Florida Bar Journal

Public Records and Taxpayer Confidentiality

The Florida Constitution establishes a mandate for open records laws and open meetings of public bodies making collegial decisions. This article discusses: 1) the Florida Constitution in the context of the mandate for open records laws and open meetings (F.S. Chs. 119, 286); 2) public record exemptions for tax records; 3) compromise and settlement of Florida tax assessments and refunds; and 4) the practical implications of Florida’s public records laws in Florida state tax. This article advocates for greater transparency in decisionmaking and settlement of Florida tax cases to ensure even-handedness in the administration of Florida law, as mandated by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. This article also addresses F.S. §§192.0105, 213.053, 69.081, 119.071, and 815.045. Each of these enactments represents statutory exemptions from access to public records.

The Florida Constitution and Sunshine Laws — A Brief History

Florida has very strong public records laws.^[1] Florida’s public records laws have been described as “among the broadest and most all-encompassing of their kind in the entire nation.”^[2] A public record is “any material prepared in connection with official agency business which is intended to perpetuate, communicate, or formalize knowledge of some type.”^[3]

The laws are based on Florida constitutional provisions that mandate open public records. Fla. Const. art. I, §24(b), requires that all meetings of a collegial public body of the executive branch of state government or of local government, at which official acts are to be taken or at which the public business of such body is to be transacted or discussed, be open and noticed to the public.^[4]

Since the late 1800s, Florida’s public policy has been that records or documents created in the discharge of official duties belong to the public office — not the individual who created the records — and should be preserved.^[5] The first Florida statute designated “open records” law dates from 1909.^[6] In 1967, the Florida Legislature passed the “Government-in-the-Sunshine” law, which enacted the principles of the 1909 Public Records Law and became the nation’s first open meetings law.^[7] Article I, §24, was adopted in 1968 to guarantee access to public records.

The Florida Supreme Court has stated that disclosure of public records is not a discretionary act; it is a mandatory act.^[8] One appellate court commented, “In Florida, access to public records is a matter of such importance that it is constitutionally guaranteed.”^[9] This guarantee is carried out in F.S. Chs. 119 and 286. One recent Florida attorney general, Pam Bondi, now U.S. attorney general, echoed those rulings with the statement: “In Florida, transparency is not up to the whim or grace of public officials. Instead, it is an enforceable right.”^[10] Indeed, the right to access public documents is nearly unfettered, save only the statutory exemptions designed to achieve a balance between an informed public and the ability of the government to maintain secrecy in the public interest.^[11]

Legislative and Judicial Exclusions from Ch. 119

The Public Records Act does not apply to the legislative branch.^[12] There is, however, a constitutional right of access to legislative records provided in Fla. Const. art. I, §24, which provides, “Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body….” This right of access specifically includes the legislative branch.^[13] The legislature, however, may provide by general law for the exemption of records provided that each such law must state with specificity the public necessity justifying the exemption and be no broader than necessary to accomplish the stated purpose of the law.^[14]

Florida’s courts are also excluded from the Public Records Act because the courts are not considered an “agency” as the term is used in F.S. Ch. 119.^[15] The decision in Times Publishing Company v. Ake, 660 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1995), stands for the proposition that access to judicial records under the clerk’s control is governed exclusively by the Supreme Court.^[16] Notwithstanding exclusion for the judiciary from legal mandates of Ch. 119, the Florida Constitution allows access to judicial records.^[17]
Rule 2.420, “Public Access to Judicial Branch Records,” provides, “The public shall have access to all records of the judicial branch of government [e]xcept as provided in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420.” Subdivision (c) of the rule describes the scope of confidential records in the judicial arena. It states:

Confidential, as applied to information contained within a record of the judicial branch, means that information is exempt from the public right of access under article I, section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution….Confidential information includes information that is confidential under this rule or under a court order entered under this rule.

