Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00927/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00927-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sylvia L. Cannon, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Zurich North America, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0927-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant’s motion to dismiss (doc. 4), plaintiff’s response

(doc. 7), defendant’s reply (doc. 9), and plaintiff’s sur-reply (doc. 10), which we ignore

because LRCiv 7.2 does not allow responses to replies. 

On February 22, 2005, plaintiff provided Schedule C of her 2003 income tax return

to defendant Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) for the purpose of evaluating

her third-party insurance claim. On May 4, 2005, a Zurich employee sent correspondence

to Larry and Linda Parker and Don Sallee at the Sallee-Leavitt Insurance Agency, disclosing

plaintiff’s tax information. Plaintiff filed this action for damages against Zurich, pursuant

to 26 U.S.C. § 7431, asserting that Zurich improperly disclosed her confidential tax

information. 

26 U.S.C. § 7431 allows civil damages for the unauthorized inspection or disclosure

of “return or return information” in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6103. Section 6103 defines

Case 2:07-cv-00927-FJM Document 11 Filed 10/03/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

“return” and “return information” as information filed with or furnished to the Internal

Revenue Service (“IRS”). Id. at § 6103(b)(1)-(2). Defendant moves to dismiss the

complaint, arguing that § 7431 applies only to tax information received by the IRS from the

taxpayer, and not information voluntarily provided to and subsequently disclosed by private

parties such as Zurich. 

Section 6103 does not protect confidential tax information from every potential risk

of disclosure, but instead focuses on those disclosures “arising from the filing of the

taxpayer’s return with the IRS.” Stokwitz v. United States, 831 F.2d 893, 896 (9th Cir.

1987). The “overriding purpose [of section 6103] was to curtail loose disclosure practices

by the IRS.” Id. at 894. “[T]here is no indication in either the language of section 6103 or

its legislative history that Congress intended to enact a general prohibition against public

disclosure of tax information.” Id. at 896. Instead, “section 6103 applies only to information

filed with and disclosed by the IRS.” Id. at 897. 

This case does not involve a disclosure of confidential tax information arising from

the filing of a taxpayer’s return with the IRS. Instead, plaintiff’s Schedule C was obtained

by Zurich directly from the plaintiff, not from the IRS. Section 7431 was not intended to

protect against such a disclosure. Therefore, we grant defendant’s motion to dismiss

plaintiff’s claim based on 26 U.S.C. § 7431. 

We also find unavailing plaintiff’s post-complaint reliance on other statutes to support

her claim. See Response at 2-3, 5. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801, et

seq., does not provide for a private right of action. See 15 U.S.C. § 6805(a) (“This

subchapter and the regulations prescribed thereunder shall be enforced by the Federal

functional regulators, the State insurance authorities, and the Federal Trade Commission with

respect to the financial institutions and other persons subject to their jurisdiction . . . .”);

Rowland v. Prudential Fin., Inc., No. CV-04-2287, 2007 WL 1893630, at *6 (D. Ariz. July

2, 2007) (“The GLBA . . . does not provide for a private cause of action.”). 26 U.S.C. § 7216

applies only to tax preparers, not to insurance companies such as Zurich, and 26 U.S.C. §

Case 2:07-cv-00927-FJM Document 11 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

7213 is a criminal statute which does not provide for a private cause of action. Because

plaintiff has failed to state a claim, we grant defendant’s motion to dismiss.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant’s motion to dismiss (doc. 4). The clerk

is directed to enter final judgment.

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00927-FJM Document 11 Filed 10/03/07 Page 3 of 3