Here Is Why The New York Times Did Not Break The Law In Releasing Trump's Tax Returns

[Silver Pines]

Here Is Why The New York Times Did Not Break The Law In Releasing Trump's Tax Returns
by Erick Erickson
10/2/2016


The New York Times has released Donald Trump’s 1995 tax returns and some people are pointing to this Washington Post piece as proof that the Times broke the law.

But a careful reading of the law shows that the Times did not break the law.

The relevant section, cited by the Washington Post, is 26 USC § 7213(a)(3), which reads:

It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.


Read more at:


http://theresurgent.com/here-is-why-the-new-york-times-did-not-break-the-law-in-releasing-trumps-tax-returns/

[Oceander]

More:

Let’s break this down.

It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information is disclosed to print or publish the information.

But the “to whom any return or return information is disclosed” language is defined by 26 USC §6103(b).

Let’s look there.

26 USC §6103(b)(1) defines a return as

any tax or information return, declaration of estimated tax, or claim for refund required by, or provided for or permitted under, the provisions of this title which is filed with the Secretary

26 USC §6103(b)(2) defines “return information” as

a taxpayer’s identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer’s return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary

Got that? The key passage of both is “filed with” or “collected by the Secretary.”

The Secretary is the Secretary of the Department of Treasury of the United States of America. The law only applies to federal tax returns filed with the Department of Treasury.

[Oceander]

And a little more:

So now we have to see where the Times got its tax records. According to their report


    The documents consisted of three pages from what appeared to be Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax returns. The pages were mailed last month to Susanne Craig, a reporter at The Times who has written about Mr. Trump’s finances. The documents were the first page of a New York State resident income tax return, the first page of a New Jersey nonresident tax return and the first page of a Connecticut nonresident tax return. Each page bore the names and Social Security numbers of Mr. Trump and Marla Maples, his wife at the time. Only the New Jersey form had what appeared to be their signatures.

    The three documents arrived by mail at The Times with a postmark indicating they had been sent from New York City. The return address claimed the envelope had been sent from Trump Tower.

The Times did not get the returns from the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, a review of the documents themselves show the returns are state tax returns that reveal federal tax information, which is not the same as a federal filing.

Because these are state returns, not federal returns, and the returns were not obtained from the government, but from other sources, the Times itself is not in legal jeopardy. That said, we know Donald Trump has a history of suing others even when they have done nothing wrong.

[endicom]

 The Personal Privacy Protection Law is one among many laws that ensure that privacy is protected. Examples of other statutes that require confidentiality or prohibit disclosure to the public deal with:

    personal income tax
    applicants for or recipients of public assistance
    medical records
    mental health records
    education records pertaining to students
    police records concerning juveniles
    claims for unemployment insurance benefits drug abuse
    rent control
    vocational rehabilitation
    applicants for or tenants in public housing
    child abuse
    adoption
    arrest records on persons against whom charges have been dismissed
    victims of sex offenses under the age of 18 years
    grand jury proceedings
    care and protection of children in receipt of social services
    autopsy reports

* It is noted that the Freedom of Information Law prohibits release of information by a state agency if the release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/shldno1.html

[Silver Pines]

Thanks, Oceander.

[Oceander]

Oops.  Not a federal crime.  Wonder why the Trumpists didn't bother to read carefully first.

[Oceander]

The Personal Privacy Protection Law is one among many laws that ensure that privacy is protected. Examples of other statutes that require confidentiality or prohibit disclosure to the public deal with:

    personal income tax
    applicants for or recipients of public assistance
    medical records
    mental health records
    education records pertaining to students
    police records concerning juveniles
    claims for unemployment insurance benefits drug abuse
    rent control
    vocational rehabilitation
    applicants for or tenants in public housing
    child abuse
    adoption
    arrest records on persons against whom charges have been dismissed
    victims of sex offenses under the age of 18 years
    grand jury proceedings
    care and protection of children in receipt of social services
    autopsy reports

* It is noted that the Freedom of Information Law prohibits release of information by a state agency if the release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/shldno1.html

Now your task is to go find the particular NY state provision that applies, if it exists.  What you quoted don't cut it.

[endicom]

Now your task is to go find the particular NY state provision that applies, if it exists.

You will never see the day that you task me with anything.

What you quoted don't cut it.

Your wit wouldn't dent cream cheese.


You really believe that States haven't confidentiality laws?

[Oceander]

You will never see the day that you task me with anything.

