No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Tax Confidentiality in Sweden and the United States—A Comparative Study
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2019
Abstract
This article, based on my PhD thesis: “Tax Confidentiality: A Comparative Study and Impact Assessment of Global Interest, “ compares Swedish and US tax confidentiality legislation concerning public opportunities of accessing tax information held by their respective tax administrations. The article concerns itself with the historical development of tax confidentiality legislation, the general legal framework, the reasons behind tax confidentiality, and the main content of the tax confidentiality rules. The overall comparative conclusion is that Sweden provides a high level of tax transparency based on the right of public access to official documents, while the United States offers a high-level of confidentiality and protection of taxpayer information based on the individual's right to privacy. Notwithstanding this overall difference, there are certain similarities, such as public accessibility being source-based. That is, if the individual's tax information is contained in a tax return, then the information is confidential, however, if it is contained in public court records, then the information is public.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- International Journal of Legal Information , Volume 43 , Issue 2_3 , Summer_Winter 2015 , pp. 165 - 233
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2015 by the International Association of Law Libraries.
References
1 This article is based on the PhD thesis Tax Confidentiality, a Comparative Study and Impact Assessment of Global Interest, written by Anna-Maria Hambre (defended May 27 2015).Google Scholar
2 See, for instance, Transparency International, defining transparency as a “[c]haracteristic of governments, companies, organisations and individuals of being open in the clear disclosure of information, rules, plans, processes and actions”, Transparency International, The Anti-Corruption Plain Language Guide 44 (2009), http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/the_anti_corruption_plain_language_guide (last visited Dec 8, 2014).Google Scholar
3 SOU 1987:31 Integritetsskyddet i informationssamhället 4. Personregistrering och användning av personnummer. Delbetänkande av Data- och offentlighetskommittén., 123.Google Scholar
4 Bojan Bugaric, Openness and Transparency in Public Administration: Challenges for Public Law, 22 Wis Intl LJ 483, 488–491 (2004).Google Scholar
5 Hans Danelius points out that publicly accessible taxations is in other countries perceived as objectionable, Hans Danelius, Mänskliga rättigheter i europeisk praxis. en kommentar till Europakonventionen om de mänskliga rättigheterna 367 (4 ed. 2012).Google Scholar
6 Sekretesslag (1980:100)Google Scholar
7 Offentlighets- och sekretesslag (2009:400), which succeeded the Secrecy Act of 1980 in 2009.Google Scholar
8 The scale here presented is only illustrative and does not claim to show any exact placing on the scale.Google Scholar
9 Proposition 2002/03:99 Det nya Skatteverket, 03. See also, lag (2003:642) med anledning av inrattandet av Skatteverket.Google Scholar
10 Skatteverkets organisation, Skatteverket, http://www.skatteverket.se/omoss/omskatteverket/organisation.4.7b610ded10741da92fa80001414.html (last visited May 12, 2014); SFS 2007:780 Förordning med instruction for Skatteverket.Google Scholar
11 1766 års förordning angående skrif- och tryckfrihetGoogle Scholar
