1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WILLIAM E. POWELL , Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 21
- 2946 (JEB)
JANET YELLEN, Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury, et al. , Defendant s .

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff William E. Powell brings this pro se action under 26 U.S.C. § 6103 , which concerns the disclosure of tax

- return information

. He alleg es that the I nternal Revenue Service failed to properly respond to his requests for various tax documents concerning himself, his family, and his family’s businesses. A s this Court has held in multiple other suits brought by Powell , § 6103 does not provide an independent cause of action. For that reason, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
I. Background Plaintiff alleges that between August 13, 2013, and February 27, 2022, he submitted myriad requests to the IRS and i ts affiliate offices requesting federal estate

- tax returns, corporate tax returns, Non

- Master Files, and Business Master Files, among other documentation. See ECF
No s . 9 (First Am ended Compl aint ) at 2

– 5 ( includin g allegations omitted from Second Amended Complaint); 19 (Second Am ended Compl aint ) at 2

– 5. According to Powell, the IRS did not respond to those requests

. See, e.g. , Second Am

. Compl. at 2

– 5

. On November 8 , 2021, Powell sued the Department of the Treasury, its Secretary , the2 IRS, and its Commissioner , asserting that the IRS’s failure to grant his requests was unlawful under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(e) and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief requiring production of th e requested information. S ee ECF No. 1 ( Compl .) at 1 , 3. Three months later , Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint, which once again invo k ed only § 6103(e) and added several new allegations about the IRS ’s failure to respond to his requests. See First Am

. Compl. at 2

– 6. On April 22, 2022, with the Court’s leave, he filed a Second Amended Complaint and added two new allegations, still maintaining that the Service’s lack of response violated only § 6103(e ). See Second Am

. Compl. at 5. Defendants now move to dismiss

. See ECF No. 20 (Def. MTD) at 2.
II. Legal Standard Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the c ourt has subject

- matter jurisdiction to hear his claims. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). A court also has an “affirmative obli gation to ensure that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdictional authority.” Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft , 185 F. Supp. 2d 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2001). For this reason, “‘the [p]laintiff ’ s factual allegations in the complaint .

. . will bear closer scrutiny in resolving a 12(b)(1) motion’ than in resolving a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.” Id. at 13

– 14 (quoting 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1350 (2d ed. 1987) (alteration in original)). Additionally, unlike with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the

c ourt “may consider materials outside the pleadings in deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.” Jerome Stevens Pharm. v. FDA , 402 F.3d 1 249, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2005); see also Venetian Casino Resort, LLC v. EEOC , 409 F.3d 359, 366 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In evaluating a motion to dismiss, the c ourt must “treat the complaint ’ s factual allegations as true and must grant plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts3 alleged.” Sparrow v. United Air Lines , 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also A shcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The

c ourt need not accept as true, however, “a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation,” nor an inference unsupported by the facts set forth in the Complaint. Trudeau v. Fed. Trade
Comm ’ n , 456 F.3d 178, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Papasan v. Allain , 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)).
III. Analysis Title 26 U.S.C. § 6103 is part of the Internal Revenue Code and is entitled “Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information .” In moving to dismiss , Defendants point out that this statute cannot provide independent subject

- matter jurisdiction.
See Def. MTD at 1. They are correct. This Court has previously stat ed at length why this is so : Section 6103

. . . does not “provide an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction” over claims seeking the disclosure of return information. See Maxwell v. O’Neill , No. 00

- 1953, 2002 WL 31367754, at *4 (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2002), aff’d , Maxwell v. Snow , 409 F.3d 354, 3 57

– 58 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Instead, § 6103 “operates as part of the larger [Freedom of Information Act] framework.” Id. at *3. To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal district court, requests for tax

- return information thus must comply with the procedures set forth under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. Id. at *4; see also Grasso v. IRS , 785 F.2d 70, 74 (3d Cir. 1986) (“We conclude, as did the Ninth, Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, that section 6103 operates within the confines of FOIA.”); Linsteadt v. IRS , 729 F.2d 998, 999 (5th Cir. 1984) (“[A]lthough § 6103 may furnish the criteria for the agency’s duty to disclose return information , judicial review of the agency’s nondisclosure is governed by the [Freedom of] Information Act.”); Marciano v. Shulman , 795 F. Supp. 2d 35, 39 (D.D.C. 2011) (holding § 6103 does not provide independent subject

- matter jurisdiction); Surgick v. Cirella , No. 09

- 3807, 2010 WL 2539418, at *4 (D.N.J. June 15, 2010) (holding “Section 6103 does not provide an independent, legally cognizable means to challenge the IRS’s non

- disclosure of tax information and that a person requesting such information and seeking enfo rcement must abide by the mechanisms prescribed by FOIA”).4 Powell v. Internal Revenue Serv. , No. 16

- 1682, 2017 WL 2799934, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 24, 2017). Powell knows this well since this is far from his first at

- bat

. In fact, t h is Court has stated many times in his other suits that § 6103 does not provide an independent cause of action. See Powell v. Internal Revenue Serv. , No. 18

- 2675, 2021 WL 1061528 , at *3 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2021); Powell v. Internal Revenue Serv. , No. 18

- 2675, 2020 WL 7024229 , at *3 (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 2020); Powell v. Internal Revenue Serv. , No. 18

- 2675, 2020 WL 3605774 , at *5 (D.D.C. July 2, 2020), reconsideration denied , 2020 WL 7024856 , at *3 (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 2020)

. Powell , moreover, does not contest this legal conclusion , nor does he seek to bring his claim s under the
F reedom of Information Act

. Indeed, he express ly states that he is not seeking his records under
FOIA , and instead spills his ink on the assorted fruitless steps he has taken to obtain the requested records

. See ECF No. 22 (Pl. Opp.) at 3

– 5. Frustration, however, is not a basis for subject

- matter jurisdiction. Powell, furthermore, should be familiar with the IRS’s procedural requirements because the Service sent him a letter dated December 19, 2017 , explaining the prerequisites for bringing a claim in federal court

— namely, that he would need to first submit a proper request for routine records to the IRS’s Return and Income Verification Services program and then submit a FOIA request

. S ee ECF No. 23 ( Def

. Reply ) at 5. P laintiff failed to follow that procedure before bringing this suit. Id

. As t he Court does not have the authority to adjudicate a claim brought exclusively under 26 U.S.C. § 6103 and as Plaintiff does not allege an alternative basis for relief , the Court lacks subject

- matter jurisdiction.5 IV. Conclusion
T he Court , accordingly , will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

. A separate O rder so stating will issue this day.

/s/ **James E. Boasberg** JAMES E. BOASBERG United States District Judge Date: June 30, 2022