[ad_1]
The New York Times undoubtedly considers it quite complicated to have obtained and published the information on President Trump's tax returns from 1985 to 1994. But that violated Trump's right under the federal law, the confidentiality of his tax returns.
The Times – which reported that Trump's companies lost $ 1.17 billion over the 10-year period – is no longer entitled to receive Trump's tax returns as mine or those of those who read these words.
Confidentiality, as the Ninth Appellate Court of the United States Circuit held in 1991 in United States v. United States. Richey, is essential to "maintain a viable tax system".
TRUMP BLASTS "HIT JOB" NEW YORK TIMES REPORT ON LOSS OF TAX RETURNS
Taxpayer privacy is "fundamental to a self-declaration tax system" because it protects "sensitive or otherwise personal information," said Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg (currently a Supreme Court Justice) in 1986 in another case US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the New York Times' history, the tax returns themselves, as well as information such as those IRS transcripts (which are a summary of tax returns), are protected by federal law.
Federal Law – 26 U.S.C. §7213 (a) (1) – prohibits any federal employee from disclosing tax returns or "return information". The offenses are punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $ 250,000 (18 USC §3571).
Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the New York Times' history, the tax returns themselves, as well as information such as those IRS transcripts (which are a summary of tax returns), are protected by federal law. And this provision applies to both individuals and government employees, which should be taken into account by the New York Times source.
According to the newspaper, Trump did not obtain Trump's tax returns, but "printed copies of his official transcripts from the Internal Revenue Service, with figures from his federal tax form, 1040, of someone who had legal access to these ".
The Times, quoted by a president's attorney, Charles J. Harder, said the tax information contained in the article was "patently false" and that the transcripts made by the IRS, especially those dating back to Before e-filing, were "notoriously inaccurate". This claim is disputed by a former IRS employee, who is currently at the Urban-Brookings Liberal Tax Policy Center.
The president tweeted Wednesday in response to the Times article: "The real estate developers of the 1980s and 1990s, more than 30 years ago, were entitled to massive depreciation and amortization which, if they were under construction, showed losses in almost every case. Many was non-monetary. Sometimes referred to as a "tax shelter", you get it by building, or even buying. You have always wanted to post tax losses … almost all real estate developers have done – and have often renegotiated with banks, that was sport. In addition, very old published information is highly inaccurate work on Fake News! "
Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the New York Times' history, the tax returns themselves, as well as information such as those IRS transcripts (which are a summary of tax returns), are protected by federal law. If the newspaper got this information from an IRS employee, that employee would have big problems if he was identified.
Could the editors and reporters of the New York Times be prosecuted for publishing this information?
Subsection (a) (3) of the Act makes it an offense for any person who receives a tax return or unlawfully disclosed return information to publish that statement or information. But we do not know if the publication ban imposed by a media could survive the challenge of the First Amendment.
What we do know is that in previous incidents, the government has not attempted to sue the tax reporting information publisher. In 2014, the IRS agreed to pay $ 50,000 to the National Marriage Organization to settle a lawsuit after an IRS employee unlawfully disclosed the organization's tax return.
The clerk handed the tax return to Matthew Meisel, a former employee of Bain & Company, who forwarded it to the Human Rights Campaign (a political opponent of the National Marriage Organization) .
The tax return was subsequently posted on the HRC website and published by the Huffington Post. Although the IRS paid to settle the dispute, none of the individuals or organizations involved in the illegal disclosure and publication has been prosecuted.
If such a lawsuit was attempted, there was no doubt that a challenge to the First Amendment would be filed.
The courts should then answer an important question: the interests of the government in an effective tax system and those of citizens who wish to preserve the confidentiality of their financial information are inferior to the legal rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, as well as the interests public? to obtain financial information on elected representatives?
In the midst of this illegal disclosure in the New York Times, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced Monday that he would not respond to a request made by the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Richard Neal , to provide the committee with copies of tax returns filed by Trump and eight of its companies over the past six years.
Mnuchin sent a letter to Neal saying that "the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution requires that Congressional inquiries be reasonably put to the service of a legitimate legislative purpose".
The Treasury Secretary is right. Many court decisions maintain that legislative investigations must have a legitimate legislative purpose. Mnuchin says that Neal's request "lacks" such a legitimate purpose.
The court decisions supporting Mnuchin's decision include the 1957 decision in Watkins v. US, in which the Supreme Court told the commission of the non-US activities of the House that it "has no power of Congress to lay down for reasons of disclosure" the "private affairs" of the US. ;people". . "
The Neal representative asserted that the legislative goal of obtaining Trump tax returns is to examine how the IRS audits the presidents. But as Trump's legal counsel pointed out, Neal did not ask for any other president's tax returns and did not ask any questions of any kind about the IRS policy and procedures. for such audits.
Mnuchin tells Neal in his letter that he is willing to provide the Congressman with full information on "how the IRS conducts the mandatory reviews of presidents, as provided by the Internal Revenue Manual. "
If Neal's purpose was to review the way in which IRS Chairs were audited – instead of simply revealing all that embarrassed the committee in Trump's tax returns – information on policies and procedures The IRS would be the only piece of information that the House committee would need.
The Treasury Department has therefore put the Democrats in the House in check for the moment. It will probably be up to the courts to see who succeeds in defeating Trump's tax returns.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Henceforth, the interest of protecting the privacy of taxpayers justifies the opening of a government investigation to identify the author of the leak that provided Trump's tax information to the New York Times.
The IRS and the US Department of Justice should investigate how this disclosure took place, determine who did it, and prosecute anyone who violated the law.
CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE HANS VON SPAKOVSKY
[ad_2]
Source link