House Files Lawsuit Seeking Disclosure of Trump Tax Returns

[OscarLevant]

"No legislative purpose", Trump's officials say. Really?

House Files Lawsuit Seeking Disclosure of Trump Tax Returns - The New York Times

The House sued the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service on Tuesday, demanding access to President Trump’s tax returns and escalating a fight with an administration that has repeatedly dismissed as illegitimate its attempt to obtain the financial records.

The lawsuit moves the dispute into the federal courts after months of sniping between the Democratic-led House Ways and Means Committee, which requested and then subpoenaed the returns, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

I see repubs on this forum crying "unconstitutional", and "if they get Trump's tax forms, you're next" ad nauseum, yet repubs used the same law to get tax forms, lots of them, back during Obama.

Such hypocrisy on the right.


Funny, Republicans used the Same 1924 Law a few years ago -- AND Got the Tax Returns


Funny, Republicans used the Same 1924 Law a few years ago -- AND Got the Tax Returns

 

[Roadvirus]

Beats doing real work I guess

 

[Moon]

"No legislative purpose", Trump's officials say. Really?




I see repubs on this forum crying "unconstitutional", and "if they get Trump's tax forms, you're next" ad nauseum, yet repubs used the same law to get tax forms, lots of them, back during Obama.

Such hypocrisy on the right.


Funny, Republicans used the Same 1924 Law a few years ago -- AND Got the Tax Returns


Funny, Republicans used the Same 1924 Law a few years ago -- AND Got the Tax Returns

One difference from your DailyKos piece (from Huffpo) is that the previous committee used the law to get the returns of organizations applying for tax exempt status, or the returns of individuals or political opponents. These organizations had complaints about the handling of their applications, which was admitted to by Lois Lerner.

The current committee is seeking the returns of the sitting President, which makes it seem like more of a separation of powers case.

I think there are significant enough differences between the two cases that they really shouldn’t be viewed equivalently.

 

[Perotista]

"No legislative purpose", Trump's officials say. Really?




I see repubs on this forum crying "unconstitutional", and "if they get Trump's tax forms, you're next" ad nauseum, yet repubs used the same law to get tax forms, lots of them, back during Obama.

Such hypocrisy on the right.


Funny, Republicans used the Same 1924 Law a few years ago -- AND Got the Tax Returns


Funny, Republicans used the Same 1924 Law a few years ago -- AND Got the Tax Returns

I totally agree that there is no legislative purpose. All this is is the democrats trying to find a gotcha. Nothing more, nothing less. Purely, 100% partisan political. That being said, it does look like the law is on their side. I would think this goes all the way to the SCOTUS.

I also think the Democrats have forgot what the word voluntary means. I suggest they look it up in the dictionary.

 

[ludin]

I totally agree that there is no legislative purpose. All this is is the democrats trying to find a gotcha. Nothing more, nothing less. Purely, 100% partisan political. That being said, it does look like the law is on their side. I would think this goes all the way to the SCOTUS.

I also think the Democrats have forgot what the word voluntary means. I suggest they look it up in the dictionary.

The question is will an objective judge actually do their job?
i doubt it. this will go to the supreme court. 5-4 split as always.

 

[Perotista]

The question is will an objective judge actually do their job?
i doubt it. this will go to the supreme court. 5-4 split as always.

Most likely.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I totally agree that there is no legislative purpose. All this is is the democrats trying to find a gotcha. Nothing more, nothing less. Purely, 100% partisan political. That being said, it does look like the law is on their side. I would think this goes all the way to the SCOTUS.[/quote

Odd thing to think, given that there's absolutely no credible evidence of that.

I also think the Democrats have forgot what the word voluntary means. I suggest they look it up in the dictionary.

I suggest you read the law.

 

[ludin]

Most likely.

we all know their excuse is bogus and they are attempting to circumvent the constitution and make it
a requirement that the president disclose their tax returns.

that is exactly how i would argue it in court.
i would argue that for the past 20 -30 years that the current process of vetting a person tax returns as president
has been perfectly ok according to congress so why now all of a sudden is it a problem?

also a point of note is that it was an obama administration IRS that were responsible of vetting trumps tax returns.

if they would have found something they would have sounded the alarm.

 

[Lutherf]

"No legislative purpose", Trump's officials say. Really?




