Welcome to the Steele v. United States PTIN Fees Class Action Website

This website contains information regarding the class action lawsuit, Steele v. United States, 14-cv-1523-RCL, currently pending in the District Court for the District of Columbia. We will continue to post updates here. There is nothing for you to do now.

This lawsuit alleges that the United States government unlawfully charged tax return preparers a fee to obtain a preparer tax identification number ("PTIN") or, in the alternative, that the fees to obtain a PTIN were excessive.

On February 9, 2016, the District Court allowed the lawsuit to proceed as a class action on behalf of all individuals or entities that paid a fee for the application for or renewal of a PTIN.

On June 1, 2017, the District Court ruled on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, determining that the government may continue to require PTINs, but may not charge fees for the issuance or renewal of PTINs. It also enjoined the government from charging those fees in the future, and ordered the government to refund all PTIN fees paid to date. The government subsequently appealed. 

On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the government, vacating the District Court’s grant of summary judgment. The D.C. Circuit then remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings, “including an assessment of whether the amount of the PTIN fee unreasonably exceeds the costs to the IRS to issue and maintain PTINs.”  Montrois v. United States, 916 F.3d 1056, 1057 (D.C. Cir. 2019). 

On January 23, 2023, the District Court ruled on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment holding that the PTIN and vendor fees for FY 2011 through 2017 were unlawfully excessive under the IOAA. The District Court then remanded the case to the government to determine an appropriate refund.

On January 22, 2024, the government filed a Notice of Refund Estimation which provided for a total proposed refund of approximately $167,000,000. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion challenging the government's determinations on remand and seeking to vacate the challenged agency actions. On August 12, 2024, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion and once again remanded the case to the government to determine an appropriate refund.

Once the government completes its work on remand, it will file a notice with the District Court containing its revised estimated refund which Plaintiffs will then have the opportunity to oppose.