Peddie v. United States

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
KEITH PEDDIE; CAROLYN D. PEDDIE,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
INTERNAL REVENUE,
Defendants-Appellants,
No. 97-1252
and
TRIAD BANK; BB&T MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, formerly known as
Gate City Federal; COMMERCIAL
CREDIT CORPORATION,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge.
(CA-95-792-2)
Submitted: December 9, 1997
Decided: December 19, 1997
Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Gary R. Allen, Ann Belanger Durney, Sally J. Schornstheimer, Sara
S. Holderness, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Keith Peddie, Carolyn D. Peddie,
Appellees Pro Se.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
The United States appeals from the district court's grant of sum-
mary judgment to Keith and Carolyn Peddie in this civil action for
damages under the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA).1 The Ped-
dies claimed that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) violated the
RFPA when it informally requested that several financial institutions
voluntarily provide financial records pertaining to the Peddies. While
the district court found that 12 U.S.C. § 3413(c) (1994), did not
exempt the Government's requests from the notice and procedure
requirements of the RFPA, the district court did not address the Gov-
ernment's argument that § 3413(d) also exempted the disclosure of
information. Accordingly, we find that the Peddies failed to satisfy
their burden of entitlement to summary judgment under FED. R. CIV.
P. 56(c). We therefore vacate the district court's order of summary
judgment and damages to the Peddies and remand this case for further
proceedings.
The IRS, in response to a tip that the Peddies were violating tax
laws, solicited copies of Forms 1098 and 1099 (relating to the finan-
cial institution's payment of interest and receipt of mortgage interest)
issued to the Peddies from three financial institutions for years 1991
and 1992. In requesting the information, the IRS did not use an
administrative summons nor did it comply with the disclosure
requirements of the RFPA; however, the financial institutions volun-
tarily turned over the information. The Peddies sued the IRS and the
_________________________________________________________________
1 See 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401-3422 (1994).
2
financial institutions claiming that the IRS's and the financial institu-
tions's actions violated the RFPA.
Without admitting liability, the financial institutions settled the
Peddies' claims; however, the Government moved for summary judg-
ment contending that the requests were exempt from the notice
requirements of the RFPA. The Peddies also moved for summary
judgment based upon the Tenth Circuit's holding in Neece v. IRS, 922
F.2d 573 (10th Cir. 1990). Finding the § 3413(c) analysis of Neece
persuasive, the district court granted the Peddies' motion for summary
judgment against the IRS and awarded the Peddies statutory damages
of $200.2 The Government appeals claiming that Neece was wrongly
decided and that in any event § 3413(d) exempts the IRS's request for
Forms 1099 and 1098.
This court reviews de novo an award of summary judgment.3 Sum-
mary judgment should be granted only when there is no genuine issue
of material fact such that a rational factfinder could rule in favor of
the non-moving party.4 The existence of a genuine issue turns on
"whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require
submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must
prevail as a matter of law."5 The party opposing summary judgment
must offer "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."6
In this case, the court granted summary judgment to the Peddies
after only addressing the situation of voluntary disclosure of financial
information and not where the information was already subject to dis-
closure by federal law. The district court's analysis focused entirely
on whether § 3413(c) exempted the IRS's request and did not address
the Government's argument that § 3413(d) exempted the disclosure.
According to the Government, the Peddies do not have a cause of
action under the RFPA because the financial institutions were
_________________________________________________________________
2 See 12 U.S.C. § 3417 (1994).
3 See Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167
(4th Cir. 1988).
4 See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-49 (1986).
5 See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52.
6 See FED. R. C IV. P. 56(e).
3
required by law to disclose to the IRS information relating to the
financial institution's payment of interest and receipt of mortgage
interest.7 In their response to the Government's motion for summary
judgment, the Peddies do not refute the Government's claim that
§ 3413(d) exempts the request from the notice and procedure require-
ments of the RFPA. More importantly, the district court does not
address why the Peddies prevail under § 3413(d). Therefore, the
record on appeal is insufficient for a proper review of the district
court's decision.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order granting summary
judgment and awarding damages to the Peddies, and we remand the
case to the district court for consideration of the Government's argu-
ment that § 3413(d) exempted its requests from the protections
afforded to a taxpayer by the RFPA. Additionally, we deny the Ped-
dies' motion to be reimbursed for expenses related to this appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
_________________________________________________________________
7 See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6049(a), 6050H (1994).
4