MEMORANDUM

Pursuant to a Consent Order entered in 1976, Susan Long requested the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to provide her with Tables 37 and 38 and other statistical tables that were being used internally by the IRS to manage its auditing activities. Among other objections, the IRS objected to disclosing “cells of one” or “cells of two” in Tables 37 and 38 on the ground that disclosure would violate an exemption under Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and a prohibition imposed by Internal Revenue Code section 6103 against the disclosure of tax return information. See 26 U.S.C. § 6103 (a); 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b). Long moved the district court to compel production of the financial information, and the IRS moved to modify the Consent Order.

On June 13, 2008, the district court granted Long’s motion and denied the IRS’s motion. The district court stated that the record contained no evidence to support the “contention that a ‘cell of one’ in Table 37 could provide sufficient information to identify the particular taxpayer whose data is included in the cell,” and thus would not violate section 6103:

The district court ordered the IRS to provide Long with “complete, unredacted copies of Table 37 and the similar tables as previously requested [by Long] and upon future requests.”

The IRS timely appealed the district court’s June 13, 2008, order. We granted a stay and ordered the IRS to provide Long with redacted copies of Tables 37 and 38 pending the appeal.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 1292(a)(1), and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

A. Disclosure under FOIA

We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of a statute. In re Heritage Bond Litigation, 546 F.3d 667, 675 (9th Cir.2008).

“FOIA was enacted to facilitate public access to government records.” Forest Serv. Employees for Envtl. Ethics v. U.S. Forest Serv., 524 F.3d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir.2008) (citing John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 151 , 110 S.Ct. 471 , 107 L.Ed.2d 462 (1989)). “[A]mong other things, FOIA requires every federal entity presented with a request for records under the statute to make such records ‘promptly available to any person.’ ” Id. at 1023-24 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(3)(A)). The disclosure requirement does not apply, however, if the requested information falls within one of nine exemptions enumerated in 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b). Forest Serv., 524 F.3d at 1024 .

Section 6103 provides that “[r]eturns and return information shall be confidential.” 26 U.S.C. § 6103 (a). Thus, section 6103 qualifies as a statutory exemption of tax returns and tax return information from disclosure under FOIA. Kamman v. I.R.S., 56 F.3d 46 , 48 & n. 1 (9th Cir.1995) (citing 26 U.S.C. § 6103 (a)). In pertinent part, section 6103(b) defines “return information” to mean:

26 U.S.C. § 6103 (b)(2).

The latter part of the definition of “return information” is commonly referred to as the Haskell Amendment. It removes from inclusion in “return information” data in a form which cannot be associated with a particular taxpayer. Id.

The financial information in “cells of one” is taken verbatim from Form 5344 of a particular taxpayer, albeit one whose identity is not reported, and the information in “cells of two” is taken from two taxpayers’ data. Thus, the issue before us is whether removal of identifying information and reporting the financial information in a tabular format places the data — in a “form which cannot be associated with ... a particular taxpayer” — within the meaning of the Haskell Amendment.

B.In a Form Which Cannot be Associated with a Particular Taxpayer

In Church of Scientology of California v. I.R.S., 484 U.S. 9, 15, 17 , 108 S.Ct. 271 , 98 L.Ed.2d 228 (1987), the United States Supreme Court held that “the mere removal of identifying details from return information” did not suffice to put the information “in a form” contemplated by the Haskell Amendment.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Scientology, we used “reformulation]” to describe the requirement for bringing unidentified return information under the Haskell Amendment. See Long v. I.R.S., 891 F.2d 222, 224 (9th Cir.1989). In Long , we held that deletion of identifying information from so-called IRS “check sheets,” which included the taxpayer’s identity, financial information, and “possibly” audit information, did not place the nonidentifying information outside the definition of “return information.” Id. at 223-24 . We explicitly required reformulation in order for the check sheets to be eligible for disclosure. Id.

C. Application to “cells of one”

The district court accepted our requirement that return information be reformulated before it is removed from the exemption from disclosure. According to the district court, amalgamation is not required to meet the “in a form” requirement of the Haskell Amendment. The district court found that return information is “effectively” reformulated by the act of compilation and tabulation and removal of identifying information. However, with respect to a single taxpayer, the return information is transposed unaltered from a Form 5344 to the “cell of one.” Thus, there is no meaningful change in “form” because the financial information is taken from Form 5344 and placed into a table unchanged.

Consistent with our holding in Long , we hold that tax data that starts out as confidential return information associated with a particular taxpayer maintains that status when it appears unaltered in a tabulation with only the identifying information removed. We therefore reverse the district court and hold that “cells of one” are nondisclosable return information under § 6103(b)(2).

D. Application to “cells of two” or other amalgamation of tax data

“Cells of two” require a different analysis because they are the product of a combination of two taxpayers’ data. They are unlike the tax data deemed confidential return information in Scientology and Long , where the courts dealt with unmodified nonidentifying return information of specific taxpayers. Rather, they fit the definition of reformulated and amalgamated tax data. See King v. I.R.S., 688 F.2d 488, 493 (7th Cir.1982).

We therefore affirm the district court’s conclusion that cells of two are not return information under § 6103(b)(2).

Because we hold that cells of one are confidential return information under 26 U.S.C. § 6103 (b), but cells of two are not, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND to the district court for modification of its June 13, 2008, order consistent with this disposition.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . The IRS does not appeal the district court's order that the IRS must provide Long with Tables 35 and 36. . The Haskell Amendment was proposed as a floor amendment by Senator Haskell of Colorado and was adopted by a voice vote during the debate on the 1976 amendments to the Internal Revenue Code. Church of Scientology of Cal. v. I.R.S., 484 U.S. 9, 12 , 108 S.Ct. 271 , 98 L.Ed.2d 228 (1987). . Because the IRS did not properly move the district court for a court-supervised renegotiation of the Consent Order, we conclude that the issue is not properly before us on appeal and therefore do not reach it.