Menu
Tax Notes logo

Kentucky Circuit Court Orders DOR to Release Administrative Rulings

Posted on Sep. 3, 2014

Citations: Sommer v. Finance and Administration Cabinet; Civil Action No. 13-CI-29

SUMMARY BY TAX ANALYSTS

A Kentucky circuit court has held that the state's taxpayer confidentiality statutes do not provide a basis for the Department of Revenue to withhold its final rulings and ordered the department to release redacted versions of those rulings under the state's Open Records Act.
MARK F. SOMMER Petitioner AND TAX ANALYSTS Intervening Petitioner v. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION CABINET, KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Respondent

 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

 

FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT

 

DIVISION I

 

 

OPINION AND ORDER

 

 

This matter is before the Court for judicial review of an Open Records Decision by the Office of the Attorney General pursuant to KRS 61.882(1). At issue in this case is whether final administrative rulings of the Department of Revenue are required to be produced under the Kentucky Open Records Act. The petitioner is Mark Sommer, a tax attorney who seeks these documents in order to better represent his clients. Tax Analysts, the intervening petitioner, is a publication that seeks to inform its readers of tax policy developments and rulings by the Department of Revenue. After all parties fully briefed the issues and oral arguments were heard, the Court took the matter under submission. Upon review of the record and parties' pleadings, and after being sufficiently advised, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's request for relief as detailed below.

 

BACKGROUND

 

 

Appellant Mark F. Sommer (hereinafter "Mr. Sommer") submitted an Open Records Request to the Finance and Administration Cabinet, Kentucky Department of Revenue (hereinafter "Department") on February 23, 2012 requesting,

 

A copy of each so-called "Final Ruling" issued by either the Department or the Cabinet with a date shown thereon of January 1, 2004 through the current date -- in order to preserve taxpayer confidentiality, please redact any identifying and/or confidential information or data.

 

On March 2, 2012, the Department's General Counsel, E. Jeffrey Mosley, responded with a receipt of the Open Records Request advising Mr. Sommer that they would work to fill the request within the next ten (10) working days. The Department's response was beyond the statutorily required three (3) day period. KRS 61.872(5) states that the "official custodian shall immediately notify the applicant and shall designate a place, time, and date for inspection of the public records, not to exceed three (3) days from receipt of the application . . ." On March 15, 2012, Mr. Mosley sent another letter denying the release of the requested documents citing KRS 61.878(1) and more specifically, KRS 131.190(1)(a), which provides that some tax schedules, returns, or reports filed with the department may not be produced if there is an expectation of taxpayer privacy. The Department argued that taxpayers may waive that expectation of privacy only if the taxpayer appeals the final ruling to the Kentucky Board of Tax Appeals, at which point the final ruling letter becomes public record. In its denial, the Department was also concerned that redacting the taxpayer's name and key amounts owed was not enough, that the underlying facts describing the taxpayer's financial affairs addressed in the final ruling letters were also protected by KRS 131.190. The Department also found that in some instances, even the application of the legal issues to the facts themselves needed to be redacted because the taxpayer could be identified on that basis as well. The Department also wrote that Mr. Sommer's request was "unduly burdensome" pursuant to KRS 61.872(6),

On September 25, 2012, Mr. Sommer's filed an appeal of the denial of the Open Records Request with the Office of the Attorney General pursuant to KRS Chapter 61. On October 24, 2012, the Office of the Attorney General requested a thirty day extension to issue a decision on the appeal. The notification said to expect a decision on or before December 13, 2012. Mr. Mosley from the Department submitted additional correspondence on why the request was initially denied. On December 14, 2012 (a day beyond the December 13 deadline), the Office of the Attorney General issued its decision, 12-ORD-225, upholding the denial of Mr. Sommer's request. The Attorney General relied on the restrictive language of KRS 131.190(1)(a), KRS 131.081(15), and KRS 61.878(1)(1) which prohibits or restricts disclosure of public records or information, which includes disclosing certain taxpayer information. The decision stated, "The sweeping language of Kentucky's statutes relating to disclosure of taxpayer information, as well as the severity of the penalties imposed for unauthorized disclosure, compel us to affirm the agencies' position in this appeal."