12 Government bills are part of what falls under the term “preparatory works.” The government can, in connection with the process of drafting a new law, appoint a committee or commission of inquiry to conduct a thorough examination of the various alternatives. The commission then reports its proposals to the government. The report is published in a series known as the Swedish Government Official Reports (SOU). If a government ministry has conducted the inquiry, it will be published in a series known as the Ministry Publications Series (Ds). Before the Government deals with the recommendations of an inquiry, the report is circulated for comment to relevant consultation bodies. These bodies may be central government agencies, local government authorities or other bodies, including non-governmental organizations, whose activities may be affected by the proposals. The government's proposals for new legislation are presented in documents known as government bills (Sw. “proposition”, abbreviated “prop.”). Bills are then submitted to the Riksdag where they are dealt with by one of the standing committees. If passed, the bill then becomes law, published in the Swedish Code of Statutes (SFS). Preparatory works are seen as an aid to the dominant legal source, the legislative text. That is, preparatory works are used in interpreting legislation. The detail lacking in the statutory language is thus often supplied by the preparatory works. See Stig Stromholm, Rätt, rättskällor och rättstillämpning: En lärobok i allmän rättslära (5th edn, Norstedts juridik 1996) 358–374.Google Scholar
13 Kungl. Maj:ts proposition N:o 16 [1902] Förslag till förordning om inkomstskattGoogle Scholar
14 Id. at 51.Google Scholar
15 Enactment of a constitutional act has to be done by two decisions, of identical wording, of Parliament (Sw. Riksdag), with a general election between the two decisions, IG Chapter 8 § 14. An ordinary act is enacted by one decision only.Google Scholar
16 Kungl. Maj:ts proposition nr 140 (1936) med förslag till andrad lydelse av § 86 regeringsformen, § 38 riksdagsordningen samt §§ 1 och 2 tryckfrihetsförordningen, 28; SOU 1935:5 Förslag till andrade bestämmelser rörande allmäanna handlingars offentlighet, 25. The Swedish title of the Secrecy law of 1937 is lag (1937:249) om inskrankningar i ratten att utbekomma allmanna handlingarGoogle Scholar
17 SOU 1927:2 Utredning med förslag till ändrade bestammelser rörande allmänna handlingars offentlighet, 214–215.Google Scholar
18 Sekretesslag (1980:100).Google Scholar
19 Offentlighets- och sekretesslag (2009:400).Google Scholar
20 Proposition 2008/09:150 Offentlighets- och sekretesslag, 1.Google Scholar
21 The right of public access to official documents is one aspect of the principle of public access to information. The principle of public access to information takes other forms in legislation as well, such as freedom of expression for officials and others (IG chapter 2 § 1), the right to communicate and publish information (Tryckfrihetsförordning (1949:105) chapter 1 § 1 para 3 and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression chapter 1 § 2), access to court hearings (IG chapter 2 § 11 para 2) and access to meetings of decision-making assemblies (this principle is not laid down in constitutional law, but found in the Riksdag Act, Sw. riksdagsordningen, chapter 1 § 4 and the Local Government Act, Sw. kommunallagen) chapter 5 § 38. However, the principle of public access to information is mainly associated with the right of public access to official documents, Alf Bohlin, Offentlighetsprincipen 20 (8 ed. 2010); Sigvard Holstad, Sekretess i allman verksamhet: en introduction till de grundläggande reglerna 13 (5 ed. 2013); See also alf Bohlin & Wiweka Warnling-Nerep, Förvältningsrättens grunder 24 (2 ed. 2011); and Wiweka Warnling-Nerep, Offentlighet och yttrandefrihet, in Svensk författningspolitik, 66 (Ingvar Mattson & Olof Petersson eds., 3 ed. 2011) where the authors first and foremost refer to the right of public access to official documents in Tryckfrihetsforordning (1949:105) chapter 2 § 1, when speaking of the principle of public access to information.Google Scholar
22 Foreign nationals are equated with Swedish citizens in this matter. See Tryckfrihetsforordning (1949:105) Chapter 14 § 5 para. 2.Google Scholar
23 Tryckfrihetsforordning (1949:105) Chapter 2 Article 1Google Scholar
24 Tryckfrihetsforordning (1949:105) Chapter 2 Article 3Google Scholar
