ILNews

State agencies claim information protected by deliberative process privilege

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An acrimonious fight between an Indiana businessman and the Indiana Department of Revenue has not only forced the Indiana Tax Court to take the unusual step of getting involved in the discovery process but also created a case of first impression.

The dispute, Nick Popovich v. Indiana Department of Revenue, 49T10-1010-TA-53, was sparked after the Department of Revenue assessed additional income tax, interest and penalties on Nick Popovich for 2002 through 2004.

Popovich, current owner of Sage-Popovich Inc., claimed he was entitled to deduct certain business expenses because he was a professional gambler. The Department of Revenue disagreed and upheld the proposed assessments after a 2010 hearing.

Next, Popovich appealed to the Tax Court and the contentious discovery process began in June 2011. The businessman filed two motions for discovery requests but the department objected, saying much of the information was protected, in part, by the deliberative process privilege.

The deliberative process privilege is part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and has been raised on the federal level in other cases. However in Indiana state courts, this procedural issue as far as its application and scope has not been addressed.

auberry Auberry

Brent Auberry, partner at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, said the use of deliberative process privilege could impact other taxpayers.

Every year, tax cases seem to be getting more litigious as taxpayers contest rulings on property taxes and income, he explained. The guidance given by the Tax Court on this privilege is important as plaintiffs determine what information they want in discovery.

Randal Kaltenmark, partner in the Barnes & Thornburg LLP tax department, agreed.

He noted parties involved in tax litigation in the last five to seven years have been doing more discovery than in the past. Taxpayers have the burden of proof so they are engaging in discovery to find out the Department of Revenue’s basis for making the adjustment to their tax liability.

Access to information is important, Kaltenmark said. Using the deliberative process privilege could hamper a taxpayer’s discovery.

The Department of Revenue argued Indiana has deliberative process privilege and that privilege provides a “wide shield” to protect certain documents and communications. It invoked this privilege to prevent the disclosure of all documents and communications regarding the thoughts and decision-making process of hearing officers, auditors and other employees involved in the administrative process.

In support of its contention that the state does have such a privilege, the Department of Revenue pointed to the privilege in Federal Rules and noted Indiana uses those rules as a model for its Trial Rules.

The Tax Court dismissed the department’s privilege claims.

“Accordingly, the Court fails to find that Indiana recognizes a deliberative process privilege applicable to the discovery rules and leaves it to the Legislature to elevate public policy regarding the protection of deliberative process privilege,” Judge Martha Wentworth wrote.

James Gilday, of Gilday & Associates P.C., represents Popovich. Both he and the Office of the Indiana Attorney General, representing the Department of Revenue, declined to comment on the case issues.

The Department of Revenue did not appeal Wentworth’s ruling. However, the agency could still contest the decision after the court issues a final opinion on Popovich’s appeal.

Tax attorneys doubt the court’s finding on the deliberative process privilege will have much impact outside of tax circles. However, one attorney has recently encountered the defense in his litigation against another state agency.

Irwin Levin, managing partner at Cohen & Malad LLP, said the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles is invoking the privilege to bar discovery in a second lawsuit his firm has filed against the agency. Plaintiffs claim the bureau overcharged for certain fees and have been trying to ascertain, through the discovery process, how the bureau found out about the incorrect fees and how it handled the problem.

irwin levin Levin

The BMV, Levin said, maintains that information is protected by the deliberative process privilege.

According to Levin, by using the privilege, the BMV is essentially saying, “We citizens have no right to know how it came to overcharge us and why it continued to overcharge us.”

More broadly, Levin worried the privilege could be used to cloud government transparency and hide wrongdoing. And he hoped the Legislature would not pass any measures that would ultimately prohibit the public’s right to know.

Since the Tax Court specifically noted the decisions regarding privilege are the purview of the General Assembly, Auberry expects the issue will come up in the Statehouse. He said he would not be surprised if the Department of Revenue makes an effort to get statutory language passed to address the issue of deliberative process privilege.

The chair of the Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee, Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Buck Creek, was unavailable for comment as to whether the Legislature would take up this issue.

The Popovich case is continuing in the Tax Court. A hearing is scheduled for July 31 on a motion filed by Popovich for Trial Rule 37 sanctions.

In May, the attorney general’s office filed a motion to temporarily withdraw appearances as counsel for the Revenue Department. However, the issue became moot when the attorney general rescinded the request and continued its representation without interruption

According to Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the AG’s Office, the Department of Revenue asked the attorney general to withdraw. He did not elaborate why the request was made and later rescinded.

“While docket entries on such housekeeping matters can appear confusing absent context, when government agencies are litigants, it is not uncommon over the duration of a case for an attorney to appear for an agency, serve for a time, then withdraw and a different attorney appear,” Corbin said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT