I'm not sure why you quoted me, since I don't understand the connection between your statement and mine. I also don't understand the significance of your statement. Are you suggesting that Reid broke the law? If so, could you clarify which sections/subsections you are invoking? I haven't read the entire law of course, but it would seem to prevent Reid from repeating information he had obtained from federal sources such as the IRS or FBI, none of the sections I see say anything about whether he can repeat information he obtained from private sources.
I just did
shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee or otherwise or under the provisions of this section. For purposes of this subsection, the term “officer or employee” includes a former officer or employee.
As I said
A gov't employee releasing taxpayer information
of any type is usually a crime
Perhaps you can quote the law where a gov't
employee is allowed to release tax payer information
without permission
I'm having a horrible time parsing your incomplete sentence(s). In the interests of clarifying our communication I'm going to paraphrase what I understand you to be saying. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you:
Neotrotsky: I didn't have any particular reason for quoting your earlier statement. I am indeed suggesting that Reid broke the law. I cite the following passage as the relevant statute... I reiterate my claim that for a government employee to release taxpayer information without the permission of the taxpayer is usually a crime. As such, I challenge you to cite a federal statute that would supersede the one I offered.
And now my reply:
Let us look at the entire subsection (or section or whatever) as you quoted it:
(3) no other person (or officer or employee thereof) who has or had access to returns or return information under subsection (e)(1)(D)(iii), paragraph (6), (10), (12), (16), (19), (20), or (21) of subsection (l), paragraph (2) or (4)(B) of subsection (m), orsubsection (n),
shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee or otherwise or under the provisions of this section. For purposes of this subsection, the term “officer or employee” includes a former officer or employee.
As I earlier alluded to, the subsection does not apply to a government official such as Reid who obtained tax information from a private party. If the anonymous source had truthfully said to Reid, "I saw Romney's return, and he listed zero tax liability" then Reid may indeed have broken the law. However, there is no evidence that Reid's source (assuming that it exists) cited Romney's return (why, after all, would a "Bain investor" be looking at Romney's personal tax returns?).
A review of what the law you cited defines as "return information" makes this distinction clear (
26 USC § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information | LII / Legal Information Institute
(2) Return information
The term “return information” means—
(A) 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 with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense,
By your logic, Romney's identity is just as confidential as his tax liabilities. No federal employee would be allowed to repeat Romney's name if they ever heard it as part of their official duties. In fact, of course, the law only prevents such employees from reading his name or anything else off of his tax return, not from obtaining it from other sources.
Given that I don't believe the law you cite applies to the case at hand, the need to cite a superseding law (which I doubt exists) is moot.
Assuming that an investigation opened up into whether Reid did break the law (which, for reasons stated above, I find very unlikely) Romney would have more to fear than Reid. After all, the investigation would have to demonstrate that Reid's claims were
true to show that Reid disclosed information.
As an aside, I am moderately impressed by the actual IRS agents who are indeed abiding by the law and resolutely protecting Romney's privacy (and that of everyone else). This much-maligned institution is leak-proof to a degree that other federal branches (including the national security apparatus) can only hope to be.
EDIT: I have finished reviewing each of the 13 areas of the law cited in the part you cited (but which you did not provide as requested) and indeed they all deal with official sources rather than information passed through private third parties. For example, under paragraph (12) of subsection (l) if Romney had called up Reid and showed Reid his (Romney's) tax return to prove Romney's employment status for the purposes of determining Medicare eligibility [in this hypothetical let us ignore the fact that this is not the sort of request that would typically be made to a Senator, particularly one of a different state] then Reid would be barred from disclosing this information about Romney's employment status.
