*1 Appellant, STATUS, INC., CURRENT
v. HYKEL, Tax Collector.
Rose Pennsylvania. Court
Commonwealth 5, 2001.
Argued March 11, 2001.
Decided June *2 20,000 bills, approximately
ments on tax the appropriate then make disburse- payments ment. Records of the are main- by personal tained the Tax on a computer purchased by the Tax and owned past year, the employees Collector. Over approached from Current Status have the in- requesting payment Tax Collector tax parcels on of real within formation estate Township. According to Current Sta- Greenfield, Majorie E. Philadelphia, for tus, these visits occurred “from time to appellant. time”; Collector, according to the Tax Sultanik, Lansdale, Jeffrey T. appel- for these visits occurred “several times each lee. week.” McGINLEY, LEADBETTER, Before alleges The Tax Collector that each MIRARCHI, Judges and P. CHARLES time, im- Current Status has “demanded Judge. Senior computer print-outs” showing mediate payments specific “current status” of on MIRARCHI, Judge. Senior parcels, many tax sometimes as seven Status, Inc., Jersey Current a New cor- eight parcel requests per visit. Current poration registered to do in Penn- business alleges they simply desired to sylvania, appeals from the order of the inspect” “examine and individual tax rec- Montgomery Court of Common Pleas of ords maintained the Tax Collector. (trial court) County ap- that dismissed its parties dispute The do not that the Tax peal commonly filed under the act referred providing computer Collector had been (Act).1 “Right-to-Know as the Act” printouts payment of current information alleged Hykel, Current Status that Rose request, generally upon Upper the Tax Collector of Merion Town- days. for a fee of and a wait of two $2 (Tax Collector), ship refused to allow Allegedly because of the increase Cur- examination of certain tax records under requests, allegedly rent Status’ which terms conditions desired Cur- on the Tax placed a “tremendous strain” rent Status. We affirm. duties, ability perform her Collector’s The trial court did Board of Upper not make find- Merion Su- Instead, ings pervisors requiring of fact. it determined that enacted an ordinance a Collector, law, days the Tax as a matter of fee of and a wait of five $5 body type requested not a of information Current thereupon Act. “facts” filed generally The essential Status. Current Status agreed upon, present seeking however. Current Status is action under the Act for-profit business that sells information determination that it have immediate companies, including payment requested to title his- and unfettered access to the tax viewing tory information on real estate tax assess- either Col- computer receiving printout, ments. The Tax is the elected lector’s hours, during regular and for a Upper Township. tax collector for Merion business pay- exceeding printout. Her fee not for the process duties are to collect 21, 1957, amended, §§ 66.1-66.4. 1. Act of June P.L. that such matter trial which declares substance
The
was heard before the
court,
pur-
organization performs
or has for its
employee
where
Current Sta-
essential
pose
performance
of an
tus and the Tax Collector each testified.
government
trial
function.
Following
hearing, the
court dis-
appeal, determining
missed
the Tax
court determined that
trial
*3
“agency”
Tax Collector is not an
as defined
by
“agency”
is not an
as defined
Collector
Act,
therefore,
by the
and
the Act
the office of Tax Collector
because
cause of
the
had no
action under
Act. This
suggested by
in
the Act’s
is not listed
or
followed.
appeal
noted that
agency.
definition of
court
the
the Tax Collector is not connected with
scope
This Court’s
of
of an
review
Commonwealth,
of the
is
executive branch
denying
order
access to information under
political
not a
subdivision of the Common-
just
the Act is whether such denial was
Commission,
is
Turnpike
wealth or the
and
Times,
proper.
Scranton
L.P. v.
municipal authority.
In
not
state or
Single
Office,
Scranton
Tax
Any department, or commission of is established board (LTCL), May of Law executive of the Common- Collection branch amended, 1050, wealth, any political of the P.L. subdivision essentially Commonwealth, §§ The LTCL Pennsylvania Turn- 5511.1-5511.42. a Tax to the Commission, limits of any state or munic- the duties pike or taxes, bills, receipt authority organization issuance of tax or similar ipal munici- to the to a and the over taxes pursuant paying or statute created 784
pality.2 power regarding The LTCL reserves the of the information relevant taxes, power set assess discounts receipt possession of taxes is in the penalties, power and assess and the to the Tax on a time set schedule grant exoneration for uncollected taxes Therefore, or statute ordinance. taxing authority. The Tax with Collec inspection such is available required, monthly, certify tor is at least Township, insur- citizen from the thus taxing authority a statement of the ing purposes that the of the Act are ful- accounts issued and taxes received for the Nothing filled. re- monthly period. preceding lesser Sec quires that certain information be made LTCL, § tion P.S. 5511.25. immediately available for the commercial Thus, only does the Tax Collector lack purposes inspecting citizen.4 More any power adopt to enact ordinances or *4 importantly, the fact remains municipality, resolutions for the the rec fall that the Tax Collector does not under that ords the Tax Collector maintains are “agency” the definition of under the Act. authority. taxing also to be found with the agree with that While we Current Status in taxing authority, We note that a con the duties of the Tax Collector are “essen- Collector, subject trast to a Tax is tial,” correspond those duties do not with disclosure of the Act. See Doo powers municipal of a au- or nature ley County v. Luzerne Board Assess of thority any organization. or similar See 242, Appeals, ment 649 168 Pa.Cmwlth. County v. Lackawanna Board Gorson of (1994). A.2d 728 Commissioners, 140, 77 465 Pa.Cmwlth.
The intent of the Act is to allow
(1983),
that a tax
A.2d 703
where we held
entity
public
individual or
access to
a political
collector is not
subdivision and
records to discover information about the
subject
therefore not
to suit for a refund of
workings
government. Sapp
of our
Roof
taxes.
ing
v.Co.
Sheet Metal Workers’ Interna
argu
makes several
Current Status
Ass’n,
Pa.
627
tional
552
713 A.2d
attempt
sweep
in an
to
the Tax
ments
(1998).
to
designed
permit
The
thus is
“agency”
under the definition of
Collector
scrutiny
of the acts of
officials
public
argues
Act. It
that the
as defined
and to make them
for their
accountable
analogous
v. But
present
Shapp
case is
to
public
use of
funds. Envirotest Partners v.
era,
22 Pa.Cmwlth.
also the Tax Collector is agent
Township officer and To
Township. degree such, her be considered & LAKE ERIE WHEELING powers duties circumscribed COMPANY, RAILWAY they do not simply correspond statute Petitioner, Authority” “Municipal the definition of Indeed, which we must follow. Current v. why no argument offers we are not UTILITY PUBLIC PENNSYLVANIA compelled to the definition of “Mu- follow *5 COMMISSION, Respondent. Authority” nicipal mandated the Statu- tory Construction Act. Pennsylvania. Commonwealth Court Feb. Argued 2001.
Having determined is not an under Act Decided June 2001. and therefore not we address the need not subsid
iary questions kept of whether the records
by the Tax “public Collector are records” procedures
under the or whether the
imposed obtaining the information re
quested by Current reasonable parentheti
under the Act. note We would
cally, five-day waiting obtaining
period copy fee for $5 Current Status seeks was imposed enacted
allegedly by duly Town
ship ordinance. Current Status did action, party to this
make argue it
nor did ordinance challenge to
unconstitutional. Its the five- fee, waiting period provi as a law, properly is therefore not be
sion
fore Court.
The order of the trial court affirmed. LEADBETTER concurs in the
Judge only.
result