26 U.S.C. § 7217

Prohibition on executive branch influence over taxpayer audits and other investigations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for any applicable person to request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer.

(b) Reporting requirement

Any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service receiving any request prohibited by subsection (a) shall report the receipt of such request to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

(c) ExceptionsSubsection (a) shall not apply to any written request made—(1) to an applicable person by or on behalf of the taxpayer and forwarded by such applicable person to the Internal Revenue Service;(2) by an applicable person for disclosure of return or return information under section 6103 if such request is made in accordance with the requirements of such section; or(3) by the Secretary of the Treasury as a consequence of the implementation of a change in tax policy.(d) Penalty

Any person who willfully violates subsection (a) or fails to report under subsection (b) shall be punished upon conviction by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

(e) Applicable personFor purposes of this section, the term “applicable person” means—(1) the President, the Vice President, any employee of the executive office of the President, and any employee of the executive office of the Vice President; and(2) any individual (other than the Attorney General of the United States) serving in a position specified in section 5312 of title 5, United States Code.(Added Pub. L. 105–206, title I, § 1105(a), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 711.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 7217, added Pub. L. 94–455, title XII, § 1202(e)(1), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1687; amended Pub. L. 95–600, title VII, § 701(bb)(7), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2923, related to civil damages for unauthorized disclosure of returns and return information, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 97–248, title III, § 357(b)(1), (c), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 646, applicable with respect to disclosures made after Sept. 3, 1982.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 105–206, title I, § 1105(c), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 711, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [enacting this section] shall apply to requests made after the date of the enactment of this Act [July 22, 1998].”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 38 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004). · cites it 8× “1687 , 26 U. S. C. § 7217 (c) (1976 ed., Supp. V) (repealed 1982); Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, § 201, 100 Stat.”

Johnson v. Sawyer, 640 F. Supp. 1126 (S.D. Tex. 1986). · cites it 9× “13 Stating inter alia that the Release had forced him to resign from American National, Johnson seeks approximately $54 million in actual and punitive damages under 26 U.S.C. § 7217 . In October 1983 Johnson amended his Complaint to include Federal Tort Claims Act actions…”

Rotkiske v. Klemm, 140 S. Ct. 355 (2019). “) ; 26 U.S.C. § 7217 (c) (1976 ed.) ; 29 U.S.”

Trahan v. Regan, 554 F. Supp. 57 (D.D.C. 1982). · cites it 8× “tory relief holding the executed consent forms invalid, (3) relief in the nature of mandamus ordering the Commissioner of the IRS to perform his duty of maintaining the confidentiality of plaintiffs’ tax returns and return information; and (4) where disclosure based upon the…”

Harold G. Rorex & Geneva M. Rorex v. Steven P. Traynor, Individually & in His Former Capacity as an Internal Revenue Officer, 771 F.2d 383 (8th Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “26 U.S.C. § 7217 (1976) provides that: “Whenever any person knowingly, or by reason of negligence, discloses a return or return information * * * with respect to a taxpayer in violation of the provisions of section 6103, such taxpayer may bring a civil action for damages * * *.”

Richard A. Davidson v. James S. Brady, Robert C. Greene, John Doe I, John Doe Ii, Jointly & Severally, 732 F.2d 552 (6th Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “26 U.S.C. § 7217 (a). 1 *553 In 1978, Section 7217 was amended to provide that “[n]o liability shall arise under [section 7217] with respect to any disclosure which results from a good faith, but erroneous, interpretation of [the confidentiality statute].”

Elvis E. Johnson v. Robert Sawyer, United States of Am., 980 F.2d 1490 (5th Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “Surely, however, it was not beyond reason for the jury to find that the confidential information that was released caused the damage to Johnson.”

Doe v. Chao, 306 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “26 U.S.C. § 7217 (c) (Supp.1981) (emphasis added), repealed 1982.”

Elvis E. Johnson v. Robert Sawyer, United States of Am., 4 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “” Government's Brief on Appeal at 44. "In all actions tried without jury, the trial court must make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.”

Kemlon Prods. & Dev. Co. v. United States of Am., 638 F.2d 1315 (5th Cir. 1981). · cites it 2× “In the alternative, Kemlon sought damages pursuant to 26 U.S.C.A. § 7217 (West Supp. 1980). 6 .”

Louis J. Diamond v. United States, 944 F.2d 431 (8th Cir. 1991). · cites it 2× “In interpreting the predecessor statute to section 7431, 26 U.S.C. § 7217 (1976), 8 this court adopted an objective standard for ascertaining whether section 6103 was violated in good faith.”

Johnson v. Sawyer, 47 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 1995). “14 Recovery was sought on the basis of 26 U.S.C. § 7217 , which authorized a damage suit against any person who disclosed return information eon-trary to section 6103.”

Show all 38 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.