Request By:
Steve Dickerson, Esq.
Office of Counsel
Kentucky Revenue Cabinet
New Capitol Annex
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: FREDERIC J. COWAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL; Gerard R. Gerhard, Assistant Attorney General
By letter of early June, 1989, Mr. Henry Meseke has appealed, pursuant to Open Records provisions, the Cabinet's denial of a request to provide addresses for individuals for whom Mr. Meseke has names and Social Security numbers.
FINDINGS IN BRIEF
A request that addresses be provided to correspond with names and social security numbers presented by requester is not one properly founded upon Open Records provisions. In any event, the Revenue Cabinet had no compiled record corresponding to the request, and is banned by KRS 131.190 from divulging address information from tax returns, from which information conforming to request would have to have been extracted, thus its denial of address information was proper.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
By letters of June 1st an 2d, 1989, Mr. Henry Meseke asked, in substance, that the Revenue Cabinet supply addresses to correspond with names and Social Security numbers he wanted to tender to the Cabinet.
By letter of June 9, 1989, you denied Mr. Meseke's request, citing KRS 61.878(1)(j) and 131.190. You explained that the Cabinet was prohibited [by statute] from divulging information acquired by it in administering the tax laws, and that the information sought was not compiled, and thus was not required to be supplied.
Mr. Meseke appealed your denial by letter of about June 7, 1989.
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
KRS 61.880(2) provides in part for the Attorney General to review, upon request, a denial of a request to inspect public records, and issue a written opinion stating whether an agency ". . . acted consistent with provisions of KRS 61.870 to 61.884."
As explained below, we believe it did.
The request asked that the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet furnish addresses to correspond with names and social security numbers tendered by the requester. The Cabinet had no record compiling the information sought. A research effort would have been required to attempt to provide the data sought.
The Cabinet substantially complied with open records provisions, although a response under such provisions was not required, since the request was for research to be performed, rather than for inspection of public records.
Upon receiving a request to provide specific information, the cabinet evaluated the request and denied it, in writing. The Cabinet cited a specific exception under Open Records provisions (KRS 61.878(1)(j)) upon which denial of inspection of public records could be properly founded. It also briefly explained how the exception applied to the information sought, by explaining that KRS 131.190 banned divulgence of information acquired in administering the tax laws. A copy of the denial was forwarded to the Attorney General. To such extent, the Cabinet ". . . acted consistent with provisions of KRS 61.870 to 61.884."
In our view, the request here involved is a request for research to be performed, rather than for inspection of reasonably identified public records. Open records provisions do not require public agencies to carry out research or compile information to conform to a given request. OAG 79-547, OAG 81-333. Further, the Cabinet is banned by KRS 131.190 from supplying information related to tax returns, and the information in question, if in the Cabinet's custody, would have to have been extracted from such returns. Accordingly, the Cabinet could properly deny the request pursuant to KRS 61.878(1)(j) and KRS 131.190.
As required by statute, a copy of this opinion is being sent to Mr. Henry Meseke who made the request here involved.
Mr. Meseke may have a right pursuant to 61.880(5) to appeal the findings of this opinion to the Franklin Circuit Court.