# Case Summary: Tax Analysts and Aaron Davis v. District of Columbia **Case No.:** 2020 CA 001999 B (D.C. Superior Court); appeal docket No. 21-CV-0031 (D.C. Court of Appeals) **Date FOIA request filed:** October 8, 2019 **Superior Court summary judgment:** January 13, 2021 (granted to District) **Court of Appeals decision:** July 27, 2023 (reversed and remanded) **Status after remand:** Superior Court assigned to Judge Robert R. Rigsby, Civil 2 Calendar 10, with status hearing December 1, 2023; subsequent Vaughn-index proceedings and in-camera review continued in 2024. --- ## What the case is about Tax Analysts, a nonprofit publisher of tax periodicals, and its reporter Aaron Davis sued the District of Columbia under the District of Columbia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), D.C. Code §§ 2-531 to -540. They sought disclosure of 24 private letter rulings (PLRs) issued by the District’s Office of Tax and Revenue (OTR) between January 1, 2016, and October 8, 2019. PLRs are OTR’s written responses to taxpayers who ask how a District tax law applies to a specific fact pattern. Although binding only on the requesting taxpayer, they contain legal interpretations that can guide other taxpayers and practitioners. At the federal level, the IRS has been required since 1974 to disclose PLRs with identifying information redacted under 26 U.S.C. § 6110; many states do the same. The District of Columbia was one of the few jurisdictions that refused to release them at all. --- ## Procedural history 1. **October 8, 2019** — Tax Analysts filed a FOIA request with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), OTR’s parent agency. The request asked for: - all private letter rulings, - general information letters, and - technical advice memoranda prepared by OTR between January 1, 2016, and October 8, 2019. 2. **November 14, 2019** — OCFO denied the request, citing FOIA exemptions for confidential business records (Exemption 1, D.C. Code § 2-534(a)(1)) and records specifically protected by another statute (Exemption 6, D.C. Code § 2-534(a)(6)). 3. **November 20, 2019** — Tax Analysts appealed to the Mayor. 4. **December 16, 2019** — OCFO responded that it located 24 responsive PLRs but maintained the exemptions. 5. **January 14, 2020** — The Mayor denied the appeal, adding that FOIA Exemption 2 (personal privacy) also applied and that any non-exempt material was not reasonably segregable. 6. **2020** — Tax Analysts filed suit in D.C. Superior Court. The District moved to dismiss, relying primarily on D.C. Code § 47-4406, the tax-secrecy statute. Plaintiffs opposed and moved for in camera review of the 24 PLRs. 7. **July 20, 2020** — The Superior Court denied the District’s motion to dismiss in part, rejecting the argument that the first clause of § 47-4406 (value/computation information disclosed in a return) automatically applied to PLRs. 8. **January 13, 2021** — The Superior Court (Judge Robert R. Rigsby) granted the District’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion for in camera review. The court held that the PLRs were in their entirety an evaluation of taxpayers’ financial circumstances and therefore exempt under § 47-4406; even if some non-exempt material existed, redaction would leave little informational value. 9. **2021–2023** — Tax Analysts appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals. 10. **July 27, 2023** — The D.C. Court of Appeals **reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded** the case for further proceedings, likely including an in camera review of the PLRs. 11. **After remand** — The Superior Court scheduled a status hearing for December 1, 2023, before Judge Rigsby. Proceedings in 2024 included further Vaughn-index submissions, amended redactions, and briefing on in camera review. --- ## The legal issue Whether private letter rulings issued by OTR are categorically exempt from disclosure under D.C. Code § 47-4406, or whether they contain reasonably segregable, non-taxpayer-specific legal analysis that must be disclosed under D.C. FOIA. ### Key statutes - **D.C. Code § 2-534(a)(6)** — FOIA exemption for information specifically exempted from disclosure by another statute. - **D.C. Code § 47-4406** — “Secrecy of returns,” prohibiting District officials from disclosing “federal, state, or local tax information either submitted by the taxpayer or otherwise obtained.” - **D.C. Code § 2-534(b)** — Requires agencies to disclose any “reasonably segregable portion” of a public record after deleting exempt portions. - **26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)** — Federal analogue defining “return information,” including written determinations such as PLRs, but excluding non-taxpayer-specific legal analysis. - **26 U.S.C. § 6110** — Requires IRS written determinations, including PLRs, to be made publicly available with redactions. --- ## Holdings and reasoning ### Superior Court (January 