State v. Freedom of Information Commission

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Before BOGDANSKI; BOGDANSKI
• Citation: State v. Freedom of Information Commission, 441 A.2d 53, 184 Conn. 102 (Conn. 1981)
• Decision Date: 05 May 1981
• Parties: , 7 Media L. Rep. 1830 STATE of Connecticut et al. v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION et al.

Page 53

441 A.2d 53

184 Conn. 102, 7 Media L. Rep. 1830

STATE of Connecticut et al. v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 4, 1981.

Decided May 5, 1981.

Mitchell W. Pearlman, Gen. Counsel, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Constance L. Chambers, Meriden, for appellant (named defendant).

Richard C. Robinson, Hartford, for appellant (defendant the Manchester Journal Inquirer).

Paul M. Scimonelli, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Richard K. Greenberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., and, on the brief, Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., and Ralph G. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees (plaintiffs).

Before BOGDANSKI, C. J., and PETERS, ARMENTANO, DALY and ASPELL, JJ.

BOGDANSKI, Chief Justice.

On January 30, 1976, a reporter from the Manchester Journal Inquirer sought access to the department of revenue service's ¹ lists of sales tax delinquents. When access was denied, the Journal Inquirer appealed to the freedom of information commission (FOIC). After a hearing, the FOIC concluded that the sales tax delinquent lists were public records which were not exempt from disclosure under § 1-19 ² of the General Statutes and ordered the commissioner of revenue services to permit the Journal Inquirer to have access to those lists. From that determination, the commissioner appealed to the Superior Court. On July 25, 1979, the court sustained that appeal. After a grant of certification, an appeal from that judgment by the FOIC and the Journal Inquirer was taken to this court.

In its decision that lists of sales tax delinquents are exempt from public disclosure, the trial court relied upon the provisions of § 1-19b which provide in pertinent part that "(n)othing in sections 1-15, 1-18a, 1-19 to 1-19b, inclusive, and 1-21 to 1-21k, inclusive, shall be construed to require disclosure of ... (10) records, tax returns, reports and statements exempted by federal law or state statutes ...."

In construing § 1-19, we must keep in mind the legislative policy which the statute expresses concerning access to public records. The statute expresses an intent that the records maintained by governmental bodies be open to the public except in those instances where a superior public interest requires confidentiality. Clearly, the public has an interest in knowing whether the burden of public expenses is equitably distributed and whether public employees are diligently collecting delinquent accounts. See Attorney General v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 385 N.E.2d 505 (1979).

On appeal before us, the tax commissioner relies on the provisions of §§ 12-15(a) ³ and 12-426(6). Section 12-15 provides: "LIMITATIONS ON INSPECTION OR DISCLOSURE RE TAX RETURN INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES. (a) All statements, reports, returns or return information required to be filed with or submitted to the commissioner for the purpose of taxation shall be open only to the inspection of the commissioner and his assistants, such officers or other departments of the state as have occasion to inspect them in the performance of their official duties and, provided a reciprocal arrangement exists, to officers of the United States Treasury Department and of any other state when required in the administration of taxes imposed under the laws of the federal government or such other states."

We find that this statute is not applicable to the case at hand. A list of sales tax delinquents is not a document required to be filed with the commissioner of revenue services. Rather, it is a list prepared by the department of revenue services, and not the taxpayer.

Section 12-426 provides in pertinent part: "(6) DIVULGING OF INFORMATION FORBIDDEN. Neither the commissioner, his attorney or agent nor any other officer or employee engaged in the administration of this chapter shall make known in any manner whatever the business affairs, operations or information obtained by an investigation of records and equipment of any retailer or any other person visited or examined in the discharge of official duty, or the amount or source of income, profits, losses, expenditures or any particular thereof, set forth or disclosed in any return, or permit any return or copy thereof or any book containing any abstract or particulars thereof to be seen or examined by any person, except for purposes of photostating or microfilming; provided the governor may, by general or special order, authorize examination of the returns by other state officers, by tax officers of another state, by the federal government, if a reciprocal arrangement exists, or by any other person. Successors, receivers, trustees, executors, administrators, assignees and guarantors, if directly interested, may be given information as to the items included in the measure and amounts of any unpaid tax or amounts of tax required to be collected, interest and penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this subsection shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars."

This statute is penal in nature and must be strictly construed. Dental Commission v. Tru-Fit Plastics, Inc., 159 Conn. 362, 364, 269 A.2d 265 (1970). Nowhere in this statute is there any prohibition against disclosure of tax delinquents or the amount of the delinquency. What the statute does bar is the disclosure of business information obtained in a department of revenue services investigation. Moreover, whether sales taxes are owed, and the amount of such taxes, do not relate to the conduct of the business of the taxpayer.

The statute further forbids the disclosure of the income, profits, losses or expenditures set forth in any return. Again, the existence and extent of any tax delinquency is not income, profits, loss or an expenditure, and...