Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Code 1933, § 91A-3711, enacted by Ga. L. 1979, p. 5, § 72; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 48; Ga. L. 1987, p. 191, § 9; Ga. L. 2002, p. 372, § 7; Ga. L. 2010, p. 838, § 11/SB 388; Ga. L. 2011, p. 297, § 4/HB 346.)
- Failure of Senators to file state income tax returns, § 28-1-8.1.
Inspection of public records generally, § 50-18-70 et seq.
- Ga. L. 1987, p. 191, § 10, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that this Act is applicable to taxable years ending on or after March 11, 1987, and that a taxpayer with a taxable year ending on or after January 1, 1987, and before March 11, 1987, may elect to have the provisions of that Act apply.
Ga. L. 1987, p. 191, § 10, not codified by the General Assembly, also provided that tax, penalty, and interest liabilities and refund eligibility for prior taxable years shall not be affected by that Act.
Ga. L. 1987, p. 191, § 10, not codified by the General Assembly, also provided that provisions of the federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 and of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which as of January 1, 1987, were not yet effective become effective for purposes of Georgia taxation on the same dates as they become effective for federal purposes.
- Inspection of records, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Department of Revenue, Administrative Unit, Organization, § 560-1-1-.05.
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 92-3216, which was subsequently repealed but was succeeded by provisions in this Code section, are included in the annotations for this Code section.
- Legislative purpose of this section is to encourage voluntary and truthful reporting of income by ensuring confidentiality. The strict language of the statute and the severe penalty for defaulting from the statute's mandates emphasize a clear policy favoring nondisclosure. Garrett v. State, 243 Ga. 322, 253 S.E.2d 741 (1979) (decided under former Code 1933, § 92-3216).
- It is clear from the exceptions to the law that the confidentiality of tax returns was not absolute and that the social policy underlying the law providing for confidentiality of tax returns inured to the benefit of the state by encouraging the citizenry in voluntary reporting and assessment of income. Thus, the decision to produce the returns or appeal an order demanding the returns for use in a criminal prosecution lies with the Attorney General. Garrett v. State, 147 Ga. App. 666, 250 S.E.2d 1 (1978), aff'd, 243 Ga. 322, 253 S.E.2d 741 (1979) (decided under former Code 1933, § 92-3216).
Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70, has not abrogated the mandate of O.C.G.A. § 48-7-60 that tax information be maintained inviolate. Bowers v. Shelton, 265 Ga. 247, 453 S.E.2d 741 (1995).
- No "proper judicial order" can be made except in an event when the integrity of the report itself is attacked or defended as the main and not as a merely collateral issue. Garrett v. State, 243 Ga. 322, 253 S.E.2d 741 (1979) (decided under former Code 1933, § 92-3216).
By "proper judicial order" a court may require employees of the department to produce income tax returns and reports only when such returns are directly in issue. Garrett v. State, 243 Ga. 322, 253 S.E.2d 741 (1979) (decided under former Code 1933, § 92-3216).
- While a court will afford the utmost deference to a claim of privacy raised by the Attorney General with respect to income tax returns, it cannot defeat the need for evidence in pending criminal proceedings based upon a generalized interest in confidentiality, and particularly in extraordinary cases, when the interest in criminal prosecution is as important as the release of privileged information to other governmental units for the purpose of collection of taxes, there exists a specific exception to the confidentiality of income tax returns. Garrett v. State, 147 Ga. App. 666, 250 S.E.2d 1 (1978), aff'd, 243 Ga. 322, 253 S.E.2d 741 (1979) (decided under former Code 1933, § 92-3216).
Income tax director's motion to quash a subpoena for the production of tax returns of the deceased for use in a probate court proceeding to determine the existence of a common law marriage should have been granted because the proceeding did not involve the integrity of the returns. Goolsby v. Estate of Williams, 243 Ga. App. 890, 534 S.E.2d 559 (2000).
- Real property ad valorem digest, returns, and related records, not having been made confidential by O.C.G.A. § 48-7-60 or other sections, are, prima facie, subject to the provisions of the Open Records Law, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70. Pensyl v. Peach County, 252 Ga. 450, 314 S.E.2d 434 (1984).
- If the plaintiffs could show that Department of Revenue employees, acting for the commissioner, were engaged in a series of audits conducted solely to uncover criminal activity unrelated to tax improprieties on the part of the person audited, such conduct would be illegal and would constitute grounds for the issuance of an injunction against such employees. Willis v. Department of Revenue, 255 Ga. 649, 340 S.E.2d 591 (1986).
Cited in Campaign for Accountability v. Consumer Credit Research Found., 303 Ga. 828, 815 S.E.2d 841 (2018).
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions under former Code 1933, § 92-3216, which was subsequently repealed but was succeeded by provisions in this Code section, are included in the annotations for this Code section.
- The purpose of former Code 1933, §§ 92-3216 and 91A-212 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 48-7-60 and48-2-15, respectively) was to encourage taxpayers to fully disclose the taxpayers' income and to protect any confidential information with reference to the taxpayers' business which it was essential to divulge in an income tax return; it was also the intent of the General Assembly to relieve the department from furnishing information concerning a taxpayer's income tax return. 1960-61 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 538 (decided under former Code 1933, § 92-3216).
