logo
Privacy Vs. Policing: Treasury's Tax Information Sharing Deal

Privacy Vs. Policing: Treasury's Tax Information Sharing Deal

Forbes01-07-2025
Laptop and download file getty
In this episode of Tax Notes Talk , Tax Notes investigations editor Lauren Loricchio discusses Treasury's information sharing agreement with the Department of Homeland Security and its implications for immigrants.
Tax Notes Talk is a podcast produced by Tax Notes. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
David D. Stewart: Welcome to the podcast. I'm David Stewart, editor in chief of Tax Notes Today International . This week: data sharing.
As we've covered extensively, the IRS has been under a continual spotlight since the beginning of the Trump administration. From funding rollbacks to staff reductions, concerns have mounted over the agency's future. And now, Treasury's decision to share taxpayer information with the Department of Homeland Security has led to increased uncertainty over the privacy of tax data.
So what are the risks of this agreement, and how are those affected responding? Here to talk more about this is Tax Notes investigations editor Lauren Loricchio. Lauren, welcome back to the podcast.
Lauren Loricchio: Great to be back.
David D. Stewart: As I mentioned in the opening, Treasury entered into an information sharing agreement with the Department of Homeland Security. Could you tell us about that?
Lauren Loricchio: They did. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signed a memorandum of understanding April 7, which established a mechanism for the IRS to share information with the Department of Homeland Security under Internal Revenue Code section 6103(i)(2). That code provision allows the IRS to share limited tax return information with other agencies if the information will help with criminal enforcement.
This agreement first became a concern when The Washington Post reported in March that the IRS was getting close to reaching a deal with DHS and that IRS officials were worried it would run afoul of privacy protections in the Internal Revenue Code. We can now see some of the terms of the agreement after the MOU was revealed in court documents.
David D. Stewart: What types of taxpayers are being affected by this agreement?
Lauren Loricchio: The attorneys that I've spoken to say it is a particular concern for undocumented immigrants, who typically file their taxes using an individual taxpayer identification number, also known as an ITIN. The program allows people without a Social Security number to comply with their tax filing obligations, so many undocumented immigrants file their taxes this way. Not everyone who uses an ITIN to file their taxes is undocumented. To apply for an ITIN, taxpayers submit a form W-7, which asks for their mailing and foreign address, country of citizenship, type of U.S. visa, and date of entry into the United States.
David D. Stewart: So what are the concerns about this information sharing agreement and the overall environment where it was entered into?
Lauren Loricchio: Sure. Tax return information is protected from disclosure under Internal Revenue Code section 6103. The IRS has historically encouraged undocumented immigrants to file their taxes, saying it doesn't share their personal information with other agencies, like the Department of Homeland Security. While there was some worry about the safety of this data, tax professionals could say with relative certainty that undocumented immigrants should feel safe filing their taxes with the IRS.
But now with this information sharing agreement in place, tax professionals say the advice they're giving clients has changed because the information their clients provide to the IRS, including their address, could potentially be used against them.
Some of the tax professionals I've spoken to are worried this information sharing agreement will deter immigrants from filing their taxes, which can in turn have a negative impact on revenue collection. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy released a report last year, which found that undocumented immigrants paid nearly $100 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022.
David D. Stewart: So what led you down this path to look into this issue?
Lauren Loricchio: When news of the information sharing agreement broke, I heard concerns from tax professionals that this data sharing agreement might deter immigrants from filing their taxes. So I wanted to learn more about the impact on tax filing this year, and I spoke with undocumented immigrants to find out how the situation was affecting them.
