Opinion ID: 27195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Points of Error

Text: 18 The United States raises five points of error. It argues that: 19 1. The district court erred as a matter of law by concluding that Batista was obliged to consider Payne as a source from whom necessary information might be otherwise reasonably available. According to the United States, the taxpayer under investigation is an inherently unreliable source of information, and thus is never a reasonably available source of information. 20 2. Even if the taxpayer might be a source from whom information is otherwise reasonably available, the district court erred in finding that Payne was such a source here. Further, the district court erred in finding that the disclosures were not necessary to obtain the information sought. 21 3. If Batista did violate § 6103, the district court erred in finding that Batista's violation was not the result of a good faith, but erroneous, interpretation of that section. 22 4. The district court erred in awarding punitive damages. 23 5. The district court erred in awarding and calculating attorneys fees. 24 Payne cross-appeals the district court's damage award, contending that he had provided sufficient evidence to sustain an award of $3.3 million in actual damages and $9.9 million in punitive damages. 25