Mary Ann TAVERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 91-1376
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
July 20, 1994.
32 F.3d 1423
We similarly conclude that Blanco is not a prevailing party within the meaning of section 1988. There is no doubt that the provision Blanco sought was inserted into the State‘s IFF. But section 1988 requires more. It requires that a plaintiff win relief on the merits that “materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant‘s behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff.” Farrar, — U.S. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 573 (emphasis added). Because the State proposed a formula containing a geographic isolation factor before Blanco intervened, and because there is no evidence in the record that the State ever threatened to implement an IFF lacking a factor for geographic isolation or its equivalent, the injunction did not materially alter the legal relationship between Blanco and the State; it did not affect the State‘s behavior toward her. Blanco obtained no direct benefit from the injunction, because the behavior enjoined was not occurring at the time the injunction issued, nor was there any imminent threat of its occurrence. Accordingly, we conclude that Blanco is not a prevailing party within the meaning of section 1988. See Farrar, — U.S. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 573, 576 (O‘Connor, J., concurring); see also Texas State Teachers Ass‘n v. Garland Independent Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 792, 109 S.Ct. 1486, 1493-94, 103 L.Ed.2d 866 (1989); Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U.S. 1, 3-4, 109 S.Ct. 202, 203-204, 102 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988) (per curiam).
CONCLUSION
The complaints of the intervenors are moot in their entirety. The Cities’ complaint is also in large part moot; to the extent that it is not moot, it fails to state a claim for relief cognizable under section 1983. Accordingly, we vacate the district court‘s injunction, and remand with instructions to dismiss the Cities’ complaint and the complaints in intervention of all appealing intervenors. See Munsingwear, 340 U.S. at 39-40, 71 S.Ct. at 106-107.10
Because neither the Cities nor Blanco received any direct benefit from the injunction prior to its being mooted, neither is a prevailing party within the meaning of
Nos. 92-56458, 92-56464, and 92-56468: VACATED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS.
No. 93-56655: REVERSED.
James R. Walker of Rothgerber, Appel, Powers & Johnson, Denver, CO, amicus curiae, for plaintiff-appellant Mary Ann Tavery.*
Kevin M. Brown, Trial Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC (Shirley D. Peterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., James A. Bruton, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gary R. Allen, Jonathan S. Cohen, and Janet Kay Jones, Attys., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, and Michael J. Norton, U.S. Atty., Denver, CO, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before HOLLOWAY, MCKAY, and GARTH,** Circuit Judges.
HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant Mary A. Tavery appeals a summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee the United States. The district court dismissed Ms. Tavery‘s complaint alleging unlawful disclosures of tax return information by a government attorney in violation of
I
In her complaint against the United States, Ms. Tavery alleges that “[o]n or about April 13, 1989, United States Attorney John D. Steffan filed a brief in the case of The United States of America v. Colorado Reform Baptist Church, Inc., Civil Action No. 88-X-259[,] in which he violated [26] USC [§] 7431 by disclosing return information regarding plaintiff‘s Tax Returns without plaintiff‘s permission.” I R. Doc. 1 at 4. Rev. William Conklin, the husband of Ms. Tavery, was the records custodian of the church.1 Ms. Tavery alleges that Mr. Steffan made the following statement in his brief:
[T]he Internal Revenue Service refunded $964.67, $2,045.63, and $651.39, all on March 8, 1989, in federal taxes and accruals to the Conklins. In addition, upon information and belief, Mrs. Conklin/Tavery is an engineer earning in excess of $40,000 a year.2
Id. at 5. Ms. Tavery further avers that the disclosure, quoted above, was “willful“,
Shortly after the filing of the instant complaint, Ms. Tavery filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming she was entitled to judgment on the basis of the government‘s allegedly unauthorized disclosure. I R. Docs. 5, 6. The government filed a brief opposing summary judgment for Ms. Tavery and supporting a cross-motion for summary judgment by the government. The government argued, inter alia, that Mr. Steffan‘s disclosure of tax information was authorized by
A return or return information may be disclosed in a Federal or state judicial or administrative proceeding pertaining to tax administration, but only---
*
*
*
*
*
*
(B) if the treatment of an item reflected on such return is directly related to the resolution of an issue in the proceeding; or
(C) if such return or return information directly relates to a transactional relationship between a person who is a party to the proceeding and the taxpayer which directly affects the resolution of an issue in the proceeding ...
