Office of the Budget v. Campbell, 2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 382

Campbell requested 2009 W-2 forms for all current and former OOR employees under RTKL; OB denied disclosure citing confidentiality of tax returns.
OOR partially granted Campbell's appeal, directing redactions of employer name/address, employee name/address, and SERS contribution, citing prior limits on home addresses.
OB appealed to Commonwealth Court seeking reversal, arguing federal law protects tax returns and return information.
Court acknowledged W-2 forms are confidential under federal law and not public records for RTKL purposes.
Court relied on 6103(a)-(b) of the Internal Revenue Code and related authorities to hold W-2s as confidential; redactions do not overcome federal protection.
The relief granted by OOR was reversed, and W-2 forms could not be disclosed, even in redacted form.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are W-2 forms confidential under federal law?	Campbell: W-2s should be public records under RTKL.	Campbell: W-2s fall under 6103; confidential.	W-2s are confidential; not public records.
Can redacted W-2 forms be released under RTKL?	OOR could release redacted versions.	Redactions cannot defeat federal confidentiality.	Redacted W-2s cannot be released.

Pennsylvania State Education Association ex rel. Wilson v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 981 A.2d 383 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (limits on release of employee home addresses)
Church of Scientology v. Internal Revenue Service, 484 U.S. 9 (Sup. Ct. 1987) (returns themselves protected from disclosure; redactions ineffective)
People v. Gutierrez, 222 P.3d 925 (Colo. 2009) (tax returns generally confidential; rare non-tax disclosures)
Stokwitz v. United States, 831 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1987) (federal context of confidentiality; limits of disclosure)
McElfresh v. Department of Transportation, 963 A.2d 582 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (statutory confidentiality implications for tax information)