Opposition, Plaintiffs claim that

Komamiya opined that three or four leaks per year by the NTA would constitute a customary

practice of leaking information. The Plaintiffs neglect to mention that when first asked if

three to four leaks a year would be enough to constitute "customarily," Mr. Komamiya

replied, "No, I would not feel that way." And that he testified three to four leaks a year

would constitute a custom of leaking information only under certain limited circumstances.5

Regardless, this testimony helps the Plaintiffs only if they can demonstrate the NTA

improperly disclosed US/Japan tax treaty information three to four times a year - a burden

they have not met. 

Case 2:99-cv-01794-JAT Document 526 Filed 02/02/07 Page 11 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

CA Lyons did testify as to previous complaints by taxpayers in October 1995. Even

if the NTA leaked information covered by the tax treaty in 1995, one example of a leak does

not prove routine leaks.

- 12 -

Mr. Komamiya attached to his expert report twenty articles that included a direct

attribution of confidential tax information to Japanese government sources. But the articles

refer to governmental "sources" or "authorities," not specifically to the NTA. And Mr.

Komamiya testified that those terms would apply to several entities. Only leaks by the NTA,

not other Japanese government sources, support Plaintiffs' position. 

Lowell

Cym Lowell, another defense expert, testified that in his personal experience and

international tax law practice, he did not think the NTA made routine leaks of tax

information. But he stated that this was just his point of view and that not everyone agreed

with him.

Watanabe

Professor Takesato Watanabe, Plaintiffs' media expert, gave lots of opinions about the

NTA's practices and disclosures. Professor Watanabe opined that the NTA conducts leaks

on an almost daily basis. But he did not provide specific, pertinent examples. He testified

that he personally knew of over ten cases where the NTA had leaked tax related information

to the press, but did not say that the information was covered by the Japan/US tax treaty. The

stories he describes at pages 100-101 of his deposition, cited by Plaintiffs, did not involve

leaks of US/Japan tax treaty information.

Plaintiffs have cited to witness testimony of numerous rumors of leaks by the NTA

of Japanese domestic audits. They have also highlighted testimony of complaints regarding

the NTA's failure to maintain the confidentiality of taxpayer information. Further, they have

attached stories attributing tax information to unnamed government sources. 

But their Opposition lacks examples of other NTA leaks of US/Japan tax treaty

information.6

 Without this evidence, Plaintiffs cannot create an issue of fact as to the IRS's

Case 2:99-cv-01794-JAT Document 526 Filed 02/02/07 Page 12 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

knowledge of pre-October 1997 leaks of tax treaty information. Accordingly, Plaintiffs

cannot survive summary judgment on Count II.

D. Standing of Yamagata Plaintiffs

Because the Court finds the Plaintiffs cannot survive summary judgment on either

Count of their Complaint, Defendant's standing arguments are moot. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

(Doc. # 485).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the Yamagata Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment Regarding Liability (Doc. #480) and the Maughan Plaintiffs' Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #482).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED VACATING the Final Pretrial Conference set for July

9, 2007 and the bench trial set for July 31, 2007.

DATED this 2nd day of February, 2007.

Case 2:99-cv-01794-JAT Document 526 Filed 02/02/07 Page 13 of 13