I see repubs on this forum crying "unconstitutional", and "if they get Trump's tax forms, you're next" ad nauseum, yet repubs used the same law to get tax forms, lots of them, back during Obama.

Such hypocrisy on the right.


Funny, Republicans used the Same 1924 Law a few years ago -- AND Got the Tax Returns


Funny, Republicans used the Same 1924 Law a few years ago -- AND Got the Tax Returns

Here's the difference in 2013, there had already been released information indicating that the IRS was targeting the applications of suspected conservative 501(c)(6) organizations and intentionally delaying their approval. That creates a definable and reasonable "legislative purpose". Furthermore, those returns were for non-profit organizations which, by law, file returns which are a public record.

One more thing, you linked to DailyKos. Why didn't you link to the HuffPo article which was the basis for the DK "diary"? Are you forming your own opinions on these issues or just going from site to site pulling the ideas of other people that strike you as being relevant at the moment?

 

[Condor060]

"No legislative purpose", Trump's officials say. Really?




I see repubs on this forum crying "unconstitutional", and "if they get Trump's tax forms, you're next" ad nauseum, yet repubs used the same law to get tax forms, lots of them, back during Obama.

Such hypocrisy on the right.


Funny, Republicans used the Same 1924 Law a few years ago -- AND Got the Tax Returns


Funny, Republicans used the Same 1924 Law a few years ago -- AND Got the Tax Returns

Just a political show. Never going to happen and they know it will never happen as it has already been ruled upon by the SCOTUS.

All request for tax returns and return information must have a legitimate legislative purpose. All legislative investigations must be related to, an in, furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress
Watkins vs United States 354 U.S. 178, 187

And that task must be squarely within the relevant committee's jurisdiction
United States vs Patterson 206, F.2d

The Constitution does not grant Congress a standalone investigation power. Congress can conduct investigations only to further some other legislative power enumerated in the Constitution
Kilbourn vs Thompson 103 U.S. 168

There is no congressional power to expose, for the sake of exposure, the private affairs of individuals
Watkins vs United States 354 U.S. 178, 187

 

[Perotista]

I totally agree that there is no legislative purpose. All this is is the democrats trying to find a gotcha. Nothing more, nothing less. Purely, 100% partisan political. That being said, it does look like the law is on their side. I would think this goes all the way to the SCOTUS.[/quote

Odd thing to think, given that there's absolutely no credible evidence of that.

I suggest you read the law.

I said the law was on the Democrat's side. Even so that doesn't change this from a very partisan political ploy to try to get dirt or a gotcha to use against Trump in the upcoming election via his tax returns. Whether or not with existing law a presidential candidate release of tax returns is voluntary, not mandatory.

This is nothing more than a partisan political shenanigan by the Democratic House with the law on their side which states it's perfectly legal for them to pull such a very partisan political shenanigan for purely, 100% attempt to gain a partisan political advantage.

 

[Perotista]

we all know their excuse is bogus and they are attempting to circumvent the constitution and make it
a requirement that the president disclose their tax returns.

that is exactly how i would argue it in court.
i would argue that for the past 20 -30 years that the current process of vetting a person tax returns as president
has been perfectly ok according to congress so why now all of a sudden is it a problem?

also a point of note is that it was an obama administration IRS that were responsible of vetting trumps tax returns.

if they would have found something they would have sounded the alarm.

I didn't think of that. I do remember the IRS scandal to thwart Romney and conservative political pacs lead by Lois Lerner.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I said the law was on the Democrat's side. Even so that doesn't change this from a very partisan political ploy to try to get dirt or a gotcha to use against Trump in the upcoming election via his tax returns. Whether or not with existing law a presidential candidate release of tax returns is voluntary, not mandatory.

This is nothing more than a partisan political shenanigan by the Democratic House with the law on their side which states it's perfectly legal for them to pull such a very partisan political shenanigan for purely, 100% attempt to gain a partisan political advantage.

Oh, OK. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

I don't see this as partisan, but rather as the House doing exactly what they're supposed to: oversight over the executive, esp. in terms of conflicts of interest vis a vis his businesses and foreign policy. Nothing 'gotcha' about it.

twump has a lifelong history of shady deals, mob associations, money-laundering, cheating contractors and tax fraud.

No shenanigans here whatsoever.

