The Scranton Single Tax Office (Tax Office) appeals from an order of the court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County (trial court) granting a petition filed by The Scranton Times, L.P. (Newspaper)2 to obtain access to delinquent wage, business privilege and mercantile tax records for certain business entities.

On January 29, 1998, the Newspaper requested that the Tax Office make available copies of the delinquent tax lists for business entities that had not paid their wage, business privilege or mercantile taxes. When the Tax Office denied the request because no such lists existed, the Newspaper filed a complaint under what is commonly referred to as the Right-to-Know Act (Act)3 alleging that the release of those lists was mandated by that Act. The trial court found that even though no fists existed, the Newspaper had the right to examine taxpayer files under the Act and to compile its own fists of those who were delinquent. The Tax Office then filed an appeal with this Court4 arguing that the trial court’s decision was erroneous because it did not have nor was it required to make a fist from existing tax records. Even if a list did exist and assuming it was a public record, the Tax Office argues that it was still not required to provide that information because it is statutorily precluded from complying with the Newspaper’s request because it is required to maintain the confidentiality of tax records pursuant to The Local Tax Enabling Act.5

Initially, we point out that nothing in the Act requires that an agency compile from public records information *713contained in those records. If the records are, indeed, public, then it is up to those seeking to examine them to go through each record and gather the information. Section 2 of the Act, 65 P.S. § 66.2, provides that, “[e]very public record of an agency shall, at reasonable times, be open for examination and inspection by any citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”6 This provision of the Act only requires the inspection of a record that exists and does not require the public body to create a public record or make lists for the public's use. Recently, in Della Franco v. Department of Labor and Industry, 722 A.2d 776 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999), this Court, quoting from Bargeron v. Department of Labor and Industry, 720 A.2d 500, 502 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1998), so held, stating, “[i]t is well established that if a document does not exist, the Board is not required to prepare or create a new document.”

If we were to decide otherwise, because no reason ever has to be given to examine the record, anyone could come to a public agency and ask for preparation of lists for any reason, e.g., a credit card company could request a list of taxpayers whose public assessments were over a certain amount, or direct marketers could ask for a list of all people who applied for building permits to see if they needed a second mortgage. As a result, public employees would, in effect, become the “agents” of individuals seeking to “slice and dice” information for commercial purposes, taking them away from the jobs that they were hired to perform. This is not the intent of the Act.

While the trial court recognized that it could not order the Tax Office to make a list, by giving the Newspaper access to individual taxpayer files so that the Newspaper could make its own list, it required the Tax Officer to perform a criminal act. Essentially, there are three types of records kept by governmental agencies: 1) records that must be made public because they are subject to the Act; 2) records that may be made public because they fall within the discretion of the public official to make them public because they either fall within an exception under the Act7 or are otherwise not prohibited from being released; and 3) those records that cannot be released because there is an express statutory prohibition against their release, i.e., social security numbers,8 criminal records9 and tax records.10 The infor*714mation being sought here comes under the third category.

The information being sought concerns taxes levied pursuant to the Local Tax Enabling Act. Under that Act, not only are tax records not permitted to be released, but any “information” gathered from those records cannot be divulged. Section 13(V)(f) of the Local Tax Enabling Act, 53 P.S. § 6913(V)(f), provides:

Any information gained by the officer, his agents, or by any other official or agent of the taxing district, as a result of any declarations, returns, investigations, hearings or verifications required or authorized by the ordinance or resolution, shall be confidential, except for official purposes and except in accordance with a proper judicial order, or as otherwise provided by law.11

Determining whether a taxpayer is delinquent can only be determined by looking at existing records, making the release of that information prohibited by the provision.12

Not only is it impermissible to release tax information, but the Local Tax Enabling Act makes it a crime for anyone to do so. Section 13(IX)(b) of the Local Tax Enabling Act, 53 P.S. § 6913(IX)(b), provides that anyone who divulges such information may be sentenced to pay a fine of $500 for each offense and be imprisoned for 30 days. Subsection (IX)(c) farther provides that the penalties imposed will be in addition to any other penalty -imposed by any other section of the ordinance or resolution.13

*715Because the lists that the Newspaper seeks to obtain do not exist and the requested information is confidential and subject to criminal sanctions if released, the order of the trial court is reversed.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 1999, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, dated August 81, 1998, is reversed.

Senior Judge RODGERS concurs in the result only.

dissenting.

I must respectfully dissent. I would affirm the trial court’s opinion which would have allowed the public disclosure of those taxpayers who were delinquent.

I believe that Section 2 of the Right-to-Know Act, 65 P.S. § 66.2, provides the right to such inspection and release.

Since such public inspection and release is allowed by the Right-to-Know Act, no criminal sanctions would apply, as it would be a disclosure “as otherwise provided by law.” See Section 13(V)(f) of the Local Tax Enabling Act, 53 P.S. § 6913(V)(f).