25 Alf Bohlin, Offentlighetsprincipen (8 ed. 2010) at 44–45. There has been discussions in preparatory works, if the concept document should discarded and replaced by a more modern concept, more suited for today's information society. A suggested term is official information (Sw. allmän uppgift), see SOU 1997:39 Integritet. Offentlighet. Informationsteknik. Betànkande av Datalagskommittén., 7 and 493–500; However, the term official document is kept and given a more technology neutral tenor, see Proposition 2001/02:70 Offentlighetsprincipen och informationstekniken, 12–15Google Scholar
26 Tryckfrihetsförordningen (1949:105) Chapter 2 Article 3 Paragraph 1.Google Scholar
27 Prop. 1975/76:160 om nya grundlagsbestämmelser angående allmänna handlingars offentlighet, 122Google Scholar
28 Id.Google Scholar
29 RÅ 1951 E 42.Google Scholar
30 Tryckfrihetsförordning (1949:105) Chapter 2 Article 3 para 2.Google Scholar
31 Tryckfrihetsförordning (1949:105) Chapter 2 Article 6.Google Scholar
32 Tryckfrihetsförordning (1949:105) Chapter 2 Article 7.Google Scholar
33 See RÅ83 2:57; RÅ 1999 ref. 36; HFD 2011 ref. 52.Google Scholar
34 Tryckfrihetsförordning (1949:105) Chapter 2 Article 9.Google Scholar
35 Tryckfrihetsforordning (1949:105) Chapter 2 Article 12.Google Scholar
36 Id.Google Scholar
37 Tryckfrihetsforordning (1949:105) Chapter 2 § 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38 Tryckfrihetsforordning (1949:105) Chapter 2 § 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39 Tryckfrihetsforordning (1949:105) Chapter 2 § 14 para 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40 Id.Google Scholar
41 Proposition 1981/82:37 om offentlighetsprincipen och ADB, 47–48; See also Proposition 1979/80:2 med förslag till sekretesslag m.m. Del A, 81–82.Google Scholar
42 Offentlighets- och sekretesslag (2009:400) Chapter 6 § 4.Google Scholar
43 Id.Google Scholar
44 Tryckfrihetsförordning (1949:105) Chapter 2 Article 2.Google Scholar
45 Id.Google Scholar
46 Id. at para. 2.Google Scholar
47 Offentlighets- och sekretesslagen (2009:400) Chapter 3 § 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48 Offentlighets- och sekretesslagen (2009:400) Chapter 2 § 1.Google Scholar
49 Id. at 250–252.; Ds Ju 1977:11 Handlingssekretess och tystnadsplikt. Forslag till ny sekretesslag. del 2: Specialmotivering, 531–535.Google Scholar
50 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 56.Google Scholar
51 SOU 2003:99 Ny sekretesslag. Huvudbetankände av Offentlighets-och sekretesskommitten, 131.Google Scholar
52 PROP. 1975/76:160, supra note 27 at 71 and 73.Google Scholar
53 Id. at 73.Google Scholar
54 Ds Ju 1977:11 Handlingssekretess och tystnadsplikt.Förslag till ny sekretesslag. del 1: lagförslag och allmän motivering 16.Google Scholar
55 Current legislation does not differentiate between rules providing “true” absolute confidentiality, that is, where confidentiality applies in any situation, and rules stating absolute confidentiality complemented by rules stipulating situations in which this confidentiality may cease to apply. This latter form of absolute confidentiality may be termed semi-absolute confidentiality.Google Scholar
56 Offentlighets- och sekretesslag (2009:400) Chapter 12 § 2 para 2.Google Scholar
57 Ds 2012:34 Sekretess i det internationella samarbetet, 24.Google Scholar
58 Offentlighets- och sekretesslag (2009:400) Chapter 10 § 2.Google Scholar
59 Id. at § 27.Google Scholar
60 It has been suggested that these requirements should be replaced by a neutral requirement of damage (Sw. neutralt skaderekvisit), in order to ease the application of the rules. However, these proposals have been rejected, with reference to the possible harmful effects of a neutral requirement of damage on transparency, see SOU 2003:99, supra note 51 at 135–137 and 141–143; and PROP. 2008/09:150, supra note 20 at 350–351.Google Scholar
61 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 78; SOU 2003:99, supra note 51 at 141; Prop. 2008/09:150, supra note 20 at 350–351.Google Scholar
62 Prop 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at (n 114) 80.Google Scholar
63 Id.Google Scholar
64 Id. at 81.Google Scholar
65 Id. at 82.Google Scholar
66 Tryckfrihetsförordning (1949:105) Chapter 2 § 14 para 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
