O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 48-5-314 (2019)

Confidentiality of taxpayer records; exceptions; penalties

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)(1) All records of the county board of tax assessors which consist of materials other than the return obtained from or furnished by an ad valorem taxpayer shall be confidential and shall not be subject to inspection by any person other than authorized personnel of appropriate tax administrators. As an illustration of the foregoing, materials which are confidential shall include, but shall not be limited to, taxpayers’ accounting records, profit and loss statements, income and expense statements, balance sheets, and depreciation schedules. Such information shall remain confidential when it is made part of an appeal file. Nothing in this Code section, however, shall prevent any disclosure necessary or proper to the collection of any tax in any administrative or court proceeding. (2) Records which consist of materials containing information gathered by personnel of the county board of tax assessors, such as field cards, shall not be confidential and are subject to inspection at all times during office hours. The provisions of this paragraph shall not remove the confidentiality of materials such as are specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection. (3) Failure of the county board of tax assessors to make available records which are not confidential as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be a misdemeanor. (b) Any person who knowingly and willfully furnishes information which is confidential under this Code section to a person who is not

authorized by law to receive such information shall upon conviction be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000.00.

History

Code 1981, § 48-5-314, enacted by Ga. L. 1986, p. 747, § 2; Ga. L. 1987, p. 558, § 1; Ga. L. 1999, p. 81, § 48.

Annotations

Code Commission notes. Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1987, in the second sentence of paragraph (a)(2), “paragraph” was substituted for “subsection” and “paragraph (1)” was substituted for “subsection (1)”. Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 1986, p. 747, § 3, not codified by

the General Assembly, provided: “This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor [approved April 3, 1986] or upon its becoming law without such approval, except that no prosecution shall be made pursuant to this Act for any act committed before July 1, 1986.” Law reviews. For annual survey of state and local taxation, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 337 (1986).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Contract with private firm for audit services proper. - County board of tax assessors was authorized to contract with a private firm for audit services to aid the board in discovering unreturned and untaxed property. Eckerd Corp. v. Fayette County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 220 Ga. App. 454, 469 S.E.2d 285; Wal-Mart Stores v. Board of Tax Assessors, 246 Ga. App. 161, 539 S.E.2d 869, 2000 Ga. App. LEXIS 1178 (2000). Private accounting firm bound by confidentiality provision. - Private accounting firm which has contracted with a county board of assessors to conduct an audit of a taxpayer is bound by the confidentiality provision of the statute. Fulton County Bd. of Assessors v. Saks Fifth Ave., Inc., 248 Ga. App. 836, 547 S.E.2d 620, 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 413

(2001). Protective order in connection with audit by private firm. - Trial court erred in issuing a protective order in connection with a personal property tax audit of the defendant until such time as the private accounting firm hired by the county board to conduct the audit and the defendant entered into a confidentiality agreement; however, the trial court had full authority to determine what restrictions and limitations were appropriate under the circumstances so long as the court’s ruling did not conflict with the rights of the parties under applicable law. Fulton County Bd. of Assessors v. Saks Fifth Ave., Inc., 248 Ga. App. 836, 547 S.E.2d 620, 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 413 (2001).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Information obtained from real estate transfer tax forms and included on county tax assessors’ property record

cards is not confidential. 1990 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U90-25.

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Recovery of damages under § 7431(c)(1)(B) of Internal Revenue Code

(26 USCA § 7431(c)(1)(B)) based on improper release of confidential tax return information, 154 A.L.R. Fed. 537.

T.48, C.5, A.5, P.3

PART 3 STATE LOANS TO COUNTIES

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1996–2001 · leading case: Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Assessors v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc., 547 S.E.2d 620 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Assessors v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc., 547 S.E.2d 620 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 40× “In seven enumerations of error, the Board raises the following three arguments: (1) The trial court erred in granting Saks' motion for protective order because the confidentiality of the subpoenaed documents is protected under OCGA § 48-5-314, under the employment contract…”

Eckerd Corp. v. Fayette Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 469 S.E.2d 285 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 24× “In this regard, Eckerd argues that having Mendola audit its personal property was an impermissible delegation of the Board's assessment duty found in OCGA § 48-5-298(a) and improper as violative of its right to confidentiality under OCGA § 48-5-314 in that Mendola was under…”

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 539 S.E.2d 869 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “Although this is an argument that Wal-Mart can make to disqualify Mendola from testifying in these other counties, that issue is not before us in this case, especially in light of the fact that Wal-Mart presents no specific evidence of any instances in which Mendola has violated…”

— 48-5-314(a)(1) — 2 cases

Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Assessors v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc., 547 S.E.2d 620 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). “In seven enumerations of error, the Board raises the following three arguments: (1) The trial court erred in granting Saks' motion for protective order because the confidentiality of the subpoenaed documents is protected under OCGA § 48-5-314, under the employment contract…”

Eckerd Corp. v. Fayette Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 469 S.E.2d 285 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). “In this regard, Eckerd argues that having Mendola audit its personal property was an impermissible delegation of the Board's assessment duty found in OCGA § 48-5-298(a) and improper as violative of its right to confidentiality under OCGA § 48-5-314 in that Mendola was under…”

— 48-5-314(b) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.