- Former Code 1933, §§ 92-3216 and 91A-212 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 48-7-60 and48-2-15, respectively) must be construed together. 1954-56 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 767 (decided under former Code 1933, § 92-3216).
- Former Code 1933, §§ 91A-212, 91A-9932.1, 92-3216 and 92-9914 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 48-2-15,48-7-60, and48-7-61) did not authorize the release of tax information for use only in cases involving the integrity of the tax return itself as the main issue, and not merely as a collateral issue. 1971 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 71-184 (decided under former Code 1933, § 92-3216).
- Prohibition contained in former Code 1933, § 92-3216 applied only to divulging the amount of income or particulars set forth or disclosed in an income tax report or return required by law. The listing of worthless checks, their amount, and the person issuing the same in an official audit of the department made by the state auditor did not come within the prohibition contained in former Code 1933, § 92-3216. Former Code 1933, § 40-1805 (see now O.C.G.A. § 50-6-24) made it mandatory upon the state auditor to list and call special attention to all irregularities found in an examination of a department of the state government and to make available for the information of the public, through the press, such transactions, and for the further information of the public officials of the state charged with the responsibility of instituting legal action for violations of state laws. 1950-51 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 358 (decided under former Code 1933, § 92-3216).
- Records of the income tax unit of the department constitute confidential information and should not be divulged to local taxing authorities of this state. 1952-53 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 471 (decided under former Code 1933, § 92-3216).
Neither former Code 1933, §§ 92-3216 and 91A-212 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 48-7-60 and48-2-15, respectively) made income tax returns privileged or confidential as to the commissioner, the commissioner's agents, or other persons who properly have access to the returns for use in the administration and the enforcement of any tax. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 66-225 (decided under former Code 1933, § 92-3216).
County board of tax assessors in the discharge of the boards' official duties are entitled to have access to the files of the commissioner, including the income tax files; any files furnished to county boards of tax assessors retain their privileged or confidential character in the hands of those officials. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 66-225 (decided under former Code 1933, § 92-3216).
Information contained in state income tax returns may not be furnished to city or municipal tax assessors. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 66-225 (decided under former Code 1933, § 92-3216).
- It is not a violation of law for the department to deliver income tax returns to a private company for processing of the information onto punch cards if certain restrictions are followed. 1960-61 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 538 (decided under former Code 1933, § 92-3216).
- 71 Am. Jur. 2d, State and Local Taxation, § 464.
- Constitutionality, construction, and application of statutory provisions regarding publicity or confidential and privileged character of income tax information or returns, 151 A.L.R. 1049.
Total Results: 6
Court: Ga. | Date Filed: 2018-06-18T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 815 S.E.2d 841
Snippet: statute that expressly prohibited disclosure, OCGA § 48-7-60 (a). See Bowers, 265 Ga. at 250, 453 S.E.2d 741…confidential could not be disclosed because OCGA § 48-7-60 (a) required that "tax information be maintained… information in Bowers was protected by OCGA § 48-7-60 (a), a company that worries about the release of
Court: Ga. | Date Filed: 2004-10-12T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 604 S.E.2d 140, 278 Ga. 474
Snippet: trial court's order at issue. [10] OCGA § 48-7-60(a) [11] Section 2-1108(c) of the Atlanta City
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2000-05-11T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 243 Ga. App. 890, 534 S.E.2d 559, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 2340, 2000 Ga. App. LEXIS 602
Snippet: integrity of the returns filed by Williams, OCGA § 48-7-60 (a), as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Georgia…confidential and protected from disclosure by OCGA § 48-7-60 (a), as interpreted in Garrett. The probate court… determined that the strict language of OCGA § 48-7-60 and the penalty for violating it5 emphasize a clear… 322, 324 (2) (253 SE2d 741) (1979). OCGA § 48-7-60 (a). (Emphasis omitted.) Garrett, supra at 327…7-61 (officer of the state who violates OCGA § 48-7-60 by divulging tax information is guilty of a misdemeanor
Court: Ga. | Date Filed: 1995-03-06T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 265 Ga. 247, 453 S.E.2d 741
Snippet: to confidentiality of tax information is OCGA § 48-7-60 (a). It not only mandates confidentiality with …has in no manner abrogated the mandate of OCGA § 48-7-60 (a) that tax information be maintained inviolate…return information is not absolute. Under OCGA § 48-7-60 (a) and (b), exemptions are provided for information
Court: Ga. | Date Filed: 1986-03-04T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 340 S.E.2d 591, 255 Ga. 649, 1986 Ga. LEXIS 581
Snippet: employees from violating OCGA § 48-2-7. b) OCGA § 48-7-60 provides for confidentiality of tax information…tax information would, in fact, violate OCGA § 48-7-60, absent a showing of a proper judicial order or…establish a case showing a violation of OCGA § 48-7-60 which falls short of a violation of the United …for injunction relative to violations of OCGA § 48-7-60 only as it applied to appellant Callahan. c) The
Court: Ga. | Date Filed: 1984-04-17T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 314 S.E.2d 434, 252 Ga. 450, 1984 Ga. LEXIS 725
Snippet: Commissioner is expressly made confidential. OCGA §§ 48-7-60, 48-2-15 (Code Ann. §§ 91A-3711, 91A-212). Therefore