It is worth noting that business documents are not specifically included, per se; however, any court can rule that a business record is confidential to “avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right.”^[18] A ruling on confidentiality of business records must be accomplished by motion to the court. Rule 2.420(c) of the Rules of Judicial Procedure designates such a motion as a “motion to determine confidentiality of court records.” Likewise, this same rule mandates a notice of confidential information within court filing upon filing information with the court to indicate that confidential information (described in subdivision (d)(1)(B) of the rule) is included within the document filed. This practice rule includes by its terms “confidential information contained in deposition transcripts or exhibits, as well as briefs, memoranda, motions, interrogatories, or exhibits.”^[19]

Attorneys’ Fees Awarded for Violations of F.S. §119.12

Originally, the attorneys’ fees provision created in the law attached for an unreasonable refusal.^[20] In 1984, the legislature expanded this provision to permit an award for attorneys’ fees whenever the agency “unlawfully refused.”^[21] The Florida Supreme Court subsequently held that there is no “good faith” exception in the public records law.^[22] Consequently, a party seeking public records is entitled to statutory attorneys’ fees under the Public Records Act when the trial court finds that the public agency violated a provision of the act in failing to permit a public record to be inspected or copied.^[23] Also, a public agency is entitled to attorneys’ fees if a court finds the action was based on an improper purpose.^[24]

Public Records and Public Meetings

Collectively, Chs. 119 and 286 are referred to as “Sunshine Laws.” Chapter 119 defines “public record” to mean “all documents…received in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency….” The Florida Supreme Court has interpreted this definition to encompass all materials made or received by an agency in connection with official business.^[25] The general exemption from public records is in F.S. §119.071.

F.S. §286.011 declares all “meetings of any board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision” are “public meetings” at which official acts are to be declared. F.S. §286.0114 mandates a “reasonable opportunity to be heard” on a proposition before a board or commission. The Florida Supreme Court has stated that all governmental entities in Florida are subject to the requirements of the Sunshine Laws unless specifically exempted.”^[26]

Right of Privacy in Florida and Public Records Act

Section 23 was added to the Florida Constitution in 1980 to provide a state right of privacy, requiring the state to justify the reasonableness of intrusions upon personal privacy.^[27] However, it is noteworthy that before 1980 Florida did not have a right to privacy in its constitution. The Florida Constitution was amended to add it.^[28]

Florida’s right to privacy is much broader than that found in the U.S. Constitution.^[29] The Florida Constitution has an express declaration that every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from government intrusion into the person’s private life, which contrasts with the U.S. Constitution, which contains no express right of privacy, although one is implied.^[30]

It is noteworthy that Florida courts have ruled that the right to privacy is subservient to the Public Records Act.^[31] There is no right to privacy in public records in which there is no legitimate expectation of privacy from governmental intrusion.^[32] The Florida Supreme Court has stated, “Determining whether an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy in any given case must be made by considering all the circumstances, especially objective manifestations of that expectation.”^[33]

Simply put, privacy in many circumstances is factually driven. For example, in a Florida Bar case the Florida Supreme Court ruled in support of requiring applicants to disclose information regarding an applicant’s mental condition finding no violation of privacy rights.^[34] The sum of the ruling is that a compelling state interest justifies the intrusion into private matters. This is essentially a balancing test. Privacy, as a societal value, is considered important, but individualized privacy interests are more difficult to weigh because of countervailing societal interests.^[35]

Privacy in Florida Taxes Versus the Public Records Act

Plainly, the overall reason for tax confidentiality can be attributed to privacy. Indeed, the concept is explicitly referenced in the Florida Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. One study suggested confidentiality promotes taxpayer compliance.^[36] However, this same commentary suggested the evidence for this assertion is weak.^[37] There is no real debate; privacy is important for certain circumstances, such as protection of personal financial information and Social Security identification.^[38] Privacy achieved through confidentiality is important depending upon the context of the claim for it. However, uniform confidentiality should not extinguish the need for fair and equal treatment through transparency in the government records of agency actions.

Any settlement of a tax case is a fact which grew out of a decision by a public agency to use its authority to assess taxes which are generally beyond what was originally paid. Currently, if litigation follows an assessment of additional tax and no settlement occurs, then the final judgment is accessible as a public record. In contrast, when a compromise settlement occurs the record is closed as “confidential.” Settlement of civil cases in Florida is the norm with 95% of civil cases ending in settlement.^[39] Settlement of tax cases does not represent an exception to that rule. Consequently, most agency decisions in controverted matters remain closed to public inspection after the fact as “confidential.”

