Why Tax Return saga is incredibly stupid even by our standards.

It is you personal right to believe that if you need to.

 

Presidential nominees' tax returns are revelatory for many and in many respects, which is why most Americans expect nominees to make them public, especially when they have promised them to do so.

If Trump feels he needs to lie and is hellbent on concealing them, that is what he will try to do. If they are as innocuous as you prefer to think, there is no reason for him to be so desperate to hide them.

 

More then a belief, I’ve seen a 1040

 

Again, if Trump feels his tax returns, about which he lied regarding their release, cannot bear public scrutiny, he will persist in his lie.

Whether the law that authorizes their release to Congress can be defied as well remains to be seen.

 

1) he saw how Reid lied about Romney’s...so no need to release
2) there is no law that allows release to congress, but to one committee in a closed session

 

Then, in October, came a blockbuster report: The Providence Journal-Bulletin got ahold of Nixon’s tax returns, showing he paid just $792.81 in federal income taxes in 1970 and $878.03 in 1971. His annual salary was $200,000.

Hoping to clear the air, Nixon agreed to publicly release his returns covering the years 1969 through 1972. “The confidentiality of my private finances is far less important to me than the confidence of the American people in the integrity of the president,” he said in December 1973.


Nixon said, Let me just say this, and I want to say this to the television audience: I made my mistakes, but in all of my years of public life, I have never profited, never profited from public service--I have earned every cent. And in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I could say that in my years of public life, that I welcome this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I am not a crook. I have earned everything I have got.

At least Nixon had some integrity, even though it turns out he was a lying cheating crook.

 

Your hyper-partisan diversion fails miserably.

Among his many excuses for lying about releasing his tax returns, I cannot find Trump ever mentioning Reid. Are you making that up?

​

Indeed, and if Trump is convinced he needs to defy that law as well as lie to the public, that is what he will do. And if Romney is not the only one who concludes that he has something he must hide, don't be surprised.

 

This is a relatively new thing, and it's stupid. You weren't going to vote for Trump, so you had no need to see his or Hillary's. People are just nosy. Period. There is nothing presidential about a tax return.

 

Based upon an actual criminal action(or suspected, criminal action.) None has been so brought forth by the DOJ. So there's no valid reason for the House of Representatives, or anybody to access Trump's taxes. And those State laws requiring it? Unconstitutional IMO, and will be met at the supreme court.

 

I agree it would end up in SCOTUS. Back to the beginning, though, states always had a lot of leeway in determining their criteria. Nothing in the constitution has changed regarding that. States didn't always have the same candidates on the ballot.

I'm a big fan of the constitution, so 1/2 my brain is saying they should be able to. The other half, though, wonders why this is needed. A tax return doesn't tell any important story. There's nothing in a tax return that can show character, leadership, corruptibility .... so, other than being nosy, I can't think of any other reason the people need this information to make a decision. If it really is THAT important, then it should be required for all offices.

Who started this trend? I want to punch him in the face; so stupid. It's even more stupid that people think it's an important part of their decision making process. It's just the busybody neighbor being nosy and trying to get in everyone's business.

 

Why are Trump and Trump supporters so afraid of Trump's terrific taxes?

They were afraid of the Mueller report....than they were happy after Barr's BS letter....now they are afraid again.

It's weird how such honest upstanding and decent people are so afraid to show how honest and upstanding and decent they are.

 

Which specific line item on the tax return shows that someone is upstanding and decent?

 

Want to add that there is already a system in place to tell you if someone running for president is upstanding and decent. Do they have a (R) or (D) next to their name? If yes, they are corrupt. If no, maybe corrupt. Looking at an independent's tax return, though, still won't give you any guidance on character.

 

I always find it fascinating how some of you are ok with states rights with gerrymandering, voter id, closing voting locations, general disenfranchisement but draw the line at them assigning electors or mandating specific forms from candidates.

And the HoR doesn’t need criminal action, all it needs is a request.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/donald-trump-will-need-to-hand-over-his-tax-returns/

My title: I humbly disagree, the President does NOT need to hand over his taxes. To the House, you, me or anybody. And that is the law.

The argument over the President's taxes is very simple: It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to access another individual's confidential and private information. First, we'll address two overlying themes from this article/personal opinion.

#1: Does Parkland grant Congress the power to view an individual's records? I disagree
#2: Prinicipally, at any rate, the unconstitutionality of the action.

The power to investigate and to do so through compulsory process plainly falls within that definition. This Court has often noted that the power to investigate is inherent in the power to make laws because “[a] legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change.” . . . Issuance of subpoenas such as the one in question here has long been held to be a legitimate use by Congress of its power to investigate.

“Where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information — which not infrequently is true — recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.” [Internal citations omitted.]

The Court's suggestion is very clear: It may subponea anything, as long as it leads to a legislative end. But I think Mr. French is fooling himself if he thinks the President's private tax data amounts to a legislative end, it doesn't. It's not a legislative matter, and insofar as it's "for impeachment", this is where we'll have to go back to one of the principle reasons why Mueller declined a Presidential subponea.

