MICHAEL EDWARD TANKERSLEY v. JAMES W. ALMAND
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Diaz, Sept. 13, 2016,
Social Security Number – Client Protection Fund requirement of disclosure of Social Security number is not a violation of the Privacy Act as it may assist in administration of taxes.

(Dissent in part, concur in part – Agree that CPF should not collect social security numbers under the Welfare Reform Act, but also shouldn’t under the Tax Reform Act as collection is not done to administer taxes)

The Welfare Reform Act compels states to have “[p]rocedures requiring that the social security number of . . . any applicant for a professional license . . . be recorded on the application.” 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(13)

Per the Court, the MD Client Protection Fund is not an “application” and therefore the Welfare Reform Act exception does not apply.

However, according to the Court the Tax Reform Act of 1976 allows the collection of social security numbers by the CPF in order to assist the SDAT with identifying new businesses within the state and determining whether each lawyer has paid all undisputed taxes.

42 USC 405 allows

any State (or political subdivision thereof) may, in the administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver’s license, or motor vehicle registration law within its jurisdiction, utilize the social security account numbers issued by the Commissioner of Social Security for the purpose of establishing the identification of individuals affected by such law, and may require any individual who is or appears to be so affected to furnish to such State (or political subdivision thereof) or any agency thereof having administrative responsibility for the law involved, the social security account number (or numbers, if he has more than one such number) issued to him by the Commissioner of Social Security.