 

[Perotista]

Oh, OK. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

I don't see this as partisan, but rather as the House doing exactly what they're supposed to: oversight over the executive, esp. in terms of conflicts of interest vis a vis his businesses and foreign policy. Nothing 'gotcha' about it.

twump has a lifelong history of shady deals, mob associations, money-laundering, cheating contractors and tax fraud.

No shenanigans here whatsoever.

You and me look at this completely different. That's okay. If the Democrats hadn't made not releasing his tax returns such a big deal during the campaign and after, I might believe you. The way the Dems acted, talked, all the back door ways being made by democrats in different states to get hold of Trump's tax returns leads me to the conclusion this is nothing but partisan politics looking for a gotcha. This is what I base my opinion on. Not oversight.

Trump may indeed have a bunch of things in his tax returns that may or may not point to something criminal. But as long as we have no law stating presidential candidate have to release their tax returns, it remain voluntary. The voters knew Trump wasn't going to release them long before the election took place. Apparently that didn't influence their votes.

Now I'm one who believes in the old adage what is good for goose is good for the gander. Let's either make it the law all candidates running for federal office must release an X number of years tax return or no one has to. I'd be fine with that. Now that will never happen as those from both parties running for the House and Senate don't want to release their tax returns either.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

You and me look at this completely different. That's okay. If the Democrats hadn't made not releasing his tax returns such a big deal during the campaign and after, I might believe you. The way the Dems acted, talked, all the back door ways being made by democrats in different states to get hold of Trump's tax returns leads me to the conclusion this is nothing but partisan politics looking for a gotcha. This is what I base my opinion on. Not oversight.

Trump may indeed have a bunch of things in his tax returns that may or may not point to something criminal. But as long as we have no law stating presidential candidate have to release their tax returns, it remain voluntary. The voters knew Trump wasn't going to release them long before the election took place. Apparently that didn't influence their votes.

Now I'm one who believes in the old adage what is good for goose is good for the gander. Let's either make it the law all candidates running for federal office must release an X number of years tax return or no one has to. I'd be fine with that. Now that will never happen as those from both parties running for the House and Senate don't want to release their tax returns either.

twump's history demonstrates that concerns about him being beholden to foreign entities and compromised to be quite valid. Hell, he lied through his teeth about the twump Tower Moscow project, he's been fined for money-laundering, he's been in REALLY shady real estate deals and he operates with a LOT of shell corps. There is a legit interest in seeing his taxes to understand these issues better. It's what congress is supposed to do.

We do have a law that states the IRS SHALL release them on demand, no questions asked.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

 

[OscarLevant]

Just a political show. Never going to happen and they know it will never happen as it has already been ruled upon by the SCOTUS.

All request for tax returns and return information must have a legitimate legislative purpose. All legislative investigations must be related to, an in, furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress
Watkins vs United States 354 U.S. 178, 187

And that task must be squarely within the relevant committee's jurisdiction
United States vs Patterson 206, F.2d

The Constitution does not grant Congress a standalone investigation power. Congress can conduct investigations only to further some other legislative power enumerated in the Constitution
Kilbourn vs Thompson 103 U.S. 168

There is no congressional power to expose, for the sake of exposure, the private affairs of individuals
Watkins vs United States 354 U.S. 178, 187

The IRS has never refused a 6103 request

 

[Condor060]

The IRS has never refused a 6103 request

Maybe because the request followed the guidelines set up by the SCOTUS 30 years ago. They turned down the one for Trump

 

[justabubba]

I totally agree that there is no legislative purpose. All this is is the democrats trying to find a gotcha. Nothing more, nothing less. Purely, 100% partisan political. That being said, it does look like the law is on their side. I would think this goes all the way to the SCOTUS.

I also think the Democrats have forgot what the word voluntary means. I suggest they look it up in the dictionary.

to me, it would seem what the congress learns from tRump's returns could be determinative whether to pass legislation to compel presidential candidates to release their FTRs as a condition of appearing on the national ballot

 

[justabubba]

we all know their excuse is bogus and they are attempting to circumvent the constitution and make it
a requirement that the president disclose their tax returns.

that is exactly how i would argue it in court.
i would argue that for the past 20 -30 years that the current process of vetting a person tax returns as president
has been perfectly ok according to congress so why now all of a sudden is it a problem?

also a point of note is that it was an obama administration IRS that were responsible of vetting trumps tax returns.

if they would have found something they would have sounded the alarm.