Mr. Sommer filed this Petition for Judicial Review on January 11, 2013. Mr. Sommer seeks a reversal of the Attorney General's Order 12-ORD-225 and an Order from this Court requiring the Department to produce the requested documents (with the appropriate redactions) as well as attorney fees and statutory penalties pursuant to KRS 61.882(5) for the Department's willful violation of the Open Records Act. Appellant argues that other states regularly publish similar Final Rulings by their Department of Revenue, or equivalent, in redacted format. Mr. Sommer also argues that KRS 131.081(15) and KRS 131.190(1)(a) were enacted to protect the taxpayers, and should not to be used as a shield for the Department of Revenue against a taxpayer. After submitting an identical Open Records Request to the Department on April 25, 2013, Tax Analysts, a non-profit news organization and publisher of periodicals, was denied for the same reasons. Tax Analysts then moved to intervene as a party in this action and filed its Intervening Complaint on July 15, 2013. The Department objected arguing that the proposed Intervener is already adequately represented by an existing party and has not made a showing that it meets the requirements of CR 24.01(b). The Court granted Tax Analysts' Motion to Intervene on July 24, 2013.

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

 

 

I. Generally

 

 

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under KRS 61.882(1). A circuit court's review of an Attorney General Opinion is de novo. Valentine v. Personnel Cabinet, 322 S.W.3d 505, 507 (Ky. App. 2010) (quoting Medley v. Board of Educ., Shelby County, 168 S.W.3d 398, 402 (Ky. App. 2004)) and KRS 61.882(3). As such, questions of law are reviewed anew. Medley v. Board of Education of Shelby Co., 168 S.W. 3d 398 (Ky. App. 2004). Where there are questions of fact, or mixed questions of law and fact, this Court may review the administrative record plus any additional evidence the parties present. Id. (citing Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W. 3d 336, 354 (Ky. 2003)). The burden of proof is on the public agency seeking to withhold a record from disclosure under the Open Records Act, and the agency must prove the exempt status of the record. Id. (citing Lexington H-L Services, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 297 S.W.3d 579, 583 (Ky. App. 2009)) and KRS 61.882(3). A reviewing court is not bound by the Attorney General's Opinions, but the Court gives "great weight to the reasoning and the opinion expressed" by the Attorney General in an Open Records Case. York v. Comm., 815 S.W.2d 415, 417 (Ky. Ct. App. 1991).

KRS 131.190 and KRS 131.081(15) both contain taxpayer confidentiality provisions. Any public documents made confidential by statute are exempt from disclosure under the Open Records Act. KRS 131.190 states, "No . . . employee of the Department of Revenue . . . shall intentionally and without authorization inspect or divulge any information acquired by him of the affairs of any person, or information regarding the tax schedules, returns, or reports . . . insofar as the information may have to do with the affairs of the person's business." Likewise, KRS 131.081(15) states, "Taxpayers shall have the right to privacy with regard to the information provided on their Kentucky tax returns and reports including any attached information and documents. Except as otherwise provided in KRS 131.190, no information pertaining to the returns, reports, or the affairs of a person's business shall be divulged by the department to any person . . ." The taxpayer confidentiality applies to business affairs and to returns and reports filed in response to an investigation by the Department. The statutes are silent as to information the taxpayer voluntarily submits when appealing the Department's ruling on tax liability.

 

II. Personal Privacy Exclusion from the Kentucky

 

Open Records Act (KORA)

 

 

In Bowling v. Brandenburg, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky noted that:

 

The General Assembly has expressed that the policy of the Open Records Act "is that free and open examination of public records is in the public interest and the exceptions provided for by KRS 61.878 or otherwise provided by law shall be strictly construed, even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or others."

 

Bowling v. Brandenburg, 37 S.W. 3d 785, 787 (Ky. App. 2000) (quoting KRS 61.871). Certain records are exempted from the act by KRS 61.878, including "[p]ublic records containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy[.]" KRS 61.878(1)(a).