67 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 81.Google Scholar
68 Id. at 349; Ds Ju 1977:11 Del 2, supra note 49 at 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69 Ds Ju 1977:11 Del 1, supra note 54 at 134–135.Google Scholar
70 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 83.Google Scholar
71 Id. at 83.Google Scholar
72 Tryckfrihetsförordning (1949:105) Chapter 2 Article 2 item 6.Google Scholar
73 Prop. 1975/76:160, supra note 27 at 109.Google Scholar
74 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 84.Google Scholar
75 Id. at 84.Google Scholar
76 Id. at 84; See also RÅ84 Ab 264, where names of certain companies and amounts withheld was considered confidential.Google Scholar
77 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 84.Google Scholar
78 SOU 1975:22 Lag om allmànna handlingar. Betànkande av Offentlighets- och sekretesslagstiftningskommittén, 205–206, 219–220.Google Scholar
79 Proposition 1979/80:2 med förslag till sekretesslag m.m. Del B, 427.Google Scholar
80 Id. at 431.Google Scholar
81 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 259.Google Scholar
82 Id.Google Scholar
83 Proposition 2005/06:169 Effektivare skattekontroll m.m., 82.Google Scholar
84 Offentlighets- och sekretesslagen (2009:400) Chapter 27 § 1.Google Scholar
85 Id. at para 3.Google Scholar
86 “Similar charges” refers to charges that are not directly tied to a performance by public authorities vis-a-vis the tax payer, Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 260.Google Scholar
87 Lag (2004:629) om trängselskattGoogle Scholar
88 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 258Google Scholar
89 Id. at 258.Google Scholar
90 Skatteförfarandelag (2011:1244)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
91 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 258.Google Scholar
92 RA 1992 not. 502.Google Scholar
93 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 258.Google Scholar
94 Offentlighets- och sekretesslagen (2009:400) Chapter 27 § 1 para 2.Google Scholar
95 RA 1993 not. 568.Google Scholar
96 RA84 Ab 264, supra note 76.Google Scholar
97 RÅ 1996 ref. 82; RA 1996 not. 273.Google Scholar
98 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 258.Google Scholar
99 Skatteverket, Offentligt eller hemligt 89 (4 ed. 2009).Google Scholar
100 Horizontal Monitoring and Cooperative Compliance are other names for these types of activities.Google Scholar
101 Skatteverket, Skatteverkets riktlinje for fordjupad dialog (2014), commentary to item 13.Google Scholar
102 HFD 2013 ref.48.Google Scholar
103 Offentlighets- och sekretesslagen (2009:400) Chapter 27 § 2 para 1 items 1–4.Google Scholar
104 See RÅ 1988 not. 165.Google Scholar
105 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 256.Google Scholar
106 Id.Google Scholar
107 Id.Google Scholar
108 Id.Google Scholar
109 Id. at 252.Google Scholar
110 Id. at 257.Google Scholar
111 Lag (2007:324) om Skatteverkets hantering av vissa borgenärsuppgifter. This Act applies to the recovery of debts where the government is the creditor, such as taxes and charges.Google Scholar
112 Skatteverket, Handledning för företrädaransvar 126 (4 ed. 2009); Skatteverket, Handledning för borgenärsarbetet 46 (3 ed.).Google Scholar
113 Proposition 2002/03:128 Företrädaransvarm.m., 36.Google Scholar
114 Offentlighets- och sekretesslag (2009:400) Chapter 27 § 1 para 3 item 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
115 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 86–87.Google Scholar
116 Id. at 87; Ds Ju 1977:11 Del 1, supra note 54 at 137–140.Google Scholar
117 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 87.Google Scholar
118 Offentlighets- och sekretesslag (2009:400) Chapter 27 § 1 para 5 and § 2 para 4.Google Scholar
119 SOU 1975:22, supra note 78 at 19, 225.Google Scholar
120 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 253.Google Scholar
121 Id. at 256–257; See also Konstitutionsutskottet betänkande 1979/80:37 med anledning av propositionen 1979/80:2 med förslag till sekretesslag m.m. jämte motioner, 34.Google Scholar
122 Skatteverket, supra note 99 at 95.Google Scholar