David D. Stewart: And what sort of things did you learn?
Lauren Loricchio: The stories I heard were different, but they all had something in common: Each person I spoke with said they wanted to comply with their tax filing obligations and follow the law, but they were scared that their information could be used against them.
One person I spoke with, who's originally from Brazil and goes by the nickname Rob, said he normally files his taxes each year with an ITIN, but he didn't file this year because he was afraid that he would be deported.
I spoke with a factory worker who fled Colombia to escape threats from a crime group. He said he paid his taxes this year despite the potential consequences. He fears for his life if he returns to Colombia, but he wanted to follow the law.
Another woman I spoke with who is originally from Guatemala and is self-employed said she filed for an extension this year; she has an eight-year-old daughter who is a U.S. citizen, and she's afraid that she could be separated from her.
David D. Stewart: I understand that there is some litigation over this. Could you tell us about that and where it stands?
Lauren Loricchio: Back in March, two immigrant rights advocacy groups filed litigation to challenge the disclosure of immigrant taxpayer data. The complaint argues that section 6103 forbids the IRS and Treasury from sharing tax returns or tax return information for purposes of immigration enforcement.
The man standing in the fog. evening night time getty
Nina Olson, the executive director of the Center for Taxpayer Rights and a former national taxpayer advocate, submitted an affidavit in support of the plaintiffs. She's a member of Tax Analysts' board of directors, and Tax Notes also funds a joint transparency project with the Center for Taxpayer Rights.
She argues that the MOU is flawed because it says the information sharing agreement is permissible under section 6103(i)(2), which permits the disclosure of tax return information in support of an investigation or preparation for judicial proceedings to help with criminal investigations, and the MOU says the information sharing is to facilitate civil immigration enforcement.
But the judge in that case sided with the federal government, writing that the plaintiffs' reading of section 6103(i)(2) doesn't comport with the text of the statute, and she denied a request from plaintiffs to block Treasury from disclosing taxpayer information for immigration enforcement. The case isn't over yet; the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 21 with the D.C. circuit.
David D. Stewart: So what are some of the other concerns you're hearing about this in your reporting?
Lauren Loricchio: I spoke with Danny Werfel, who recently stepped down as IRS commissioner, and he said if the IRS begins sharing tax data without first seeking explicit statutory authority from Congress, it could have a broader impact.
Werfel said, because the U.S. tax system is based on voluntary compliance, it doesn't take a large amount of noncompliance to make a big impact on tax receipts. If this expansion of IRS authority affects voluntary compliance even by 1 percent, it could lead to tens of billions of dollars in lost revenue, he said. Another issue raised by Nina Olson is that IRS employees could be subject to penalties for disclosing or inspecting information in violation of section 6103.
David D. Stewart: Does this policy raise other tax administration concerns?
Lauren Loricchio: Yeah, I think the concern is that it could deter immigrants from filing their taxes, and part of that is that a lot of people are living in mixed-status households. So some people might have a relative who is undocumented, and they might be afraid to file their taxes because they're afraid that someone in their household could be deported.
David D. Stewart: So since you are primarily interested in our investigative side here at Tax Notes , is there a way that listeners could reach out to you with more information that they may have?
Lauren Loricchio: Yeah, we're watching this issue closely. If you have tips or want to speak with us, you can reach us via email at tips.investigations@taxnotes.com, or you can reach our reporters securely via the Signal app at taxnotesnews.08.
David D. Stewart: Well, Lauren, thank you so much for being here. This has been an interesting conversation.
Lauren Loricchio: Thank you for having me.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

