• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge puts Democrats' suit for Trump's tax returns on hold

BlueTex said:
Simplistic approach with multiple failure points...

What about prosecutors?

State child support enforcement agencies?

Executors of estates?

There is a whole, well thought out section of federal law that covers this...

26 U.S. Code SS 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Why did congress give the Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation unrestricted access to ALL tax returns?
Click to expand...

The state agencies and IRS have trumps tax returns. it is against the law to publicly disclose those tax returns without the permission of the owner.

Congress didn't give the committee unrestricted access and courts have limited their use of that access to they need
a legitimate legislative reason to get those tax returns.

they do not have a legitimate legislative reason to get those tax returns.
 
marke said:
Democrats are keen to get their hands on Trump's tax returns in order to look for dirt. They remain desperate to find fault with Trump no matter where they have to go looking or how long their search takes. I just wish they were as zealous in desiring to look into abuses by government officials who got caught up in the Obama spying operation on Trump before the 2016 election.
Click to expand...

His returns could be perfectly fine, but they would find a way. They'd look at some income that they didn't know where it was coming from, and try to attach it to a foreign government.

Then, they'd use one of their favorite little tricks. Preface it by saying "Some say..." or "Experts think..." or "It is possible that..." then smear him with anything they like. "It could be from Russia" or any other source that they think would sound bad, however untrue it is. That's how these people operate.

They are experts at propaganda. They'll make it sound like a statement of fact, even when they are stating nothing at all. We see the lefties here eat that stuff up and run with it all the time.
 
Captain Adverse said:
The actual question is...WHY the heck does anyone need to see his (or anyone else's) tax returns? Unless (per law) the IRS is doing an audit, then IMHO EVERYONE's tax information should remain confidential.

Seems to me this is just another witch-hunting attempt seeking to find dirt, ANY dirt to "get Trump."

Another one of those "if he has nothing to hide, then he should be willing to show us all" arguments against a persons basic right to privacy.
Click to expand...

The President isn't a typical 'person' and if he's unwilling to be transparent about his financial conflicts of interest, he should stay CEO or whatever where the public has no need to know. For the President, seems we'd like to know if he's making $billions in a country so that when POTUS engages in foreign policy with that country, that conflict is known to us.

The President is already required to disclose some financial information, but a tax return is more complete, and discloses other conflicts. Just for example, if the POTUS is pushing for a tax change that would benefit him or her $100 million, seems like we should know that conflict exists, so the POTUS can explain why it's good for the country and not just for his or her own bottom line. Etc.

Bottom line is a public servant like the President loses the "basic right to privacy" that the rest of us have because he's asking to be vested with VAST powers, and the public has a right to know of conflicts of interest or potential ones to guard against corrupt self dealing.
 
JasperL said:
Tax returns show a lot about a person's business activities, and there is a lot of disclosure about foreign dealings. And every President since Nixon has voluntarily disclosed them, so the "precedent" being set by demanding them isn't very scary. It's what's been done for decades prior to Trump, and should be done by him.

You also manufactured that slippery slope. The law already allows Congress to get "any" return upon request, and nothing in the lawsuit would open any door to allow an employer to get your tax records.
Click to expand...

The left has already shown that they don't care about "precedent" at all with their one side, gestapo impeachment abuse. So don't try to claim that precedent matters now.
 
MTAtech said:
You can research that as to by they passed the law in the 1920s. It had to do with investigating the Teapot Dome scandal and Congress' inability to investigate taxes of those concerned, which would have revealed payments.
Click to expand...

And then it was beefed up post Watergate after it was revealed that Nixon's audit was a joke, and the IRS did the hand wave treatment of his tax returns, and when actually examined Nixon had committed tax fraud that the IRS didn't 'catch.'
 
ludin said:
Congress didn't give the committee unrestricted access and courts have limited their use of that access to they need
a legitimate legislative reason to get those tax returns.
Click to expand...

Please cite some court cases where the courts have limited their use.
 
Anthony60 said:
The left has already shown that they don't care about "precedent" at all with their one side, gestapo impeachment abuse. So don't try to claim that precedent matters now.
Click to expand...

Grand juries are not "fair".

Impeachment is an Indictment process.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Not for simple nosiness hopefully.

Rather to address people's actions in income tax evasion when an issue is reasonably suspected. Hence the power to audit.

Now if there is any evidence of Trump's efforts at illegal income tax evasion, then audits and congressional review are warranted.

But IMHO you shouldn't do investigations seeking to harass someone. Nor in a desire to reveal information simply because "inquiring minds want to know."

Recall, the issue comes up because in the past few decades Presidential candidates have voluntarily revealed this information. Now people think they are entitled to it.
Click to expand...

We should be entitled to it. Trump IS the IRS per Barr, and it's a good practice for THE IRS to demonstrate compliance with our tax laws by voluntarily releasing his tax return.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Again, if this is an issue, Tax law has an agency whose JOB is to ferret this out. It's called the IRS, and tax auditing.

Are you alleging that Congress-critters are more capable of finding malfeasance in tax reporting than the agency they created?
Click to expand...

They were more capable than the IRS under Nixon. The IRS examined Nixon's return and issued a letter saying it was accurate. When Congress got hold of his returns, they discovered massive underpayments of taxes, on some pretty obvious issues. Obviously the IRS under Nixon didn't do an audit, perhaps because their boss was President, and those at the top were appointed by him, and owed their position to POTUS.

That is why the law allows Congress to request "any" return.

Aha! I see it is more your desire that Congress have the ability to make a big scene. So they can throw out opinions and presumptions in hopes that enough dirt will stick that your hated "orange man" will get his comeuppance.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is Trump promised multiple times to release his returns. I know you don't care about those promises, but don't blame the rest of us for holding Presidents accountable for promises that are so easily kept, and are merely doing what every President has done for decades.
 
BlueTex said:
Please cite some court cases where the courts have limited their use.
Click to expand...

Why Congress Might Not Get Trump's Tax Returns - POLITICO Magazine

The Supreme Court has said Congress has broad authority to conduct inquiries but that its authority is not unlimited. In the 1881 case Kilbourn v. Thompson, the Supreme Court held that Congress can’t use its powers to delve into someone’s private financial matters unless there is a proper legislative purpose. In 1957, the Supreme Court held in Watkins v. U.S. that a congressional information demand must relate to a “legitimate task of the Congress” and noted that Congress is not a “law enforcement agency” that can seek information to uncover or expose crimes.

the committee said in its letter to the IRS that its purpose in seeking the president’s tax returns included, but was “not limited to, the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the federal tax laws against a president.”

they can do this without his tax returns. They simply pull in the director of the IRS and the people that are in charge of those audits and ask
what their process is. they don't need tax returns.

They can't use impeachment because the impeachment has nothing to do with his tax returns.

this took me 5 minutes of searching google.

why are leftist incapable of actually known anything about any topic that they engage in?
i mean seriously how hard is it to look up basic information on the topic being discussed so that you can be informed?
ol yea leftist never want to be informed.
 
JasperL said:
They were more capable than the IRS under Nixon. The IRS examined Nixon's return and issued a letter saying it was accurate. When Congress got hold of his returns, they discovered massive underpayments of taxes, on some pretty obvious issues. Obviously the IRS under Nixon didn't do an audit, perhaps because their boss was President, and those at the top were appointed by him, and owed their position to POTUS.

That is why the law allows Congress to request "any" return.



Bottom line is Trump promised multiple times to release his returns. I know you don't care about those promises, but don't blame the rest of us for holding Presidents accountable for promises that are so easily kept, and are merely doing what every President has done for decades.
Click to expand...

the bottom line is trump is under no obligation to release his tax returns and neither is anyone else.
it was their choice they did it there is no law or rule that says they have to.

several states have tried to force candidates to do it but they have been struck down by courts as unconstitutional.
 
JasperL said:
Deft move of the goal post!
Click to expand...

why can't you answer the question and there is no moving of the goalposts.
you don't seem to know what that means.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Really? Then why does the law make tax returns confidential in the first place?
Click to expand...

The law allows selected committees in congress to request "any" return and if requested, IRS "shall" provide it to Congress. The law has been on the books for about 100 years, and was made stronger post Nixon.
 
JasperL said:
The law allows selected committees in congress to request "any" return and if requested, IRS "shall" provide it to Congress. The law has been on the books for about 100 years, and was made stronger post Nixon.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.

The Supreme Court has said Congress has broad authority to conduct inquiries but that its authority is not unlimited. In the 1881 case Kilbourn v. Thompson, the Supreme Court held that Congress can’t use its powers to delve into someone’s private financial matters unless there is a proper legislative purpose. In 1957, the Supreme Court held in Watkins v. U.S. that a congressional information demand must relate to a “legitimate task of the Congress” and noted that Congress is not a “law enforcement agency” that can seek information to uncover or expose crimes.
 
ludin said:
Why Congress Might Not Get Trump's Tax Returns - POLITICO Magazine

The Supreme Court has said Congress has broad authority to conduct inquiries but that its authority is not unlimited. In the 1881 case Kilbourn v. Thompson, the Supreme Court held that Congress can’t use its powers to delve into someone’s private financial matters unless there is a proper legislative purpose. In 1957, the Supreme Court held in Watkins v. U.S. that a congressional information demand must relate to a “legitimate task of the Congress” and noted that Congress is not a “law enforcement agency” that can seek information to uncover or expose crimes.

the committee said in its letter to the IRS that its purpose in seeking the president’s tax returns included, but was “not limited to, the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the federal tax laws against a president.”

they can do this without his tax returns. They simply pull in the director of the IRS and the people that are in charge of those audits and ask
what their process is. they don't need tax returns.

