Key House Democrat Formally Asks For Trump's Tax Returns

[IJTSSG]

It's clear that 26 USC 6103 allows a couple committees to request any tax return. What isn't clear and will be interesting to watch unfold is:
1. Will the Sec. of Treasury find the request reasonable and grant the request or will he say the request is politically motivated and deny it?
2. How much, if any, of the return will they be able to make public? The law says that they have to be in "closed executive session" and they need the taxpayers permission to disclose information outside of that session.

Of course, watching the TDS suffering fucktards come apart at the seams will be the most fun of all.

 

[HomerJS]

Since the request went to the IRS commissioner Treasury Sec does not have standing to sue. Also I don't think TS can order the IRS comm to disobey the law, which in itself is unlawful.

 

[fskimospy]

It's clear that 26 USC 6103 allows a couple committees to request any tax return. What isn't clear and will be interesting to watch unfold is:
1. Will the Sec. of Treasury find the request reasonable and grant the request or will he say the request is politically motivated and deny it?

It doesn't matter if he thinks it is politically motivated or not. He has no legal way to refuse.

2. How much, if any, of the return will they be able to make public? The law says that they have to be in "closed executive session" and they need the taxpayers permission to disclose information outside of that session.

Of course, watching the TDS suffering fucktards come apart at the seams will be the most fun of all.

That is not what the law says. The law says that the information must be given to the committee in closed session but after that the committee can release it to the full House if they want to regardless of whether or not the taxpayer gives them permission. Then if they wanted to they could simply read his tax returns from front to back on the House floor and there's nothing Trump could do about it.

It would be pretty funny to watch all the elderly Trump supporters have a rage stroke while that happened though, haha.

 

[Jhhnn]

It doesn't matter if he thinks it is politically motivated or not. He has no legal way to refuse.



That is not what the law says. The law says that the information must be given to the committee in closed session but after that the committee can release it to the full House if they want to regardless of whether or not the taxpayer gives them permission. Then if they wanted to they could simply read his tax returns from front to back on the House floor and there's nothing Trump could do about it.

It would be pretty funny to watch all the elderly Trump supporters have a rage stroke while that happened though, haha.

I don't think that would be acting in the spirit of the law.

 

[interchange]

I don't think that would be acting in the spirit of the law.

Right. If the law gives Congress that power so that it can oversee that the IRS is executing their laws and that they can evaluate the effects of their laws, then using it to obtain information about a President for political purpose conflicts. But even if it doesn't conflict, the fact that a power is expressly granted by a law doesn't make a law immune to challenge. It's basics about our system of government. We pass any damn law that we want, and it isn't until there is a case in which the law applies where someone has a legal argument that a law is not constitutional that the judiciary gets to weigh in. But instead of striking down a law or part of one, they may also clarify the bounds for which a law applies for which intent is important. How important of course depends on the judge.

I think actually that this would provoke a very important legal test. If permitted without challenge, it would mean Congress could request and publicize the returns of all their political opponents selectively, etc. Clearly such a power could be abused in ways we should not permit.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It's clear that 26 USC 6103 allows a couple committees to request any tax return. What isn't clear and will be interesting to watch unfold is:
1. Will the Sec. of Treasury find the request reasonable and grant the request or will he say the request is politically motivated and deny it?
2. How much, if any, of the return will they be able to make public? The law says that they have to be in "closed executive session" and they need the taxpayers permission to disclose information outside of that session.

Of course, watching the TDS suffering fucktards come apart at the seams will be the most fun of all.

They will be leaked, I’ll avoid the ethics discussion about that regarding governance.
Weird how you appear to be okay not knowing how and whom the President makes his income from.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Right. If the law gives Congress that power so that it can oversee that the IRS is executing their laws and that they can evaluate the effects of their laws, then using it to obtain information about a President for political purpose conflicts. But even if it doesn't conflict, the fact that a power is expressly granted by a law doesn't make a law immune to challenge. It's basics about our system of government. We pass any damn law that we want, and it isn't until there is a case in which the law applies where someone has a legal argument that a law is not constitutional that the judiciary gets to weigh in. But instead of striking down a law or part of one, they may also clarify the bounds for which a law applies for which intent is important. How important of course depends on the judge.

I think actually that this would provoke a very important legal test. If permitted without challenge, it would mean Congress could request and publicize the returns of all their political opponents selectively, etc. Clearly such a power could be abused in ways we should not permit.

Here’s the thing the overwhelming majority of Congress critters release their taxes.
Shit Hillary even released 10 or 20 years worth in a searchable data base.