2021) The trial court held: - § 47-4406 protects PLRs in their entirety because they are responses to taxpayer requests based on taxpayer-specific circumstances. - The PLRs constitute “tax information” submitted by taxpayers. - Even if some non-exempt information exists, it is “inextricably intertwined” with exempt material, so redaction would produce a document with little informational value. - Therefore, in camera review was unnecessary. ### D.C. Court of Appeals (July 2023) The Court of Appeals reversed: - FOIA exemptions must be narrowly construed, with doubts resolved in favor of disclosure. - Conforming D.C. Code § 47-4406 to the federal analogue (26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)), a PLR *may* contain “return information,” but not everything in a PLR is necessarily tax information. - Non-taxpayer-specific legal analysis, interpretations of statutes, rules, and regulations, and conclusions that apply to similarly situated taxpayers are **not** “return information.” - The District’s Vaughn index was conclusory, did not address whether the PLRs contained segregable legal analysis, and was unsupported by a knowledgeable affidavit. - The District therefore failed to carry its burden of proving that the PLRs were entirely exempt or that any non-exempt portions were not reasonably segregable. - A genuine issue of material fact remained, warranting reversal of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings, likely including in camera review. --- ## Outcome and impact - **Immediate outcome:** The D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court’s summary judgment for the District and remanded the case. The appellate court declined to conduct the in camera review itself, leaving that task to the trial court on remand. - **Broader significance:** The decision rejected the District’s argument that OTR private letter rulings are categorically secret under § 47-4406. If the trial court’s eventual in camera review finds segregable legal analysis, the District may be required to disclose redacted versions of the 24 PLRs — bringing D.C. practice closer to the IRS and most state revenue departments. - **Transparency value:** The case addresses what Tax Analysts and the appellate opinion describe as “secret law”: government legal interpretations that affect taxpayers but are hidden from public view. The appellate decision reinforces that FOIA’s disclosure presumption applies even to tax records and that agencies must make a concrete, document-specific showing before withholding entire categories of records. --- ## Key documents in this folder | Document | Significance | |----------|--------------| | `01_Remand order.pdf` | Order assigning the case to Judge Rigsby after remand | | `BRIEF - DC.pdf` | District’s brief defending summary judgment | | `Brief.docx` / `BRIEF - TA reply brief.pdf` | Plaintiffs’ reply brief on appeal | | `Reversed And Remanded.pdf` | D.C. Court of Appeals opinion and judgment reversing summary judgment | | `23_Decision.pdf` | Superior Court decision granting summary judgment to the District (January 2021) | | `08_Vaughn response_July 15 2024.pdf` | District’s Vaughn response after remand | | `08C_May 17 transcript.pdf` | Transcript of proceedings before Judge Matini | | `08B_PLRS-107 pages with pagination*.pdf` | Redacted PLR pages produced for review | | `Tax Analysts-Facchina affidavit*.pdf` | Affidavit and declaration supporting plaintiffs’ position | | `Joint appendix_final.pdf` | Joint appendix submitted on appeal | | `Amended Redactions- January 2025.pdf` | Later redaction submissions | --- ## Missing material - Email correspondence with counsel Cornish F. Hitchcock has not yet been downloaded or added to this folder. Those messages may contain additional procedural history, litigation strategy, and settlement or release discussions. - Post-remand final release records, if any, are not yet present. --- ## People - **Aaron Davis** — Plaintiff, reporter for Tax Analysts at the time of the FOIA request. - **Tax Analysts** — Nonprofit publisher of tax periodicals; organizational plaintiff. - **Cornish F. Hitchcock** — Counsel for plaintiffs on appeal. - **Richard S. Love** — Senior Assistant Attorney General, counsel for the District on appeal. - **Judge Robert R. Rigsby** — Superior Court trial judge. - **Senior Judge Glickman** — Author of the D.C. Court of Appeals opinion. --- ## How this case fits into a portfolio This case demonstrates hands-on FOIA litigation experience: filing the initial request, appealing administrative denials, drafting complaint and briefing, navigating summary judgment and appeal, and developing the legal argument that non-taxpayer-specific government legal analysis belongs in the public domain. It pairs directly with the private-investigation and litigation-support services offered on this site, particularly public-records research, FOIA/RTK strategy, and document analysis for litigation.