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

[ouch]

Well, lets see how long this matter can be delayed. Looks like DJT may need to invite Judge McFadden over for Thanksgiving.

Trump-Appointed Judge Will Decide Whether to Block Trump Tax Returns — In November at the Earliest

www.msn.com

The arguments will take place on November 8, meaning McFadden won’t make any major decisions in the case before then. The administration handing over the tax returns would be in line with the latest Justice Department policy.

 

[eohrnberger]

​

​

State orders $1 million tax refund for Trump, county moves to block it​

State orders $1 million tax refund for Trump, county moves to block it

If Trump ends up with the tax refund, it would come out of taxes due to the city of Chicago and eight other government agencies; Chicago Public Schools stand to lose the biggest chunk of money — about $540,000.

chicago.suntimes.com

If Trump ends up with the tax refund, it would come out of taxes due to the city of Chicago and eight other government agencies; Chicago Public Schools stand to lose the biggest chunk of money — about $540,000.​

By Tim Novak Jul 30, 2021​

​

The Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board has decided former President Donald Trump is due a $1 million refund on his skyscraper’s 2011 tax bill, ruling last month that the Cook County Board of Review overestimated the value of the building’s hotel rooms and retail space.​

​

But the Cook County State’s Attorney has filed suit with the Illinois Appellate Court, seeking to block the tax refund, which has yet to be issued.​

​

If Trump ends up with the tax refund, it would come out of property taxes due to the city of Chicago and eight other government agencies, including Chicago Public Schools, which stands to lose the biggest chunk of money, about $540,000.​

​

Oh so typical.
Huge leftist media coverage and smears on the campaign to get the tax returns, and then veritable media silence when it doesn't turn out as demanded by the political narrative.

 

[snakestretcher]

The Dems are just helping Trump fulfill a 5 year old promise to release his tax returns.

Yeah; shouldn't that 'audit' have been completed by now?

 

[yankintx]

Yeah; shouldn't that 'audit' have been completed by now?

It must be longest audit in IRS history

 

[Cardinal]

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.

For an honest accounting to the American people.

 

[pamak]

What was my point?

That the legal thinking you cited applied in the current environment

Here you go: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html

And: https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1419111/download

​

Feel free to enlighten me. Be sure to use citations to relevant authorities.

Again, your link talked about whether Congressional committees can force the Executive Branch to disclose the tax information without satisfying the constitutional requirement that the information could serve a legitimate legislative purpose.

"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."

Now feel free to explain how the above position applies if Biden simply orders the Eexcutive branch to surrender the tax info to the committee because if Biden decides to play hardball and issues such order, then there is not an issue of "compelling the Executive Branch" to do anything. Both the Executive and the Legislative Branches will be in agreement that Trump's taxes must be disclosed to the Committee

 

[Noodlegawd]

That the legal thinking you cited applied in the current environment



Again, your link talked about whether Congressional committees can force the Executive Branch to disclose the tax information without satisfying the constitutional requirement that the information could serve a legitimate legislative purpose.

"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."

Now feel free to explain how the above position applies if Biden simply orders the Eexcutive branch to surrender the tax info to the committee because if Biden decides to play hardball and issues such order, then there is not an issue of "compelling the Executive Branch" to do anything. Both the Executive and the Legislative Branches will be in agreement that Trump's taxes must be disclosed to the Committee

The "legal thinking" I cited is the very analysis that the administration did for itself to reach the conclusion that it can disclose Trump's returns to Congress without violating the law. It essentially amounts to nearly three dozen pages of argument to establish that the "legitimate legislative purpose" requirement is met in this case. Biden can't just "play hardball" and issue an order to disclose them without meeting the requirements of the statutory exception to the presumptive confidentiality obligation imposed on the IRS. If he did so, he's be ordering someone to commit a felony.

So I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[pamak]

The "legal thinking" I cited is the very analysis that the administration did for itself to reach the conclusion that it can disclose Trump's returns to Congress without violating the law. It essentially amounts to nearly three dozen pages of argument to establish that the "legitimate legislative purpose" requirement is met in this case. Biden can't just "play hardball" and issue an order to disclose them without meeting the requirements of the statutory exception to the presumptive confidentiality obligation imposed on the IRS. If he did so, he's be ordering someone to commit a felony.

So I don't know what else to tell you.

Again, you ignore the context of this analysis.

It talks about "compelling" the Executive branch. So, you still have not explained what happens when both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Committee are in agreement. Again, you confuse the fact that Biden plays nice and does not want to appear that he is pushing for revealing the Trump tax info to the Committee with the legal requirements that exist EVEN when Biden an the Committee are on the same page which can happen after Biden makes an executive decision to have its Treasury Department give the tax info to the committee.

You are free to post which part from your link supports the claim that Biden cannot play hardball and simply openly accept the Committee's position. In such case, as I have explained, there is no issue of having the Committee "compell" the Executive branch to do something that does not want to do

 

[Noodlegawd]

Again, you ignore the context of this analysis.

It talks about "compelling" the Executive branch. So, you still have not explained what happens when both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Committee are in agreement. Again, you confuse the fact that Biden plays nice and does not want to appear that he is pushing for revealing the Trump taxes with the legal requirements that exist t EVEN when Biden an the Committee are on the same page which can happen after Biden makes an executive decision to have its Treasury Department give the tax info to the committee.

Ugh, I already answered this. Here, let me quote it for you again, since you didn't read it.

Biden can't just "play hardball" and issue an order to disclose them without meeting the requirements of the statutory exception to the presumptive confidentiality obligation imposed on the IRS. If he did so, he's be ordering someone to commit a felony.

Disclosing confidential tax documents is a felony unless it fits one of the enumerated exceptions. Thus the 40-page memo explaining why they think there is a legitimate legislative purpose for disclosing them to Congress in order to qualify for one of the exceptions.

 

[pamak]

Ugh, I already answered this. Here, let me quote it for you again, since you didn't read it.



Disclosing confidential tax documents is a felony unless it fits one of the enumerated exceptions. Thus the 40-page memo explaining why they think there is a legitimate legislative purpose for disclosing them to Congress in order to qualify for one of the exceptions.

You answered with a claim that is not supported by the legal opinion of authorities you wanted to bring to the conversation. CITE the part from the link that supports your claim above.

No, it is not a felony when it is given to the Committee and no, we are not talking about publicizing the tax info. So, now, you make things up to avoid the issue I ask you to address.