Opinion ID: 624219
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unauthorized Disclosure Claim

Text: Plotkin argues that Defendants Leeker, McAdon and Kibort violated 26 U.S.C. § 6103 when they provided probation officer Sanders with Plotkin’s tax return information. The Internal Revenue Code prohibits employees and officials of the United 2 Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Bivens claims based on qualified immunity, we do not address Defendant Sanders’s alternative argument that he is entitled to absolute immunity. 10 States from disclosing taxpayers’ return information, “except as authorized by [the Internal Revenue Code],” 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a), and provides a civil remedy for damages for unauthorized disclosures. Id. § 7431. However, disclosure in a judicial proceeding is allowed where “the taxpayer is a party to the proceeding, or the proceeding arose out of, or in connection with, determining the taxpayer’s civil or criminal liability, or the collection of such civil liability.” 26 U.S.C. § 6103(h)(4)(A). Furthermore, damages are not recoverable for an unauthorized disclosure if the disclosure “results from a good faith, but erroneous, interpretation of section 6103.” 26 U.S.C. § 7431(b)(1). Here, Plotkin’s probation revocation proceedings are an extension of his criminal proceedings for tax crimes. As such, the defendants’ disclosure of Plotkin’s tax returns was authorized under § 6103(h)(4)(A). Even assuming arguendo disclosure was not authorized, we conclude that the Defendants’ actions fell within the good faith exception given that the Internal Revenue Manual (“IRM”) allowed for disclosure of return information to a probation officer under the circumstances presented here. See IRM 5.1.5.20 (permitting disclosure where the information relates to a taxpayer convicted of a criminal tax violation, the probation officer was charged with ensuring that the probationer complies with internal revenue laws and the information is limited to 11 those years specified by the conditions of probation); Comyns v. United States, 287 F.3d 1034, 1034 (11th Cir. 2002) (affirming district court’s order concluding that the good faith exception applies if the agents followed the relevant agency regulations and manuals and those regulations and manuals constitute a reasonable interpretation of the law).