Posted on 02/15/2017 4:24:18 PM PST by nickcarraway
An IRS agent called in to the radio show and was put on hold. Then … Donald Trump never did sue The New York Times for revealing he took a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns. He threatened, but to date, no lawsuit has come. That leaves some unanswered questions about the legality of a media outlet disclosing one's tax information, since there are many statutes that broadly guard the confidentiality of tax returns. Can Howard Stern fill the void?
On Monday, Stern was sued by a woman named Judith Barrigas, whose tax information was disseminated in the oddest way.
According to her complaint filed in Massachusetts federal court, she called the IRS's service center on May 19, 2015, to discuss how the tax agency had applied prior year liabilities to her tax refund. She got connected to Jimmy Forsythe, an IRS agent.
Before the two connected, Forsythe had called in to The Howard Stern Show using another phone line. While on hold, Forsythe took Barrigas' call and proceeded to spend 45 minutes with her discussing her tax case. Apparently, during this conversation, someone at Stern's show heard what was happening and decided to air the discussion live on satellite radio.
"While on the phone with Agent Forsythe, Mrs. Barrigas suddenly began to receive a barrage of text messages and phone calls from unknown callers/individuals," states the complaint. "The text messages were informing Mrs. Barrigas that her personal information and phone number was being aired live on The Stern Show."
The lawsuit says that the phone call in question can still be accessed on the internet, and after what happened, Forsythe was put on administrative leave. Barrigas claims the "outrageous violation" of her privacy has resulted in difficulty finding employment, anxiety, loss of sleep and irregular eating patterns.
She is suing the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act and for an unlawful disclosure of her tax return.
But she's also asserting negligence and an invasion of her privacy against Stern and his show.
"The defendants breached their duty of reasonable care by broadcasting the private phone conversation between Mrs. Barrigas and the IRS on May 19, 2015, and thereby publicly disseminating private tax return and identity information of Mrs. Barrigas’s to over one million people worldwide," states the lawsuit demanding compensatory and punitive damages.
In Bartnicki v. Vopper, the Supreme Court protected a radio broadcaster who disclosed the contents of an illegally intercepted communication. That case turned on a media outlet's lawful obtainment of tapes and the First Amendment. Here, the IRS agent called in, but arguably there wasn't much that was newsworthy about Barrigas' tax situation. Plus, it all happened live.
Now Stern and the government under Trump are co-defendants in a suit over tax disclosures. THR will provide updates on this case as it develops. In the meantime, here's the full complaint.
Stern won’t lose this.
P.S. -- It's likely that the reason Trump didn't sue the NYT over the disclosure of his tax return information from the 1990s was that the Times got the information through a legitimate source and therefore cannot be liable for publicizing it.
He’s pretty careful about saying stuff that could get him in legal trouble, this is surprising.
“Stern won’t lose this.”
I agree. Unless she was a tax cheat, how can she justify a claim of “difficulty finding employment”? Why didn’t she claim “loss of libido” as well? /s;)
And since when are IRS agents allowed to call talk shows on government time? I thought the poor dears said they were understaffed?
How do you figure? Seriously, this woman never consented to a public release of her private information. This highly private conversation was recorded without her knowledge or conscent, and then was publically broadcast on a "for profit" media source without her knowledge or conscent.
. This is the same as placing a recording device in your home, recording a conversation with a Govt entity, and then KNOWING that personal and private information was in that recording - publically airing that private conversation for your personal financial gain.
. The IRS agent is likely facing both a loss of his job and felony charges (Fed employees are held personally liable while conducting their job) and Howard Stern for disseminating confidential material.
So the IRS has the right to publicly broadcast phone calls with them without permission?
He’s Howard Stern. He can afford the best lawyers.
Agree. Stern won’t lose unless the local law requires consent of both parties to record a conversation. He could reasonably assume that someone who places a call to the show has consented to be on the air. This happens all the time on local radio shows where the morning hosts “punk” an unsuspecting person who they dial on the air.
The woman probably has a better claim against the IRS agent but he will no doubt plead ignorance as to the conference call function.
He could have taped it and redacted the personal information. Even though he didn’t call the woman he knew that was out of bounds, as no one knows the boundaries better than Stern.
The IRS guy should go to prison.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.