From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schuloff v. Queens College Foundation, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jan 25, 1999
165 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 1999)

Opinion

Nos. 98-7465(L), 98-7466.

Argued: December 16, 1998.

Decided: January 25, 1999.

Appeal from the dismissal of a private suit against two tax-exempt foundations to enforce their obligation under 26 U.S.C. § 6104 and to make their tax returns available for inspection to members of the public. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Frederic Block, Judge) ruled that the statute may not be enforced by private suit.

AFFIRMED.

Jackson Leeds, Flushing, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Steven G. Mintz, New York, N Y (Mintz Gold, New York, NY), for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: LEVAL and CALABRESI, Circuit Judges, and POLLACK, District Judge.

The Honorable Milton Pollack, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.


This suit raises the question whether the obligations imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 6104 on tax-exempt organizations to make their tax returns available for inspection by members of the public may be enforced by a private civil action. The district court ruled that they may not. We agree and therefore affirm the dismissal of the action.

Plaintiff Anita Schuloff wrote to the defendants Brooklyn College Foundation ("BCF") and Queens College Foundation ("QCF") indicating that she intended to visit their premises so that she could inspect their tax returns. Each of the defendants rebuffed her request. Plaintiff then brought suit against each in federal district court, seeking an injunction, declaratory relief, and damages.

Each of the defendants eventually reconsidered its position and sent plaintiff the returns.

Defendants moved to dismiss Schuloff's complaint under Fed.R. Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Applying the test elaborated by the Supreme Court in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 (1975), and subsequent cases, the district court granted the motions, holding that Congress intended 26 U.S.C. § 6104 to be enforced exclusively by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and that the statute does not afford a private cause of action. Schuloff v. Queens College Foundation, Inc., 994 F. Supp. 425, 427-28 (E.D.N Y 1998). The court further held that since "[s]section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred," Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted), and since § 6104 confers no such rights on private plaintiffs, Schuloff cannot rely on § 1983 to enforce the provisions of § 6104. Schuloff, 994 F. Supp. at 429. Finally, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Schuloff's state law claims.

Having considered Schuloff's claims on appeal, we affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the district court in its thoughtful opinion. Id. at 425. We thus hold that the obligations of § 6104 may not be enforced through a private civil suit under either § 6104 or § 1983.

The judgment is AFFIRMED. Costs will not be assessed.


Summaries of

Schuloff v. Queens College Foundation, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jan 25, 1999
165 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 1999)
Case details for

Schuloff v. Queens College Foundation, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ANITA SCHULOFF, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. QUEENS COLLEGE FOUNDATION, INC.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Jan 25, 1999

Citations

165 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 1999)

Citing Cases

Tax Analysts v. Internal Revenue Service

Our analysis comports with that of the only other courts to consider whether I.R.C. § 6104 creates an implied…

Santiago ex Rel. Muniz v. Hernandez

In Touche Ross Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 575, 99 S.Ct. 2479, 61 L.Ed.2d 82 (1979), the Supreme Court…