Among other things chiefly, a subponea of a sitting President is only possible if the information could not be acquired by other means. Not only that, but a compelling interest must be brought, for the subponea to hold water. And by 'compelling interest', that does not mean curiosity.

The House would have to show evidence that there's compelling facts(interest) at play, that demands the tax files. And no, I'm afraid newsletter stories don't qualify. There's no more FISA court, you're now in federal court where a preponderance of evidence is considered.

But beyond the pure lack of any legitimate reason whatsoever for accessing the President's records, there's a couple more legal arguments against the measure. Mainly, this is not an investigation into the Office of the Presidency, this is not accessing government documents.
This is attempting to access Donald Trump's personal tax records.

It can never principally be a legislative matter, because there's nothing legislative about Trump's tax returns. They mean nothing consequently to his office of government, and even less to how he conducts himself in office. The House has a huge steep climb(and imo an impossible one, that i'll get to later) to even begin legitmizing its claim under the Parkland case.

Some will argue that I'm shifting. I'm using legal defenses in oral argument that can pertain to the President of the United States. And on other subject matters, I cite his existence as a private citizen for the purpose of argumentation. But in truth, he is both President and private citizen, he should be governed by both statures and both matters of law. As a President, he cannot be compelled without compelling reason(And there is none), and as a person, the House has absolutely no legitimacy to his tax returns.

Lastly, I left the most compelling argument for last: The House's attempt to access Trump's tax returns, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

This amendment should literally end the conversation. You don't get access to my medical records, you don't get access to my credit card information or my bank statements. Unless and until I'm criminally indicted for something where the prosecution needs to access my records(with a warrant), you don't get to have it. Period.

Whether I'm President, yo-yo boy or fat doughtnut man. We have laws, it's time to enforce them.

 

No, it needs criminal action(see my argument above.) The Courts will side with Donald Trump on this one, as it's a case overall that extends to ALL of our rights. The House is unconstitutionally reaching here. This is the Enabling Act of our times.

 

I am sure his packed court will side with him.

It’s not in the law however.

 

It is in the law, and I suspect those fools we call leaders(Pelosi, Cummings and Nadler) are well aware of it.

Trump should taunt them with a tit-for-tat: Their tax returns for his lol.

 

I am fine with financial audits and public disclosures for all politicians. I’m sure most of you would have agreed until it became apparent that trump wasn’t going to release it — at which point it became “not a big deal” or “he trolled the left so hard maga”

And I am pretty sure the law specifically states “Upon Request”

 

The general public however, is not a financial audit. Congress is NOT a financial audit. Why do we even have an IRS to begin with?

This is why this case leans in Trump's favor, from a lawful standpoint.

 

We have an IRS to collect taxes. I’m not sure what you are confusing between collecting taxes and public disclosures of those taxes. The case leans in trumps favor because he has packed the courts with right wing ideologues. Not because of the law as written. There are not limitations or exemptions in the law, nor are reasons required to my knowledge. Feel free to post them if you find some.

 

https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/the-agency-its-mission-and-statutory-authority

Notice the 'agency' part? It's an armed part of the federal government(as we learned controversially during the ACA.) Of course it regulates those taxes, and any tax-breaking gets referred to the financial sector of the Justice Department.

Congress has no right, reason legally or otherwise to access Trump's records.

 

I have never much cared.

I told my wife the day the clown prince rode the escalator, that he would do everything in his power to hide his financial information. I also did not believe that Trump would ever actually let go of his business interests.

So far, I’ve been right on both counts.

On the tax thing, at first I assumed that it was because he was going to try and hide the fact that he was only worth a fraction of his idiotic claims (which the rubes fell for.....). I knew he had been doing business with an assortment of Russian gangsters. I had known that for years. But, at the time, I didn’t think even Trump would be dumb enough to court Russian help. I didn’t think he would be that reckless and irresponsible.

I was wrong on that score.

 

What financial interest are you saying you will find in them that are not already on his financial disclosure forms? What "truth" is in them that you are looking for and is any of your business?

Really? Give me some of those respects that are not already on his financial disclosure forms.

 

Ok, what does an “armed part of the federal government” have to do with public disclosures by candidates. I never said they didn’t regulate those taxes but ignoring that strawman; the house absolutely has the right to request tax documents.

Section 6103(f)(1) of the IRC provides that, upon written request of the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), or Senate Finance Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “tax committees”), the Treasury Secretary “shall furnish” the requested tax returns or return information to the relevant committee. Under 6103(f)(2), the Treasury Secretary also “shall furnish” requested tax return information to the JCT’s chief of staff, who may share the return information to any of the tax committees. Absent the relevant taxpayer’s consent, any personally identifiable tax return information received by a tax committee under 6103(f)(1) or (f)(2) may only be provided when the requesting committee is “in closed executive session.” Section 6103(f)(5) also authorizes a whistleblower who has access to tax return information to disclose it to the tax committees “if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.”