When a government agency claims an exclusion from the Open Records Act, a reviewing court "must initially determine whether such record or information contained therein is of a 'personal nature.'" Lexington H-L Services, Inc., 297 S.W.3d at 584 (citing Palmer v. Driggers, 60 S.W.3d 591 (Ky. App. 2001)). "If the record or information is of a personal nature, we must then determine 'whether public disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.'" Id. (quoting Zink v. Com., 902 S.W.2d at 828 and Ky. Bd. of Exam'rs of Psychologists and Div. of Occupations and Professions, Dept. for Admin, v. Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Co., 826 S.W.2d 324, 328 (Ky. 1992)). This inquiry requires the Court to engage in a comparative weighing of antagonistic interests, as set forth in Kentucky Board of Examiners:

 

[G]iven the privacy interest on the one hand and, on the other, the general rule of inspection and its underlying policy of openness for the public good, there is but one available mode of decision, and that is by comparative weighing of the antagonistic interests. Necessarily, the circumstances of a particular case will affect the balance. The statute contemplates a case-specific approach by providing for de novo review of agency actions, and by requiring that the agency sustain its action by proof. Moreover, the question of whether an invasion of privacy is 'clearly unwarranted' is intrinsically situational, and can only be determined within a specific context.

 

Ky. Bd. of Exam'rs, 826 S.W.2d at 327-28.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently held that corporations have no claim to a personal privacy exemption from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Federal Communication Commission v. AT&T, Inc., 131 S.Ct. 1177 (2011). The Kentucky Supreme Court has recently held that in interpreting the Open Records Act, state courts should look to the interpretation of federal courts construing similar provisions of the Freedom and Information Act. See Lawson v. Office of Attorney General, 415 S.W.3d 59 (Ky. 2013), and Ky. New Era v. City of Hopkinsville, 2012-SC-000290-DG. The Open Records Act, like FOIA, was enacted to "assure citizens are 'informed about what their government is up to.'" Lawson at 70. The Act '"is premised upon the public's right to expect its agencies properly to execute their statutory functions. In general, inspection of records may reveal whether the public servants are indeed serving the public, and the policy of disclosure provides impetus for an agency steadfastly to pursue the public good.'" Id. (citing Ky. Bd. of Examiners v. The Courier-Journal, 826 S.W.2d 324, 328 (Ky. 1992)).

 

DISCUSSION

 

 

The Kentucky Open Records Act was enacted by the legislature "to ensure the efficient administration of government and to provide accountability of government activities, public agencies are required to manage and maintain their records according to the requirement of these statutes." KRS 61.8715. The Court must weigh the competing public interest that supports the Open Records Act against the legislatively recognized policy protecting taxpayer information pertaining to the affairs of that person or that person's business. KRS 61.872 requires that public records must be disclosed upon request unless an exemption provides protection. Pursuant to KRS 61.872, the records are presumed open unless expressly exempted by KRS 61.878(1)(a)-(n). Pursuant to KRS 61.871, exceptions to disclosure are to be strictly construed in favor of open examination of records. See also Kentucky Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists & Div. of Occupations & Professions, Dept. for Admin, v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 826 S.W.2d 324, 327 (Ky. 1992). When a public record contains information that is expressly exempted from disclosure and information that is not exempted, the agency is required to separate the exempted material and make the non-exempted material available for examination. KRS 61.878.

The preference for openness and disclosure is an overwhelming trend in the Attorney General's Open Records Decisions. In an early Open Records Act opinion affirming the public's right to records identifying by name and address all coal companies that paid the coal severance tax in a given year, the Attorney General observed:

 

[T]he purpose . . . of the Open Records Act is to allow any person to check on the operation of the government by inspecting the records of the various cabinets, departments, and agencies. Whether taxes are being paid by persons and companies legally obligated to pay them is a legitimate interest and any person has a right to check on that matter.

 

1986 Ky. Op. Atty. Gen. 2-163, Ky. OAG 86-11, 1986 WL 222272 (Ky. Ag.), at p. 2. Moreover, the Attorney General has repeatedly held, in other tax contexts, that "[t]he public also has the right to know whether a person is enrolled on the tax roll . . ." 1982 Ky. Op. Atty. Gen. 2-1, Ky. OAG 82-2, 1981 WL 142143 (Ky. Ag) at p. 2. While not strictly binding on the courts, the Attorney General's interpretation has been adopted in the case law:

 

The public's 'right to know' under the Open Records Act is premised upon the public's right to expect its agencies properly to execute their statutory functions. In general, inspection of records may reveal whether the public servants are indeed serving the public, and the policy of disclosure provides impetus for an agency steadfastly to pursue the public good.

