Lead

A US federal judge has voided a settlement between President Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that had granted him and his allies sweeping protections from tax audits. The settlement, which also established a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded program, was ruled unlawful on Monday by US District Judge Kathleen Williams, who said the underlying lawsuit had been filed for an "improper purpose."

The ruling centers on a $10 billion lawsuit Trump filed in January against the IRS, alleging the agency failed to prevent the leak of his tax returns. The case ended in May with a settlement that, in addition to tax audit protections, created a fund to compensate individuals who claimed they were targeted by politically motivated government investigations. The program, later abandoned, was criticized by some as a "slush fund for criminals."

Coverage Comparison

ABC Australia reported that the judge accused Trump and his legal team of having "manipulated the justice system," describing the lawsuit as "an unparalleled exercise in self-dealing." Al Jazeera noted that the judge ruled the president and the Department of Justice "misused courts" in the settlement, which it characterized as unlawful. BBC News reported that the settlement allowed the administration to create the $1.8 billion fund, which was later abandoned. France 24 reported that the judge, Kathleen Williams, said the lawsuit was filed for an improper purpose. The Guardian reported that the judge "lambasted" the government and Trump's lawyers for using the judicial process to "concoct a beneficial arrangement" for the president.

Key Claims

Central to the judge's ruling was her finding that there had never been a genuine legal dispute between Trump and the IRS. Writing in her decision, Judge Williams said the suit was "never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute," as reported by BBC News. She noted that as president, Trump effectively controls the IRS and the Treasury Department, making the litigation a matter of self-dealing rather than an adversarial case.

"The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President," Williams wrote, as quoted by Al Jazeera and The Guardian.

The judge also referred one of Trump's private attorneys to legal disciplinary authorities, according to France 24. She ordered that a copy of her ruling be sent to the State Bar of New York and the District of Columbia Bar, of which acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward are members, respectively, as reported by France 24.

The settlement's $1.8 billion fund was intended to compensate individuals who alleged they had been targeted by politically motivated government investigations. The program was later abandoned amid bipartisan backlash, as reported by The Guardian. The ruling now prevents those involved, including Trump and his sons, from referring to the settlement or citing its terms in future legal proceedings, which could allow the IRS to move forward with audits into Trump's tax claims, according to BBC News.

In a related development, Al Jazeera reported that Ken Kies, the top lawyer for the IRS, is leaving his post. Kies, who served as acting chief counsel to the IRS and as an assistant secretary for tax policy to the US Treasury, had reportedly warned members of the Trump administration against giving orders to the IRS about tax audits.

Perspectives

Judge Kathleen Williams (US District Court): The lawsuit was filed for an improper purpose, as there was no genuine legal dispute between Trump and the IRS. The settlement was an attempt to use the courts to confer immunity and earmark taxpayer funds for grievances not defined in law.

Trump Administration / Department of Justice: The settlement was initially defended as a legitimate resolution of the lawsuit, but the administration later backed away from the fund. The acting attorney general announced the scrapping of the fund amid bipartisan backlash, though the tax immunity provisions remained in place until the judge's ruling.

Critics of the Settlement: The fund was derided as a "slush fund for criminals," and critics argued that the settlement was an exercise in self-dealing that would allow Trump and his allies to control taxpayer money and avoid accountability, as reported by ABC Australia and The Guardian.