 

[fskimospy]

Right. If the law gives Congress that power so that it can oversee that the IRS is executing their laws and that they can evaluate the effects of their laws, then using it to obtain information about a President for political purpose conflicts.

Nothing in the law states what purposes Congress is allowed to use the information for so there is no conflict.

But even if it doesn't conflict, the fact that a power is expressly granted by a law doesn't make a law immune to challenge. It's basics about our system of government. We pass any damn law that we want, and it isn't until there is a case in which the law applies where someone has a legal argument that a law is not constitutional that the judiciary gets to weigh in. But instead of striking down a law or part of one, they may also clarify the bounds for which a law applies for which intent is important. How important of course depends on the judge.

I am sure that people will sue over it and try these types of novel arguments but I am very confident they will fail. Congress doesn't even have to give a reason why they are requesting tax returns, the power is basically absolute.

I mean maybe if Congress were requesting all the tax returns of black people or something it would run afoul of the 14th amendment but other than things like that I'm struggling to even imagine a set of circumstances where anything would prevent them from getting the returns. The law is very clear, and its clear intent is that Congress should have access to any and all tax information it wants.

I think actually that this would provoke a very important legal test. If permitted without challenge, it would mean Congress could request and publicize the returns of all their political opponents selectively, etc. Clearly such a power could be abused in ways we should not permit.

Well sure, you could change the law - that's the answer. There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents Congress from acting unethically with their powers.

The only reason tax returns are secret as it stands now is because of the law, the very same one that gives Congress the power to inspect anyone's returns, in fact. Congress could repeal it and make everyone's tax returns public tomorrow if they wanted. There's no Constitutional protections for data in your taxes.

 

[kage69]

Honestly, I've never understood that argument. Isn't the filer supposed to return truthful and accurate tax returns? If so, why would an audit be any impediment to seeing them? What would one under audit be afraid of being seen by Congress?

Of course, this is assuming truthfulness and accuracy from Trump......LOL! A man who has repeatedly lied about where his father was born, despite undeniable evidence to the contrary.

I posted that partially in jest, partially in reference to him trying to sell that pathetic excuse during the election run up. I was expecting an excuse more updated, more believable.

Heard him on the radio this morning, when asked about the request he rolled out the audit excuse with no hesitation, "I'm not inclined to." Hahaha wrong dipshit

Panic Trump, writhe like the worm you are at the thought of transparency. I love it.

 

[IJTSSG]

It doesn't matter if he thinks it is politically motivated or not. He has no legal way to refuse.



That is not what the law says. The law says that the information must be given to the committee in closed session but after that the committee can release it to the full House if they want to regardless of whether or not the taxpayer gives them permission. Then if they wanted to they could simply read his tax returns from front to back on the House floor and there's nothing Trump could do about it.

It would be pretty funny to watch all the elderly Trump supporters have a rage stroke while that happened though, haha.

I didn't clearly communicate my intent. We're mostly in agreement. I think the law is pretty clearly written although with the number of times that the "closed executive session" appear in the law it does make me wonder if the real intent was to allow for release to the whole Congress. That said what I was trying to convey was what I'm guessing the Trump admin may do if they refuse to comply.

I don't think that would be acting in the spirit of the law.

I'm guessing that will be an argument coming out of the WH.

They will be leaked, I’ll avoid the ethics discussion about that regarding governance.
Weird how you appear to be okay not knowing how and whom the President makes his income from.

Appearances can be deceiving

 

[hal2kilo]

I posted that partially in jest, partially in reference to him trying to sell that pathetic excuse during the election run up. I was expecting an excuse more updated, more believable.

Heard him on the radio this morning, when asked about the request he rolled out the audit excuse with no hesitation, "I'm not inclined to." Hahaha wrong dipshit

Panic Trump, writhe like the worm you are at the thought of transparency. I love it.

I expect the twitter tirades/tantrums will go nuclear in the next 24 hrs.

 

[interchange]

Nothing in the law states what purposes Congress is allowed to use the information for so there is no conflict.

Intent doesn't have to be written into a law for it to be ascertained in legal arguments. For example, the court used Trump's public statements to ascertain that his travel ban was intended to discriminate against Muslims as a class. To be fair, I don't know the context of this particular law to elucidate specifically its intent.

Well sure, you could change the law - that's the answer. There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents Congress from acting unethically with their powers.

I don't think that's technically true. Article One of the Constitution defines the powers of Congress, and some uses of existing laws could certainly be seen as exceeding the scope of Congressional power. As an example, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. ruled that the Tax Act of 1894 was unconstitutional requiring the 16th Amendment to be passed to allow collection of income tax. Now...that's a relatively more specific example, and I'm not a legal scholar so there may be better ones to draw from, but it does illustrate the principle that certain uses of a law passed by Congress could exceed their authority. It's a legal test, not an ethical one.

