Politics & Government

Court Fees Go Unpaid Over Privacy Concerns

For the last four years, objections over the use of Social Security numbers have prevented state tax officials from trying to collect more than $3.1 million in unpaid court fees owed to the Fredericksburg Circuit Court.

Since 2006, privacy concerns have prevented the Fredericksburg Circuit Court from participating in a state program designed to help localities recoup unpaid court fees. In that time, the Virginia Department of Taxation has been unable to try and collect more than $3.1 million dollars in court fees owed to the city.

At the heart of the dispute is the use of Social Security numbers used to register court employees for a recently computerized revenue recovery program offered by the Virginia Department of Taxation called Debt Set-Off. The Debt Set-Off program allows localities to collect unpaid court fees through the garnishment of state tax refund checks. In 2006, the system was upgraded from a paper process to a digital one which requires a unique number to register users. The Department of Taxation has required users of the system to provide a Social Security number to register. Fredericksburg Circuit Court Clerk Sharron Mitchell has objected to the use of Social Security numbers to register for the system. As a result, neither her nor her staff have completed the training necessary to use the system.

"In this age of identity theft, the Department of Taxation should be at the forefront of encouraging individuals to use their social security numbers for taxation and social security purposes only, and not as a convenient identification number," wrote Mitchell in a 2005 letter to Kenneth Thorson, Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Taxation. In her letter she asked that her office be granted access to the system without having to disclose Social Security numbers.

Circuit Court clerks are required by statute to participate in the set-off program, and Mitchell at first tried to sign up for the program. She was unsuccessful, though, because she used the office's employer tax identification number.

Mitchell says that the requirement to register employees for the system with their Social Security numbers violates state laws which prohibit state agencies to require the disclosure of social security numbers or refuse service to a person or a group over their refusal to provide the number.

"It seems your refusal to register my office unless we furnish our Social Security numbers is not only an unjustified intrusion into our privacy rights, but a violation of state law," wrote Mitchell in 2005. "I would not give my social security number, nor require my employees to give theirs."

The Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts has twice admonished the Circuit Court Clerk's Office for not participating in the program in audits covering the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 fiscal years.

The most recent audit, released in August, urges Mitchell's office to take part in the program.

"By not using the Debt Set-Off Program, the clerk has potentially lost revenue for both the Commonwealth and the local government from amounts she could have recovered, from these individuals' tax refunds or other sources," according to an August letter from Walter Kucharski, Virginia's auditor of public accounts. "Neither the clerk nor any of the court staff have taken the actions necessary to use the automated system."

"I did sign up for and began the…training," wrote Mitchell in an August letter to the Auditor of Public Accounts. "After a few lessions, I realized that I was wasting my time. To complete the training was going to take a considerable amount of time that could be used elsewhere in the office, and unless the Department of Taxation changed its policy regarding the requirement of Social Security numbers, I was not going to be allowed to participate."

Mitchell, who has been serving as the Fredericksburg Circuit Court Clerk for 21 years, is retiring at the end of this year. and are running to replace her, with the election on November 8.

"As of January 1, 2012, the decision of whether or not to give up one's right to privacy (where it is the clerk's decision or one of the deputies) will be someone else's," wrote Mitchell in August. "I am hoping that in the future, the Department of Taxation will be willing to see another point of view."

Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

Support These Local Businesses

+ List My Business