More from the article ...

... A D.C. Circuit panel ruled Tuesday that a data sharing agreement between the Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that allows the immigration agency to make mass requests for immigrants' addresses was illegal.

The three-judge panel upheld a federal judge's decision to stay the IRS from disclosing additional addresses to ICE after the tax agency had already turned over more than 47,000 records ultimately deemed unlawful.

U.S. Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, writing the court's 32-page opinion, explained Congress has only authorized the IRS to disclose tax-return information to other federal agencies to use in specific non-tax criminal investigations, so long as the requesting agency can provide details about the individual under investigation.

"After the Watergate scandal exposed executive branch abuses of U.S. taxpayers' information to harass the administration's enemies, Congress enacted a prohibition against the IRS sharing tax return information with any other federal agency unless the requesting agency meets stringent conditions," the Barack Obama appointee wrote. "The procedure failed to ensure that ICE's requests complied with statutory requirements. The IRS nonetheless began using the procedure to disclose tens of thousands of records."

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled in February the IRS violated its own code "approximately 42,695 times" for each instance it disclosed last known taxpayer addresses to ICE even when their requests were insufficient. ...

@#1 ... The three-judge panel upheld a federal judge's decision to stay the IRS from disclosing additional addresses to ICE after the tax agency had already turned over more than 47,000 records ultimately deemed unlawful. ...

Are those IRS employees going to be held accountable for allegedly breaking the law?

@#3 ... What do you have in mind? ...

Maybe your alias should read the DC Circuit opinion to find that out.

I am not a lawyer, but the DC Circuit opinion was written by lawyers.

@#6 ... I don't think they can be punished for allegedly breaking the law. ...

No, but they may be held accountable.

Subject to investigations because of the evidence presented, indicted and subject to trial.

And, fwiw, your current alias is starting to post a lot like a couple other trolling aliases here. Looking for replies.

An apparent recent change from its past. imo, of course.

:)

@#8 ... I asked a Direct question regarding the subject matter.

You deflected ...

I did answer the question.

#3 ... What do you have in mind? ...

#4 ... Maybe your alias should read the DC Circuit opinion to find that out.

I am not a lawyer, but the DC Circuit opinion was written by lawyers. ...

So, suggesting that your current trolling alias reads the actual of the information in the court opinion is deflecting?

Do try harder.

More from the article ...

... U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled in February the IRS violated its own code "approximately 42,695 times" for each instance it disclosed last known taxpayer addresses to ICE even when their requests were insufficient.

The immigration agency must identify the name and address of the taxpayer it requests personally identifiable information on, rather than request information en masse....

The system was so lax, [U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly] emphasized, that ICE could have submitted requests with an address like "Don't Care 12345" or "00000" and still receive a taxpayer's address. ...

"Most egregiously, section 6103(i)(2) expressly requires a requesting agency to provide the address of the taxpayer' whose information the agency seeks, but the Data-Exchange procedure does not require ICE to submit any address of the taxpayer in its request for information about that taxpayer," [U.S. Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard] wrote. ...