
WeatherTech Founder Sues Booz Allen Over Leak Of IRS Records On Billionaires
David MacNeil has filed a lawsuit against Booz Allen, alleging the company failed to protect him from IRS leaker Charles Littlejohn.
While one billionaire's lawsuit seeking damages in the Charles Littlejohn tax leak matter was cut short, another rich victim is taking a different tack: suing Littlejohn's employer. David MacNeil, the founder and owner of WeatherTech, has filed a lawsuit against Booz Allen, claiming that the company failed to safeguard its computer systems and protect Internal Revenue Service networks and databases, resulting in the exposure of the confidential tax return information of thousands of American taxpayers—including him. He is seeking damages, alleging that the leak has caused him, among other things, reputational harm.
Booz Allen, a management and technology consulting firm headquartered in MacLean, Virginia, has a long history of working with US civilian and defense agencies, including the IRS, resulting in billions of government-funded contract dollars. The company employs about 36,000 people—and one of those employees used to be Charles Littlejohn.
Access to taxpayer data is tightly restricted by law—a protection that's been in the news recently because of demands by Elon Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access that data.
Charles Littlejohn is a former IRS contractor—employed through Booz Allen—who went to prison in 2024 for disclosing thousands of tax returns, including Donald Trump's—without authorization.
From 2018 to 2020, Littlejohn stole tax returns and return information associated with Donald Trump. According to prosecutors, Littlejohn viewed Trump as 'dangerous and a threat to democracy' and had intended to provide private tax information to the public. (Trump was not initially named in court documents but this information was confirmed in Littlejohn's sentencing memorandum.)
Littlejohn initially disclosed Trump's tax information to the New York Times. He didn't stop there. According to court records in Littlejohn's criminal case, he turned over returns and return information dating back more than 15 years for billionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, and Michael Bloomberg to ProPublica. The data contained not only tax returns but also investments, stock trades, gambling winnings, audit determinations, and many other types of financial material. But it wasn't only those wealthy individuals who were impacted—it appears that some taxpayers who were shareholders in passthrough entities were also affected (in other words, their information appeared on Forms K-1 or the equivalent from passthrough entities that had their information leaked).
MacNeil figured prominently in a 2021 story published by ProPublica describing how the 2017 Trump tax cuts encouraged CEOs who own passthrough companies to save on taxes by reducing their own salaries and taking more of their earnings in company profits. According to ProPublica, MacNeil's WeatherTech salary fell from $68 million in 2017 to $47 million in 2018 and $17 million in 2019. Meanwhile, ProPublica reported, his company's profits climbed, saving him an estimated $8 million in tax during the first two years of the Trump tax cuts, which where effective in 2018. MacNeil, whose advertising touts the fact that his products are made in America, told ProPublica that he used any tax savings to create more jobs: 'You want me investing in my country — my fellow Americans? Get out of my pocket.'
Littlejohn accessed the returns on an IRS database after using broad search parameters designed to conceal the true purpose of his queries. He then evaded IRS protocols established to detect and prevent large downloads or uploads from IRS devices or systems before saving the tax returns to multiple personal storage devices, including an iPod.
In October of 2023, Littlejohn pleaded guilty to unauthorized disclosure of tax returns and return information—a violation of section 7213(a)(1) of the tax code, the most serious offense for leaking tax information. Littlejohn was sentenced to the maximum penalty of five years—he is currently serving his sentence in a Florida prison.
In 2022, billionaire Kenneth C. Griffin, the founder and CEO of Miami-based hedge fund Citadel, filed suit against the IRS for "their willful and intentional failure to establish appropriate administrative, technical, and/or physical safeguards over its records system to insure the security and confidentiality of Mr. Griffin's confidential tax return information."
Griffin's information was included in the data leaked to ProPublica, the nonprofit investigative news organization, and he filed suit months before Littlejohn was revealed to be the leaker. Under section 7431(a), victims may be able to sue for damages for the unauthorized inspection or disclosure of their tax information. If the accused person is an officer or employee of the United States, the taxpayer may sue the United States in district court. If the accused person is not an officer or employee of the United States, the taxpayer may sue the individual.
Once the information about Littlejohn was made public, Griffin amended his complaint, but the IRS argued for dismissal, noting, "Since Littlejohn was not an officer or employee of the IRS, Mr. Griffin's claim for damages in Count I lies not against the United States (as pleaded) under § 7431(a)(1), but rather against Littlejohn under § 7431(a)(2)."
In other words, since Littlejohn was a contractor—and not an employee—of the federal government, the IRS said that Griffin wasn't entitled to recovery under the statute from the government, just Littlejohn (who has limited resources, according to court documents). The court seemed to agree, but allowed the lawsuit to proceed. Eventually, Griffin settled the lawsuit, resulting in, among other things, an apology from the IRS. (Other than the apology, the terms of the settlement were not made public.)
MacNeil didn't try that theory, instead suing Littlejohn's employer, Booz Allen. Booz Allen didn't offer comment for this story instead referring to a 2024 statement on its website which called Littlejohn's actions 'those of a rogue actor hiding his misconduct on government systems.'
MacNeil's lawsuit alleges that Booz Allen 'willingly allowed its employees unrestricted and unmonitored access to IRS databases and systems.' That made it easy, the lawsuit says, for Littlejohn to retrieve personally identifiable taxpayer data and to download that data, which was provided to the New York Times and ProPublica. The data was used in articles about MacNeil which, according to the lawsuit, provided a 'highly misleading characterization of his tax return history.' The result, MacNeil's lawyers argue, has been 'ongoing injury including, but not limited to, public backlash, significant reputational harm, and loss of privacy, and economic damages.'
The IRS notified MacNeil about the breach in late 2023 (the IRS notified more taxpayers in early 2024). The IRS is required, by law, to give notice to any other victims of the breach it can identify, even if their names were never published.
That notice landed in mailboxes as Letter 6613-A, IRC 7431(e) Notification Letter. In this case, Letter 6613-A indicated that an IRS contractor has been charged with the unauthorized disclosure or inspection of the taxpayer's tax return or return information. The letter indicated that an IRS independent contractor—not named in the letter but clearly referencing Littlejohn—was charged with the unauthorized disclosure of the taxpayer's information between 2018 and 2020.
On February 14, 2025, the IRS disclosed to the House Judiciary Committee that it had 'mailed notifications to 405,427 taxpayers whose taxpayer information was inappropriately disclosed by Mr. Littlejohn' and that '89 [percent] of the[se] taxpayers are business entities.' Earlier this month, the Committee sent a letter requesting that Littlejohn appear before it to testify.
The lawsuit argues that this isn't Booz Allen's first run-in with security issues. In July 2011, the suit notes, Booz Allen admitted that the hacking group 'Anonymous' had infiltrated its company network and stolen a list of approximately 90,000 military email addresses and encrypted passwords.
But that wasn't Booz Allen's most infamous breach. In 2013, another then-Booz Allen employee, Edward Snowden, used his Booz Allen credentials and access to download thousands of top-secret security documents. Snowden leaked the classified materials to multiple journalists, disclosing national secrets and severely compromising the NSA's anti-terror surveillance program. As noted in the lawsuit, Snowden ultimately fled to Russia, where Vladimir Putin granted him citizenship in 2022.
In 2016, authorities arrested then-Booz Allen computer analyst Harold Martin for stealing approximately 50 terabytes of confidential data from the NSA, in a breach that authorities have called the 'largest theft of classified information in U.S. history.' The information included personal details of government employees and 'Top Secret' email chains, handwritten notes describing the NSA's classified computer infrastructure, and descriptions of classified technical operations. Martin ultimately pleaded guilty to stealing classified information.
Those, along with other examples of breaches outlined in the lawsuit, were characterized as 'pervasive data security failures and unethical practices' which, the lawsuit says, 'culminated in an unprecedented taxpayer data breach' by Littlejohn. As Littlejohn's employer, Booz Allen, the lawsuit alleges, had control over Littlejohn's schedule and credentials—notably, those were issues that the IRS argued in the Griffin suit made the tax agency not liable for the breach.