123 Förvaltningslag (1986:223)Google Scholar
124 Regards decisions whereby a matter is determined by an authority.Google Scholar
125 Skatteverket, Rätt handlagt 106 (5 ed. 2011).Google Scholar
126 Offentlighets- och sekretesslag (2009:400) Chapter 27 § 6.Google Scholar
127 Id.Google Scholar
128 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 260.Google Scholar
129 Id.Google Scholar
130 Roger Persson österman, Förhandsbesked i skattefrAgor 43–44 (2013).Google Scholar
131 Skatteverket, supra note 99 at 169.Google Scholar
132 SOU 1975:22, supra note 78 at 224.Google Scholar
133 SOU 1987:31, supra note 3 at 123–124.Google Scholar
134 Skattebetalningslag (1997:483)Google Scholar
135 Tax Payment Act Chapter 11 § 1 para 2 item 8.Google Scholar
136 Many of the provisions on equivalence of terms and concepts (Sw. likställighetsbestämmelser) in the Tax Payment Act was not given any equivalent in the Tax Procedure Act, see SOU 2009:58 Skatteförfarandet. Slutbetänkande av Skatteförfarandeutredningen, 348–351; Proposition 2010/11:165 Skatteforfarandet, 297–300.Google Scholar
137 SOU 2009:58 supra note 136 at 1465–1466.Google Scholar
138 Id. at 1466.Google Scholar
139 Proposition 1985/86:80 om ny förvaltningslag, 51; SOU 2007:65 domstolarnas handläggning av ärenden, 125; See also Håkan Strömberg & Bengt Lundell, Allmän förvaltningsrätt 61 (26 ed. 2014) on the distinction between a binding decision and other statements of an authority.Google Scholar
140 SOU 2009:58 supra note 136 at 1466.Google Scholar
141 Id.Google Scholar
142 Id. at 1467.Google Scholar
143 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 256–257.Google Scholar
144 Offentlighets- och sekretesslag (2009:400) Chapter 27 § 4.Google Scholar
145 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 258–259.Google Scholar
146 Offentlighets- och sekretesslag (2009:400) Chapter 27 § 4 last sentence.Google Scholar
147 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 259.Google Scholar
148 See RÅ 2007 ref. 60.Google Scholar
149 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 80–81.Google Scholar
150 Id. at 259.Google Scholar
151 Id.Google Scholar
152 Id.Google Scholar
153 RÅ81 2:35; RÅ81 Ab 179.Google Scholar
154 See also Jesper Ekroth & Eleonor Kristoffersson, Skattesekretess i domstol, Skattenytt 80–101, 90 (2011).Google Scholar
155 RÅ83 2:9.Google Scholar
156 RÅ 1986 not 613.Google Scholar
157 A preliminary memorandum (Sw. förhandspromemoria) is a document that is drawn up during the course of certain audits and contains a description of the tax auditor's findings during the audit, Skatteverket, Handledning for skatterevision. Revisionspromemorian 32 (2 ed. 2006).Google Scholar
158 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
159 See also Ekroth and Kristoffersson, supra note 154 at 90.Google Scholar
160 RÅ 1992 ref 9.Google Scholar
161 RÅ 2002 not 156.Google Scholar
162 Ekroth and Kristoffersson, supra note 154 at 97 and 100–101.Google Scholar
163 Ds 2014:33 Offentlighet och sekretess för uppgifter i domstolsav- göranden, 24.Google Scholar
164 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 102.Google Scholar
165 Offentlighets- och sekretesslag (2009:400) Chapter 43 § 8.Google Scholar
166 Ds 2014:33, supra note 163 at 26.Google Scholar
167 According to Offentlighets- och sekretesslag (2009:400) Chapter 43 § 5.Google Scholar
168 Id.Google Scholar
169 Ds 2014:33, supra note 163 at 35–36.Google Scholar
170 See for instance RA 1992 not. 367; RA 1993 not. 96; RA 1993 not. 265; RA 1994 not. 381; RA 1996 not. 123; RA 1996 not. 245; RA 1997 not. 180; RA 1999 ref. 33; RA 1998 not. 213; RA 1999 not. 36; RA 2000 not. 86 (although it should not be particularly difficult to identify the company with the help of other information in the judgment); RA 2001 not. 164; RA 2002 not. 210.Google Scholar
171 Lag (2001:181) om behandling av uppgifter i Skatteverkets beskattningsverksamhetGoogle Scholar
172 Id. at Chapter 2 §5.Google Scholar
173 Id.Google Scholar
