• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Files Lawsuit Seeking Disclosure of Trump Tax Returns

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,398
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
"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
 
Beats doing real work I guess
 

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.
 


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.
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Most likely.
 
 
Perotista said:
Most likely.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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?
 

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
 
 

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

The IRS has never refused a 6103 request
 
OscarLevant said:
The IRS has never refused a 6103 request
Click to expand...

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

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
 
[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
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 

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
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

For what purpose?
 
Outlook said:
For what purpose?
Click to expand...

to reveal whether the president has business associations which would need to be closely monitored upon becoming president. to avoid this thing called corruption
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…