O'Connell v. Olsen & Ugelstadt
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
JONES, Chief Judge.
This is a personal injury action in which plaintiff alleges that injuries he received have permanently and partially incapacitated him.
Defendant moves for the production and inspection of plaintiff’s income tax returns for the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948.
There is authority in other District Courts for the production of income tax returns. Reeves v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., D.C., 80 F.Supp. 107 . Such authority is not binding on this Court.
The Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 55 , and regulations issued thereunder provide that tax reurns shall be confidential and disclosed only upon application of the plaintiff or his attorney in fact. No provision is made for the production of such returns upon order of a Federal Court. Until such provision is made, this section of the Court has been and is of the opinion that such returns are, in private civil actions, confidential information between the taxpayer and the Government and should not be open to inspection under Rule 34, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. Such a ruling is in accord with previous holdings that documents which have been declared confidential by Federal department rulings are not open to discovery under Rule 34. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice 2641, F.N. 1.
Such a ruling will have no serious consequences as the information desired can be obtained by intelligent use of other discovery procedure.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that, absent word from Congress or the Treasury, returns were immune from discovery)
-
(holding that 26 U.S.C. § 55 did not provide for production of returns upon order of a federal court, and returns would not be open for inspection until such provision was made)
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.