However, given the constitutional importance of public records law in Florida, should an expectation of privacy in a settlement once the case is completed outweigh that transparency in public affairs? There are good public policy reasons to have settlement data available after the fact. Primarily, concern over fair and consistent treatment of taxpayers, large and small, ties directly to the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and the Florida Constitution.

A Separate Category of Records — “Exempt and Confidential”

There is a difference between records the legislature has determined to be exempt from the Florida Public Records Act and those the legislature has determined to be exempt and confidential. Taxpayer information is both confidential and exempt. F.S. §213.053(2)(a) identifies various types of returns, reports or information included for each of the statutes identified as subject to the designation “confidential.”

F.S. §13.053(1) elaborates on the scope of the confidentiality by listing more than 20 Florida statutes, which authorize the collection of taxes or fees. Each of these statutes fall within the dual characterization of “confidential and exempt.” Other areas of Florida law, such as medical information, are so designated.^[40] As one appellate court pointed out, designation as “confidential” places such information into a different category.^[41] The Fifth DCA opinion states in part:

[T]here is a difference between records the [l]egislature has determined to be exempt from The Florida Public Records Act and those which the [l]egislature has determined to be exempt from The Florida Public Records Act and confidential….

Confidential and exempt taxpayer records may only be released by court order or held by government entities with confidential designation by statute.^[42]

Public Records Exception for Trade Secrets

One exception to the need to seek protection for business records is in the area of “trade secrets,” which the legislature has exempted from Ch. 119. Trade secrets in business records are exempted by F.S. §815.045.^[43] The Florida Uniform Trade Secret Act (UTSA) was enacted with the goal of establishing uniform interpretation to the term “trade secret.”^[44]

The UTSA defines a trade secret to contain the following elements: 1) a secret; 2) value; 3) use or in use by a business; and 4) an advantage to the business, or providing an opportunity to obtain an advantage, over those who do not know or use it.^[45]

Various rulings by courts establish the “trade secrets” definition can apply to many records such as: customer lists, investigative reports, cell phone records, internal memoranda regarding planned corporate activity, internal cost structure information, and pricing methods.^[46] The scope of the UTSA application is beyond the depth of this article but well worth considering in a competitive business environment.

In sum, trade secrets are exempted from public record access and are expressly made confidential. However, the protection must be claimed and establishing information as a trade secret will likely be contested because of the consequential protection from discovery associated with such status.

Sunshine in Litigation Act

The Florida Legislature created F.S. §69.081 in 1990 as an addition to existing Sunshine Laws. The law is designated as the “Sunshine in Litigation Act.” The key term, “public hazard,” is defined therein. The definition characterizes a public hazard as “a person, procedure or product, that has caused and is likely to cause injury.” One appellate Florida court explained the procedure to be applied by a court:

The plain language of subsection seven of the Act requires the trial court “[u]pon motion and good cause shown by a party” to examine the disputed documents to determine if they “consist of information concerning a public hazard or information which may be useful to members of the public in protecting themselves from injury which may result from a public hazard.”^[47]

Under the statute, when parties seek protective orders or other versions of confidential treatment, the court must decide if the party seeks to conceal a public hazard. The act grants the public a “right of access to discovery materials” in cases in which the subject of the litigation involves a public hazard.^[48]

The statute and the procedure a court must follow underscores an important and ongoing public policy issue. The key issue is the balancing of the individual right to privacy with the public right to avoid harmful consequences from secrecy.^[49]

Florida courts have favored disclosure over confidentiality to avoid a defendant “buying silence” where the facts of one case are directly related to another case.^[50] Placing this issue in the context of tax settlements, the potential for public harm consists of the very real possibility for preferential treatment or inconsistent treatment between taxpayers when blanket confidential treatment is imposed on all settlements of Florida tax cases. Preferential treatment, of course, would be in violation of the Florida Constitution and the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

Florida Constitution and the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights

Fla Const. art. I, §25, mandates a “Bill of Rights” for taxpayers:

The legislature shall prescribe and adopt a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights that, in clear and concise language, sets forth taxpayers’ rights and responsibilities and government’s responsibilities.

