Court Opinion

ID: 9476179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:49:17.474845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:10.034265
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
Although I disagree with the reasoning of the court in this case, I agree with the result it reaches. Accordingly, I write separately to explain the narrow basis on *540which I would uphold the prefiling notification program at issue in this case.
The information disclosed by the IRS to Mid-South's individual investors was plainly the “return information” of Mid-South as that term is used in 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(3) (1982). In In re Grand Jury Investigation, 688 F.2d 1068 (6th Cir.), reh. denied, 696 F.2d 449 (1982), we held that “[a] taxpayer’s name and the fact that he is, or will be subject to an investigation regarding Title 26 obligation, does constitute return information.” 688 F.2d at 1071. The letter at issue in this case identified Mid-South as a taxpayer and the fact that Mid-South was under investigation by the IRS. This clearly falls within the definition of tax return information given in In re Grand Jury Investigation, id. The IRS is thus subject to liability for this disclosure unless it falls within one of the statutory exceptions which permit disclosure in certain limited circumstances.
Section 6103 permits the IRS to disclose the tax return information of a taxpayer to the taxpayer himself unless such disclosure would seriously impair federal tax administration. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(e)(1)(A)(i), (e)(7) (1982). Thus, if the information contained in the prefiling notification letter is deemed to be the “return information” of the investors to whom the letters were sent, the disclosure is proper.
The definition of return information in § 6103 includes, among other things, all data collected by the IRS with respect to the tax liability of an individual. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(2) (1982). The information revealed by the IRS to the Mid-South investors-lessees in the prefiling notification letter was compiled from the “pass through documents” that Mid-South was to file with its tax return. The pass through document is a form whereby parties to a lease elect to permit the investment tax credit to be passed from the lessor to the lessee, and a copy of the form must be filed with the lessor’s and the lessee’s income tax return. As such, the pass through documents contained data collected by the IRS concerning the tax liability of both Mid-South and the individual lessees. Consequently, the information contained in the pass through documents, and compiled into the prefiling notification letters, is the “return information” of both Mid-South and the lessees as that term is defined by § 6103(b)(2).
The prefiling notification letters were only sent to the lessees themselves. The letter contained the “return information” of the lessees. Therefore, as the letters merely disclosed the “return information” of the lessees to the lessees, disclosure was permissible under § 6103. 26 U.S.C. §§ 6103(e)(1)(A)®, (e)(7) (1982). This is the only basis on which I concur in the result reached by the court.