 

Kentucky Bd. of Examiners, 826 S.W.2d 324, 328.

Appellant argues that they are entitled to inspect the requested final rulings with all identifying and/or confidential information or data withheld. Mr. Sommer argues that the Department could maintain its privacy obligation to the taxpayer while also meeting its duty to disclose under the Open Records Act. He also argues that the Department has not shown that it is entitled to withhold any of the final rulings at issue and urges the Court to require the Department to file for in camera review the final rulings it identified where redaction was impossible. Because Mr. Sommer believes the records were willfully withheld in violation of the Open Records Act, Appellant argues for costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and an award of statutory penalties.

 

1. There is no basis to withhold the final rulings of the Department of Revenue in cases which have been appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals.

 

There is no question that final rulings of the Department of Revenue that have been appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals are public record. KRS 131.355 explicitly provides that "[a]ll proceedings before the board shall be officially reported and all records of proceedings shall be public records . . ." The only exception to this rule is a small category of cases involving appeals of unmined mineral assessments where the taxpayer has generated data that is the subject of the appeal. Likewise, the Department's own administrative regulation provides "all hearings before the board are required to be officially reported and all records of proceeding shall be public records . . ." 103 KAR 1:010, Section 4(5). Notwithstanding its own administrative regulation providing that these documents are public records, the Department has denied the request. In short, there is simply no basis on which to deny the request for final rulings that have been appealed.

The Department of Revenue has attempted to avoid its duty to produce these records by claiming that it does not "keep track of the final rulings that have been appealed. This assertion, cannot withstand the most minimal scrutiny. The Department is a party to all such appeals. It is represented by a very small number of lawyers who are counsel of record in each such case. It is beyond incredible that the lawyers representing the Department of Revenue would not be fully aware of all appeals in which they are counsel of record, and it is equally incredible that the General Counsel would not maintain the most basic case management tools to readily identify the cases are have been appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals. If such minimal records are not maintained by the General Counsel of the Department, this Open Records request will provide a much needed, and apparently long overdue, incentive for the Department's management to identify, and keep track of, the cases have been appealed. In short, the Department is required, under the Open Records Act, to provide copies of all final rulings that have been appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals during the time period of these requests.

 

2. Final Rulings that were not appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals are subject to disclosure with redactions for certain information.

 

The balance of the records sought are the final rulings that were not appealed. The Department argues it has satisfied its burden KRS 61:882(3) to withhold these records because of the exception set forth in KRS 131.190. The Department ("DOR") recognizes that it has obligations under the Open Records Act, but the DOR also has mandatory obligations under the taxpayer confidentiality laws that cannot be waived with an Open Records Request. The Department maintains that the final ruling letters address the underlying facts which concern the taxpayer's business affairs and are thus protected by KRS 131.190. DOR cites to Kenton County Fiscal Court v. Kentucky Enquirer, 2010 WL 290012 (Ky. App.) which held that not only are the affairs of a taxpayer's business protected, but his personal affairs are as well. DOR argues that the final ruling letters also involve the application of the law to the facts, so that portion must be redacted as well. DOR's position before this Court is that the only items that would not be redacted would be the date of the final ruling letter and the boiler plate language regarding the taxpayer's appeal rights. The Department also argues that redacting the final rulings would be overly burdensome and futile.

The Attorney General's ruling appears to affirm the denial of the requests on the grounds that the confidentiality provisions of KRS 131.190 include "sweeping language" and "severe penalties." A closer reading of KRS 131.190 reveals that it applies only to information that the state compels the taxpayer to produce. When a taxpayer voluntarily initiates an administrative review of his tax liability and seeks a formal ruling of the Department, the broad rule of confidentiality does not fully apply. While the taxpayer still has a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding personal information under KRS 61.878(1)(a), there is no basis to shield the Department from public scrutiny and accountability for its rulings on such taxpayer appeals, especially when the information on which the final ruling is based is business, rather than personal, information.