Your wit wouldn't dent cream cheese.


You really believe that States haven't confidentiality laws?

I really believe you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and you're too afraid to do a little work and find the NY state law that would apply.

You're a little Trump loser, and like your orange god, cannot do anything other than use sleaze and innuendo to make points you cannot prove.

So, I'm calling you a liar; prove me wrong by finding the law.

[endicom]

You're a little Trump loser, and like your orange god, cannot do anything other than use sleaze and innuendo to make points you cannot prove.

So, I'm calling you a liar; prove me wrong by finding the law.

Sleaze and innuendo is your way, the way of the left. I've made it clear that I never liked Trump but will vote for him.

If you are calling me a liar then you are an idiot as I have made no statement.

[Oceander]

Sleaze and innuendo is your way, the way of the left. I've made it clear that I never liked Trump but will vote for him.

If you are calling me a liar then you are an idiot as I have made no statement.

You're a liar because you've made a claim - that NY has laws that make it illegal for the NYT to publish the information it published - for which you have no proof.

Prove me wrong.  Liar.

Edit:  You know what I just love about the "I never liked Trump but will vote for him" argument is this:  I could make you vote for Hillary just by changing her registration from 'D' to 'R'.  You'd vote for anything so long as it registered as Republican.

[corbe]

You really believe that States haven't confidentiality laws?

@endicom

  Tell that to Jack Ryan who had his SECRET CALIFORNIA Divorce records SPLASHED all over the Electorate of Illinois in 2004 by Obummer.

   What's good for the Goose....etc....

[endicom]

You're a liar because you've made a claim - that NY has laws that make it illegal for the NYT to publish the information it published - for which you have no proof.

Prove me wrong.  Liar.

Edit:  You know what I just love about the "I never liked Trump but will vote for him" argument is this:  I could make you vote for Hillary just by changing her registration from 'D' to 'R'.  You'd vote for anything so long as it registered as Republican.

The thread proves you wrong. I made no such statement. Yours is another fabrication from the Elect Hillary Committee.

[Oceander]

The thread proves you wrong. I made no such statement. Yours is another fabrication from the Elect Hillary Committee.

Thank you for admitting that you're a liar and cannot back up the claims you've made.  But then again, that explains why you worship Trump, someone else who also cannot back up his claims.

[Oceander]

@endicom

Because I feel so sorry for you, I'm going to give you a little handicap, a little leg up:  start with NY Tax Law sec. 1825.

[endicom]

Thank you for admitting that you're a liar and cannot back up the claims you've made.  But then again, that explains why you worship Trump, someone else who also cannot back up his claims.

As anyone can see, I've made no claims. Stop fabricating an argument.

[Oceander]

As anyone can see, I've made no claims. Stop fabricating an argument.

Yes you did.  Passive-aggressive personality ill becomes you. 

[ABX]

All of this is moot if the leak came from Maples herself because she is a signatory on the documents. That's the buzz right now.

[endicom]

Yes you did.

Show it or admit you are fabricating the argument.

Passive-aggressive personality ill becomes you.

Lefty psychobabble digression.

[mystery-ak]

endicom and Oceander knock off the personal attacks

[Oceander]

All of this is moot if the leak came from Maples herself because she is a signatory on the documents. That's the buzz right now.

Well that would be quite interesting.

[Wingnut]

endicom and Oceander knock off the personal attacks

Come on Mom.   Entertainment is so hard to find anymore these days.

[Oceander]

Show it or admit you are fabricating the argument.


Lefty psychobabble digression.

You posted this:

The Personal Privacy Protection Law is one among many laws that ensure that privacy is protected. Examples of other statutes that require confidentiality or prohibit disclosure to the public deal with:

    personal income tax

Now, either you don't believe that, and think the NY Dept of State is lying, or else you do believe it, in which case by posting it you are asserting the truth of that statement.

You choose:  were you posting something you don't believe - in which case it would have been helpful if you'd said so - or else you were posting something you do believe, in which case you were stating it as truth by posting it.

Since the latter is more likely, you have the obligation to provide the proof for the statements you claim are true.

[Suppressed]

@endicom

Because I feel so sorry for you, I'm going to give you a little handicap, a little leg up:  start with NY Tax Law sec. 1825.

...which references NYC code?!?

[LMAO]

Come on Mom.   Entertainment is so hard to find anymore these days.

@Wingnut

You're not finding it in the 2016 General election? ^-^