Could a South Carolina city share confidential taxpayer data with county officials for their duties?

Plain-English summary

In 2012, the South Carolina Attorney General concluded that a municipality could share taxpayer financial or sales-volume information with county officials or employees when the sharing occurred in the performance of their duties. The underlying statute generally restricted disclosure of this information but carved out sharing between public officials or employees for official work. The office found no language confining that exception to people within one municipality or one agency. It predicted a court would read “public officials or employees” to include both municipal and county personnel.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2012. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did city and county officials have to work in the same agency to share the data? A: The AG said no. It found no same-agency limit in the statutory exception.

Q: Could an official share the information for any purpose?
A: No. The opinion’s answer depended on the sharing occurring in the performance of public duties.

Q: What kind of information did the request concern?
A: It concerned taxpayer financial information and figures indicating units of goods or services sold that a taxpayer supplied in a required filing.

Q: Was the opinion a court ruling about a specific disclosure? A: No. The office offered its predicted reading of the statute, not an adjudication of a particular transfer.

Background and statutory framework

A deputy county attorney asked whether a city could send covered taxpayer information to the county. The AG reviewed the statute’s general confidentiality provision and its official-duty exception, then interpreted the exception’s plain wording as including officials and employees in separate local governments.

Citations and references

The opinion interprets § 6-1-120 and its exception for official-duty data sharing.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-31-2012/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/farrar-b-t-os-9503-10-31-12-sharing-of-data-between-public-officials-or-employees.pdf

Original opinion text

ALAN WILSON
A TIORNEY G ENERAL

October 3 I, 2012

Bradley T. Farrar, Esquire
Deputy Richland County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
P. 0. Box 192
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Dear Mr. Farrar:
Attorney General Alan Wilson has referred your letter of October 4, 2012 to the Opinions section for a response. The following is our understanding of your question presented and the opinion of this Office concerning the issue based on that understanding.

Issue: Would the sharing of data listed in South Carolina Code of Laws § 6-l-1 20(A) ( 1976, as amended) ('financial information, or other information indicative of units of goods or services sold, provided by a taxpayer included in a report, tax return, or application required to be filed by the taxpayer with that county or municipality.') obtained by municipalities with a county violate § 6-1-120 (.tis unlawful for an officer or employee of a county or municipality, or the agent of such an officer or employee to divulge or make known in any manner the financial information, or other information indicative of units of goods or services sold :P. In simpler terms, does the exception listed in § 6-1-120 (B)(3) ('ITTaring of data between public officials or employees in the performance of their duties) include a municipality sharing information with a county or does it only refer to public officials or public employees within the same municipality? Short Answer: As long as it is within the performance of their duties, there appears to be no limitation on sharing between public officials and public employees within separate offices under South Carolina Code of Laws § 6-1-120 ( 1976, as amended).

Law/Analysis: This Office has previously opined the sharing of data between government agencies for official purposes would generally be permitted. See Ops. S.C. Atty. Gen., 2004 WL 3058229 (December 16, 2004). However, as a background on statutory interpretation, the cardinal rule in statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the Legis lature and to accomplish that intent. Hawkins v. Bruno Yacht Sales, Inc., 353 S.C. 31, 39, 577 S.E.2d 202, 207 (2003). The true aim and intention of the legislature controls the literal meaning of a statute. The historical background and circumstances at the time a statute was passed can be used to assist in interpreting a statute. An entire statute's interpretation must be ''practical, reasonable, and fair' and consistent with the purpose, plan and reasoning behind its making. Greenville Baseball v. Bearden, 200 S.C. 363, 20 S.E.2d 813 , 816 (1942). Statutes are to be interpreted with a ''sensible construction;' and a '~iteral application of language which leads to absurd consequences should be avoided whenever a reasonable application can be given consistent with the legislative purpose:' U.S. v. Rippetoe, 178 F.2d 735, 737 (4th Cir. 1950). The construction of a statute by

R EMBERT

c. D ENNIS B UILDING • Posr OFFICE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, SC 292 11-1549 • TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

