Trump lawyers ask judge to kill Democrats' bid to seize tax returns

[CaughtInThe]

I am not sure where you are getting that from?
I am saying that, any person who has income from several different streams increases their risk of audit,
and once under audit, most tax cheats are found out!

so it that why we've completely shut down organized crime? and drug running?

 

[longview]

so it that why we've completely shut down organized crime? and drug running?

Again, I am not sure where you are getting this from?
We are discussing tax returns of individuals, with income streams from legal reported sources.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Again, I am not sure where you are getting this from?
We are discussing tax returns of individuals, with income streams from legal reported sources.

do Mafia bosses not file income tax returns? their underbosses? other criminals?

 

[ashurbanipal]

That is precisely the point. The law says they can't use their power to obtain his tax return information in that way.

ETA......I would think differently if he was a sitting President but as a past President any information they "release" would be purely political . That is not how Congress should use their oversight powers.......yes I am a bit of a Pollyanna as I view bthese things....its the Canadian in me!

Actually, as I understand the stated purpose, the committees want to find out if the IRS does an adequate job auditing Presidents, which it does by regulation—the idea was that the IRS would discover whether a President had any shady dealings and would notify congress. However, it’s been assumed for a long time that by the public release of those documents, the public will decide what counts and shady or not.

Trump took advantage of that gentlemen’s agreement, raising the possibility that the IRS didn’t do its job, either. Congress needs to know how all of that is now being handled, now that Trump established a new precedent.

 

[longview]

do Mafia bosses not file income tax returns? their underbosses? other criminals?

Not the point! This starter with the idea that Trump would be audited, and his type of business would greatly increase his audit risk.
Audits of people who cheat on their taxes, are mostly successful, as people are not nearly as smart as they think they are!

 

[CaughtInThe]

Not the point! This starter with the idea that Trump would be audited, and his type of business would greatly increase his audit risk.

actually, it's exactly the point. many people (including Mob Bosses) have been audited over and over and the IRS has yet to shut them down.

this conversation is really about you not knowing (or pretending not to know) that many tax cheats have found tons of ways to cheat and still get through audits. a very common way is to keep multiple sets of books. one shows your real income (much of which you hide like the Mafia) and one you show to the government that looks legal.

 

[longview]

actually, it's exactly the point. many people (including Mob Bosses) have been audited over and over and the IRS has yet to shut them down.

this conversation is really about you not knowing (or pretending not to know) that many tax cheats have found tons of ways to cheat and still get through audits. a very common way is to keep multiple sets of books. one shows your real income (much of which you hide like the Mafia) and one you show to the government that looks legal.

And you have citations to support this!

 

[CaughtInThe]

And you have citations to support this!

citations to support that Mob Bosses/criminals/thieves file inaccurate tax returns?

 

[longview]

citations to support that Mob Bosses/criminals/thieves file inaccurate tax returns?

No that they file inaccurate returns,AND survive audit?

 

[CaughtInThe]

No that they file inaccurate returns,AND survive audit?

hang on

are you saying that the Feds have not been auditing known Mob Bosses for decades? THAT is what you're gonna hang your hat on?


if you'd like i can post some of the infamous tax evasion scams that make it past the Feds until someone either gets sloppy or ratted them out.

 

[longview]

hang on

are you saying that the Feds have not been auditing known Mob Bosses for decades? THAT is what you're gonna hang your hat on?


if you'd like i can post some of the infamous tax evasion scams that make it past the Feds until someone either gets sloppy or ratted them out.

You keep creating a dialogue out of thin air!

 

[upsideguy]

I actually don't think the Dems should continue fighting for his tax returns. For what purpose at this point? It looks very politically motivated. Let the Cyrus Vance deal with it criminally in NY State.

There have different objectives, each noble in their own right.

 

[Callen]

There have different objectives, each noble in their own right.

If they just stick to their stated objective of providing oversight on the IRS I will agree with you. However, II think they will make it a political issue and I think that would be an unfortunate move on their part.

 

[pamak]

When did I say that the Treasury Department continues to object? Believe it or not, there are people other than Congress and the Treasury Department who have an interest in the issue.



So you still ignored the conversation into which you injected yourself, even after I suggested that you take a look, and now you're basically ignoring the very comment to which you're responding. Classic.

You implied it, the moment you tried to support your point with a link which says

The committees, however, cannot compel the Executive Branch to disclose such information




What?

I followed the conversation, and I injected myself when it became obvious to me that you tried to support your positions with links that you have never read. And your reaction does not refute anything of what I cited. The golden rule of citing is that you cannot be selective with the source you are citing. You have to take the whole package. Apparently, you show a desire to ignore the conclusions of the authority YOU cited, lol

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Trump lawyers ask judge to kill Democrats

I think that's the next item on Trump's menu.

