Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP v. State Tax Assessor
2014 ME 6
Me.2014Background
- Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP (Maine-based partnership with nonresident partners in NH) sought Maine Revenue Services (MRS) records about apportionment methodologies for taxing nonresident partners under 36 M.R.S. §§ 5192(5) and 5211(17).
- Preti limited its FOAA request to formulas, methodologies, and calculations (no taxpayer identities or other extraneous materials; no documents >10 years old).
- MRS produced two non-taxpayer-specific documents and submitted seven additional documents for in camera review, which MRS withheld as confidential under 36 M.R.S. § 191(1).
- Superior Court (de novo review) held the in camera documents confidential under 36 M.R.S. § 191(1) and 1 M.R.S. § 402(3)(A), denying disclosure; Preti appealed.
- Preti argued § 191(1) protects only taxpayer-submitted materials and that MRS-generated methodologies could be disclosed with redactions; the State argued § 191(1) broadly protects information received or generated under Title 36.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding § 191(1) unambiguously protects both taxpayer-provided and agency-generated tax information, so the documents were exempt from FOAA disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 36 M.R.S. § 191(1) protects only taxpayer‑provided information or also MRS‑generated methodologies | §191(1) covers only information provided by taxpayers; MRS methodologies are not protected | §191(1) protects all information received or generated pursuant to Title 36, including agency analyses and methodologies | Held: §191(1) covers both taxpayer‑provided and agency‑generated information; documents confidential |
| Whether redaction could render documents disclosable under FOAA | Any confidential bits can be redacted to disclose MRS methodologies | Documents consist entirely of confidential information; redaction cannot produce a nonconfidential, disclosable record | Held: Because documents contain only protected information, no disclosure via redaction is required |
| Whether statutory exemptions in §191(2) undermine broad reading of §191(1) | §191(2) exemptions show §191(1) is limited to taxpayer submissions | §191(2) exemptions demonstrate Legislature contemplated agency‑generated information would otherwise be confidential | Held: Context and §191(2) support broad sweep of §191(1); plaintiff's narrow reading would create surplusage |
| Applicability of 2012 amendments/exemptions (e.g., UU) to requested documents | Some 2012 exemptions allow redacted release of assessor practices and reconsideration decisions | Exemptions are limited (reconsideration decisions or advisory rulings after July 1, 2012) and do not apply to these documents | Held: 2012 UU exemptions inapplicable to the documents at issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Luker v. State Tax Assessor, 17 A.3d 1198 (Me. 2011) (background tax dispute about attribution of partnership distributions)
- Anastos v. Town of Brunswick, 15 A.3d 1279 (Me. 2011) (de novo review and burdens when FOAA exceptions asserted)
- Cyr v. Madawaska Sch. Dep’t, 916 A.2d 967 (Me. 2007) (statutory construction principles and plain‑meaning rule)
- Stromberg‑Carlson Corp. v. State Tax Assessor, 765 A.2d 566 (Me. 2001) (consider whole statutory scheme for harmonious interpretation)
- Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Dep’t of Transp., 754 A.2d 353 (Me. 2000) (no disclosure required where document contains only protected information)
- Allied Resources, Inc. v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 999 A.2d 940 (Me. 2010) (avoidance of statutory surplusage)