prohibition against public disclosure of tax information. Id. at 896. Mr. Ashton also argues that his state tax returns are privileged and exempt from discovery. He asserts that any privilege with regard to the state tax return must be governed by Pennsylvania law, but he also cites the similar Maryland statute , dismissing it as inapplicable. Appellee disagrees with Mr. Ashton’s reliance on both the Maryland and Pennsylvania statutes, because, like the federal statute, they only provide for nondisclosure of tax information by current or former officers, agents, or employees of the government, not by the taxpayer himself. We agree with appellee. There is no specific privilege in Maryland that protects state income tax returns from disclosure by a taxpayer, nor has any 2d 621 (1957) (<HOLDING>); Leave v. Boston E.R. Co., 306 Mass. 391, 28
holding that agency could not claim confidentiality for tax returns that had been exhibits in tax court and were therefore public records holding that tax returns and tax return information cannot regain their confidential status once the returns have become part of the public record by their use in a public trial holding the conduct element satisfied where debtor earned income during the tax years at issue but did not make any estimated tax payments had inadequate or no withholdings and latefiled his tax returns holding that the lower court erred both in requiring production of copies of the defendants income tax returns and in receiving the returns into evidence over objection holding that tax returns are privileged under the statutes that prohibited the tax board and employees from disclosing any information and this privilege should not be nullified by allowing third parties to obtain the information by demanding copies of the returns