 

[Noodlegawd]

You implied it, the moment you tried to support your point with a link which says

The committees, however, cannot compel the Executive Branch to disclose such information




What?

I followed the conversation, and I injected myself when it became obvious to me that you tried to support your positions with links that you have never read. And your reaction does not refute anything of what I cited. The golden rule of citing is that you cannot be selective with the source you are citing. You have to take the whole package. Apparently, you show a desire to ignore the conclusions of the authority YOU cited, lol

No I didn't. I cited that for the applicable legal standard. I didn't say or imply anything about what Treasury wants to do. Treasury is not opposing the submission, they are following the DOJ's opinion. It is TRUMP who is opposing the submission, as he has the right to do in court.

 

[upsideguy]

If they just stick to their stated objective of providing oversight on the IRS I will agree with you. However, II think they will make it a political issue and I think that would be an unfortunate move on their part.

No. They should be looking for emoluments and foreign entanglements. One of oversight functions of congress has been to look for corruption, not necessarily of the criminal kind, but to what extent might the President had been dealing in self-interest rather than the interest of America. Or, to paraphrase Richard Nixon, 'America has a right to know if their president was a crook.'

 

[pamak]

No I didn't. I cited that for the applicable legal standard. I didn't say or imply anything about what Treasury wants to do. Treasury is not opposing the submission, they are following the DOJ's opinion. It is TRUMP who is opposing the submission, as he has the right to do in court.

Yes, you did

Again, a simple copy from the link is sufficient: The committees, however, cannot compel the Executive Branch to disclose such information without satisfying the constitutional requirement that the information could serve a legitimate legislative purpose.

You can claim that you did not want to imply such thing but the end-result is that because you failed to carefully read the link that you posted, you DID imply it. In short, the part of the legal claim you wanted to cite applies as long as Trump is the president. In such case, since Trump opposes the submission of his taxes and ALSO controls the Executive Branch, you can have the situation described above where the committee can not compel the Exeutive Branch to disclose such information." With Biden president, there is not such concern.

And again, citing a source selectively by ignoring its conclusions does not support your point. The source is clear in its conclusion:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Secretary must comply with the Ways and Means Committee’s June 16, 2021 request pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f)(1) to furnish the Committee with the specified tax returns and related tax information.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Yes, you did

Again, a simple copy from the link is sufficient: The committees, however, cannot compel the Executive Branch to disclose such information without satisfying the constitutional requirement that the information could serve a legitimate legislative purpose.

You can claim that you did not want to imply such thing but the end-result is that because you failed to carefully read the link that you posted, you DID imply it. In short, the part of the legal claim you wanted to cite applies as long as Trump is the president. In such case, since Trump opposes the submission of his taxes and ALSO controls the Executive Branch, you can have the situation described above where the committee can not compel the Exeutive Branch to disclose such information." With Biden president, there is not such concern.

And again, citing a source selectively by ignoring its conclusions does not support your point. The source is clear in its conclusion:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Secretary must comply with the Ways and Means Committee’s June 16, 2021 request pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f)(1) to furnish the Committee with the specified tax returns and related tax information.

You can pretend that you know what I meant to imply by quoting that passage, while totally ignoring the context in which I quoted it. That's fine if it makes you feel smart. But you'll still be wrong.

 

[SkyFox76]

Hang on

Hasn't Donald Trump already released his tax returns? He promised the Republican base he would on numerous occasions and he's not a liar.

Yep, he released them the same day he released the new healthcare plan.

 

[pamak]

You can pretend that you know what I meant to imply by quoting that passage, while totally ignoring the context in which I quoted it. That's fine if it makes you feel smart. But you'll still be wrong.

The context of the link that you posted is the only thing I need. Obviously, your last response continues to ignore that context and instead of focusing on my commentary about THAT context, you choose to make comments about how I feel. You are projecting.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The context of the link that you posted which you totally ignored is the only thing I need. Obviously, your last response continues not to address it, and you choose to make comments about how I feel. You are projecting.

I see, so you get to decide why I posted the link. Cool story, if you want to continue to look ignorant.

 

[pamak]

I see, so you get to decide why I posted the link. Cool story, if you want to continue to look ignorant.

I get to decide if what you post can reasonably support your points and debate it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

What legal requirement exists that requires Trump to release his tax returns?

Section 6103(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) reads:

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, 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 unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

Congress has the legal right to request them, they just have to be disclosed in a closed hearing.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I get to decide if what you post can reasonably support your points and debate it.

What was my point?