Opinion ID: 3219057
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Summary Report, Graph, and Checksheet

Text: The other two pages withheld in full are (1) a summary report prepared by Agent Sharma on October 16, 2013, describing the process and results of his review of tax returns for certain individual third-party taxpayers, which he conducted in connection with the Solers’ audit; and (2) a graph prepared by Agent Sharma on July 30, 2012, which he generated from a database that “stores information about which individuals and entities are related to each taxpayer” and which “shows the identity of third-party individuals and entities whose tax returns were considered in conjunction with [Solers’] examination.” The IRS also produced a “Closed Case Review Checksheet” form with one line on the document redacted, explaining that it had redacted that portion of the checksheet because it reflected “the identity of a third party whose return information was considered in conjunction with [Solers’] 14 examination.” The IRS contends that its withholdings with respect to these three pages are justified by Exemption 3 and 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a). Exemption 3 protects from disclosure information that is “specifically exempted from disclosure by [a] statute” “(i) requir[ing] that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or (ii) establish[ing] particular criteria for withholding or refer[ring] to particular types of matters to be withheld.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3). And 26 U.S.C. § 6103 “is a statute contemplated by FOIA Exemption 3.” Tax Analysts v. IRS, 410 F.3d 715, 717 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). That statute prohibits the disclosure of “[r]eturns and return information . . . except as authorized by [Title 26],” 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a), and it defines the term “return information” as including “a taxpayer’s identity . . . [and] whether the taxpayer’s return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing,” although the term “does not include data in a form which cannot be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer,” id. § 6103(b)(2). We conclude that, although the summary report does not specifically name third-party individuals whose tax returns were considered in conjunction with Solers’ audit, the individuals’ 15 identities could easily be discerned from the report or any segregable portion of it, therefore justifying its being withheld. Likewise, because the graph and checksheet specifically identified third-party individuals and entities, we conclude that the IRS acted properly in withholding the graph and redacting one line from the checksheet. In an effort to avoid this conclusion, Solers asserted for the first time during oral argument that four of its employees had authorized the IRS to release their tax return information to Solers, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6103(c), and that the IRS was therefore not entitled to rely on Exemption 3 and § 6103(a) to withhold records insofar as they relate to those third parties. It is well settled, however, “that contentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned.” United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004) (citing Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999)). Moreover, the record reflects that after the IRS noted to the district court that Solers’ employees had failed to submit the proper authorization forms, Solers made no effort to counter this representation. In these circumstances, Solers’ efforts to obtain tax documents identifying third parties are unavailing. 16