13

ANONYMOUS, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE, RESPONDENT

Docket No. 28246–07D. Filed January 19, 2010. 

P requested a PLR from R. R informed P that he would be 

issuing a PLR adverse to P’s interests. P declined to withdraw 

the request for a PLR. Before R publicly released the PLR, P 

petitioned this Court, alleging that the PLR was arbitrary and 

capricious and that R failed to delete certain terms in the 

PLR that tended to identify P. P asks that we order R not to 

disclose the PLR or, in the alternative, order R to delete certain terms from the PLR. R moved for summary judgment 

and argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to prevent R 

from disclosing the PLR at issue and that none of the terms 

in the PLR would tend to identify P. Held: This Court’s jurisdiction is limited to making a determination with respect to 

whether certain terms in the PLR are required to be deleted 

before publication. Therefore, we will grant R’s motion for 

summary judgment in part. Held, further, because a question 

of fact remains whether certain terms in the PLR tend to 

identify P, we will deny R’s motion for summary judgment in 

part.

14 134 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (13) 

1 All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section 

references are to the Internal Revenue Code. 

Sealed, for petitioner. 

Sealed, for respondent. 

OPINION 

GOEKE, Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to Rule 

121. 1 For the reasons stated herein, we shall grant in part 

and deny in part respondent’s motion. 

Background

On October 1, 2004, petitioner submitted a request for a 

private letter ruling (PLR). On September 17, 2007, 

respondent contacted petitioner to inform petitioner that 

respondent intended to issue the PLR with a determination 

adverse to petitioner’s request. Respondent informed petitioner’s counsel that petitioner could withdraw the request, 

but petitioner declined. On October 5, 2007, respondent 

issued a written adverse determination letter ruling against 

petitioner. 

On December 6, 2007, petitioner petitioned this Court 

pursuant to section 6110 to restrain disclosure of respondent’s letter ruling. Petitioner’s petition asks the Court to: (1) 

Order, under provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA), 5 U.S.C. secs. 551–559, 701–706 (2006), that 

respondent not publicly disclose the PLR; (2) order that the 

PLR not be disclosed to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

employees; and (3) order should the IRS be allowed to publicly 

disclose the PLR, that the IRS delete certain information in 

the PLR that would identify petitioner. Since the filing of the 

petition in this case, respondent has agreed to delete additional information. On April 24, 2009, respondent filed his 

motion for summary judgment. 

Discussion

I. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and 

avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. 

Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). The Court may grant 

(13) ANONYMOUS v. COMMISSIONER 15

summary judgment where there is no genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. 

Rule 121(a) and (b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 

T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). The 

moving party bears the burden of proving that there is no 

genuine issue of material fact, and the Court will draw any 

factual inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 

(1985). Rule 121(d) provides that where the moving party 

properly makes and supports a motion for summary judgment ‘‘an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of such party’s pleading’’ but must set forth 

specific facts, by affidavits or otherwise ‘‘showing that there 

is a genuine issue for trial.’’

II. The PLR System

The IRS has developed the PLR system to provide guidance 

to taxpayers on the tax impact of specific transactions. Certain information is required in order to file requests for letter 

rulings and written determinations. Rev. Proc. 2007–4, sec. 

9.01, 2007–1 C.B. 118, 131. Each request must contain a 

complete statement of all facts relating to the transaction, 

including a statement of the business reasons for the transaction and a detailed description of the transaction in question. Id. sec. 9.02(1), 2007–1 C.B. at 131. Additionally, copies 

of all pertinent documents and an analysis of material facts 

must be included. Id. sec. 9.02(2)–(3), 2007–1 C.B. at 131–

132. The request must also include relevant authorities, even 

those contrary to the taxpayer’s position, a statement 

regarding previous consideration of the issue, and a statement identifying any pending legislation. Id. sec. 9.02(4)–(8), 

2007–1 C.B. at 132–133. To assist the IRS in complying with 

section 6110, the request for a letter ruling should also 

include a ‘‘deletions statement’’. Id. sec. 9.02(9), 2007–1 C.B. 

at 133. 

