Immediately release Donald Trump's full tax returns, with all information needed to v

It would require a constitutional amendment, not a law.

Just because other candidates in the past have released their tax returns is not a reason to do so.

 

You are not correct.. Had to search hard before but have already debunked that. Not going to waste the time to search again.

 

I'm sorry that I doubted you and went to the IRS for answers.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4761.pdf
"Penalties
Be aware that you cannot access or disclose confidential tax information
unless a provision of the Code authorizes the access or disclosure.
Unauthorized disclosure or access could subject you to criminal penalties
under §7213 and §7213A (UNAX). A taxpayer may also seek civil damages
under §7431.
Criminal Penalties:
§7213 specifies that willful unauthorized disclosure of returns or return
information by an employee or former employee is a felony.
The penalty can be a fine of up to $5,000 or up to five (5) years in jail, or
both, plus costs of prosecution.
Under §7213A, willful unauthorized access or inspection (UNAX) of taxpayer
records by an employee or former employee is a misdemeanor. This applies to
both paper documents and electronic information.
Violators can be subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and/or sentenced to up to
one year in prison.
Civil Penalties:
A taxpayer whose return or return information has been knowingly or
negligently inspected or disclosed by an employee in violation of §6103 may
seek civil damages.
§7431 allows a taxpayer to institute action in district court for damages
where there is unauthorized inspection or disclosure. If the court finds there
has been an unauthorized inspection or disclosure, the taxpayer may receive
damages of $1,000 for each unauthorized access or disclosure, or actual
damages, whichever is greater, plus punitive damages (in the case of willful
or gross negligence), and costs of the action (which may include attorney’s
fees).
There is no liability under §7431 if the disclosure was the result of a good
faith but erroneous interpretation of §6103"

 

Again... Donald Trump has publicly discussed the audit.. They dont have the release or leak any information on the audit outside of its existence or nor existence. Look at the language... Sorry you are not right. If the audit exists him bringing it up brings its existence to public.

Keywords

willful unauthorized

 

They can't even divulge if an audit exists as that would most certainly fall under confidential tax information. Trump can say anything he damn well pleases because he doesn't work for the IRS. He could claim that he was being audited because they think he overpaid. He could claim that he paid billions in taxes. He is at liberty, legally, to do so because he does not work for the IRS. He could give the IRS a written authorization to divulge specified info but has not.

 

No it would not as you cant claim confidential status on something that is public knowledge.

 

And if he's not being audited?

Look you've doubled down on your double down. The IRS can not say (*)(*)(*)(*) without a court order. Even Trump as president can't order them to.

 

Uhmm… I need a citation for that.

There are moves in states to require his taxes to be released or not appear on the state's next ballot, or that state electors cannot vote for a candidate that hasn't released tax returns. Of course, he might choose not to run again instead of releasing his tax returns, but it doesn't require a Constitutional amendment. They are even calling it the T.R.U.M.P. Act.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trum...equire-presidential-candidates-release-2017-1

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...wmakers-join-effort-to-force-trump-to-release

 

Looks clear that states could in fact do this
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

 

Why do you need his tax returns? Why was you not concerned about the Clinton Foundation? Did you ever see Obama's tax returns, what about Hillary's? Is this just because Hillary lost? Because I know you would have never asked for her tax returns.

Perhaps you should purchase an extreme amount of tissues. It's going to be another 8 years, and even if it's only 4 years, that is still a massive amount of tissues.

 

It's not up to the Court of Public Opinion to decide this, so why should he? It's not like his taxes are a secret from relevant authorities.

 

It's just something for them to cry about, I didn't hear them crying over Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS scandal, Clinton Foundation, Hillary emails (unsecure), I didn't even hear them asking for Hillary's tax returns. Like I said, WHAHHH WHAAAAA!!!

 

No. I don't care how much money the government is stealing from Trump or anyone else, unless it is zero. If that's the case, then kudos to Trump.

Taxation is theft.

 

At this point it seems safe to assume no one will ever see Trumps tax returns and violation of the Constitution is already taking place, will continue, and ten years from now we will look back and feel stupid. The dramatic changes in our Government are already in place and will continue until tempered or the Republic becomes unrecognizable. For some of our population this is what they wish for...for many others it is reason for fear.

Either way folks...America will not be what it was.

 

I've "doubled down" on nothing i am stating simple fact. If he is not being audited they can say that as well as long as they provide just information.... Again.. Its fine. You are wrong.. Moveon ( pun intended)

 

There's no legal obligation for anyone to release something that private. Those who signed it are acting like communists. I would NEVER release my personal financial information to the public. Completely idiotic.

 

Typical right wing projection.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny how right wingers did not say that in the controversy over Obama's birth certificate.

The usual double standards.

 

That is a requirement. Why are you posting something irrelevant to my comment

 

Save the ink. If he released his tax returns, most of the juicy details would have to be redacted, since almost nothing gets done at that level without nondisclosures

 

Show me where in the Constitution it is required that anyone publicly disclose their birth certificate.

 

He's required to present it. Everyone is required to show proof of birth. No one is required to show a tax return.

Once again, lol, I asked what this has to do with anything? Birth cert is a requirement, Tax returns are not...LOL

Left wing send someone better

 

Saying that he's stepping away from his business is a joke. The "blind trust" he put in Charge of his company is ran by his friend and family. People he has daily or regular communications with. That defeats the purpose of having a blind trust. He can easily call them and tell them insider secrets of what the government is planning.

 

Where's your proof?

Besides, your hero Trump PROMISED he would disclose his tax returns. If he has any honesty or character, he would manfully back up his words with action. Failing to do so proves he lacks integrity. But, as a right winger, that would be no surprise.

 

What's my proof of what? You're claiming a president doesn't have to prove their citizenship? Tax returns have never been a requirement for the presidency.

LOL!

Left wing, are you serious?

 

Changes to the Constitution, such as requirements for office, can only be made through the Amendment Process.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1456

U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)


Question

Can states alter those qualifications for the U.S. Congress that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution?


No. The Constitution prohibits States from adopting Congressional qualifications in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution. A state congressional term limits amendment is unconstitutional if it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and "has the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectly." Furthermore, "...allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a 'more perfect Union.'"