174 RÅ81 2:47; RÅ83 Ab 124, information concerning whether an individual is registered for VAT and information concerning whether a company is registered as an employer is not covered by this provision, and is therefore not public.Google Scholar
175 Offentlighets- och sekretesslag (2009:400) Chapter 27 § 8.Google Scholar
176 Tryckfrihetsförordning (1945:105).Google Scholar
177 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 256.Google Scholar
178 Proposition 1989/90:74 om ny taxeringslag m.m., 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
179 Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative History of Tax Return Confidentiality: Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and Its Predecessors 1–5 (1974).Google Scholar
180 Id.Google Scholar
181 Id. at 65. See also Joshua D Blank, In Defense of Individual Tax Privacy, 61 Emory Law J. 265–348, 275–276 (2011).Google Scholar
182 Zaritsky, supra note 179 at 8.Google Scholar
183 Id. at 10, 27.Google Scholar
184 Id. at 55–58.Google Scholar
185 Marjorie e. Kornhauser, Doing the Full Monty: Will Publicizing Tax Information Increase Compliance, 18 Can. J. Law Jurisprud. 95, 21 (2005).Google Scholar
186 Zaritsky, supra note 179 at 60.Google Scholar
187 Id. at 60.Google Scholar
188 Id.Google Scholar
189 Id. at 61.Google Scholar
190 Senate Report No. 938, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 315–318 (1976); IRS, Department of the Treasury, Disclosure & Privacy Law Reference Guide 1–7 – 1–9.Google Scholar
191 See Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960) in which the Supreme Court stated that “our system of (income) taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment…” Voluntary does not indicate that filing a tax return is voluntary, but refers to a tax system based on taxpayers’ voluntary compliance with the tax laws. See, for instance, John Potts Barnes, Lawyer and the Voluntary Assessment System, 40 Taxes - Tax Mag. 1034, 1035 (1962).Google Scholar
192 S. Rep. No. 938, supra note 190 at 317.Google Scholar
193 Id. at 328.Google Scholar
194 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Policy, Report to The Congress on Scope and Use of Taxpayer Confidentiality and Disclosure Provisions. Volume I: Study of General Provisions 3 (2000).Google Scholar
195 5 USC 552, et. seq.Google Scholar
196 26 USC 1, et. seq.Google Scholar
197 Senate Report No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1965).Google Scholar
198 Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1, 17 (1974), Bannercraft Clothing Company v. Renegotiation Board, 466 F.2d 345, 352 (1972). See also Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976).Google Scholar
199 Air Force v. Rose, supra note 198 at 361.Google Scholar
200 S. Rep. No. 813, supra note 197 at 3.Google Scholar
201 5 USC 552(a)(3)(A).Google Scholar
202 See 5 USC 552(b).Google Scholar
203 5 USC § 552(d).Google Scholar
204 FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615, 630 (1982).Google Scholar
205 See generally 5 USC 552(b).Google Scholar
206 5 USC 552(b)(3).Google Scholar
207 See generally 26 USC 6103.Google Scholar
208 Landmark Legal Foundation v. IRS, 267 F.3d 1132, 1134 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Long v. IRS, 742 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1984); Church of Scientology of California v. IRS, 792 F.2d 146, 159 (DC Cir. 1986).Google Scholar
209 26 USC 6103(a).Google Scholar
210 See generally 26 USC 6103(b).Google Scholar
211 IRM 9.3.1.2.2 (09-25-2006) Definition of Disclosure Terms. The IRM serves as the single official compilation of the policies, delegations of authorities, procedures, instructions and guidelines relating to the organization, function, administration and daily operations of the IRS, see IRM 1.4.1.7 (01-20-2012) Performance Management).Google Scholar
212 See generally 26 USC 6103(b)(2).Google Scholar
213 26 USC 6103(b)(2)(A).Google Scholar
214 Id.Google Scholar
215 IRM 9.3.1.2.3 (09-25-2006) Definition of Disclosure Terms.Google Scholar
216 Landmark Legal Foundation, supra note 209 at 1135; Allan Karnes & Roger Lively, Striking Back at the IRS: Using Internal Revenue Code Provisions to Redress Unauthorized Disclosures of Tax Returns or Return Information, 23 Seton Hall Law Rev. 924, 933 (1992).Google Scholar
