FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Walter P. Doolittle,
against Docket #FIC 87-38
Robert Wilcox, Assistant Director of the Collections and Enforcement Division of the State of Connecticut Department of Revenue Services,
Respondent April 22, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 23, 1987, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony 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 January 22, 1987, the complainant requested a copy of an itemized bill, as required by 12-35, G.S., with particular reference given to the computation of the amount of tax owed by the complainant.
3. Specifically, the complainant requested a copy of an itemized bill in regard to a tax warrant issued by the Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Revenue Services to collect $546.44 in taxes, penalties and interest owed by the complainant.
4. Having received no reply from the respondent, by letter of complaint dated February 13, 1987 and filed with the Commission on February 17, 1987, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act in his refusal to release a copy of the itemized bill. The complainant also requested the imposition of a civil penalty.
5. 12-35, G.S., provides that "upon failure of any person to pay any tax other than succession and transfer taxes, the state collection agency may issue a tax warrant . . . to which an itemized bill shall be attached," to certify that the tax warrant is a true statement of the amount due from such person.
Docket #FIC 87-38 Page 2
6. At the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the complainant previously had appealed to the Commission regarding the same information and had received a ruling on the matter. The respondent also requested the imposition of a civil penalty against the complainant.
7. The Commission takes administrative notice of the record and decision in its contested case, Docket #FIC 86-173.
8. It is found that the information requested by the complainant is identical to the records sought and provided to him in the contested case, Docket #FIC 86-173.
9. The Commission declines to impose a civil penalty against either party.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. The Commission notes that a misunderstanding concerning the nature of the information sought resulted in another hearing on this matter and suggests the complainant and the respondent strive for better communication as it would save the time and resources of all parties involved.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 22, 1987.
Catherine I. Hostetter
Acting Clerk of the Commission