returns “confidential” when it amended section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (“1976 Act”). See 26 U.S.C. 6103(a). The private nature of tax returns was recognized even before the 1976 Act, however, and was developed largely by district courts in this Circuit. In fact, this court was one of the first courts in the nation to address this issue. In Connecticut Importing Co. v. Continental Distilling Corp., 1 F.R.D. 190, 192 (D.Conn.1940), the court held that nothing in § 6103 or the regulations precluded a court of competent jurisdiction from requiring a disclosure of a tax return by the taxpayer in connection with civil litigation to which the taxpayer is a party. But see O’Connell v. Olsen & Ugelstadt, 10 F.R.D. 142, 142 (N.D.Ohio 1949) (<HOLDING>). Most courts agreed with the Connecticut
holding that the state is immune from punitive awards recognizing that the municipal function test is used to determine both whether municipalities are immune from suit and immune from running of statutes of limitations holding that state of nevada was immune from rico suit absent a waiver of its sovereign immunity holding that absent word from congress or the treasury returns were immune from discovery holding that state of minnesota was immune from rico suit absent a waiver of its sovereign immunity