Summary
holding that the key issue is whether or not the disclosure is authorized, not whether or not it was previously disclosed; the fact that the tax information was disclosed in a prior proceeding is irrelevant
Summary of this case from Rowley v. U.S.Opinion
No. 88-2402.
October 31, 1989.
William S. Rose, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., James I.K. Knapp, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Gary R. Allen, Jonathan S. Cohen and Nancy G. Morgan, Attys., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., and Brent D. Ward, U.S. Atty., Salt Lake City, Utah, of counsel, for defendant-appellant.
Eric E. Chandler and Peggy K. Chandler, Centerville, Utah, pro se.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah; David Sam, Judge.
Before MOORE, SETH and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Tenth Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
The United States appeals from an order of the district court awarding damages of $1,000 to plaintiffs for negligent and unauthorized disclosure of their tax return information. See 26 U.S.C. § 6103, 7431 (1982 Supp. V 1987). After examining the briefs, record on appeal, and relevant case law, we AFFIRM the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. See Rodgers v. Hyatt, 697 F.2d 899 (10th Cir. 1983); Chandler v. United States, 687 F. Supp. 1515 (D.Utah 1988).