[Cboldt]

Read the entire statute. It's a stretch to say that "returns" or "return information" is meant to include filings made to a state. In the definition, note the phrase "furnished to, or collected by the Secretary" (this narrows the scope), and "liability ... under this title."

See part (d) too.

The confidentiality provision applies to what is disclosed to the feds. The state's sharing of information disclosed to the state under state law, between state agencies, is outside of this statute.

Again, I'm not saying no law was broken, but this law was not.

[Oldexpat]

The state probably has similar laws.

[Oldexpat]

The state probably has similar laws.

[justlurking]

Again, I'm not saying no law was broken, but this law was not.

The problem with your interpretation is that it's the same information

The first 18 lines on the NY return is the same as the federal return, and line 18 even says: "This is your federal adjusted gross income".

But, setting aside that argument -- an interesting thought just occurred to me:

Back in September, Baquet said he would risk jail to publish this information. The article speculates whether he already had this in hand.

What if he got trolled by Trump -- who sent this information to the NY Times after Baquet's comments, knowing they couldn't resist. Now, he has Baquet by his private parts.

Here's why I'm suspicious: the NY Times wouldn't have taken this bait if they couldn't authenticate it. So, they went to Trump's former accountant -- who apparently didn't hesitate to do so.

My father was a CPA. He would have never offered that information without explicit authorization from a client. It's a violation of their code of professional conduct.

[itsahoot]

I'm not saying no law was broken, but this law was not.

You seem to be taking great pains to not say what you are saying.