UK Wealth Tax Given ‘Zero Chance' Amid Cash Crunch for Reeves
UK Wealth Tax Given ‘Zero Chance' Amid Cash Crunch for Reeves

Bloomberg

time21 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

UK Wealth Tax Given ‘Zero Chance' Amid Cash Crunch for Reeves

Labour proponents of raising more money from Britain's richest people have long circulated a report by the UK Wealth Tax Commission as proof it can be done. But one of the report's authors says he can't see it happening fast enough to help Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves. 'There's zero chance they will introduce a wealth tax in the next budget,' Andy Summers, associate professor at the London School of Economics, told Bloomberg. 'Unless the Treasury has been secretly working on it for many months or years, then it just can't be done.'

Ethics Board upholds finding against Mayor Lily Wu in proclamation incident
Ethics Board upholds finding against Mayor Lily Wu in proclamation incident

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Ethics Board upholds finding against Mayor Lily Wu in proclamation incident

WICHITA, Kan. (KSNW) — The Wichita Ethics Board has voted to uphold its original decision that Mayor Lily Wu violated part of the City Code of Ethics during a March proclamation for Transgender Day of Visibility. The proclamation was missing Wu's signature and the mayor did not read it aloud at the March 18 city council meeting. At that meeting, Wu 'yielded the floor' to a council member who supported the proclamation. She also stated that proclamations are typically signed electronically by staff and claimed she did not request her signature to be removed. Between March 19 and April 16, the city received 22 ethics complaints against Mayor Wu. Twenty cited the missing signature, and six also took issue with her not reading the proclamation aloud. According to city code, the mayor must sign all proclamations, and the presiding officer is responsible for presenting them. Sedgwick County firefighters weigh in on schedule change On June 12, the Ethics Board ruled that evidence supports the mayor's original claim that her name was left off the proclamation due to a clerical error, but that she should have arranged for someone else to present the proclamation. Those who filed the complaints and Wu had seven business days to request additional review. Both Wu and one of the original complainants appealed the decision. On July 11, the board voted 5-1 to uphold its ruling. Following the vote, Wu shared a statement on Facebook: I'm disappointed the Ethics Board was unwilling to change its decision on the one violation they were able to find regarding the transgender proclamation. It's unfortunate we're forced to entertain distractions that impede our city's progress, but here we are. For full transparency, I'm sharing a link which includes both my appeal to the Board and my original response to the complaints. It's important our community understands the facts in this matter, which clearly reflect my conduct was appropriate in all respects. Political attacks will not stop me from representing the will of the vast majority of Wichitans, which I will continue to do fully, fairly, and honestly. Wichita Mayor Lily Wu You can find the final report from the Ethics Board below: Final-EAB-Report-2025-13-ProclamationDownload For more Kansas news, click here. Keep up with the latest breaking news by downloading our mobile app and signing up for our news email alerts. Sign up for our Storm Track 3 Weather app by clicking here. To watch our shows live on our website, click here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Court rules former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had authority to throw out plea deals for 9/11 alleged conspirators
Court rules former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had authority to throw out plea deals for 9/11 alleged conspirators

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Court rules former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had authority to throw out plea deals for 9/11 alleged conspirators

A federal appeals court determined that former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin 'indisputably' had the authority to cancel plea agreements made last year with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two other defendants accused of plotting the 9/11 terror attack. The decision overturns a ruling by a military judge last year that plea agreements setting aside the possibility of the death penalty for the men were 'valid and enforceable,' after Austin revoked the deals months before. 'The Secretary of Defense indisputably had legal authority to withdraw from the agreements; the plain and unambiguous text of the pretrial agreements shows that no performance of promises had begun,' court documents outlining the decision of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals said. Wells Dixon, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights who previously represented another Guantanamo detainee, Majid Khan, criticized the court ruling on Friday, saying it will 'ensure nothing but the continued lack of justice and accountability for anyone involved in the military commissions.' 'The Biden administration's effort to invalidate the plea agreements that would resolve in lasting convictions and life sentences for the 9/11 defendants was inexplicable,' Dixon said. 'It was a painful betrayal of the 9/11 victim family members, because we know after more than two decades of litigation at Guantanamo, and we know from experience, that the 9/11 cases will never be resolved through a contested trial.' 'Putting aside the fantasy that this case is ever going to go to trial — assuming it does go to trial and that there's a conviction — you get to sentencing, and they have a right to put forward evidence … that they were tortured. That's never going to happen,' Dixon added. The military trial against Mohammed and the other alleged 9/11 conspirators has been delayed for years as the US government tried to determine how to handle the issue of the torture of individuals at CIA prisons, and the question of whether evidence obtained through torture was admissible in court. Dixon previously told CNN that the government is 'unwilling' to admit evidence in trial 'about the defendants' torture.' The pretrial agreements were announced last summer after 27 months of negotiation, and took the possibility of the death sentence off the table for Mohammed, Mustafa al Hawsawi, and Walid Bin 'Attash. They required that the accused plead guilty to all charges against them and would undergo a public sentencing hearing in which they would be required to answer questions by family members and survivors of the September 11 attack. The agreements drew fierce backlash, both politically and from some groups representing 9/11 victims and their families who had pushed for the death penalty. But just days after the news of the agreements was publicized, Austin revoked them, saying the final decision should be left to him and not the official overseeing the military courts at Guantanamo Bay, Brig. Gen. Susan Escallier. Austin also withdrew Escallier's authority over the cases. Austin's revocation kicked off a months-long legal battle. Attorneys representing the three conspirators called Austin's actions corrupt and unprecedented, and argued that it was not legal due to a regulation in the military's own Manual for Military Commissions, which says a pretrial agreement can only be withdrawn before the accused begins 'performance of promises' or if they do not hold up their end of the agreement. A defense attorney for Mohammed argued in August last year that his client had already begun 'very important, substantive, specific performance,' and therefore Austin's actions were too late. The military judge overseeing the trials of the three men appeared to agree, ruling in November that the plea agreements were 'valid and enforceable.' A defense official told CNN at the time that the judge, Col. Matthew McCall, rules that not only are they legal and enforceable but 'that [Austin] was too late in doing that.' A military appeals court also ruled against Austin in December. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals said in its ruling on Friday that Austin had 'full legal authority' to withdraw from the pretrial agreements, and said there 'no prior performance of promises contained in those agreements prevented the Secretary's withdrawal.' CNN's Katelyn Polantz contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store