[emphasis added by bubba]

please share with us the specific portion(s) of the US Constitution which would be circumvented by the compelled disclosure of the president's tax returns

 

[Perotista]

to me, it would seem what the congress learns from tRump's returns could be determinative whether to pass legislation to compel presidential candidates to release their FTRs as a condition of appearing on the national ballot

It's not a national ballot. It's 50 different state ballots. But I get your idea. I stand by that old adage of what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I would be fully supportive of a law that would require anyone running for federal elective office to have to release X number of years of tax returns. I would oppose the law that only would require presidential candidates to do so without including everyone.

Way too many times I have see congress pass laws exempting congress from those laws they pass. Requiring only the presidential candidates to do so would in my mind, be following the old adage of do as I say, not as I do. All or none is my motto.

My problem today is this whole tax return thing looks like a purely partisan attempt to gain a gotcha. Release of tax returns by presidential candidate is voluntary. Congress or should I say the Democrats haven't convinced me this request is to be used to either to determine or not to pass a law according to what you said.

There's one sure way to find out. Let Trump or the IRS give congress his tax returns on a confidential basis. It's the law. If congress leaks the tax returns to the public, then we know for certain it was for the purely political reason of obtaining a gotcha and not legislation. If they aren't leaked, then we know the request was for legitimate use in determining legislation.

 

[justabubba]

It's not a national ballot. It's 50 different state ballots. But I get your idea. I stand by that old adage of what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I would be fully supportive of a law that would require anyone running for federal elective office to have to release X number of years of tax returns. I would oppose the law that only would require presidential candidates to do so without including everyone.

Way too many times I have see congress pass laws exempting congress from those laws they pass. Requiring only the presidential candidates to do so would in my mind, be following the old adage of do as I say, not as I do. All or none is my motto.

My problem today is this whole tax return thing looks like a purely partisan attempt to gain a gotcha. Release of tax returns by presidential candidate is voluntary. Congress or should I say the Democrats haven't convinced me this request is to be used to either to determine or not to pass a law according to what you said.

There's one sure way to find out. Let Trump or the IRS give congress his tax returns on a confidential basis. It's the law. If congress leaks the tax returns to the public, then we know for certain it was for the purely political reason of obtaining a gotcha and not legislation. If they aren't leaked, then we know the request was for legitimate use in determining legislation.

that limited non-public disclosure provision would work for me
however, it is obvious that the FTRs contain information tRump finds injurious, otherwise he would not be fighting so hard to conceal the information
and it only takes one congressman with access to leak what was intended to be a confidential disclosure; a nunes of the left, in this imagined instance
as a result, i would not agree to then conclude that the congress did not have a legitimate, non-partisan purpose in seeking the tax returns

 

[Outlook]

"No legislative purpose", Trump's officials say. Really?




I see repubs on this forum crying "unconstitutional", and "if they get Trump's tax forms, you're next" ad nauseum, yet repubs used the same law to get tax forms, lots of them, back during Obama.

Such hypocrisy on the right.


Funny, Republicans used the Same 1924 Law a few years ago -- AND Got the Tax Returns


Funny, Republicans used the Same 1924 Law a few years ago -- AND Got the Tax Returns

No politician is required to disclose their taxes.
Trump has no obligation to disclose his tax records.
It is my understanding he has been audited many times by the IRS.
We are over two years into his presidency so why do the democrats want his tax records? It’s political.
The democrats are fishing for a got you moment.

 

[justabubba]

No politician is required to disclose their taxes.
Trump has no obligation to disclose his tax records.
It is my understanding he has been audited many times by the IRS.
We are over two years into his presidency so why do the democrats want his tax records? It’s political.
The democrats are fishing for a got you moment.

why could the congress not be examining whether this circumstance warrants a change in the law which would compel presidential nominees to disclose their federal tax returns as a condition of being placed on the national ballot

 

[Outlook]

why could the congress not be examining whether this circumstance warrants a change in the law which would compel presidential nominees to disclose their federal tax returns as a condition of being placed on the national ballot

For what purpose?

 

[justabubba]

For what purpose?

to reveal whether the president has business associations which would need to be closely monitored upon becoming president. to avoid this thing called corruption