Press Releases

Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?

Brief Response: In my opinion, the custodian has correctly classified the personnel records and has properly redacted some instances of your phone number, address, date of birth, social security number, employee number, marital status, and information about dependents. But the custodian’s decisions are inconsistent with the FOIA.

Question: You indicate that some poultry farmers have contracts that require them “to upkeep the buildings and surrounding areas, which includes mowing the grass.” To mow these areas, the poultry farmers “often purchase zero-turn mowers.” Paraphrasing your questions, you ask if these purchases qualify for the sales-tax exemption for farm equipment and machinery.

Brief Response: To claim the “farm equipment and machinery” exemption under A.C.A. § 26-52-403, the taxpayer must meet three requirements. First, the taxpayer must, “as a business,” be producing food or fiber. Second, the purchase in question must be a tool, utensil, or other piece of equipment used in doing work. But it cannot be “used in the production and severance of timber, motor vehicles of a type subject to registration, airplanes, or hand tools.” Third, the implement must be used “exclusively” and “directly” in the agricultural production of food or fiber. It is my opinion that a court likely would find that mowers used only to upkeep the ground around chicken houses for health and safety as required by contract are exempt under A.C.A. § 26-52-403 and Gross Receipts Tax Rule GR-51.

Although I can opine on the interpretation of sales-tax exemptions—and this office has often done so—I caution that whether an exemption applies to any particular purchase is a fact-specific issue upon which I cannot definitively opine.

Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?

Brief Response: In my opinion, the custodian has correctly classified the personnel records and has properly redacted the former employees’ phone numbers, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, employee numbers, marital status, and information about dependents. But the custodian’s redactions of references’ names and contact information, documents related to time off and requests for time off, and change-in-benefits records are inconsistent with the FOIA. In addition, the custodian has properly classified the employee-evaluation records. The custodian’s decision to withhold the employee evaluations that did not result in suspension or termination of the former employees is consistent with the FOIA. Finally, the custodian’s decision to release the employee evaluations that resulted in suspension or termination is also consistent with the FOIA. The four-part test for release of employee-evaluation records appears to be met.