FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Allen M. Baver,
Complainant,
against Docket #FIC 86-345
Director,
Collection and Enforcement Division, Connecticut Department of Revenue Services,
Respondent April 8, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on January 22, 1987, at which time the complainant and the
respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony,
exhibits and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record, the following facts are found:
1.
The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a),
G.S.
2.
By letter dated December 6, 1986, the complainant requested access to
inspect or copy an investigation report issued by the special investigation
section of the Department of Revenue Services, including the investigator's
notes, concerning the 1984 Windsor Beerfest.
3.
By letter dated December 18, 1986, the respondent denied the request.
4.
By letter dated December 18, 1986 and filed with the Commission on
December 22, 1986, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the
Freedom of Information Act in his refusal to release the investigation report.
5.
It is found that the respondent refused to disclose to the complainant
an anonymous letter requesting an investigation of the 1984 Windsor Beerfest
and the investigation report.
6.
At the hearing on this matter, the respondent provided the complainant
with a copy of the anonymous letter.
Docket #FIC
86-345
Page 2
7.
The respondent claims that the investigation report is exempt from
disclosure under 1-19(b)(3), 1-19(b)(5), 12-15(a), and 1-19(b)(10),
G.S.
8.
It is found that pursuant to 29-18b, G.S., the special
investigation section of the Department of Revenue Services is a law
enforcement agency for purposes of 1-19(b)(3), G.S.
9.
It is concluded that although the investigation report is a record of a
law enforcement agency, the report is not exempt from disclosure under
1-19(b)(3), G.S., because it does not fall within any of the applicable
provisions under that statutory exemption.
10.
It also is concluded that the investigation report is not exempt from
disclosure under 1-19(b)(5), G.S., because the respondent failed to prove
that the report contained financial information given in confidence, not
required by statute.
11.
It is found that casual and isolated sales are exempt from taxation
under 12-426-17(a) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies and
therefore no tax return is required for such sales.
12.
It also is found that the sales at the 1984 Windsor Beerfest were casual
and isolated sales within the meaning of 12-426-17(a) of the Regulations
of Connecticut State Agencies.
13.
Based upon the evidence presented, the respondent failed to prove that
the information contained in the investigation report was set forth in a tax
return, exempt from disclosure under 12-15(a), G.S.
14.
It further is found that the respondent failed to prove that the
information contained in the investigation report was set forth in a statement
or report, exempt from disclosure under 12-15(a), G.S.
15.
It therefore is concluded that the investigation report is not exempt
from disclosure under 12-15(a) or 1-19(b)(10), G.S.
16.
Furthermore, it is found that the investigation report consists of
interviews with individuals associated with the 1984 Windsor Beerfest
organization, interviews with Windsor public officials, and a recommendation
for agency action.
17. The respondent claims that the disclosure of
the investigation report would constitute an invasion of personal privacy and
therefore is exempt under the Freedom of Information Act.
Docket #FIC 86-345 Page
3
18.
It is concluded that the investigation report is not exempt from
disclosure under a general privacy exemption since there is no such statutory
exemption under the Freedom of Information Act.
19.
Furthermore, it is found that the investigation report is a record
relating to the conduct of the public's business within the meaning of
1-18a(d), G.S., and for which there is a legitimate public interest in
disclosure.
20.
It therefore is concluded that the investigation report is a public
record under 1-18a(d), G.S., subject to disclosure under 1-19(a),
G.S.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1.
The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of
the investigation report issued by the special investigation section of the
Department of Revenue Services concerning the 1984 Windsor Beerfest.
2.
In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, above, the respondent may
mask or otherwise delete any information contained in the investigation report
that is exempt from disclosure under the explicit language of
12-15(a) or 1-19(b)(10), G.S., as construed by this decision.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 8, 1987.
ÿ
Catherine I.
Hostetter
Acting Clerk of the Commission