Section 6103(h)(4)

Section 6103 guards inviolate taxpayer information, hedging same with contempt sanctions, civil and criminal penalties. But there is a gap, and Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves will tell you all about, and how he proposes to plug the gap, in Amgen Inc. & Subsidiaries, Docket No. 16017-21, filed 3/24/23.

First, the gap. “In contrast with I.R.C. § 6103(n), persons to whom return information is disclosed pursuant to I.R.C. § 6103(h)(4) are under no obligation to keep the information confidential. Pursuant to I.R.C. § 6103(h)(4)(A), returns and return information may be disclosed in a judicial proceeding pertaining to tax administration if the taxpayer is a party to the proceeding. Thus, pursuant to this provision, returns and return information of petitioner may be disclosed in the instant Tax Court proceeding, including in depositions and interviews. No provision of the Code prohibits a person to whom return information is disclosed pursuant to I.R.C.  § 6103(h)(4) from redisclosing that information, nor does any provision provide for penalties for such redisclosure. Notwithstanding I.R.C. § 6103(h)(4), expert witnesses and other persons under contract pursuant to I.R.C. § 6103(n) are still subject to the disclosure prohibitions of I.R.C. § 6103(a)(3).” Order, at p. 3, par. 3.

Amgen rightly protests that it doesn’t want its confidential stuff made a motley to the view (whatever that means).

Judge Tag Greaves has the solution, in thirty-five (count ’em, thirty-five) pages of protective order. There’s also a dozen pages of technical specs for information sharing.

Discovery geeks, this one’s for you.