Section 6110(a) provides that the text of any written determination shall be open to public inspection at such places as 

the Secretary may by regulation prescribe. Before making 

such document available to the public for inspection, however, the Secretary is required to delete certain information 

that is exempt from disclosure. Sec. 6110(c). The exempted 

16 134 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (13) 

information includes the names, addresses, and other identifying details of the person to whom the written determination pertains, information the disclosure of which would 

create a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy, and 

information specifically authorized under Executive order to 

be kept secret in the interest of national defense or of foreign 

policy. Sec. 6110(c)(1), (2), (5). 

III. Confidential Return Information Under Section 6103

Section 6103 protects the privacy of taxpayers and restricts 

Government officers and employees from disclosing confidential return information. Lizcano v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 

2008–39. Section 6103(a) provides that ‘‘Returns and return 

information shall be confidential’’ and that no officer or 

employee of the Government who obtains such information in 

an official capacity shall disclose it ‘‘except as authorized by 

this title’’. Section 6103 was designed both ‘‘to protect taxpayers’ privacy and, therefore, to encourage the taxpayers’ 

free and open disclosure to the Service.’’ Estate of Yaeger v. 

Commissioner, 92 T.C. 180, 184 (1989) (citing Lampert

v. United States, 854 F.2d 335, 336 (9th Cir. 1988)). ‘‘A taxpayer’s return, or return information, generally may not be 

revealed to a third party unless such disclosure is specifically 

authorized under section 6103.’’ Id. (citing Martin v. IRS, 857 

F.2d 722 (10th Cir. 1988)). Section 6103(b)(1) defines the 

‘‘term ‘return’ [to mean] any tax or information return, declaration of estimated tax, or claim for refund required by, or 

provided for or permitted under, the provisions of this title 

which is filed with the Secretary’’. Section 6103(b)(2) provides 

an expansive definition of return information. However, section 6103(h)(1) provides an explicit exception to these confidentiality requirements to allow inspection and disclosure 

of return and return information by officers and employees 

of the Department of the Treasury whose official duties 

require such inspection or disclosure for tax administration 

purposes. United States v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 440 

F.3d 729, 734 (6th Cir. 2006).

(13) ANONYMOUS v. COMMISSIONER 17

IV. Publication of PLRs

Section 6110(c) provides that before any written determination or background file is made open or available to 

public inspection, the Secretary shall delete: 

(1) the names, addresses, and other identifying details of the person to 

whom the written determination pertains and of any other person, other 

than a person with respect to whom a notation is made under subsection 

(d)(1), identified in the written determination or any background file document; 

(2) information specifically authorized under criteria established by an 

Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, and which is in fact properly classified pursuant to such 

Executive order; 

(3) information specifically exempted from disclosure by any statute 

(other than this title) which is applicable to the Internal Revenue Service; 

(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from 

a person and privileged or confidential; 

(5) information the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; 

(6) information contained in or related to examination, operating, or 

condition reports prepared by, or on behalf of, or for use of an agency 

responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; and 

(7) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells. 

A person may act to restrain certain information from 

being disclosed in a written determination or background file, 

however, under the procedures set forth in section 6110(f). 

Section 6110(f)(2) and the accompanying regulations provide 

that any taxpayer to whom a written determination pertains 

(or successor in interest, executor, or other person authorized 

by law to act for or on behalf of such person) or who has a 

direct interest in maintaining the confidentiality of a written 

determination or background file document may file an 

administrative request that material be deleted from the 

written determination (or background file document). See 

sec. 301.6110–5(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. 

Section 6110(f)(3) establishes jurisdiction in this Court to 

determine whether, and to what extent, a disputed portion of 

a written determination or background file document may be 

open to public inspection. Section 6110(f)(3) provides in part: 

(A) CREATION OF REMEDY.—Any person—

(i) to whom a written determination pertains (or a successor in 

interest, executor, or other person authorized by law to act for or on 

18 134 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (13) 

behalf of such person), or who has a direct interest in maintaining the 

confidentiality of any such written determination or background file 

document (or portion thereof), 

(ii) who disagrees with any failure to make a deletion with respect to 

that portion of any written determination or any background file document which is to be open or available to public inspection, and 

(iii) who has exhausted his administrative remedies as prescribed 

pursuant to paragraph (2),

may, within 60 days after the mailing by the Secretary of a notice of 

intention to disclose any written determination or background file document under paragraph (1), together with the proposed deletions, file a petition in the United States Tax Court (anonymously, if appropriate) for a 

determination with respect to that portion of such written determination 

or background file document which is to be open to public inspection. 

