Opinion
5543-23S
06-26-2023
ALENA CHEPPEL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On May 1, 2023, petitioner filed in the above-docketed matter a letter in the nature of a Motion To Seal and so recharacterized. However, the brief document stated in its entirety: "Please, seal my case 5543-23S as soon as possible because I started to experience very suspicious activity under my name related to possible Identity theft." As such, the request failed to establish a basis for basis for protection consistent with the applicable standards under Tax Court procedure.
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 917-918. 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.
At that juncture, the Court directed petitioner to file a supplement to the Motion To Seal and to explain therein details about what information petitioner believed needs protecting, what harm petitioner believed she would suffer or had suffered, and why petitioner thought the identity theft was related to the filing of this case. To date, nothing further has been received from petitioner.
According, the premises considered, it is
ORDERED that that the Motion To Seal filed May 1, 2023, is denied, and the temporary seal herein is lifted.