F.S. §§213.015 and 192.0105, the latter addressing property taxes, carry out the Florida constitutional mandate.^[51] Each statute includes recognition of a privacy right in tax records. This right is expressed as a “right to confidentiality.” F.S. §213.015 references privacy rights with the statement: “There is created a Florida Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights to guarantee that the rights, privacy, and property of Florida taxpayers….”

In 2021, the Third DCA characterized the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights with this observation:

The overarching right guaranteed Florida taxpayers in the Florida Statutes and the departmental rules is “[t]he right to fair and consistent application of the tax laws of this state by the Department of Revenue.”^[52]

Fair and Consistent Treatment of Taxpayers — Only an Aspiration?

The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights contains the final statement: “The right to fair and consistent application of the tax laws of this state.” This would appear to be Job number 1. The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights mandate for fairness and consistent application of the tax laws is plainly directed to the collection of the many taxes that state and local governments administer. The Florida Department of Revenue administers 36 taxes and fees. For the fiscal year July 2023 – June 2024, the agency collected over $58 billion in state taxes and fees.^[53] It also handles more than 10 million tax filings annually.^[54] With so much at stake, fair and consistent application of tax laws is critical.

Unfortunately, there is a real tension between two laudable and important goals: 1) fair and consistent treatment of taxpayers; and 2) confidentiality of tax information. Further, the statutory mandate for “fair and consistent application of the tax laws” is much easier stated than realized because of confidentiality. Put another way, a statement of fairness that is not verifiable, and cannot be enforced, represents no more than words.

The need for evenhanded application of tax laws is economically important to the state’s business. It is important so that economic competitors in the same industry, whether it be convenience stores or public tech companies, do not obtain a competitive advantage by virtue of inconsistent or uneven tax treatment arising from the same statutory authority. Essentially, an invisible government hand tilting the playing field between competitors is wholly inconsistent with basic principles of free market democracy. A recent example of uneven tax treatment is discussed below, styled as International Bonded Couriers, Inc. v. Florida Department of Revenue, 386 So. 3d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).

Agency Discretion To Settle Cases and Secrecy Once Settled — Is This Really a Good Combination for the Tax Collection Model?

The problem with keeping tax assessment settlements secret is the lack of verifiable consistency. Lack of transparency is further heightened by the very broad authority of the taxing agency to settle cases. Florida’s legislature has given the Florida Department of Revenue very broad discretion in settling cases after an audit assessment has been made. F.S. §213.21(7)(b) provides the agency with this discretion.

This discretion is also found in the agency’s authority to write regulations which further expand its own discretion in nebulous ways. One rule addresses the grounds for settlement based upon “doubt as to liability.” The rule states in part that a doubt as to liability is indicated when there is reasonable doubt whether an action is required in view of conflicting rulings, decisions, or ambiguities in the law, and the taxpayer has exercised ordinary care and prudence in attempting to comply with the revenue laws of this state.^[55]

Necessarily, the Florida Department of Revenue and other taxing agencies of Florida, must be given limited discretion to carry out the day-to-day decisions of collecting taxes on businesses. However, discretion can be unintentionally or intentionally misused without built-in safeguards. One such safeguard would be improved transparency of the exercise of discretion in the settlement process.

In Practice: Confidentiality vs. Compliance

In an ideal state tax environment, knowledgeable Florida taxpayers comply with clear taxing statutes and rules. It should be of great priority to the Florida Department of Revenue to educate taxpayers and tax practitioners. In fact, the agency does provide resources on its website and appears to be making a concerted effort on social media to provide informative videos.^[56]

More formally, the Florida Department of Revenue offers public taxpayer information publications (TIPs) which can help fill the gaps between what taxpayers may find to be obscure or ambiguous state tax laws and the practical application of them.^[57] The agency also redacts and publishes taxpayer requested technical assistance advisements (TAA), which explain the tax treatment of certain specific transactions or income.^[58] Like settlements, TAAs are not binding on anyone other than the taxpayer that requested the advisement.^[59]

While TIPs, TAAs, and LinkedIn videos can identify the agency’s policies and procedures in theory, they do not reveal the practical application of them. The result is that a taxpayer may rely upon a TIP and TAA to determine the taxability of income and sales only to encounter an auditor operating under different rules of unknown origin.