The only reason tax returns are secret as it stands now is because of the law, the very same one that gives Congress the power to inspect anyone's returns, in fact. Congress could repeal it and make everyone's tax returns public tomorrow if they wanted. There's no Constitutional protections for data in your taxes.

Actually I think that could be challenged under the 4th Amendment. The law you are referencing giving this authority is really about protecting confidentiality. There is a lot on the books to argue that there is an expectation of privacy for that information.

 

[fskimospy]

Intent doesn't have to be written into a law for it to be ascertained in legal arguments. For example, the court used Trump's public statements to ascertain that his travel ban was intended to discriminate against Muslims as a class. To be fair, I don't know the context of this particular law to elucidate specifically its intent.

Legislative intent is only utilized by the courts when the law is unclear or there is some sort of suspicion of unconstitutional bias like in the travel ban case. In this case the language could not be clearer - the law explicitly states that Congress 'shall' (not 'may') be furnished with any tax records it requests.

Also from a practical perspective it would be bizarre if the branch of government whose duty it is to oversee the conduct of the executive branch could somehow be prevented from learning the government's own data on executive branch officials' financial conflicts of interest. If that ever were the case we would need an emergency session of Congress to pass the appropriate laws or constitutional amendments to make sure that was never the case due to the danger it poses to the country. The last two years should show that.

I don't think that's technically true. Article One of the Constitution defines the powers of Congress, and some uses of existing laws could certainly be seen as exceeding the scope of Congressional power. As an example, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. ruled that the Tax Act of 1894 was unconstitutional requiring the 16th Amendment to be passed to allow collection of income tax. Now...that's a relatively more specific example, and I'm not a legal scholar so there may be better ones to draw from, but it does illustrate the principle that certain uses of a law passed by Congress could exceed their authority. It's a legal test, not an ethical one.

Well of course laws passed by Congress can be unconstitutional but I'm struggling to think of any situation where this one would be outside of ridiculous ones like I already mentioned. All Congress is doing here is requesting that the government transfer data it already holds to another part of the government. What possible constitutional violation would there be here? It's not infringing on the powers of the executive because it's not executive branch data, it's taxpayer data.

Actually I think that could be challenged under the 4th Amendment. The law you are referencing giving this authority is really about protecting confidentiality. There is a lot on the books to argue that there is an expectation of privacy for that information.

How would members of the government accessing data already held by the government be an illegal search? The tax returns aren't a citizen's property, they are property of the government. No search is taking place so the 4th amendment doesn't apply.

 

[Jhhnn]

That is not what the law says. The law says that the information must be given to the committee in closed session but after that the committee can release it to the full House if they want to regardless of whether or not the taxpayer gives them permission. .

The law does not explicitly allow for the second part. If such were the intent, there would be no need to require a closed door session in the first place.

 

[fskimospy]

The law does not explicitly allow for the second part. If such were the intent, there would be no need to require a closed door session in the first place.

Yes it does.

Any return or return information obtained by or on behalf of such committee pursuant to the provisions of this subsection may be submitted by the committee to the Senate or the House of Representatives, or to both.

There’s zero question that it explicitly provides for release to the congress of the committee feels like it.

 

[Fern]

Yes it does.



There’s zero question that it explicitly provides for release to the congress of the committee feels like it.

You truncated the cited paragraph to omit this portion "(1), except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session "

The statute seems consistent in protecting any specific taxpayer's data from disclosure.

ATM I don't see any way Trump can fight having such committees view his tax returns. However, a strict reading of the statute only allows such committees to see his returns, and there is no language permitting them copies.

Would be interesting to see any case law on this.

----------------------------------

As to oversight, I expect a fight on that issue as well. I rather doubt that "oversight" extends to periods prior to the time of office. Here again, existing case law would be helpful.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

You truncated the cited paragraph to omit this portion "(1), except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session "

The statute seems consistent in protecting any specific taxpayer's data from disclosure.

ATM I don't see any way Trump can fight having such committees view his tax returns. However, a strict reading of the statute only allows such committees to see his returns, and there is no language permitting them copies.

Would be interesting to see any case law on this.

----------------------------------

This is false. The statute states that the returns will be furnished to the committee in closed session, after which the committee can elect to release them to the entire house or senate.

The language is not ambiguous.

As to oversight, I expect a fight on that issue as well. I rather doubt that "oversight" extends to periods prior to the time of office. Here again, existing case law would be helpful.

