Kathryn Zdan, EA
Editorial Director

Minnesota state representative Drew Christensen (R-Prior Lake) has penned a bill banning Arie Luyendyk, Jr. from the Land of 10,000 Lakes.¹

Even if you don't watch the reality show "The Bachelor," you're probably at least aware of the premise: One man chooses a bride from 25 female contestants that he whittles down over the course of the season. This year, the Bachelor Arie Luyendyk caused a scene when he proposed to his final selection Becca Kufrin from Prior Lake, Minnesota, but then dumped her on live television and proposed instead to the first runner-up.

Nobody messes with Rep. Christensen's constituents. He immediately turned to Twitter where he promised that in exchange for a thousand re-Tweets, he would author a bill banning Luyendyk from the state. He got 11,000 re-Tweets.

Christensen is a man of his word. The very brief "Bachelor bill" reads:

A bill for an act relating to state government; adopting a right to live free from the presence of Arie Luyendyk, Jr.; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statues, chapter 1.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. (1.512) FREEDOM FROM ARIE LUYENDYK, JR.
The state of Minnesota hereby adopts a policy of zero tolerance of Arie Luyendyk, Jr. from season 22 of the The Bachelor. It is state policy that every person in the state has a right to live free from the presence of Arie Luyendyk, Jr. in the state.

More concerning than the time a state representative wasted in crafting joke legislation to boost the spirits of the woman who has now been named the next Bachelorette is the fact that "The Bachelor" has been on the air for 22 years.

Mike Giangrande, J.D., LL.M.
Federal Tax Editor

No, not that Gandhi. The IRS sought, and was granted, a permanent injunction against Gandhi Health Career Services, LLC (Gandhi) for unpaid employment taxes.¹ Gandhi is a private career school based in Maryland and provides training for students to become certified nurse's assistants, phlebotomy technicians, and pharmacy technicians.

The IRS sought the injunction due to Gandhi's repeated failure to file employment tax returns and pay employment taxes. The injunction prevents Gandhi from transferring, disbursing, assigning any money, property, or assets, or paying any creditor until the required federal tax deposits have been fully made. The injunction also requires Gandhi to post and keep posted in one or more conspicuous places on Gandhi's business premises a copy of the court's findings and the permanent injunction.

The court's ordered injunction against Gandhi makes one wonder whether yet another career school is destined to go out of business. In the last couple years, we have seen higher profile career schools close, such as ITT Tech and Corinthian Colleges, leaving many students stranded with student loans and incomplete coursework.

Kathryn Zdan, EA
Editorial Director

In May 2015, Judith Barrigas called the IRS with a question and spoke with agent Jimmy Forsythe for almost an hour.

As they spoke, Barrigas's cell phone suddenly started blowing up with calls and texts from numbers she didn't recognize. After ending the call with Forsythe, Barrigas realized what had happened: Her phone call with Forsythe (which, of course, included personal information like her cell phone number) had been broadcast live over the Howard Stern Show to millions of listeners.¹

Forsythe had called in to the Howard Stern Show and was on hold when he took the call from Barrigas. No one is sure how the two calls got crossed, but at some point, the producers at the show realized they were listening in on a private conversation that might make for good radio, so they continued to broadcast the phone call.

Needless to say, Barrigas was extremely upset and in early 2017 filed a suit in U.S. District Court against the IRS, Howard Stern, and his production company for invasion of privacy and negligence, seeking compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and interest.

But a judge ruled recently that Barrigas's privacy and negligence claims didn't hold up because there was no "unreasonable, substantial, or serious intrusion into highly personal information."² Her name and Social Security number weren't disclosed, although her telephone number was (which is also publicly listed).