Across the country, state taxing agencies controversially issue and rely on internal, secret guidance documents that inform and instruct auditors on how to tax certain transactions or income.^[60] If the guidance is needed because taxability is unclear, then inherently the guidance provides information otherwise unavailable in the statutes, rules, or various publicly available information. How taxpayers can be held accountable financially (including penalty and interest) for failure to comply with laws so complex or ambiguous the agency itself requires guidance is another question.

The Florida Department of Revenue’s own secret rules, known as internal technical advisements (ITA), provide internal guidance not available to taxpayers except, generally, through discovery. Internal technical advisements are written statements issued to department personnel in response to an internal departmental request for technical advice which state the agency’s position on the tax consequences of a specific transaction or event under applicable statutes and rules.^[61] However, the Florida Department of Revenue is responsible for administering and enforcing Florida’s sales and use tax laws, not establishing laws of taxability in the first place.^[62]

As ITAs generally originate from the audit of one taxpayer, they are presumably concealed under taxpayer confidentiality exceptions to public records laws. After all, if the Florida Department of Revenue does not redact publicly identifiable information, as they do for TAAs prior to publication, then the ITAs, like LTAs, may be presumed confidential indefinitely.

Audited taxpayers will likely never know their assessment is based on such an ITA. By keeping guidance concealed, the Florida Department of Revenue is leaving taxpayers in the dark on critical issues such as agency policy and enforcement. Moreover, taxpayers have no way to know whether the publicly available policy positions are applied uniformly (or at all) in practice. The water is so murky there is often no way to tell whether a taxpayer is being treated fairly and consistently within an industry or treated as if they are another taxpayer altogether.

By disclosing settlement agreements under the Sunshine in Litigation Act, the ultimate consequence of this knot of secret and public guidance can be clear to all parties. Although settlement agreements are not binding on other taxpayers, smaller businesses can enter the cost-benefit analysis of appealing or litigating a particular issue with more education on the Florida Department of Revenue’s true position. Ch. 119 broadly provides these taxpayers with access to the information they need to make the right decision. Instead, taxpayers are left appealing assessments in hopes of something better down the road. This is inefficient for both the agency and taxpayers.

It is not merely dollar amounts. The department may settle an ambiguous tax issue for one taxpayer while declining to do so for another. If these businesses are competitors, and each comply with the Florida Department of Revenue’s positions going forward, one will have an ongoing advantage over the other. If the agency acts fairly and consistently, there should be very little variance in settlement trends and no variance whatsoever between ITAs and their public counterparts. With fair and consistent treatment, disparities within an industry will not occur.

If the Florida Department of Revenue is concerned about releasing confidential settlement agreements and internal guidance that are different from the Florida Statutes and/or Florida Administrative Code, it may be because the reveal of these records could identify internal policies that are subject to challenge as unadopted rules.^[63] However, as the agency is specifically prohibited from operating under unadopted rules, this should not be a concern as it would be a violation of Florida law for an agency to operate under them in the first place.

Currently, confidentiality enables the concealment of unofficial or errant tax policy. While settling on issues of taxability or dollar amount can impact a business within its industry and shape an industry overtime, tax policy can dramatically impact entire industries in a short period. Practicing state tax not only in Florida, but across the country, is difficult when industry and practitioner do not know all the rules of the game. The question remains whether it even benefits the Florida Department of Revenue to create such a broad stance on confidentiality when it comes at the price of taxpayer compliance.

Confidentiality Exemption as Litigation Strategy

When litigating state tax cases, the rules of discovery come into conflict with Florida’s Sunshine Laws in unexpected ways. One area of concern is whether active litigation precludes public records requests made by a taxpayer’s attorney. Currently, if an attorney in active litigation with the Florida Department of Revenue makes a separate public records request on a similar issue, the department may claim the public records request is a violation of attorney-client privilege. For state and local tax attorneys who frequently represent taxpayers against the agency, this position would indefinitely bar them from public records requests and cause potential harm to nonlitigation clients. On the other side, it is understandable how the agency could see the public records request as a way of obtaining discovery in active litigation through bad faith, as public records requests at the agency are not made directly to Florida Department of Revenue attorneys nor the agency’s attorneys at the Florida Office of the Attorney General.