Fern

Why wouldn’t it?

 

[sportage]

Really? Still under audit?
Couldn't Donald make up something at little more believable like, the dog ate my tax returns?
Or....
They tasted like chicken. I thought they were chicken. Yummy Yummy.

I'd like to know, WHAT is Donald Trump so afraid of in his returns?
I mean, if we think its bad, its probably really really REALLY bad.
Just how bad?
How bad will become obvious as Trump and his cult members surrounding him tries everything they can to stop this from ever happening.
Including calling in a huge hungry dog.

 

[Fern]

This is false. The statute states that the returns will be furnished to the committee in closed session, after which the committee can elect to release them to the entire house or senate.

The language is not ambiguous.

I did not say the language was ambiguous. It is your interpretation that "furnished" means "copies" and that those copies can be retained after the session ends. I recall Repubs in their oversight capacity looking at documents at the DoJ and they were only permitted to "look" and were not allowed to keep copies. IDK the specific statute allowing the GOP committee members access then, but would like to compare that wording with the wording here.

And I do not see any language permitting a committee to release copies to the entire House or Senate without limitation. In every subparagraph permitting committees etc access the clause regarding "closed executive session" is present.

There is no point in requiring specific taxpayer data to be turned over only in closed exec session if they can then turn around and freely hand out copies outside of such session.

Edit: To be clear what I am suggesting is that Congresspersons will be provided a copy of the tax return(s) in the closed session and that at the end of that session those copies must be returned to the IRS.

Fern

 

[nOOky]

While I'm sure we'd all like to see his tax returns, I understand him not wanting to show them. I would hope if they were proof that he engaged in salacious activity that the IRS would have caught it by now. Unless he out and out lied on them, I'm sure he has someone do his taxes for him so he could plead ignorance. If I ran for President I'd likely think that my finances prior are my business and not the general public's also. Of course he doesn't say that, his first thought it to simply lie about why he doesn't. How about "I feel that my taxes are none of your business" sheesh.

 

[Fern]

Really? Still under audit?

-snip-

Well, I suppose that depends on which tax year you are referring to. But yes, he is under audit. Of that there is no doubt. I read today that standing IRS practice is to audit the President every year.

Fern

 

[umbrella39]

It would be pretty funny to watch all the elderly Trump supporters have a rage stroke while that happened though, haha.

Had to check ignored content to see who you were replying to and knew exactly who it was with this line.

Isn't it hilarious that all that crazy comes, one very slow letter at a time, from a GD flip phone...

 

[fskimospy]

I did not say the language was ambiguous. It is your interpretation that "furnished" means "copies" and that those copies can be retained after the session ends. I recall Repubs in their oversight capacity looking at documents at the DoJ and they were only permitted to "look" and were not allowed to keep copies. IDK the specific statute allowing the GOP committee members access then, but would like to compare that wording with the wording here.

That was intelligence information and there was no such law requiring the executive branch to furnish them with that information upon request, unlike here.

Under exactly what statutory authority would the secretary take back the information the law requires him to give them?

And I do not see any language permitting a committee to release copies to the entire House or Senate without limitation. In every subparagraph permitting committees etc access the clause regarding "closed executive session" is present.

I already quoted exactly the language that does that. It contains zero limitations other than it must be shared to the full house when it is also in closed session.

This is no limitation at all however as any house or senate member could simply read his tax returns into the congressional record. They would be immune from any law against such disclosure as per the constitution.

There is no point in requiring specific taxpayer data to be turned over only in closed exec session if they can then turn around and freely hand out copies outside of such session.

Edit: To be clear what I am suggesting is that Congresspersons will be provided a copy of the tax return(s) in the closed session and that at the end of that session those copies must be returned to the IRS.

Fern

I am unaware of any legal opinion that supports your idea. We should all hope you’re wrong though because it would render congressional oversight useless as tax returns can take months to properly analyze. The idea that Congress can’t hold on to what the law explicitly states must be given to them is ludicrous.

The purpose of the law is clear - congress may need access to tax information to perform their duties and the executive must provide them with it.

Regardless, none of that would stop his tax returns from getting out anyway as I already described how they could be made public 100% legally by any member who felt like it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hell- everybody knows Trump is a tax dodging scumbag. His devotees admire him for getting away with it & want to be just like him. Trump probably doesn't want to reveal his returns because he regards his methods as a trade secret.

I really don't like the idea that returns should be used for political purposes. That's another pandora's box. Dems would do well not to go there. I think it's entirely legit to use Trump's returns to understand how changes to tax law could better finance govt at the expense of those with the greatest ability to pay.

 

[pcgeek11]

nevermind