I R. Doc. 9 at 8-11.
In an affidavit submitted in support of the government‘s response and cross-motion, Mr. Steffan stated that the information regarding Ms. Tavery‘s income was disclosed in Case No. 88-X-259 in the District of Colorado in connection with the right of Ms. Tavery‘s husband, Rev. William Conklin, to court-appointed counsel in subsequent potential contempt proceedings. I R. Doc. 8, Steffan Aff. at ¶¶ 5-10.3 The information in question concerning Ms. Tavery was used by the government to support its argument that “Mr. Conklin could not establish his inability to pay his own attorney‘s fees, and thus was not entitled to appointed counsel.” Id. at ¶ 10. The affidavit stated that Mr. Steffan never worked on any case in the Department of Justice in which Ms. Tavery was a party and that accordingly he “was not given access by the Internal Revenue Service to any ‘tax return information’ of Ms. Tavery.” Id. at ¶ 3. The affidavit also expressed Mr. Steffan‘s belief that “the Internal Revenue Service was [not] the source of the information regarding Ms. Tavery‘s income, occupation or tax refunds.” Id. at ¶ 12. Accordingly, the government argued that Ms. Tavery‘s summary judgment motion should be denied because “[a] genuine issue of material fact remains: where did Mr. Steffan get the information which he used in the brief filed with the Court?” I R. Doc. 9 at 7-8.
In her brief filed in response to the government‘s cross-motion, Ms. Tavery argued that Mr. Steffan‘s claimed ignorance as to the source of the disclosed tax information proved actionable negligence in the admitted disclosure. I R. Doc. 10 at 1-2.4 Ms. Tavery‘s response did not directly discuss the
The district court denied Ms. Tavery‘s motion for summary judgment and granted the government‘s cross-motion. I R. Doc. 14. The court concluded that Ms. Tavery‘s income necessarily “had a substantial bearing on Reverend Conklin‘s ability to pay an attorney” and that the government‘s disclosure therefore “f[e]ll under either [subsection] (C) or (B) [of
II
While the ruling of the district judge was based on his conclusion that the govern-
A
The government argues that in the underlying Case No. 88-X-259 in the District of Colorado, the issue of Rev. Conklin‘s qualifying as an indigent for appointment of counsel under the Criminal Justice Act was an “issue in the proceeding” within the meaning of §§ 6103(h)(4)(B) and (C). As Mr. Steffan‘s affidavit shows, the district court ordered Rev. Conklin to comply with the court‘s previous order and the Internal Revenue Service summons to produce records. I R. Doc. 8, ¶ 8. The order also directed, in part, that
to the extent that Rev. William Conklin seeks appointment of counsel to represent his interests, if any, in subsequent proceedings for Contempt of Court, Rev. Conklin is DIRECTED to appear before a Pretrial Services Officer ... and to provide, under oath, full and complete disclosure of his assets, income and liabilities, on or before April 14, 1989; it is further
ORDERED that financial an[d] other information submitted in connection with Rev. Conklin‘s application for appointed counsel shall be filed under seal and remain under seal until further order of the court; it is further
ORDERED that the United States shall address the issue of Rev. Conklin‘s right to appointed counsel in a brief to be filed on or before April 14, 1989....
I R. Doc. 9, Govt. Ex. A at 3-4 (emphasis added).
It was in that brief, ordered by the court to be filed, that government counsel made the disclosure concerning Ms. Tavery‘s approximate income and the tax refunds to the Conklins. The affidavit of Mr. Steffan concluded that he made the disclosure in good faith, honestly believing that the statement about Ms. Tavery was authorized by
We are persuaded by the government‘s argument that in these circumstances the disclosure came within
The scope of the relevant inquiry on the financial inability issue is broad. See United States v. Barcelon, 833 F.2d 894, 897 & n. 5 (10th Cir. 1987) (detailing numerous factors to be considered, including “the availability of income to the defendant from other sources such as a spouse....“). The factors to consider include money sent to the applicant by his mother, Souder v. McGuire, 516 F.2d 820, 821 (3d Cir. 1975), and transfers in trust. United States v. Schmitz, 525 F.2d 793, 794 (9th Cir. 1975) (opinion of Chambers, Chief Judge). “Financial inability includes an inquiry into whether there is available to the defendant funds for his defense from other sources such as family, friends, trusts, estates, or defense funds.” United States v. Martinez-Torres, 556 F.Supp. 1275, 1279 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). Under this broad test, we hold that the district court correctly decided that Ms. Tavery‘s income and tax refunds were relevant to the issue of Rev. Conklin‘s eligibility for appointment of counsel, and that the government‘s disclosure of this information was therefore permissible under
B
We briefly address the argument by Special Counsel that “[i]n order to fall within th[e]
The disclosure of a third party return in a tax proceeding (including the United States Tax Court) will be subject to the same item and transaction tests described above, except that such items and transactions must have a direct relationship to the resolution of an issue of the taxpayer‘s liability.
Only such part or parts of the third party‘s return or return information which reflects the item or transaction will be subject to disclosure both before and in a tax proceeding. Thus, the return of a third-party witness could not be introduced in a tax proceeding for the purposes of discrediting that witness except on the item and transaction grounds stated above.
Brief of Special Counsel at 7 (quoting S.Rep. No. 938, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 326 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 3439, 3755) (emphasis in brief).
While the foregoing legislative history may provide some support for Special Counsel‘s argument, the plain language of § 6103 itself does not. Instead, with respect to IRS disclosures of return information in judicial or administrative proceedings “pertaining to tax administration“,
We thus conclude that Ms. Tavery‘s return information was properly disclosed pursuant to
III
The exceptions in § 6103 are stated in the disjunctive. See United States v. Hashimoto, 878. F.2d 1126, 1129 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1989). Since we are convinced that the exception in
AFFIRMED.
GARTH, Circuit Judge, concurring:
The majority has concluded that it should affirm the district court‘s summary judgment in favor of the Government. I totally agree with that result. However, I would reach that conclusion without ever addressing or relying upon the disclosure exceptions of
I.
Ms. Tavery alleged in her complaint that Mr. Steffan, the United States attorney identified in her submissions, disclosed “return information regarding [Ms. Tavery‘s] Tax Returns without [her] permission,” and that such disclosure was made in violation of § 6103. I R Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 4, 6. The plain language of
A.
Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
B.
In support of her motion for summary judgment, Ms. Tavery made only the following declaration:
1. I am Mary Ann Tavery, the plaintiff in the above-entitled action.
2. I did not give the United States Attorney the permission to disclose my return information in [Mr. Steffan‘s brief] which is attached to the complaint.
3. It is my opinion that my income is not related to the resolution of any issue in the case 88-X-259.
4. I was not a party to the litigation in case 88-X-259.
5. I filed married-filing separately for the years 1986 to present.
I R. Doc. 6.
In opposition to Ms. Tavery‘s motion for summary judgment and in support of its cross motion, the Government submitted the affidavit of Mr. Steffan. In that affidavit, Mr. Steffan, under oath, averred that he “was not given access by the Internal Revenue Service to any tax ‘return information’ of Ms. Tavery.” I R. Doc. 8 at ¶ 3. The affidavit submitted by the Government denying that Mr. Steffan obtained the disclosed information from the IRS created a genuine issue of material fact, thereby precluding summary judgment in favor of Ms. Tavery. Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed‘n, 497 U.S. 871, 888, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 3188, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990) (“where the facts specifically averred by the [party opposing summary judgment] contradict facts specifically averred by the movant, the motion must be denied.“).
In order to resist the Government‘s cross motion for summary judgment, Ms. Tavery then had to “go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there [was] a genuine issue for trial.‘” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (quoting Rule 56(e)); accord Clemmons, 956 F.2d at 1525. Her sworn averment in response to the Government‘s properly-supported cross motion had to contain more than “mere allegations or denials.”
C.
Ms. Tavery failed to present any countervailing evidence that would have created a dispute of material fact over the source of the information disclosed by Mr. Steffan. Her only offering on this point was a facetious, “Maybe a little bird told him.”2 Ms. Tavery could not survive summary judgment in favor of the Government because she did nothing more than raise ” ‘some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.’ ” Clemmons, 956 F.2d at 1525 (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)).
Although Mr. Steffan‘s affidavit shed no light on the actual source of the disclosed information, the Government, in order to succeed on its cross motion for summary judgment, did not have to disprove Ms. Tavery‘s allegations; it was sufficient that Mr. Steffan in his sworn affidavit affirmatively and specifically denied that he had been given access by the IRS to Ms. Tavery‘s “return information.” See Windon Third Oil and Gas v. Federal Deposit Ins., 805 F.2d 342, 346 (10th Cir.1986) (“The moving party‘s burden cannot be enhanced to require his proof of a negative; that is, not only is there no evidence in the record, but plaintiff‘s evidence need not be disproved.“), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947, 107 S.Ct. 1605, 94 L.Ed.2d 791 (1987).
Summary judgment for the Government was appropriate because Ms. Tavery did not establish by affidavit or any other affirmative sworn evidence that the source of the information disclosed by Mr. Steffan was the IRS.
Because the information disclosed by Mr. Steffan was never shown to be “return information,” (a burden which Ms. Tavery failed to carry) the district court never had to reach the question of whether the exceptions of
II.
In its October 15, 1991 order denying Ms. Tavery‘s motion for summary judgment and granting the cross motion of the Government, the district court never found that the information disclosed by Mr. Steffan had emanated from the IRS. The district court merely assumed that the allegation raised in Ms. Tavery‘s complaint was correct, and that the information disclosed by Mr. Steffan was, in fact, “return information.” Those assumptions fueled the need for the district court to discuss the exceptions to disclosure found in
It will not do to “presume” the missing facts because without them the affidavits would not establish the injury that they generally allege. That converts the operation of Rule 56 to a circular promenade: plaintiff‘s complaint makes general allegation of injury; defendant contests through Rule 56 existence of specific facts to support injury; plaintiff responds with affidavit containing general allegation of injury, which must be deemed to constitute averment of requisite specific facts since otherwise allegation of injury would be unsupported (which is precisely what defendant claims it is).
Lujan, 497 U.S. at 889, 110 S.Ct. at 3189.
In reviewing the district court‘s order of summary judgment, we, of course, view the case in the same manner as the district court. Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 792 (10th Cir.1988). Hence, we examine the affidavits and all other materials which were before the district court so as “to determine whether any genuine issue of material fact pertinent to the ruling remains, and if not, whether the substantive law was correctly applied.” Id. (citing
In responding to the Government‘s cross motion for summary judgment, Ms. Tavery relied solely on the unsupported and conclusory allegations contained in her pleadings. She offered no documentary or testimonial evidence based on personal knowledge, containing facts which would be admissible at trial, to substantiate her claim that the information disclosed was “return information” within the meaning of § 6103. Ms. Tavery could not defeat the Government‘s properly supported summary judgment cross motion because she presented no evidence, let alone significant probative evidence, contradicting Mr. Steffan‘s affidavit or tending to support her own motion for summary judgment. See Conaway, 853 F.2d at 792-93 (indicating that a party‘s sole reliance on verified complaint would be insufficient to satisfy the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Celotex, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, and Anderson, 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, “especially when the allegations contained in the pleading are merely conclusory.“).
The district court therefore was correct in granting summary judgment for the Government, but wrong in assuming as a matter of law that the information disclosed by the Government was “return information,” thereby requiring application of the exceptions of
The majority takes an opposing view. It believes that “it would be unfair to affirm the summary judgment against Ms. Tavery,” as I suggest, “on the different theory that she did not produce evidence that the IRS was the source of her return information.” Ante at 1427 n. 5. The majority‘s stated reason for not affirming summary judgment in favor of the Government on this basis is that the Government did not raise this argument before the district court, and therefore “Ms. Tavery was not alerted by the government below that such evidence had to be shown in order for her to avoid summary judgment.” Ante at 1427 n. 5.
Contrary to the majority‘s position, Ms. Tavery clearly was on notice that, in order to survive the Government‘s cross motion for summary judgment, she had to come forward with sufficient countervailing evidence that
The Government argued before the district court that Ms. Tavery had not shown that the disclosed information was “[t]ax ‘return information,’ i.e., that the source of the information was the IRS; as a result, she is not entitled to summary judgment.” In its brief to the district court, the Government also noted that the affidavit of Mr. Steffan, “attached to the United States’ Response and Cross-Motion, establishes that the information concerning Ms. Tavery did not flow through the IRS, but rather was obtained by Mr. Steffan in some other, independent, way.” I.R. Doc. 9 at 6 (emphasis added). Not only was Ms. Tavery well aware of the Government‘s position that the disclosed information was not “return information” because it had not come from the IRS, her unsworn reply to the Government‘s cross motion for summary judgment focused on this precise point. Indeed, she identified as the “only issue for the Court to decide” the issue of whether Mr. Steffan could “escape from a charge of simple negligence by claiming he didn‘t get the information from the IRS when he clearly can state no other source for his information?”3
Once the Government properly supported its cross motion for summary judgment with the affidavit of Mr. Steffan, Ms. Tavery could “not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but [had to] set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial, relying upon the types of evidentiary materials contemplated by Rule 56.” John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Weisman, 27 F.3d 500, 503 (10th Cir.1994) (citing
be admissible at trial, and show that the affiant is competent to testify on the matters stated therein.“).
Irrespective of the fact that a pro se litigant is held to less stringent standards than lawyers with respect to procedural infractions, see Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1526 (10th Cir.1988), Ms. Tavery failed to offer any evidence whatsoever that the IRS was the source of the information, or to refute the unequivocal assertion of Mr. Steffan that he had not been given access by the IRS to Ms. Tavery‘s “return information.” Under such circumstances, the district court should have entered summary judgment in favor of the Government on the basis that there was no evidence that the information disclosed was “return information” within the intendment of § 6103.
The cases cited by the majority for a contrary result are inapposite to its position. See Ante at 1427 n. 5. In contrast to the instant case, those cases--Celotex, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Buckingham v. United States, 998 F.2d 735 (9th Cir.1993), and Malhotra v. Cotter & Co., 885 F.2d 1305 (7th Cir.1989)--did not involve cross motions for summary judgment.
In Buckingham, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court which, after hearing the government‘s motion for summary judgment and without notice to the government, had sua sponte granted summary judgment for Buckingham, the non-moving party, despite the existence of genuine issues of material fact. 998 F.2d at 742. Unlike the situation in Buckingham, here Ms. Tavery had notice and actually responded to the Government‘s cross motion for summary judgment, but did so without furnishing any affirmative evidence that would have created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment for the Government. Compare id.
The majority‘s reliance on the Seventh Circuit case of Malhotra also is misplaced. If anything, Malhotra supports the proposition I have espoused here--that Ms. Tavery‘s failure to offer evidentiary materials to rebut Mr. Steffan‘s affidavit was fatal to her claim
The majority cites Malhotra for the proposition that ” ‘when a party moves for summary judgment on ground A, his opponent is not required to respond to ground B--a ground the movant might have presented but did not.’ ” Ante at 1427 n. 5 (citing Malhotra, 885 F.2d at 1310). That language was used by the Malhotra court in explaining why the employer in that case should not have been granted summary judgment on the employee‘s six remaining claims of discrimination in promotion, which the employer had failed to refute in its affidavit. Because the employer had not furnished an affidavit on those remaining six claims, the Seventh Circuit held that the employee was not required to produce evidence rebutting “a ground the movant might have presented but did not.” Id. at 1310.
Finally, the majority quotes language from the Supreme Court case of Celotex to bolster its position that Ms. Tavery was not required to furnish evidence on the issue of whether the IRS was the source of the disclosed information because the Government had not explicitly made that argument in its cross motion for summary judgment. See ante at 1427 n. 5. The majority apparently reads in isolation the Celotex Court‘s observation that summary judgment sua sponte is appropriate ” ‘so long as the losing party was on notice that she had to come forward with all of her evidence.’ ” Id. (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 326, 106 S.Ct. at 2554) (emphasis added by majority).
In Celotex, the Court was not dealing with the issue we face here. The issue in Celotex was whether a district court properly could grant summary judgment on the motion of a defendant when that motion was not supported by affirmative evidence negating the plaintiff‘s wrongful-death claims. The Celotex Court held that
the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party‘s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.
477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552. Because the parties in Celotex had already conducted discovery, the Court determined that the plaintiff could not seriously claim that she was not on notice that summary judgment could be entered against her. Noting that “district courts are widely acknowledged to possess the power to enter summary judgments sua sponte, so long as the losing party was on notice that she had to come forward with all of her evidence,” the Court reasoned that “[i]t would surely defy common sense to hold that the District Court could have entered summary judgment sua sponte in favor of [the defendant], but that [the defendant‘s] filing of a motion requesting such a disposition precluded the District Court from ordering it.” Id. at 326, 106 S.Ct. at 2554.
In the instant case, the Government unquestionably was entitled to summary judgment on its cross motion. The majority and I are in full agreement on that point. Unlike the majority, however, I am convinced that the district court relied on the wrong grounds in entering summary judgment in favor of the Government. “In the review of judicial proceedings the rule is settled that if the decision below is correct, it must be affirmed, although the lower court relied upon a wrong ground or gave a wrong reason.” Helvering v. Gowran, 302 U.S. 238, 245, 58 S.Ct. 154, 158, 82 L.Ed. 224 (1937), reh‘g denied, 302 U.S. 781, 58 S.Ct. 478, 82 L.Ed. 603 (1938); accord Robert-Gay Enters., Inc. v. State Corp. Comm‘n of Kansas, 753 F.2d 857, 862 n. 5 (10th Cir.1985). Ac-
I, therefore, respectfully concur in the result reached by the majority, but I do so without reaching any issue of disclosure as provided by
Notes
Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith. The court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or further affidavits. When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party‘s pleadings, but the adverse party‘s response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided by this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party.
The government argues that the unlawful disclosure is not an unlawful disclosure under 26 USC 7431 and 26 USC 6103 because the United States Attorney claims that he did not get the $40,000 amount of income from the IRS but from somewhere else. Maybe a little bird told him. The fact is, the United States Attorney at the very least doesn‘t know where he gleaned the information which shows he acted in a negligent fashion and his negligence would lead to an assessment against the government for damages under 26 USC 7431. In the Tenth Circuit the only thing the plaintiff has to show is simple negligence. See Chandler v. [United States, 687 F.Supp. 1515 (D.Utah 1988)]. The United States Attorney claims he knew how much money Mary Ann Tavery made in a year but didn‘t know she filed married filing separately. The fact that he knew the amount of money Mary Ann Tavery made from some undetermined source but didn‘t know that Mary Ann Tavery filed separate returns clearly shows simply negligence under Chandler, supra.
There is only issue for the Court to decide. Can the United States Attorney make a specific unlawful disclosure and escape from a charge of simple negligence by claiming he didn‘t get the information from the IRS when he clearly can state no other source for his information?
Assuming arguendo that the United States attorney did not get this information from the IRS; then where did he get it? If he got it from some individual who he was not able to identify in his affidavit; he still made an unlawful disclosure because that individual whether or not he worked for the IRS would not have legal authority to publish Tavery‘s return information. Two wrongs do not make a right?
*
*
*
*
*
*
I R. Doc. 10 at 1-2.
Consistent with the foregoing provision, we have held that “[t]he term ‘tax administration’ is to be interpreted broadly.” First Western Government Securities, Inc. v. United States, 796 F.2d 356, 360 (10th Cir. 1986) (holding that “tax administration” for purposes of(i) the administration, management, conduct, direction, and supervision of the execution and application of the internal revenue laws or related statutes (or equivalent laws and statutes of a State) and tax conventions to which the United States is a party,....