There is another question as to whether the Florida Department of Revenue may use Florida’s confidentiality exception to Florida’s Sunshine Laws under F.S. §213.053(2)(a), as a discovery strategy, particularly in administrative cases challenging unadopted policies which require proof of “general applicability.”^[64]

In International Bonded Couriers, petitioner brought an unadopted rule challenge in the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) as the result of the Florida Department of Revenue engaging in secret contracts with four Florida exporters to provide them exclusive benefits, including a 0% sales tax rate.^[65] After petitioner requested various documents relating to this special program during discovery, the agency filed its responses to request for production claiming that all records related to the program were confidential. A motion to compel was filed by petitioner and the department filed its response. In the department’s response, it claimed:

Section 213.053, Florida Statutes, specifically provides the “official purposes” for which taxpayer records may be released. There is no authorization in section 213.053 for the [d]epartment to release such records in response to discovery requests received during litigation…. The [d]epartment may release such information pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. See §213.53(9), Fla. Stat. It is well-established, however, that the Division of Administrative Hearings is not a “court of competent jurisdiction” that may order the release of confidential taxpayer information.

Such a response by the government demonstrates the use of confidentiality to thwart discovery.^[66] If the Florida Department of Revenue is under no obligation to provide unilaterally classified confidential records even when ordered to do so by an administrative law judge, then it begs the question of whether any state tax case may be fairly litigated in DOAH. Considering that DOAH is intended to offer all government agencies impartial and efficient services to resolve disputes and that litigation in DOAH is typically both faster and less costly than circuit court, the department’s position that it need not provide records it claims are confidential during discovery effectively denies taxpayers who cannot afford the higher expense of circuit court the opportunity to be fairly heard.^[67]

While there is a concern over obtaining public information records while in litigation, there may also be the reverse concern. Taxpayers may be concerned that if they litigate an issue, the confidentiality they believe preserved through Ch. 119 will be waived.

Ultimately, the confidentiality exemption to Florida’s Sunshine Laws can substantially hinder a taxpayer’s case against the Florida Department of Revenue while providing little protection from exposure of a taxpayer’s own confidential records in litigation. The conflict between discoverable records, public records, and the confidentiality exception under F.S. §213.053, is a tricky one. Unfortunately, taxpayers are the ones paying the price.

Sunshine Law — A Disinfectant?

These authors believe the days of “trust us” when it comes to government should be long gone and greater transparency is called for in the administration of tax laws and public records. Particularly, more “sunshine” is needed regarding: 1) settlements of existing assessments and refunds; 2) settlements on issues of taxability; and 3) agency communications, internally or externally, concerning tax policy and implementations. In a state that takes pride in its Sunshine Laws, a tax assessment once compromised and settled should be available pursuant to a Ch. 119 public records request.

Public information provides a check on government through public accountability, which is especially valuable in the opaque world of taxation. Openness and accountability make it less likely that tax deals will be made behind closed doors, where special interests may well prevail over the public good.^[68] Privacy can be cited as the reason for the curtain of confidentiality (a.k.a. secrecy) while the matter is an active and unsettled assessment. Once the case is settled, privacy can be protected through elimination of the names of the taxpayers while making the actual settlement accessible and, therefore, accountable. This treatment accommodates the right of the public to know whether an agency’s actions affecting the substantial interests of the taxpaying public were not overzealous and, therefore, overreaching.

Right now, the trust placed in public employees exists without a clear verification mechanism. For example, close examination of the facts will suggest that the settlement represents only a part of a larger legal issue in administration of the law. Put another way, it can represent a de facto admission of an error in policy or interpretation. If so, public records review would disclose if the particular case was the only error of its kind or was the third or fourth time this occurred.

The information necessary to know the answer to such questions is not now in the public record, but it exists. An application of the Sunshine Laws will provide the clarity necessary to get the answers to such questions. Also, providing access to tax settlement information would bring the area of tax settlement in line with Florida’s constitutional mandate for open government.

This column is submitted on behalf of the Tax Section, Mark Scott, chair, and Charlotte A. Erdmann, editor.