Opinion ID: 1320094
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: foia

Text: Gaston Copper and AT & T (hereinafter appellants) appeal the trial judge's ruling that the purchase agreement and environmental report are subject to disclosure under the FOIA. The FOIA provides that any person has a right to inspect or copy any public record of a public body unless an exemption listed in § 30-4-40 applies. S.C.Code Ann. § 30-4-30(a) (1991). Under S.C.Code Ann. § 30-4-20(c) (1991), public record is broadly defined to include all documentary materials prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by a public body with specific exceptions not applicable here. This section further provides that records required by law to be closed to the public are not made open to the public by the FOIA. Appellants claim the information sought here is required to be closed to the public by the Tax Code and therefore is not disclosable under the FOIA.
The trial judge held the purchase agreement and environmental report are not required to be kept confidential under the Tax Code because they were submitted to Tax Commission in the course of a property tax appeal. We agree. S.C.Code Ann. § 12-54-240 (Supp.1993) governs the disclosure of information filed with Tax Commission. It provides in pertinent part: (A) Except in accordance with proper judicial order or as otherwise provided by law it is unlawful for any person to divulge or make known in any manner any particulars set forth or disclosed in any report or return required under Chapters 7, 15, 16, 17, 35, or 36 of this title. The referenced chapters involve: income tax (chapter 7); estate tax (chapters 15 & 16); gift tax (chapter 17); retail license, sales and use tax (chapters 35 & 36). Property tax is excluded from the non-disclosure provisions of § 12-54-240. Appellants argue, however, that property tax information is included in § 12-54-240 via S.C.Code Ann. § 12-54-190 (Supp.1993) which provides: Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this chapter [Chapter 54] take precedence over all other related statutory provisions. The provisions of this chapter [Chapter 54] apply to returns filed with or assessments issued by the commission as they relate to property tax and forest renewal. (emphasis added). Section 12-54-190 was enacted after § 12-54-240 and therefore arguably would apply to render property tax information non-disclosable under § 12-54-240. A careful reading of § 12-54-240, however, indicates this could not have been the intent of the legislature in enacting § 12-54-190. Section 12-54-240, which generally prevents disclosure, includes specific provisions allowing disclosure only in certain defined circumstances. For instance, § 12-54-240(B)(9) allows Tax Commission's disclosure of sales and use tax information to county and municipal officials even though sales and use tax information is generally not disclosable. Similarly, in the context of property tax, Tax Commission is charged with assessing manufacturers' real and personal property and forwarding these assessments to the local taxing authorities. S.C.Code Ann. § 12-37-970 (Supp.1993). If the enactment of § 12-54-190 was intended to bring property tax within the non-disclosure provisions of § 12-54-240 as appellants contend, it would impliedly repeal the forwarding requirement of § 12-37-970 [3] since no exception was added to § 12-54-240 to allow the disclosure to local taxing authorities. In giving effect to legislative intent, we are constrained to avoid an absurd result. See Powell v. Red Carpet Lounge, 280 S.C. 142, 311 S.E.2d 719 (1984). Since the legislature could not reasonably have intended to prevent disclosure of Tax Commission assessments to local taxing authorities, we conclude § 12-54-190 does not alter the nondisclosure provisions of § 12-54-240. Accordingly, we hold the Tax Code does not prevent disclosure of the property tax information in this case.
Appellants contend the purchase agreement and environmental report relate to all taxes, not just property tax, and therefore they are not disclosable since income tax and sales and use tax information is confidential. Appellants point to Tax Commission's response to request for admission in which Tax Commission states: the primary reason for obtaining the documents was for the purpose of determining the fair market value of the facility. The sole purpose, however was for matters involving all taxes. (emphasis added). There is no indication in the record, however, that these documents were used in any way relating to any tax other than property tax. Tax Commission counsel testified, in fact, they were used only for property tax purposes.
Appellants argue the information in question is not subject to disclosure because it falls within an FOIA exemption under S.C.Code Ann. § 30-4-40(a)(2) (1991). This section provides an exemption for: (2) Information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute unreasonable invasion of personal privacy, including, but not limited to, information as to gross receipts contained in applications for business licenses. This Court has held that exemptions to the FOIA found in § 30-4-40, and specifically subsection (a)(2), create no duty of confidentiality. Bellamy v. Brown, 305 S.C. 291, 408 S.E.2d 219 (1991). The purpose of the FOIA is to protect the public from secret government activity. The exemptions impose no duty not to disclose but simply allow the public agency the discretion to withhold exempted material from disclosure. Id. In this case, the public agency (Tax Commission) wishes to exercise its discretion in favor of disclosure and is not seeking to invoke an exemption. Since § 30-4-40(a)(2) creates no duty of confidentiality, Tax Commission may disclose the information. Appellants also contend the exemption for trade secrets found in § 30-4-40(a)(1) prevents disclosure. Again, under this Court's decision in Bellamy, supra, even if the information qualifies as trade secrets, the exemption creates no duty of confidentiality and Tax Commission may disclose it at its discretion. In conclusion, the FOIA exemptions do not prevent disclosure of the information in question.