They can't use impeachment because the impeachment has nothing to do with his tax returns.

this took me 5 minutes of searching google.

why are leftist incapable of actually known anything about any topic that they engage in?
i mean seriously how hard is it to look up basic information on the topic being discussed so that you can be informed?
ol yea leftist never want to be informed.
Click to expand...
You are citing an 1881 case prior to the 1924 law being written. The 1957 case nothing to do with the matter at hand. John Watkins, was about a labor organizer, who was called upon to testify in hearings conducted by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Watkins agreed to describe his alleged connections with the Communist Party and to identify current members of the Party. Watkins refused to give information concerning individuals who had left the Communist Party. Watkins argued that such questions were beyond the authority of the Committee.
 
ludin said:
Why Congress Might Not Get Trump's Tax Returns - POLITICO Magazine

The Supreme Court has said Congress has broad authority to conduct inquiries but that its authority is not unlimited. In the 1881 case Kilbourn v. Thompson, the Supreme Court held that Congress can’t use its powers to delve into someone’s private financial matters unless there is a proper legislative purpose. In 1957, the Supreme Court held in Watkins v. U.S. that a congressional information demand must relate to a “legitimate task of the Congress” and noted that Congress is not a “law enforcement agency” that can seek information to uncover or expose crimes.

the committee said in its letter to the IRS that its purpose in seeking the president’s tax returns included, but was “not limited to, the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the federal tax laws against a president.”

they can do this without his tax returns. They simply pull in the director of the IRS and the people that are in charge of those audits and ask
what their process is. they don't need tax returns.

They can't use impeachment because the impeachment has nothing to do with his tax returns.

this took me 5 minutes of searching google.

why are leftist incapable of actually known anything about any topic that they engage in?
i mean seriously how hard is it to look up basic information on the topic being discussed so that you can be informed?
ol yea leftist never want to be informed.
Click to expand...

Good luck in court... lmao...
 
Captain Adverse said:
(Sigh) You will note that the language does differentiate between requesting returns in general and "identified" returns; which the language clearly indicates remain confidential absent taxpayer permission to allow disclosure.

The implied purpose is for efforts to investigate, not simply for curiosity or biased political interest.
Click to expand...

"Biased political interest" is your own "biased" value judgment. I'm sure Nixon defenders made the same argument, and then we learned Nixon committed tax fraud, so was Congress's interest "biased" or legitimate?

More to the point, effective oversight requires "bias" so it's not necessarily bad, and is often a good thing. We wouldn't expect the President's closest allies (any President) to hold him accountable, being his allies. So it's the "biased" members who will nearly always provide the 'oversight' necessary. Just for example, I don't think the Democrats had any interest in pursuing Hillary's email issues. Was the GOP interest in them "biased?" OF COURSE IT WAS!!! Was that a bad thing? I'm sure republicans don't think so, as the issue was real, although overblown in my biased opinion, given the practice of the previous SoS before her.
 
MTAtech said:
You are citing an 1881 case prior to the 1924 law being written. The 1957 case nothing to do with the matter at hand. John Watkins, was about a labor organizer, who was called upon to testify in hearings conducted by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Watkins agreed to describe his alleged connections with the Communist Party and to identify current members of the Party. Watkins refused to give information concerning individuals who had left the Communist Party. Watkins argued that such questions were beyond the authority of the Committee.
Click to expand...

Umm i am not citing the article is citing it.
and 57 case has everything to do with it because it says congress
cannot conduct witch hunts looking for crimes they are not a law enforcement agency.

You realize that the 57 ruling was against what congress what doing right?

Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the power of the United States Congress is not unlimited in conducting investigations and that nothing in the United States Constitution gives it the authority to expose the private affairs of individuals.

Tax returns are considered a private matter that the congress has no ability to expose.
 
BlueTex said:
Good luck in court... lmao...
Click to expand...

your concession is noted and you were proven wrong.
had you taken the time to actually look this up you would have known this already.

not that you will educate yourself on this issue leftist never do.
 
Anthony60 said:
Yes. So, let's see all those of the "if he has nothing to hide..." crowd upload their tax returns so we can see everything. Otherwise, we'll (at least the left) have to assume that they are criminals and should be investigated.
Click to expand...

If I run for President, I promise you I will release all my tax returns like all the other candidates have done for the past 50 years or so!
 
ludin said:
your concession is noted and you were proven wrong.
had you taken the time to actually look this up you would have known this already.

not that you will educate yourself on this issue leftist never do.
Click to expand...

I'm not conceding anything, I'm waiting for inevitable ruling from the court granting access.... Will you educate yourself then?
 
Anthony60 said:
The left has already shown that they don't care about "precedent" at all with their one side, gestapo impeachment abuse. So don't try to claim that precedent matters now.
Click to expand...

Did you forget about the Clinton years?

And there was no "gestapo impeachment abuse." The Democrats used the same rules the GOP did for Clinton. That line has been debunked many times on DP. Repeating it now is just gaslighting. We know better so save your bandwidth.
 
ludin said:
the bottom line is trump is under no obligation to release his tax returns and neither is anyone else.
it was their choice they did it there is no law or rule that says they have to.

several states have tried to force candidates to do it but they have been struck down by courts as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

There is a law that requires him to release his return to Congress. As you've acknowledged, that's before the courts now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom