Government's Reply on Motion to Disclose Tax Return Information — U.S. v. Merritts

Full text

        Case 1:25-cr-00076-JMC          Document 53        Filed 12/31/25      Page 1 of 5




                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                      :
                                              :
               v.                             :       Case No. 25-cr-00076-JMC
                                              :
CORTNEY MERRITTS,                             :
                                              :
                       Defendant.             :


     UNITED STATES’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
          DISCLOSE TAX RETURN AND TAX RETURN INFORMATION

       The United States of America respectfully replies to defendant Cortney Merritts’s

opposition (ECF No. 44) to its motion (ECF No. 37) to disclose tax return and tax return

information.

       Preliminarily, the government addresses a number of factual assertions by the defendant.

First, as has been repeatedly made clear to the defendant via email and in pleadings previously

filed, Document 31-9, which comprised Exhibit H to the United States’ initial pleading opposing

his corporate attribution motion (ECF No. 31) was obtained from the defendant’s loan application,

not the IRS. Accordingly, it does not come within the ambit of 26 U.S.C. § 6103, which only

applies to returns and return information obtained from the IRS. Accordingly, that exhibit was

properly refiled as an exhibit on the public docket when the government re-filed its motion devoid

of materials obtained from the IRS (ECF No. 35) and it is irrelevant to the instant litigation.

       Second, any redaction errors were clearly inadvertent. The government obviously took

pains to apply redactions, as twelve of the fifteen exhibits it filed in conjunction with its initial

motion contained redactions of his social security number, physical address, email address, phone

number, date of birth, his company’s business tax identification number, and the names and contact
       Case 1:25-cr-00076-JMC           Document 53        Filed 12/31/25     Page 2 of 5




information of various individuals who were identified in text messages. The unredacted

information about which the defendant complains pertain to only one of those documents,

Government Exhibit D2 (ECF No. 31-5), and the lack of sufficient redaction appears to have been

the result of a technological error. The government applied redactions to that document, as is

evident from the multiple redaction boxes throughout. But the redaction boxes on the tax return

itself appear to have saved to a random location on the document—as evidenced on page USAO-

009693 in the section designated “Refund”—rather than the locations in which they were

originally placed. Notably, the government observed these errors and had the document sealed

before the defendant himself even noticed them.

       Third, it is reasonable to infer that the documents were never viewed or downloaded by

any person who should not have had access. The documents were attached to an opposition to a

motion by the defendant to prohibit the government from attributing the act of production of

corporate records to him, a pleading unlikely to have attracted any public interest. It was publicly

available for a total of five days (initially published on Wednesday, November 26, 2025, at 5:29

p.m. and sealed from access as of Tuesday, December 2, 2025 at 8:00 a.m.). At the government’s

request, on December 17, 2025, the Clerk’s Office ECF Coordinator reached out to PACER to see

if more information could be learned about who may have accessed it during that period.

According to the ECF coordinator, although PACER records do not include access via the NEF or

public terminals, the PACER records that do exist showed that only government counsel viewed

the two exhibits in question. Notably, although this case has garnered continual publicity, the

government has been unable to identify a single article in which a news organization claims to

possess the information in question or has reported on the contents of the documents at issue.




                                                 2
        Case 1:25-cr-00076-JMC           Document 53        Filed 12/31/25      Page 3 of 5




       Fourth, while the documents at issue were not previously disclosed publicly, at least some

of their contents have been discussed in a joint filing in this case without objection, so his outrage

is to some degree disingenuous. See, e.g. Joint Pretrial Statement (ECF No. 34), Exhibit 4 at 16

(“The tax-related documents that the Government does intend to introduce are: (1) the Defendant’s

Form 1040 income tax return filed for tax year 2019, certified as a true copy by the IRS (Exhibit

30), (2) a Form 3050 certification of lack of record showing that the Defendant made no other tax

filings in his name during the relevant time period (exhibit to be provided after it is obtained), and

(3) a Form 3050 certification of lack of record showing that the Defendant made no tax filings in

the name of his moving company (Vetted) during the relevant time period (Exhibit 34)”).

       With respect to the defendant’s arguments on the merits, the United States withdraws its

request for the court to grant relief nunc pro tunc to November 26, 2025, thus mooting the

defendant’s argument opposing nunc pro tunc relief.

       The defendant’s arguments against disclosure of exhibits attached to the government’s

motion to seal (ECF No. 36), however, are without merit. In non-tax criminal cases, as was done

here, federal prosecutors may obtain and use for investigative purposes returns and other

information filed with the IRS by a taxpayer only through an ex parte order of a United States

district court based upon an application (that must be signed by the United States Attorney)

showing that the information is relevant to an ongoing criminal prosecution. The prosecutor may

use that information at trial (e.g., introduce it into evidence or otherwise make it public in the

proceeding) upon a showing to the court that the information is “probative of an issue” in the case.

26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(4)(A)(i). The government has met that standard for the reasons stated in its

opening motion.




                                                  3
        Case 1:25-cr-00076-JMC           Document 53        Filed 12/31/25       Page 4 of 5




       The defendant’s assertion concerning the uncertified nature of the exhibits attached to the

government’s motion to seal (ECF No. 36) is inapposite. First, certification is a method of

authenticating the documents for entry as an exhibit at trial. There is no requirement to attach

certified documents to a pleading, and parties regularly attach unofficial versions of documents

and hearsay as exhibits to pleadings. The defendant is simply attempting to twist the letter’s

instructions on how to obtain certified documents for a judicial proceeding into a non-existent

requirement.

       Second, the defendant misrepresents the facts. Exhibit D1 is a copy of a certified Form

3050 for Vetted (Government Trial Exhibit 307, previously 034),1 and Exhibit D2 includes a copy

of a certified 2019 tax return (Government Trial Exhibit 303, previously 030). The only relevant

information in Exhibit D2 that is not certified concerns the lack of records for the defendant for

other tax years, but the government expects to elicit the equivalent information through the

testimony of an IRS disclosure witness at trial. Moreover, on December 29, 2025, the government

provided the defense a certified document containing the same information (USAO-010906) and

included that document on an updated exhibit list provided to the defense on December 28, 2025

(Government Trial Exhibit 306).

       Given the probative nature of the documents and the loss of confidentiality that is inevitable

to occur when the same or similar documents or equivalent testimony about their contents become

a matter of public record at a trial that is imminent, there is a sufficient basis for their disclosure

under the relevant statute. Moreover, the defendant’s assertion that it is premature for the Court to



1
  As this document neglects to identify any tax periods in the section designated “Period(s),” the
government has requested the IRS to provide a revised version of this certificate for trial that
includes the relevant tax periods, and to limit its questioning to those tax periods. It will replace
the current Government Trial Exhibit 307.

                                                  4
       Case 1:25-cr-00076-JMC           Document 53       Filed 12/31/25      Page 5 of 5




determine whether these and the remaining documents obtained from the IRS via ex parte order2

may be disclosed at trial is absurd given that trial is imminent and the jury’s time should not be

wasted because of a failure to resolve disclosure issues ahead of time.


                                             Respectfully submitted,

                                             JEANINE FERRIS PIRRO
                                             UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

                                      By:            /s/ Emily A. Miller
                                             EMILY A. MILLER (D.C. Bar No. 462077)
                                             Assistant United States Attorney
                                             United States Attorney’s Office
                                             District of Columbia
                                             601 D Street NW
                                             Washington, DC 20530
                                             Office: (202) 252-6988




2
  As the defense is aware, through its IRS witness at trial, the government further expects to
introduce IRS account transcripts for Corney Merritts for 2019-2022 (USAO-010724). The
government is awaiting certified copies of these documents from the IRS, but the uncertified copies
were provided in discovery and included on the government’s exhibit list (Government Exhibit
304, previously 033) before the pretrial hearing.
                                                 5


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.dcd.278640.53.0.pdf

Size

151,307 bytes

SHA-256

c36cbdafeaf93fab130edf0a97714d6cae1d3d5f98705e229bdbf6a110417976

Our copy

gov.uscourts.dcd.278640.53.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)