The human impact of Littlejohn's crimes and Booz Allen's misconduct, MacNeil argues, is enormous. As a result, he is seeking damages in a lawsuit filed on March 24, 2025, in the U.S. District Court in Maryland, Southern Division. MacNeil is represented by Miles & Stockbridge, P.C., in Baltimore, Maryland. A request for comment made to the attorneys of record for MacNeil earlier this morning was not returned.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
YouTube says its ecosystem created 490K jobs and added $55B to the US GDP in 2024
YouTube released a report on Tuesday that shows just how influential the creator economy has become. YouTube says that its creative ecosystem contributed over $55 billion to the U.S. GDP and supported more than 490,000 full-time jobs, according to research by Oxford Economics. When YouTube talks about its creative ecosystem, it's not just talking about creators. This includes anyone who works with YouTube creators (video editors, assistants, publicists), as well as people who work for creator-oriented companies (Patreon, Spotter, Linktree, etc.). But these figures continue to grow, even in a time when venture capitalists are no longer pouring money into the industry like they were about four years ago. In 2022, YouTube and Oxford Economics reported that its creative ecosystem created about 390,000 jobs and contributed over $35 billion to the U.S. GDP, meaning that these 2024 figures jumped by 100,000 jobs and $20 billion. These numbers are so large because YouTube provides the most consistent and lucrative opportunities for creators. Those who qualify for YouTube's Partner Program can earn 55% of revenue earned from ads; even for mid-range creators (not the MrBeasts of the world), that can amount to several thousand dollars a month. While TikTok and YouTube Shorts have tried to monetize their platforms, the industry hasn't figured out a way to reliably distribute ad revenue among short-form creators. As both a fast-growing and often misunderstood sector, creators have been advocating for American institutions, from banks to the government, to better serve their industry. Some creators struggle to qualify for business credit cards or get certain business loans, regardless of their demonstrable financial solvency. These issues have become common enough to draw attention. Just last week, U.S. Representatives Yvette Clark (D-NY) and Beth Van Duyne (R-TX) announced their bipartisan Congressional Creators Caucus to support and recognize the potential of the creator economy. Sign in to access your portfolio


Hamilton Spectator
24 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump's military parade is a US outlier in peacetime but parades and reviews have a long history
Troops marching in lockstep. Patriotic tunes filling the air. The commander in chief looking on at it all. The military parade commemorating the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary and coinciding with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday will be a new spectacle for many Americans. This will not be the first U.S. military parade. However, it is unusual outside of wartime, and Trump's approach stands out compared to his predecessors. The Army had long planned a celebration for its semi-quincentennial on June 14. Trump has wanted to preside over a grand military parade since his first presidency from 2017 to 2021. When he took office a second time, he found the ideal convergence and ratcheted the Pentagon's plans into a full-scale military parade on his birthday. The president, who is expected to speak in Washington as part of the affair, pitches the occasion as a way to celebrate U.S. power and service members' sacrifice. But there are bipartisan concerns about the cost as well as concerns about whether Trump is blurring traditional understandings of what it means to be a civilian commander in chief. Early US troop reviews Ceremonial reviews — troops looking their best and conducting drills for top commanders — trace back through medieval kingdoms to ancient empires of Rome, Persia and China. The pageantry continued in the young U.S. republic: Early presidents held military reviews as part of July 4th independence celebrations. That ended with James K. Polk , who was president from 1845 to 1849. President Andrew Johnson resurrected the tradition in 1865, holding a two-day 'Grand Review of the Armies' five weeks after Abraham Lincoln's assassination . It came after Johnson declared the Civil War over, a show of force meant to salve a war-weary nation — though more fighting and casualties would occur. Infantry, cavalry and artillery units — 145,000 soldiers, and even cattle — traversed Pennsylvania Avenue. Johnson, his Cabinet and top Army officers, including Ulysses S. Grant , Lincoln's last commanding general and the future 18th president, watched from a White House viewing stand. Spanish-American War and World War I: An era of victory parades begins The Spanish-American War was the first major international conflict for a reunited nation since the Civil War. It ended in a U.S. victory that established an American empire: Spain ceded Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and the U.S. purchased the Philippines for $20 million. Puerto Rico and Guam remain U.S. territories. New York City hosted multiple celebrations of a new global power. In August 1898, a fleet of warships, including the Brooklyn, the Texas, and the Oregon, sailed up the North River, more commonly known today as the Hudson River. American inventor Thomas Edison filmed the floating parade. The following September, New York hosted a naval and street parade to welcome home Rear Adm. George Dewey, who joined President William McKinley in a viewing stand. Many U.S. cities held World War I victory parades a few decades later. But neither Washington nor President Woodrow Wilson were the focal point. In Boston, a million civilians celebrated 20,000 troops in 1919. New York honored 25,000 troops marching in full uniform and combat gear. New York was the parade epicenter again for World War II On June 13, 1942, as U.S. involvement in World War II accelerated, about 30,000 people formed a mobilization parade in New York City. Participants included Army and Navy personnel, American Women's Voluntary Services members, Boy Scouts and military school cadets. Scores of floats rolled, too. One carried a massive bust of President Franklin Roosevelt , who did not attend. Less than four years later, the 82nd Airborne Division and Sherman tanks led a victory parade down Manhattan's Fifth Avenue. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower , the Allied commander during World War II, rode in a victory parade in Washington, D.C. In 1952, Eisenhower would join Grant and George Washington as top wartime commanders elevated to the presidency following their military achievements. Other World War II generals were honored in other homecoming parades. A long parade gap, despite multiple wars The U.S. did not hold national or major city parades after wars in Korea and Vietnam. Both ended without clear victory; Vietnam, especially, sparked bitter societal division, enough so that President Gerald Ford opted against a strong military presence in 1976 bicentennial celebrations, held a year after the fall of Saigon. Washington finally hosted a victory parade in 1991 after the first Persian Gulf War. The Constitution Avenue lineup included 8,000 troops, tanks, Patriot missiles and representatives of the international coalition, led by the U.S., that quickly drove an invading Iraq out of Kuwait. The commander in chief, George H.W. Bush , is the last U.S. president to have held an active-duty military post. He had been a World War II combat pilot who survived his plane being shot down over the Pacific Ocean. Veterans of the second Iraq and Afghanistan wars that followed the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks have not been honored in national parades. Inaugurations and a flight suit Inaugural parades include and sometimes feature military elements. Eisenhower's 1953 inaugural parade, at the outset of the Cold War, included 22,000 service members and an atomic cannon. Eight years later, President John F. Kennedy , a World War II Naval officer, watched armored tanks, Army and Navy personnel, dozens of missiles and Navy boats pass in front of his reviewing stand. More recent inaugurations have included honor guards, academy cadets, military bands and other personnel but not large combat assets. Notably, U.S. presidents, even when leading or attending military events, wear civilian attire rather than military garb, a standard set by Washington, who also eschewed being called 'General Washington' in favor of 'Mr. President.' Perhaps the lone exception came in 2003, when President George W. Bush , who had been a National Guard pilot, wore a flight suit when he landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, which U.S. forces had invaded six weeks earlier. The aircraft carrier was not a parade venue but the president emerged to raucous cheers from uniformed service members. He put on a business suit to deliver a nationally televised speech in front a 'Mission Accomplished' banner. As the war dragged on to a less decisive outcome, that scene and its enduring images would become a political liability for the president. ___ Barrow reported from Atlanta. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .


Hamilton Spectator
24 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Court hearing set on Trump's use of National Guard and Marines to help with immigration raids in LA
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal court hearing is scheduled for Thursday on whether the Trump administration can use the National Guard and Marines to assist with immigration raids in Los Angeles. California Gov. Newsom has depicted the federal military intervention in the nation's second largest city as the onset of a much broader effort by Trump to overturn political and cultural norms at the heart of the nation's democracy. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has echoed that, saying the deployment of troops was unnecessary and meant to undermine local jurisdictions and intimidate the city's large immigrant population. Newsom filed an emergency motion requesting the court's intervention after President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of roughly 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles following protests over his stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws. The Trump administration called the lawsuit a 'crass political stunt endangering American lives' in its official response on Wednesday. The Democratic governor argued the troops were originally deployed to protect federal buildings and said sending troops to help support immigration raids would only promote civil unrest. The protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles intensified after Trump called up the National Guard and have since spread to other cities, including Boston, Chicago and Seattle. Federal immigration agents have been arresting people at Home Depot parking lots and other businesses, sparking fear in immigrant communities, after the Trump administration said it wanted to dramatically increase arrests under its immigration crackdown. Trump has described Los Angeles in dire terms that Bass and Newsom say are nowhere close to the truth . Most demonstrations have been peaceful but this weekend some turned raucous with protesters setting cars on fire in downtown Los Angeles. The city has imposed a nightly curfew covering a 1-square-mile (2.5-square-kilometer) section where protests have occurred in the sprawling metropolis of 4 million people. The Marines have not yet been spotted in Los Angeles and Guard troops have had limited engagement with protesters. Newsom filed the motion Tuesday, the same day the military announced some members of the National Guard were now standing in protection around federal agents. The change moves troops closer to engaging in law enforcement actions like deportations as Trump has promised as part of his administration's immigration crackdown . The Guard has the authority to temporarily detain people who attack officers but any arrests ultimately would be made by law enforcement. Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer chose not to rule immediately but set the hearing for Thursday in federal court in San Francisco. Dozens of mayors from across the Los Angeles region banded together Wednesday to demand the raids stop and the troops leave. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .