Opinion
6020-21S
01-03-2023
RUBY TANG, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Alina I. Marshall Judge.
On October 31, 2022, this case was called from the calendar for the standalone remote trial session of the Court and set for remote trial. On the same day, this case was called for remote trial. The parties each appeared and were heard. During that trial, respondent orally moved the Court to strike and seal respondent's proposed trial exhibits filed October 24, 2022, because they had not been fully redacted.
On December 13, 2022, the Court granted respondent's oral motion to strike made October 31, 2022, and the Court struck from the record and sealed respondent's proposed trial exhibits filed October 24, 2022, at Docket index No. 29.
On November 10, 2022, petitioner filed a motion to seal Docket entries 29 and 31 (petitioner's motion). To the extent petitioner's motion addresses Docket index No. 29, it will be denied as moot because the Court has already struck from the record and sealed the documents at Docket index No. 29.
In petitioner's motion, petitioner requests that Docket index entries 29 and 31 be sealed "[p]ursuant to Tax Court Rule 27 Privacy Protection for Filing made with the Court (a) Redacted Filing & (d) Protected Orders (1) Redact Additional Information for Good Cause, Rule 52 Strike Redundancy, Immaterial, etc., IRC section 6103 Confidentiality and Disclosure of Returns and Return Information, the Privacy Act of 1974 5 U.S.C. 552a Records Maintained on Individual, the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, and 58 U.S.C Rule 103." On December 13, 2022, respondent filed a document titled "response to order resp. by 12/19/22 file a response to petr's motion to seal" setting forth respondent's objections to petitioner's motion. Accordingly, the Court will recharacterized respondent's filing. On December 19, 2022, petitioner filed a document titled "reply to response to order resp. by 12/19/22 file a response to petr's motion to seal" setting forth petitioner's reply to respondent's filing. Accordingly, the Court will recharacterizing petitioner's filing.
Section 7461(a) provides that "all reports of the Tax Court and all evidence received by the Tax Court . . . including a transcript of the stenographic report of the hearings, shall be public records open to the inspection of the public." Section 7461(b) sets forth exceptions to this Rule, providing that the Court "may make any provision which is necessary to prevent the disclosure of trade secrets or other confidential information, including a provision that any document or other information be placed under seal to be opened only as directed by the court."
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Rule 27(c) provides that the "Court may order that a filing containing any of the information described in paragraph (a) of this Rule [regarding redacted filings] be made under seal without redaction. The Court may later unseal the filing or order the person who made the filing to file a redacted version for the public record." Rule 27(d) provides that, "[f]or good cause, the Court may by order in a case: (1) Require redaction of additional information; or (2) issue a protective order as provided by Rule 103(a)." Rule 103(a)(7) authorizes this Court to issue, "for good cause shown," a protective order designed to ensure that "a trade secret or other information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way."
The principles governing the sealing of records before this Court under Rule 103 are set forth in Willie Nelson Music Co. v. Commissioner, 85 T .C. 914 (1985), and its progeny. As a general rule, the official records of all courts are to be open and available for public inspection. 85 T.C. at 917. The presumptive right to access, however, "may be rebutted by a showing that there are countervailing interests sufficient to outweigh the public interest in access." 85 T.C. at 919. Therefore, the public right to judicial records is subject to the discretion of the presiding court to control and seal upon an appropriate demonstration of good cause. 85 T.C. at 917- 18. In exercising such discretion, the court "must weigh the interests of the public, which are presumptively paramount against those advanced by the parties." 85 T.C. at 919. The burden rests on the party seeking protection to "come forth with appropriate testimony and factual data to support claims of harm that would occur as a consequence of disclosure." 85 T.C. at 920. Conversely, conclusory or unsupported statements that harm could or would result from disclosure are insufficient . 85 T.C. at 920, 925.
For example, as summarized by the Court in Anonymous v . Commissioner, 127 T .C. 89, 92 (2006): "Good cause has been demonstrated and records sealed where patents, trade secrets, or confidential information are involved or where an individual's business reputation will be hurt. . . . Merely asserting annoyance, embarrassment, or, harm to a person's personal reputation, however, is generally insufficient to demonstrate good cause and overcome the strong common law presumption in favor of access to court records. . . ."
Applying these principles to this case, we find that petitioner has failed to demonstrate a countervailing interest that outweighs the public interest in access to the Court's records. Petitioner makes vague and conclusory statements, but it is unclear what harm she claims she would suffer. Furthermore, her claims are unsupported by testimony or specific factual data regarding any harm. She has not shown good cause for the Court to seal respondent's exhibits.
Furthermore, with respect to any applicable disclosure restrictions imposed by section 6103, we note that section 6103(h)(4) permits, in certain circumstances, the disclosure of returns or return information in the context of a federal or state judicial or administrative proceeding that pertains to tax administration. Among other things, disclosure is authorized in a judicial proceeding "if the taxpayer is a party to the proceeding, or the proceeding arose out of, or in connection with, determining the taxpayer's civil or criminal liability, or the collection of such civil liability, in respect of any tax imposed [by the Code]." § 6103(h)(4)(A).
Accordingly, upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's document titled "response to order resp. by 12/19/22 file a response to petr's motion to seal" filed December 19, 2022, at Docket index entry 40, is recharacterized as respondent's response to petitioner's motion to seal Docket entries 29 and 31. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's document titled "reply to response to order resp. by 12/19/22 file a response to petr's motion to seal" filed December 20, 2022, at Docket index entry 41, is recharacterized as petitioner's reply to respondent's response to petitioner's motion to seal Docket entries 29 and 31. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's motion to seal Docket entries 29 and 31 filed November 10, 2022, is denied.