Would a newspaper calling for an illegal act be illegal itself?
<p>I read this quote in a Guardian article a while back and have been questions the legality ever since.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>You can look at Nixon’s returns at the Presidential Tax History Project. You can look at Trump’s 1995 returns at the New York Times. If you can somehow see Trump’s later returns, feel free to send copies along to our offices at 222 Broadway, New York.  </p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is the last part of this that is of interest</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If you can somehow see Trump’s later returns, feel free to send copies along to our offices</p>
</blockquote>

<p>According to law.cornell.edu</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(c)  Disclosure of returns and return information to designee of taxpayer ---------------------------- 
  The Secretary may, subject to such requirements and conditions as he may prescribe by regulations, disclose the return of any taxpayer, or return information with respect to such taxpayer, to such person or persons as the taxpayer may designate in a request for or consent to such disclosure, or to any other person at the taxpayer’s request to the extent necessary to comply with a request for information or assistance made by the taxpayer to such other person. However, return information shall not be disclosed to such person or persons if the Secretary determines that such disclosure would seriously impair Federal tax administration.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Now, according to California Law, actively encouraging/calling for the committing of a crime can be considered a crime itself. To me, asking someone to divulge confidential information is calling for the committal of a crime. </p>

<p>Issue of my post: I only know the California Law because that's what google gave me first. </p>

<p>In the US there is a crime of "aiding and abetting" a crime, and the DOJ provides an overview of the elements <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-2474-elements-aiding-and-abetting" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>. One of the requirements for conviction is that the accused know of the (intended) crime. Even an overt exhortation "You should go commit that crime" would not constitute aiding and abetting, since you do not know that a person is likely to thereby commit the crime; nor do you facilitate the crime. "Aiding and abetting" law <em>is</em> kind of murky, but the text you cite does not adcocate breaking the law. A contrary consideration is the First Amendment, which allows a newspaper to make a political statement that some might interpret as advocating commission of a crime. The Guardian might, however, run afoul of the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/27/part/2/crossheading/inchoate-offences" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Serious Crime Act 2007</a> section 46, and there isn't a First Amendment defense. In the case of the particular quote, it is not a crime to publish a person's tax return, even without their consent (the restrictions are on the government releasing tax returns); so they wouldn't have aided and abetted a crime.</p>

<p>There are several issues here:</p>

<ol>
<li>The law you quote tells you when it is allowed for the IRS to disclose this information. Of itself, it doesn't prohibit disclosure except by implication.</li>
<li>It certainly doesn't, on the face of it, make disclosure a criminal matter. That is, if my return were disclosed I could sue for damages but it is not clear if the state could prosecute a crime.</li>
<li>It only applies to the IRS.  A person who is not an employee or agent of the IRS is not so restricted.</li>
<li>Someone who is in possession of the return may or may not have received the documents in a confidential situation. If they have and they pass them to the newspaper then Mr Trump could sue that person: the paper, however, is not bound by such confidence. If they have the documents outside a situation of confidence (e.g., they found them in Mr Trump's trash) then there are no holds barred.</li>
</ol>

tax-law