Did the NY Times violate tax law?
Maybe yes, maybe no [emphasis mine]:
Confidentiality, as the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in 1991 in U.S. v. Richey, is essential to “maintaining a workable tax system.”…
Taxpayer privacy is “fundamental to a tax system that relies on self-reporting” since it protects “sensitive or otherwise personal information,” said then-Judge (now Supreme Court Justice) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1986 in another case when she served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia…
Federal law – 26 U.S.C. §7213(a)(1) – makes it a felony for any federal employee to disclose tax returns or “return information.” Infractions are punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine as high as $250,000 under the Alternative Fines Act (18 U.S.C. §3571).
Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of The New York Times story, tax returns themselves, as well as tax return information such as these IRS transcripts (which are a summary of the tax returns), are protected from disclosure by federal law. And this provision applies to private individuals as well as government employees, a fact that should be considered by the New York Times’ source.
That’s the letter of the law. However, in practice a newspaper may be safe from conviction under the law [emphasis mine]:
If the newspaper obtained this information from an employee of the IRS, that employee will be in big trouble if he or she is identified.
Could the editors and reporters at the New York Times be prosecuted for publishing this information?
Section (a)(3) of the law makes it a felony for any person who receives an illegally disclosed tax return or return information to publish that return or that information. But it’s unknown if the bar on publication by a media organization could survive a First Amendment challenge.
What we do know is that in previous incidents, the government did not attempt to prosecute the publisher of tax return information…
Are the interests of the government in an effective tax system and that of citizens in maintaining the confidentiality of their financial information outweighed by the First Amendment right of the press, and by and the public’s interest in obtaining financial information on elected officials?
Tthe press is full of garbage and partisanship, but press freedom is still an important principle to defend. However, I’m not for allowing the press to violate this law and publish information such as tax returns, and I mean anyone’s tax returns—as I wrote in my earlier post on the Times’ publication of Trump’s tax information—without that person’s consent.
I don’t think freedom of the press should include freedom from all consequences for anything the press does. It’s a delicate balancing act, to be sure, but it’s tipped too far if the press is allowed one hundred percent free rein. The way Sullivan is applied, for example, has made it nearly impossible to prove defamation of any public figure even if it’s pretty clear that a defamatory story was published with reckless disregard for the truth.
Then again, the monetary penalty for violating this particular tax privacy law is so small (not small for an individual, but for a newspaper) that even if that element were to be enforced against the press it would hardly constitute more than an inconsequential little slap on the wrist (I can’t see that anyone would ever be sent to prison, so I don’t think that the chance of a prison term is really an issue). So I doubt even being found guilty would deter the MSM from publishing this sort of information if they thought it could hurt someone they despise. The possibility of conviction might even motivate them to do it because then the press could claim the mantle of martyrdom.
The NYT is peddling stolen information. I think a few reporters going to jail is warranted. Remember what happened to that notorious criminal Martha Stewart for a process crime? Now that was a great example of the FBI at its best. I slept so much better after they sent Martha to prison.
I would prefer to see tax returns from a former President and First Lady who NEVER had a real job and now are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s just me.
If the New York Times reporter conspired with the source to obtain the tax information for purposes of publication, wouldn’t that be a crime? This is what Julian Assange is being accused of, right?
“..mantel of martyrdom…” Oh, those valiant protectors of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; seemingly lacking of any understanding of the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence want to be martyers on the keystones of individual freedom which they choose to ignore or are too stupid to comprehend, seek martyrdom? Oh, please spare me their elitist BS.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
Agreed. Why is it a crime to knowingly buy and sell other types of stolen property? My or anybody’s tax returns are private property. Same is true for classified government info. If it’s hacked, that’s theft pure and simple. Anyone who buys or sells it is trafficking in stolen property. Jail ‘ em all.
Rhetorical questions:
What I don’t get is why all the clamoring for Trump’s Tax returns?
Didn’t he file them with the IRS, an official government agency?
Don’t they trust the IRS to make sure his filing is correct?
If they think somehow or other his filing is wrong or that he cheated, then they are really making a case for the abolishment of the IRS.
Quite frankly, I’d trust/respect the media more if they spent half as much trouble looking for Hillary’s “missing” emails as they have trying to get dirt on Trump.
charles:
See this:
If that’s the sum total of the Democrats’ reasons, it’s ludicrous. Not even remotely acceptable. Transparently targeted to gather information to harm Trump, because it will be leaked and even if everything he’s done is 100% legal, they figure it will embarrass him (just as the Times recently attempted to do) because there are a lot of perfectly legal write-offs.
Their current activities fill me with disgust, and I think I would feel that way even if I still were a Democrat. I certainly didn’t approve of everything Democrats did when I was a Democrat.
NYT should be indicted, tried, and found guilty of violating the law in illegally publishing private tax returns. Even if the “punishment” in USD is not enough to deter, and even if they try to claim they are martyrs.
The Dems want to use the IRS and the FBI and all the gov’t powers against those who disagree. Even if the use of these powers is forbidden by the laws that authorize the agencies to have such power.
The Dems are already corrupted by the power of too-big gov’t; and too many in the GOPe / RINOs are similarly corrupted.
Too bad Barr has too few real, honest lawyers in the DOJ to do much swamp draining, which would mean indictments against the gov’t criminals.
Tom Grey on May 12, 2019 at 3:37 pm at 3:37 pm said:
NYT should be indicted, tried, and found guilty of violating the law in illegally publishing private tax returns. Even if the “punishment” in USD is not enough to deter, and even if they try to claim they are martyrs.
…
Too bad Barr has too few real, honest lawyers in the DOJ to do much swamp draining, which would mean indictments against the gov’t criminals.
* * *
Agree on the indictment of NYT; 1st Amendment is not a shield to criminal conduct. The fine may not affect their wealth much, but it is part of the “broken windows” philosophy of deterring crime.
Barr & Trump can’t drain the swamp because the drainage pipes are full of sewage and sludge.
Good thing the Times was just illegally publishing private information.
They might otherwise have suffered the fate of a San Francisco reporter refusing to give up a source revealing confidential information.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-reporter-declined-to-reveal-his-source-then-police-showed-up-at-his-front-door-with-guns/ar-AABev4M
What’s wrong with this picture?
Conservative Treehouse doesn’t think Trump should worry abou the leak, because tax arguments make people’s eyes glaze over. A couple of commenters there have additional ideas to mull over.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/05/08/nyt-trump-taxes-story-is-funniest-news-of-year-so-far/
A couple of Treepers have suggested the first bolded idea, because the NYT’s could get the tax report legally IF the tax lawyer had his client’s permission to release it (not that he would tell them that).
The answer to your presumably rhetorical question is sure, it did. But the law is for little people, and no impediment to the Times’ idea of truth and justice. Not where this or any Republican President is concerned, anyway.
I still think he will released his tax returns shortly before the election next year to show a) taxes are too complicated and b) he paid $100 million in income tax.
Mike: if Trump does release recent tax returns, they will also show that he has not recieved any salary as President IIRC.