Opinion ID: 596389
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Texas Tort and the FTCA

Text: 44 We do not believe that allowing a federal law, such as § 6103, to be used a standard of care is not contrary to the jurisprudence of this circuit. For example, in Moorhead v. Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc., 28 the federal procedures found in the FAA Flight Service Handbook were found to set the applicable standard of care under Texas tort law. Also, in Gibson v. Worley Mills, Inc., 29 we provided, in an alternative holding, that under Texas law, the sale of a certain seed mixture was negligence per se because the sale was forbidden by 7 U.S.C. §§ 1561, 1571 (1976). 30 45 Neither are we convinced that this holding is affected by United States v. Smith 31 or Tindall v. United States. 32 In Tindall, we construed Mississippi tort law and found that the government had no duty to warn anticipated users of the potential dangers of certain devices. 33 In footnote eight of that opinion, we rejected the proposition that a federal statute alone could establish a duty to the plaintiff. In the instant case, we remain consistent with Tindall as we do not find that § 6103 itself creates an actionable duty. We do find, though, that Texas tort law recognizes per se negligence when a statute or ordinance meant to protect a class of persons is violated--regardless of whether that statute or ordinance originates with federal, state, county, or city action. Similarly, we are satisfied that the result we reach today is not inconsistent with our decision in Smith, which construed Georgia tort law. 34 46 As we noted above, the government can only be held liable under the FTCA in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances. 35 We find that there are state law torts analogous to the liability imposed on the government in the instant case. 36 In addition to such analogies, we find that it is possible for a private actor to be held civilly liable under Texas tort law for a violation of § 6103. 47 To grasp the full import of this point, it is necessary to focus on the operational or functional structure of § 6103, which is entitled Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information. Subsection (a) states the general rule that returns and return information shall be confidential, then specifies three broad categories of persons who are prohibited from disclosing such confidential information. First, subsection (1) of § 6103(a) prohibits federal officers and employees from making such disclosures Second, subsection (2) of § 6103(a) prohibits disclosure by state officers and employees as well as by those of certain local agencies, who have or had access to returns or return information under § 6103. Third, to complete the picture, subsection (3) of § 6103(a) prohibits disclosure by any person--no mention whatsoever of governmental employment or affiliation at any level--who has access to returns or return information under the aegis of various other subsections of § 6103. 48 Among the subsections listed in the catch-all provision of § 6103(a)(3) is subsection (n). That the reference to subsection (n) in § 6103(a)(3) implicitly if not explicitly covers persons of the private sector is confirmed in its recognition that, in the course of the government's obtaining services from the private sector, returns and return information may be disclosed to any person ... to the extent necessary in connection with the processing, storage, transmission, maintenance, repair, testing, and procurement of equipment, and the providing of other services, for the purpose of tax administration. 37 Obviously, then, § 6103(n) contemplates the likelihood, nay, certainty, that such confidential information will of necessity be disclosed to employees of private sector independent contractors providing goods and services to the Treasury Department and the IRS, and that the express prohibitory language of § 6103(a)(3) is needed to extend its proscription to such private sector employees. 38 49 Thus, for example, if in Texas a non-governmental computer programmer or computer maintenance worker were to be furnished or should otherwise encounter the kind of confidential return information the disclosure of which is prohibited by § 6103(a), his or her wrongful disclosure in violation of the prohibition clearly could subject such a worker to Texas tort liability analogous to subjecting the government to liability in the instant case. 39