This Court finds that the Department violated the Open Records Act by withholding the requested final rulings with the appropriate redactions. Mr. Sommer's request for all "Final Rulings" from 2004 through the current date was reasonable and should have been granted by the Department. As noted above, any exception to the Open Records Act is to be strictly construed. The Department's reliance on a broad reading of the privacy exceptions is unfounded. The Department bears the burden of proving that the requested records fit within a statutorily recognized exception to the Open Records Act. KRS 61.880(2)(c); 61.882(3). The Department argues that taxpayers have an absolute right to privacy, provided by KRS 131.190(1)(a) and 131.081(15), regarding all information provided on their Kentucky tax returns and reports.

The Department claims after reviewing a sample of the approximately 700 requested final rulings since 2004, that redacting the taxpayer's name and the amount of tax involved was not enough, that taxpayer's business affairs were also protected by KRS 131.190. This Court disagrees. It is clear that the final ruling letters appealed to the KBTA must be disclosed because they are part of the public record. With respect to the final rulings that are not appealed to the KBTA, the Department also has a duty to disclose with the appropriate confidentiality redactions. This Court has reviewed the final rulings submitted under seal, and can find no legitimate basis to keep the vast majority of that information confidential.

The taxpayer's privacy interest is not absolute as the Department would have it. Instead, it is a balancing test between the public interest and the individual taxpayer's interest. In this case, ensuring fair administration of the tax laws outweighs the taxpayer's privacy interest in concealing its business affairs. Taxpayers who contest their tax liability assessment, proceeding through formal tax administrative adjudication, at least partially waive their rights to confidentiality. As long as proper measures are taken to redact and preserve the taxpayer's identity and the amount of tax involved, as well as any other confidential information or data (e.g. social security numbers or personal identifiers), the final rulings should be produced.

Indeed, the Department's own administrative regulation governing tax protests and appeals provides that when the Revenue Cabinet makes a recording of any conference or hearing in the appeal process, that such recording must be produced to the taxpayer under the Open Records Act. 103 KAR 1:010, Section 1(4). Once the taxpayer has initiated a formal appeal process, the taxpayer has a reduced expectation of privacy in information that bears on the implementation of state tax policy and the revenue necessary for the operation of government.

Without public disclosure of the final rulings, there is no way for the public to know whether the Department has been fair and consistent or whether it has displayed political favoritism to some taxpayers over others. These considerations outweigh any privacy interest that may exist for taxpayers, especially when the names and identifying indicators have been redacted.

The Court does not minimize the privacy interests raised here by the Department, but the Court's review of the proposed redactions to the final rulings supplied by DOR under seal demonstrates that the Department has gone to extremes to keep confidential information in final rulings that is utterly benign, and which does not implicate legitimate privacy interests of businesses who appeal tax rulings1.

Simply put, the Department, in its sample final ruling letters, makes sweeping blanket redactions of details that are meaningless to the reader without the context of the taxpayer's name and labels the redactions as part of the taxpayer's "business affairs." However, the remaining information in the ruling letters does not reveal prohibited taxpayer information or the affairs of the person's business because without the taxpayer's name, address, and business description, the reader is only getting a general overview of the issues at hand and the Department's analysis of the applicable law -- all of which should be open and accessible to the public to scrutinize.

The U.S. Supreme Court encountered a similar dilemma under the Freedom of Information Act, regarding a request for case summaries of honor code violations at the service academies. The Defense Department resisted disclosure on the grounds that the privacy interests of cadets and midshipmen would be adversely affected, even if the names were redacted from the summaries because the summaries contained information that could lead to the identification of parties who were involved in honor code violations. The U.S. Supreme Court held that redaction was the proper remedy to this concern, even though redactions are not perfect. As the Court explained,

 

To be sure, redaction cannot eliminate all risks of identifiability, as any human approximation risks some degree of imperfection, and the consequences of exposure of identity can admittedly be severe. But redaction is a familiar technique in other contexts, and exemptions to disclosure under the Act were intended to be practical workable concepts . . . Moreover, we repeat, Exemptions 6 [for personal privacy] does not protect against disclosure every incidential invasion of privacy [but] only such disclosures as constitute 'clearly unwarranted' invasions of privacy.