Mr. Farrar
Page 2
October 31, 2012

an agency charged with its administration is entitled to the most respectful consideration and should not be overruled absent compelling reasons. Emerson Elec. Co. v. Wasson, 287 S.C. 394, 397, 339 S.E.2d 118, 120 (1986). The first place to look in regards to interpreting the statute is to the legislative intent. There is no legislative history included that directly answered the question presented to enlighten us on the intent of the legislature at the time this statute was passed. South Carolina Code of Laws § 6-1-120 was passed in 1999 but was later amended in 2000 to add (B)(3) which is the relevant portion of the statute to your question. Next we may look to the statute itself, but find that neither "public official" nor "employees" are defined in that particular statute. [n order to ascertain the meaning of those terms, the next place to look is the reasonable definition intended by the legislature. We do this by looking at the plain meaning of the words, rather than analyzing statutes within the same subject matter since the meaning of the statute appears to be clear and unambiguous. Sloan v. SC Board of Physical Therapy Exam., 370 S.C. 452, 636 S.E.2d 598 (2006). It is more likely than not a court would find the rule in part materia of statutory construction does not apply here because the meaning of the statute appears to be clear and unambiguous. Rabon v. SC St. Highway Dept., 258 S.C. 154, 187 S.E.2d 652 ( 1972). The plain meaning of a " public official" or "employee" would undoubtedly include municipal and county employees and officials. One other issue to examine is whether the sharing intended by the legislature was between public officials or employees in the same agency or within different agencies. Again, the clear and plain meaning of the statute allow sharing within different agencies, since the statute is not limited by any such language. There appears to be no limiting language in the statute on either the definitions of public officials and public employees or on which agencies could share information, therefore this Office does not interpret any such limitation where the legislature expressly chose not to limit the terms. See State v. Prince, 335 S.C. 466, 517 S.E.2d 229 (1999) and Ops. S.C. Atty. Gen., 2006 WL 2593071 (August 10, 2006); 2002 WL 31341818 (August 16, 2002); 1994 WL 377820 (June 6, 1994); 1993 WL 720143 (June 28, 1993); 1991WL632999 (June 21, 1991); 1990 WL 482435 (August 17, 1990); 1988 WL 485345 (December I, 1988); 1985 WL 166049 (August 6, 1985). However, if the meaning of§ 6-1-120(B)(3) is found to be unclear, the same conclusion could be drawn analyzing statutes dealing with the same or similar subject matter (in part materia). Sloan, 370 S.C. 452, 636 S.E.2d 598 (2006). The definition of "public official or employee" in other statutes in force at the time of this statute's passing would include a broad spectrum of people. S.C. Code§ 2-17-10(17), which is a definition within a lobbying statute, defines a public employee as "any person employed by the State." Within that same section public official is defined as "any elected or appointed official of the State, including candidates for any such state office. § 2-1 7-10(18). However, ' public official' does not mean a member of the judiciary." ML Elsewhere in the code, public officers are generally defined as "all officers of the State that have hereto been commissioned and trustees for the various colleges of the State, members of various State boards and other persons whose duties are defined by law." § 8-1-10 (1976). Under the State's ethic laws, a public employee is defined as "a person employed by the State, a county, a municipality, or a political subdivision," and a public official is "an elected or appointed official of the State, a county, a municipality, or a political subdivision thereof, including candidates for the office ... " § 8-13-100 (25)-(27) (Supp. 2011 ). All of these definitions would be consistent with including municipal and county officials and employees as public officials and employees.

Mr. Farrar
Page 3
October 31, 2012

As an aside, in regards to what constitutes the perfonnance of the duties of public officials and public employees, if they are not specifically outlined, you may want to consider the definition of activities that arise out of official capacity as defined in the State's ethics laws found in S.C. Code § 8-13-100 (30).

Conclusion: Based on the clear and unambiguous language of the statute as well as the opinions and cases cited above, this Office believes a court would likely interpret the statute as allowing the sharing of information between public officials and public employees in their official duties. However, this Office is only issuing a legal opinion. Until a court specifically addresses the issues presented in your letter, this is only an opinion on how this Office believes a court would interpret the law in the matter. If it is later determined otherwise or if you have any additional questions or issues, please let me know. Sincerely,

Anita Smith Fair
Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

J1,Yi:rfJ. CwA__
Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General