217 John A. Galotto, Christopher P. La Puma & Neeraj Pai, Tax Management Portfolio, No. 625 Obtaining Information from the Government - Disclosure Statutes (1995) 84–85.Google Scholar
218 Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. U.S., 46 Fed. CI. 719, 722 (2000); See also Baskin v. U.S., 135 F3d 338, 342 (5th Cir. 1998).Google Scholar
219 26 USC 6103(b)(2)Google Scholar
220 Named after the amendment's sponsor, United States House Representative, Harry G. Haskell.Google Scholar
221 Long v. IRS, 596 F.2d 362 (9th Cir. 1979).Google Scholar
222 Up until this point, Long had been the leading case, providing disclosure of return information upon the mere redaction of identifying information. Id.Google Scholar
223 Scientology, supra note 208 at 158.Google Scholar
224 Id. at 163.Google Scholar
225 Galotto, La Puma, and Pai, supra note 217 at 88.Google Scholar
226 Hrubec v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 49 F.3d 1269, 1270 (7th Circ. 1995); Dietl v. Mirage Resorts, Inc., 180 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1153 (D. Nev. 2002).Google Scholar
227 26 USC 6103(c).Google Scholar
228 IRS, Department of the Treasury, supra note 194 at 2–19.Google Scholar
229 26 CFR § 301.6103(c)-1(b)Google Scholar
230 Id.Google Scholar
231 Id.Google Scholar
232 26 USC 6103(h).Google Scholar
233 See generally 26 USC 6103(h)(4).Google Scholar
234 IRS, Department of the Treasury, supra note 194 at 3–7 – 3–8.Google Scholar
235 26 USC §7122.Google Scholar
236 26 CFR § 301.7122-1(b) provides the grounds for compromise.Google Scholar
237 IRM 4.18.1.2 (01-07-2011) Offers in Compromise Received in Exam. Introduction.Google Scholar
238 See IRC § 7122(b). Note, IRC § 7122(b) does not require a report relating to amounts less than $50,000.Google Scholar
239 See IRS Offer in Compromise Public Inspection File Locations, http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Offer-in-Compromise-Public-Inspection-File-Locations (last visited Dec 18, 2014).Google Scholar
240 IRM 5.8.8.8(2) (08-08-2014) Public Inspection File.Google Scholar
241 IRM 5.8.8.6(6) (01-01-2015) Required Actions Prior to Closing an OIC as an Acceptance.Google Scholar
242 26 USC 6103(m)(1).Google Scholar
243 Johnson v. Sawyer, 120 F.3d 1307, 1321 (5th Cir. 1997).Google Scholar
244 26 USC 6103(p)(2)(A).Google Scholar
245 Id.Google Scholar
246 26 USC § 6103(p)(2)(B).Google Scholar
247 Id.Google Scholar
248 See generally 26 USC 6103(p)(4).Google Scholar
249 Id.Google Scholar
250 Id.Google Scholar
251 S. Rep. No. 938, supra note 190 at 305–306.Google Scholar
252 Id.Google Scholar
253 26 USC 6110(b)(1)(A). See also Galotto, La Puma, and Pai, supra note 217 at 133.Google Scholar
254 See generally 26 CFR § 301.6110-2(d)Google Scholar
255 Understanding IRS Guidance - A Brief Primer, http://www.irs.gov/uac/Understanding-IRS-Guidance-A-Brief-Primer (last visited August 24, 2015).Google Scholar
256 Galotto, La Puma, and Pai, supra note 217 at 133.Google Scholar
257 26 USC 6110(c)(1).Google Scholar
258 See generally 26 CFR 6110-3(a)(1)(i).Google Scholar
259 26 CFR § 301.6110-3(a)(1)(i).Google Scholar
260 26 CFR § 301.6110-3(a)(1)(ii)Google Scholar
261 Id.Google Scholar
262 Id.Google Scholar
263 See generally 26 USC 6110(c)(5).Google Scholar
264 26 CFR § 301.6110-3(a)(5).Google Scholar
265 Id.Google Scholar
266 Galotto, La Puma, and Pai, supra note 217 at 146.Google Scholar
267 See 26 USC 6110(f)(1).Google Scholar
268 26 CFR §301.6110(a)(2)Google Scholar
269 Id.Google Scholar
270 U.S. Department of the Treasury, supra note 194 at 27.Google Scholar
271 See IRS Written Determinations, (2013), http://apps.irs.gov/app/picklist/list/writtenDeterminations.html (last visited August 24 2015).Google Scholar
272 26 USC § 7121(a).Google Scholar
273 26 CFR § 301.7121-1(a).Google Scholar
274 S. Rep. No. 938, supra note 190 at 307; H.R. Rep. No. 94–658, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 316 (1976).Google Scholar
275 26 USC 6103(b)(2)(D).Google Scholar
276 See generally 26 CFR §301.7121-1 (a),Google Scholar