See also Rules 220 through 229A. Section 6110(f) requires 

the IRS to give notice of its intention to disclose a written 

determination. 

Respondent moves for summary judgment on the grounds 

that: (1) The APA does not apply to this disclosure action; (2) 

section 6103 has a specific exemption for IRS employees; and 

(3) the information in the PLR is generic and does not tend 

to identify petitioner. 

Petitioner objects to respondent’s motion and argues that 

the APA provides this Court with the authority to order 

respondent not to disclose the PLR at issue because the PLR

was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. Petitioner alleges section 6110(f)(3) grants the Court the express 

authority to review written determinations open to public 

inspection like PLRs. Petitioner contends that the contents of 

the PLR are contrary to law and thus respondent acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and in bad faith in issuing it. Petitioner 

further argues that for the same reason the PLR should not 

be disclosed to Department of the Treasury officials. 

Lastly, petitioner argues that certain terms in the PLR tend 

to identify petitioner and that the Court may determine 

whether additional information should be redacted from the 

PLR. Petitioner contends that respondent has failed to delete 

all identifying information as required by section 6110(c)(1). 

V. Conclusion

On the basis of our examination of the record before us, we 

shall grant in part and deny in part respondent’s motion for 

summary judgment. Section 6110(f)(3)(A) explicitly grants 

(13) ANONYMOUS v. COMMISSIONER 19

this Court jurisdiction to make a determination with respect 

to the Commissioner’s decision to delete or not delete 

information from a PLR before public disclosure. Further, section 6103(h)(1) authorizes the disclosure of confidential 

return information to Department of the Treasury officers 

and employees. Petitioner’s argument that the APA allows 

this Court to prevent the Commissioner from disclosing a PLR

is incorrect. The APA does not create a right of action in this 

circumstance. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. sec. 703 (2006); Califano v. 

Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977). Section 6110(f)(3)(A) limits this 

Court’s determination to the Commissioner’s deletion 

decisions. That section does not give this Court the authority 

to order the Commissioner to restrain disclosure of a PLR in 

its entirety. The Tax Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction, 

and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent provided by Congress. See sec. 7442; see also GAF Corp. & Subs. 

v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 521 (2000). This Court’s jurisdiction under section 6110(f)(3)(A) is explicitly limited to 

making a determination with respect to the Commissioner’s 

decision not to delete information from a written determination or background file document which is to be open to 

public inspection. Section 6110(f)(3)(A) is a precise grant of 

jurisdiction and does not allow for additional general remedies. See Hinck v. United States, 550 U.S. 501, 506 (2007). 

Lastly, we address respondent’s contention that summary 

judgment is appropriate because specific terms in the PLR do 

not in fact tend to identify petitioner. Respondent contends 

that there is no material issue of fact in regard to these 

terms and argues that they do not tend to identify petitioner. 

On a party’s motion for summary judgment, we must view 

the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 

Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 821. Petitioner 

alleges that terms included in the PLR are specific to petitioner, will be easily recognized by anyone in petitioner’s 

industry, and clearly show petitioner as being the party 

requesting the PLR. Because there is an issue of material fact 

with respect to whether these terms do or do not tend to 

identify petitioner, we shall deny that part of respondent’s 

motion. 

We shall grant respondent’s motion to the extent petitioner 

asks this Court to order withholding of the entire PLR at 

issue. We shall deny respondent’s motion to the extent petiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:11 May 14, 2013 Jkt 372897 PO 20009 Frm 00007 Fmt 2847 Sfmt 2847 V:\FILES\ANON.TES SHEILA
20 134 UNITED STATES TAX COURT REPORTS (13) 

tioner contends that there is a material fact in dispute as to 

whether certain terms in the PLR tend to identify petitioner. 

To reflect the foregoing, 

An appropriate order granting respondent’s 

motion in part and denying it in part will be 

issued. 

f