Trump cannot block tax records - Boston U Law Profs file amicus brief

BRIEF OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAWPROFESSORS SEAN J. KEALY AND JAMES J. WHEATONAS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

The thought ran through my mind as I read Donald Trump complaint against the New York District Attorney's subpoena to his accountant firm Mazars.  How does Trump claim that these records Cyrus Vance seeks are in fact his? Trump is the sole plaintiff - but he lists as Parties a string of LLC's, Trusts, and Corporations of which is variously the sole ultimate owner, beneficiary, managing member, and ultimate majority owner.   Boston University Law Profs Sean Kealy and James Wheaton develop the argument - the entities are distinct from Trump.  In his strange complaint he asserts his personal interests and the interests of the office of the President of the United States of America.

Donald Trump has claimed the tax benefits and the immunity from liability that the corporate and LLC forms has given him.  He as an individual is distinct from the companies he owns and controls.  Having claimed the legal benefits - of, for example the bankruptcy laws - he is estopped from claiming he is identical to them.  His business own those records.  The companies don't have the privacy interests that a natural person does.  It's a matter of state law.

Wheaton and Kealy develop their argument in this way:
MOST RECORDS SUBJECT TO THE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA ARE NOT PETITIONER’S RECORDS AT ALL ................................................ 4 A. The Covered Entity Records Subject to the Subpoena Do Not Belong to Petitioner ........................................................... 6 1. State Law Governs Ownership of the Records, and the Records of the Covered Entities Are Not Petitioner’s.... 7 2. The Covered Entities Are Legal Persons Distinct from Petitioner, and Petitioner Has No Right to Assert Claims That Belong Solely to the Entities .......................................... 11 3. Having Consistently and Aggressively Benefitted from His Legal Separation from the Covered Entities, Petitioner Should Not Now Be Permitted to Ignore Their Separateness .................a. In Other Proceedings, Petitioner Has Affirmatively Asserted the Separate Status of the Covered Entities as a Shield, and Explicitly Denied That the Entities are His “Alter Ego” ........................................... 13 b. Petitioner Has Used the Separate Status of the Covered Entities to Benefit from the Federal Bankruptcy System ................................................. 16 c. Petitioner Has Received Presumed Tax and Financial Benefits from Asserting and Maintaining the Separateness of the Covered Entities .... 17