Tiedemann

Tiedemann v. Superior Court

Good Law
148 Cal. Rptr. 242·83 Cal. App. 3d 918
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 17, 197842924California2,718 words

Opinion

Opinion

Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, Jay R. Martin, Clinton A. Johnson, Roy H. Ikeda, Christine Helwick and John C. Siegel for Real Party in Interest.

OPINION

RACANELLI, P.J.

In this proceeding we consider the question whether an informer's communication to an enforcement agency of the United States Treasury Department concerning a possible perpetration of a tax fraud falls within the scope of absolute privilege under the provisions of section 47, subdivision 2, of the Civil Code. [1] We conclude for the reasons which we discuss that the statutory privilege applies immunizing the informer from liability in a defamation suit based upon such communication.

The petition seeking relief in mandamus and prohibition stems from the following sequence of events as reflected in the record before us: On December 11, 1973, petitioner Tiedemann, a disgruntled former business associate of real party in interest Nair, confidentially informed agents of the intelligence division of the federal Internal Revenue Service that Nair (1) failed to report taxable income and overstated allowable deductions in connection with certain mutual business and securities transactions and (2) was obliged to terminate…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.