Supreme Court allows release of Trump's tax returns to House Democrats

You surely have a link... considering the Supreme court does NOT make law.

 

Well, since this wasn't a subpoena situation and I didn't even mention a subpoena, I guess you'll have to save that argument for another day....

 

So you are saying that the Supreme Court did not rule on releasing the tax returns WHILE Trump was president?

 

Congress is not doing an audit here, at least not a proper one. However, with GS 15 Revenue Agents and Tax Attorneys on staff, I am sure they will determine if Trump followed all the disclosure rules under FATCA that they have in their evidence. But the end game is probably going to make legislation to make it mandatory for Presidential Candidates to provide disclosure on their tax returns, and make the IRS more independent from the president when it comes to Presidential Audits or maybe audits in general. and maybe a few other items. Whether or not it passes Congress remains to be seen.

 

You are arguing that the President, especially Trump, is above the law here.

 

Financial disclosures do not include any tax return-related information. It is essentially a complex "balance sheet" of income, major expenses, assets, liabilities, etc under his name. Tax Returns can provide additional information that the financial disclosure cannot provide such as interests in foreign corporations and having international bank accounts with less than 50% interest in them in signatory authority, for instance.

 

Yeah he did blues.

 

What are you talking about? Congress got a subpoena for the tax returns three years ago. What do you think SCOTUS just ruled on, a request or a subpoena??

 

Tax returns tell nothing about interests (holdings) in foreign corporations or having international bank accounts other than if income, gains, or losses resulted from those. Financial disclosures, however, do.

 

@Bearack said SCOTUS did not make law. He said nothing about rulings. For the record SCOTUS ruled the congressional subpoena is lawful just a month or so ago, long after Trump was president and long after congress got its subpoena issued.

 

Sorry, @Bluesguy is correct. Congress did not request the tax returns to do an audit. If they had SCOTUS would have certainly disallowed it.

 

Never said they were doing an audit. I did say that Trump did not want them released because he was president and thus cannot be audited by anyone, per his way of thinking.

 

And I pointed out that they did not make law to begin with. All they ruled was on when the tax returns should be released. In the beginning, the SCOTUS gave great deference to Trump and his tax returns. In the ned, they did a complete 180.

 

Request.... that's all the law states... this is the 2019 request, but I assume the process in 2021 was the same...

SNIP
“I today submitted to IRS Commissioner Rettig my request for six years of the president’s personal tax returns as well as the returns for some of his business entities. We have completed the necessary groundwork for a request of this magnitude and I am certain we are within our legitimate legislative, legal, and oversight rights.
ENDSNIP

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/medi...ment-requesting-president-trump-s-tax-returns

 

LOL... even you used request....

 

If they do find anything improper the focus shouldn't be on Trump, but rather the IRS for not catching it in the first place.

 

OK

 

They will be leaked. That is the whole reason the democrats want them.

 

That's plain silly. SCOTUS does not rule on requests, period. It only rules on legal matters, period. Sure the House first requested tax returns. They got turned down, so the House got a subpoena. That's exactly how things work.

 

Gimme a break!

 

That's making a brash presumption that congress is better at finding such things than professional auditors are.

 

Evidently they don't think they are. Why else hire 87,000 more for?

 

They are of course hoping to find something that the low information millions of people will think is really bad, correct or legal not withstanding,

Logic says the only legislative purpose possible is an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

 

Well, there might have been a subpoena or two stuck in there at some point, but the 11th circuit and SCOTUS ruled on the request

See how they differentiate the 2 concepts???

SNIP
There are four issues before us on appeal: (1) Whether the Chairman’s Request is supported by a legitimate legislative purpose, (2) whether the Chairman’s Request violates the separation of powers, (3) whether § 6103(f)(1) is facially unconstitutional, and (4) whether Treasury’s compliance with the Request would violate the First Amendment.

The case law concerning Congressional requests for information is confined almost entirely to information sought via a Congressional subpoena. See generally Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019 (2020) (House committee subpoenas to private financial institutions for financial information); Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) (Senate subcommittee subpoena to a bank for financial information); Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155 (1955) (House subcommittee subpoena to individual to answer questions); McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927) (Senate subcommittee subpoena to individual to answer questions). Those cases are not directly on point in this case where the vehicle for requesting information was created by a statute passed by Congress and signed into law by the Executive. However, we see no reason that the case law shaping when and how Congress can request certain information via subpoena should not inform our analysis of Congress’s ability to do so via statute.
ENDSNIP

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...89D8525889900538BAB/$file/21-5289-1958452.pdf

So I guess it's not that silly after all, is it??

 

That is 87,000 more retirements on the taxpayers breast. I’m fresh out of teats.