With regards to the leaked tax returns of Donald Trump, Mark Joseph Stern of Slate runs interference for the New York Times and wrote an article claiming that:
"The Times published portions of tax returns from state filings in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Federal law simply doesn’t punish the disclosure of state tax documents. For that matter, neither does relevant state law: New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut do not have any parallel statutes governing unauthorized publication of tax returns. The Times disclosures, in other words, were perfectly legal."
Perfectly legal, huh? You sure about that? See, this is the thing about tax law. Just when you think you're right…Section 1825 of the New York Tax Code states:
"Any person who violates the provisions of subdivision…of section six hundred ninety-seven… shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
New York Tax Law Section 697(e)*, makes it illegal for a person to whom tax return information was furnished to then divulge that return in any manner, and that is for personal returns. So, although 697(e) talks mostly about New York Dept of Tax personnel, it does have some catch-all language that would potentially cover the New York Times.
Stern makes the blanket statement:"Federal law simply doesn’t punish the disclosure of state tax documents. For that matter, neither does relevant state law: New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut do not have any parallel statutes governing unauthorized publication of tax returns. The Times disclosures, in other words, were perfectly legal."
Well, I wouldn't even be too sure about that. 26 USC 6103 "Confidentially and disclosure of returns and return information." I could see a prosecutor interpreting this to mean that the disclosure of any tax return information as defined in Section 6103b(2)(a) to be a violation. And because state tax returns reference a Federal Adjusted Gross income figure, this could satisfy the requirement.
I am not making a claim that there is a clear cut case of criminality on behalf of the Times. While there may be First Amendment defenses to the publication of Mr. Trump's returns, the claim that what the Times did was "perfectly legal" is not accurate, nor would it be advice neither I, my boss, nor our firm's malpractice carrier would want to give a client.
There are State and Federal prohibitions against disclosures the Times made. Yes, it is unknown if criminal charges against the Times would survive due to both First Amendment concerns and the practical political considerations of such a prosecution, but this is a far cry from "perfectly legal". The corollary to "just because someone is prosecuted doesn't mean they broke the law" is "just because someone won't be prosecuted, doesn't mean a law wasn't broken."
* * *
*697 (e) Secrecy requirement and penalties for violation.–(1) Except in accordance with proper judicial order or as otherwise provided by law, it shall be unlawful for the commissioner, any officer or employee of the department, any person engaged or retained by such department on an independent contract basis, any depositary to which any return may be delivered as provided in subsection (h) or (i) of this section, any officer or employee of such depositary, or any person who, pursuant to this section, is permitted to inspect any report or return or to whom a copy, an abstract or a portion of any report or return is furnished, or to whom any information contained in any report or return is furnished, to divulge or make known in any manner the amount of income or any particulars set forth or disclosed in any report or return required under this article, under section one hundred seventy-one-a or section one hundred seventy-one-h of this chapter, or under this article and article eighteen of the labor law.
Also, here are 5 reasons why Donald Trump (or any other presidential candidate) shouldn't release their tax returns.
