Opinion ID: 6326037
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Fisher’s Remaining Arguments

Text: For the first time on appeal, Fisher asserts that his complaint adequately alleges that Perron intended to disclose tax return information, in violation of 26 U.S.C § 6103(a)(3). Although the complaint refers to the disclosure of “tax information” in the transcript of the February 18 call, there are no separate allegations that Perron recorded the conversation with the intent to disclose tax information, let alone “tax return information.” Moreover, these are new allegations raised on appeal that Fisher cannot use to amend his complaint through appellate review. See, e.g., McGrew, 937 F.3d at 668 (citing Harvey, 453 F.3d at 328–29). Fisher also argues that the district court dismissed his complaint without considering his allegation that Perron recorded other calls between the siblings. According to Fisher, if these other alleged recordings are taken into account, his complaint obviously states a claim. But even fewer facts are alleged with respect to the other phone calls. Fisher asserts that his allegations of recording and disclosure of these other calls are plausible because Perron’s purported reason for recording the February 18 call—her desire to inform her attorney what her siblings were saying—applies to the other calls as well. But Fisher provides no factual information, only an allegation that there were other calls beyond the February 18 call and that, “on information and belief,” Perron recorded them. Even assuming some other calls and recordings happened, there are no allegations of disclosure or that Perron intended to violate federal or state law or to commit a tortious act through the recordings. “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the plaintiff has failed to state a claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Fisher’s allegations about those other calls and recordings thus fail to show that he is entitled to relief.