277 Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service & Office of Chief Counsel, Notice CC-2008-014 Procedures for Closing Agreements with Taxpayer Consents to Publicize (2008).Google Scholar
278 Mallas v. U.S., 993 F.2d 1111, 1120 (4th Cir. 1993); Rodgers v. Hyatt, 697 F.2d 899, 906 (10th Cir. 1983).Google Scholar
279 Rowley v. U.S., 76 F.3d 796, 801 (6th Cir. 1996); Lampert v. U.S., 854 F.2d 335, 338 (9th Cir. 1988).Google Scholar
280 See generally Rice v. U.S., 166 F.3d 1088 (10th Cir. 1999).Google Scholar
281 Id. at 1091–1092.Google Scholar
282 See generally Thomas v. U.S., 890 F.2d 18 (7th Cir. 1989).Google Scholar
283 Id. at 20.Google Scholar
284 Id. at 20–22.Google Scholar
285 Johnson, supra note 243 at 1318–1319.Google Scholar
286 S. Rep. No. 938, supra note 190 at 343–344.Google Scholar
287 Johnson, supra note 243 at 1320–1321.Google Scholar
288 Id. at 1321Google Scholar
289 Id.Google Scholar
290 Id. at 1320–1321.Google Scholar
291 Id. at 1321.Google Scholar
292 Id.Google Scholar
293 S. Rep. No. 938, supra note 190 at 317–318.Google Scholar
294 Id. at 307; H.R. Rep. No. 94–658, supra note 274 at 316.Google Scholar
295 Although a reverse requirement was proposed during the drafting of the Secrecy Act of 1980. See Ds Ju 1977:11 Del 1, supra note 54 at 57.Google Scholar
296 SOU 1927:2, supra note 17 at 214–215.Google Scholar
297 Tryckfrihetsförordning (1949:105) Chapter 2 Article 2 para 4Google Scholar
298 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 84.Google Scholar
299 Id. at 259.Google Scholar
300 Id.Google Scholar
301 Prop. 2005/06:169, supra note 83 at 82.Google Scholar
302 Id.Google Scholar
303 For instance IRC § 6103(i), which is approximately five pages, and IRC § 6103(1), which is about seven pages long.Google Scholar
304 Stig Strömholm, Rätt, rättskällor och rättstillämpning: En lärobok i allmän rättslära 358–374 (5 ed. 1996).Google Scholar
305 Michael Bogdan, Concise Introduction to Comparative Law 34 (2013).Google Scholar
306 Offentlighets- och sekretesslagen (2009:400) Chapter 27 § 1.Google Scholar
307 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 256.Google Scholar
308 Johnson, supra note 243 at 1322.Google Scholar
309 SOU 2001:3 Offentlighetsprincipen och den nya tekniken. Delbetankande av Offentlighets- och sekretesskommitten, 51.Google Scholar
310 Lagutskottets betankanden 1823 nr 27, 95.Google Scholar
311 Rodgers, supra note 278 at 902.Google Scholar
312 Rice, supra note 280 at 1092; See also Craig v. Harney 331 U.S. 367, 67 S. Ct. 1249, 91 L. Ed. 1546, 1254.Google Scholar
313 Richmond Newspaper, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 570 (1980); Globe Newspaper Co v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 607 (1982).Google Scholar
314 Globe, supra note 313 at 606.Google Scholar
315 Richmond, supra note 313 at 573.Google Scholar
316 Globe, supra note 313 at 607.Google Scholar
317 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 252–253.Google Scholar
318 The Secrecy Act of 1937Google Scholar
319 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 252.Google Scholar
320 See id. at 251–252.Google Scholar
321 RÅ 1990 nor 286.Google Scholar
322 This refers only to the difference in confidentiality level between tax administration decisions and tax returns. A reason for confidentiality concerning tax returns alone has been provided above, suggesting that since the purpose behind a right of access to government information is to gain insight into government activities there is no great argument in defense of transparent tax returns because tax returns do not afford such insight.Google Scholar
323 See Offentlighets- och sekretesslag (2009:400). Chapter 27 § 6 item 1 and IRC §6110.Google Scholar
324 Prop. 1979/80:2 Del A, supra note 41 at 256; SOU 2003:99, supra note 51 at 759.Google Scholar
325 S. Rep. No. 938, supra note 190 at 305–306.Google Scholar
326 See IRC § 6110(c)(5)Google Scholar
327 See generally 26 CFR Reg. § 301.6110-3(a)(5). Galotto, La Puma, and Pai, supra note 217 at 146.Google Scholar
328 S. Rep. No. 938, supra note 190 at 306–307.Google Scholar