 

Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 381-82 (1976).

In reaching this ruling the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly cited the policy of the Internal Revenue Services in disclosing Revenue Rulings under the Freedom of Information Act. See 425 U.S. at 381, n. 20. It is abundantly clear that the Department of Revenue can comply with its obligations under the Open Records Act to disclose to the public the substance of its final administrative rulings in cases in which taxpayers have challenged the Department's assessment, without unduly infringing on the privacy rights of taxpayers, or violating the general confidentiality statute that prohibits tax authorities from disclosing information it has compelled the taxpayer to produce.

 

CONCLUSION

 

 

The Department has failed to prove that the requested records fall within an express exception to the Open Records Act. Mr. Sommer and Tax Analysts are entitled to the requested final rulings with the appropriate taxpayer confidentiality redactions. The Court does not find the withholding of the unappealed final rulings to be willful, and thus denies the Appellant's request for an award of reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and penalties on those issues. Wherefore, the Attorney General's Order, 12-ORD-225, is REVERSED, and this Court hereby ORDERS the Department to comply with the Kentucky Open Records Act and produce the requested records for inspection in a manner consistent with this Opinion and Order, redacting only such information that contains personal identifiers or information in which the taxpayer has a legitimate privacy interest. With regard to the final rulings that have been appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals, the Court orders immediate production of those final rulings. The Court further finds that the plaintiff is entitled to attorneys fees under KRS 61.882(5) to the extent that the requests sought disclosure of final rulings that have been appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals. The Plaintiffs are granted ten (10) days to submit motions for such fees, supported by affidavits of counsel detailing the time and expenses incurred, and their hourly rate for those services. The Department of Revenue shall have ten (10) days thereafter to file its response. The Court will withhold entry of a final judgment until it has ruled on the request for attorneys fees.

SO ORDERED, this 25th day of August, 2014.

Philip J. Shepherd, Judge

 

Franklin Circuit Court, Division I

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

 

Jennifer Y. Barber

 

FROST BROWN TODD LLC

 

400 West Market Street, Suite 3200

 

Louisville, KY 40202

 

 

Cornish F. Hitchcock

 

HITCHCOCK LAW FIRM PLLC

 

5614 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., No. 304

 

Washington, DC 20015-2604

 

 

Laura M. Ferguson

 

Kentucky Department of Revenue

 

Office of Legal Services

 

P.O. Box 423

 

Frankfort, KY 40602-0423

 

 

E. Jeffrey Mosley

 

Finance and Administration Cabinet

 

Office of General Counsel

 

702 Capital Avenue, Room 392

 

Frankfort, KY 40601

 

FOOTNOTE

 

 

1 The following are a few examples noted by the Court:
  • In Final Ruling #8, the Department redacted the name of the business, all addresses cited, the dates of the applicable tax years and tax liability owed, but then unnecessarily redacted the following from a sentence: "The property assessed includes (redacted: accounts receivable and loans to shareholders and employees)." Without any context as to what property is being assessed and who specifically that information refers to (because the indentifying factors have all been removed), that sentence is entirely inconsequential and does not divulge the affairs of the taxpayer's business and therefore should not be redacted.

  • In Final Ruling #10, the Department redacts every word except for the appeal language and the sentence reading "This is the final ruling of DOR." The Department unnecessarily redacts the language of KRS 141.4242(3) and all of the case law cited. The Department also unnecessarily redacts the following explanation of the law: "There is no statutory authority in KRS 141.4242 allowing DOR to waive this statutory deadline. Moreover, subsequent to the filing date of January 15, DOR is required by KRS 141.4242(3) to make certain calculations and determinations, based on the applications filed, in order to meet the statutory deadline of April 15 imposed on DOR. In a letter dated (redacted date), DOR denied the Application for failure to meet the statutory deadline of January 15 (year redacted)."

END OF FOOTNOTE
Copy RID