## Facts

- Jerry V. Rice, a certified public accountant, was convicted in federal court of filing false tax refund claims and making and subscribing false tax returns under 18 U.S.C. § 287 and 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).
- He was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment, restitution, and a $20,000 fine.
- The IRS issued two press releases: one reporting the conviction and another reporting the sentence.
- The releases described Rice’s prosecution, the nature of the false refund/withholding conduct, and the sentence imposed.
- Rice and his accounting firm sued the United States, the IRS, and IRS officials, alleging the press releases wrongfully disclosed confidential tax information.
- After motions practice, the remaining claims were: (1) damages for unlawful disclosure under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6103 and 7431 (against the United States), (2) an FTCA claim (against the United States), and (3) a Privacy Act claim (against the IRS).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the government, finding the press releases drew exclusively from public trial proceedings and public court records.

## Issues

1. Whether IRS press releases that republish facts drawn solely from public judicial proceedings and court records unlawfully disclose “return information” in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6103, permitting damages under 26 U.S.C. § 7431.
2. Whether an FTCA claim may proceed based on the same alleged disclosures, including whether a separate, cognizable state-law tort exists and whether the tax-disclosure remedial scheme forecloses FTCA relief.
3. Whether issuing press releases containing only publicly available information violates the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, as an unauthorized disclosure of protected “records” from a system of records.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States and the IRS on all claims.
- The court held the press releases did not violate § 6103 because they disclosed only information already public through Rice’s criminal trial and related court records, so no § 7431 damages action lay.
- The court rejected the FTCA claim as duplicative of the tax-disclosure theory and unsupported by an independent state-law tort basis, given Congress’s specific remedial scheme for wrongful tax-information disclosure.
- The court held the Privacy Act claim failed because Rice did not show an unlawful disclosure of protected records; the disclosed content was already public through judicial proceedings.
- Applying Rule 56 standards, the court concluded Rice failed to produce specific, admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute that any confidential tax information (beyond public sources) was disclosed.

## Legal Principles

- Section 6103’s confidentiality protections do not bar the IRS from disseminating information that is a matter of public record and obtained from public judicial proceedings and court documents.
- A § 7431 damages claim requires proof that the government disclosed confidential “return information” in violation of § 6103; republishing publicly disclosed facts does not satisfy that requirement.
- At summary judgment, the nonmovant must present specific, admissible evidence showing a genuine dispute of material fact; conclusory assertions and speculation do not suffice.
- Where Congress provides a specific statutory remedy for wrongful disclosure of tax information, plaintiffs generally cannot repackage the same theory under the FTCA absent a distinct, cognizable state-law tort.
- A Privacy Act disclosure claim requires proof that an agency disclosed a protected record from a system of records in an unauthorized manner; dissemination of already public information does not establish liability on this record.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that IRS press releases accurately repeating facts already disclosed in open court and reflected in public court records did not unlawfully disclose confidential “return information” under § 6103, and it affirmed summary judgment rejecting related claims under § 7431, the FTCA, and the Privacy Act.


Rice v. United States, 166 F.3d 1088 (10th Cir. 1999)