• 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!

Whose Tax Returns Do We Need To See?

Maybe we should start calling our Congresspersons when we have questions doing our tax returns?
 
Personally, I would like to see Speaker Pelosi's tax returns and her husband's.

There have been many rumors (which, being a fair person, I would not think of repeating here).

Maybe her tax returns could lay to rest those nasty rumors once and for all.
 
Congress used 6301(f) to review tax returns and/or tax information over 59 million times in 2017... Why is the presidents tax returns/tax information any different?

Screen Shot 2019-06-15 at 7.13.11 AM.jpg

JCX-3-19
 
TheParser said:
Personally, I would like to see Speaker Pelosi's tax returns and her husband's.

There have been many rumors (which, being a fair person, I would not think of repeating here).

Maybe her tax returns could lay to rest those nasty rumors once and for all.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure if she were to become president she would be happy to-just as every other president has done. Apart from Trump.
 
Winston said:
He meant you're making excuses for Trump by pointing out that which you perceive as misbehavior from people unrelated to the topic and that you are using their misbehavior as a cover for the defense of the unethical.

{/QUOTE]

How about just answer the question posed. I guess if I had to answer the question posed I would jump to platitudes myself. And the fact he used it in 12 other post so theres that.
Click to expand...
 
JMR said:
Omar has absolutely nothing to do with Trump not releasing his tax returns. He stated that they would be available after the audit was complete. He lied. Very simple.

Omar should be held responsible for any wrong doing. Funny you would worry about her cheating the US Government, while Trump has used tax dodges for years and laughs at suckers who actually pay taxes.
Click to expand...

Do you have evidence his audit is complete?
 
Condor060 said:
There is no such law. You just made that up.
Click to expand...

See sec. 6103(f).

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

If I were Trump, I wouldn't release my dogs medication prescriptions to the fake media as they would start a 2 year campaign with their bought and paid for experts trying to twist his returns into world Armageddon.

First off, I guess Liberals don't under stand that Trump tax returns are audited and provided by the nations largest accountants of which these accounting firms take liability for any claims made by the IRS.

Second, under Title 18 Section 208 of the U.S. code, exempts the president and vice president from conflict-of-interest laws on the theory that the presidency has so much power that any possible executive action might pose a potential conflict.

The only reason you want the return is to find anything you can get your hands on to beat on Trump. You will never see them.
Click to expand...

Accounting firms don't take "liability" for any claims made by IRS. They can be sued for malpractice, but they don't pay shortfalls. And if your legal analysis didn't uncover Sec. 6103 then I don't really think you're an expert on this subject.
 
distraff said:
When she runs for president, I'd like to see her returns. If you think all Congresspeople should also show their returns then you must demand them from Republicans too.
Click to expand...

LOL. So, you're ok with a representative who breaks the law as long as she is an anti-Trump representative.
 
JasperL said:
Accounting firms don't take "liability" for any claims made by IRS. They can be sued for malpractice, but they don't pay shortfalls.
Click to expand...

Laws & Regulations Accountant's Liability

An accountant's liability describes the legal liability assumed while performing professional duties. An accountant is liable for a client's accounting misstatements. This risk of being responsible for fraud or misstatement forces accountants to be knowledgeable and employ all applicable accounting standards. An accountant who is negligible in his or her examination of a company can face legal charges from either the company or investors and creditors that rely on the accountant's work.

Accountant's Liability

So we determined you got that wrong.


And if your legal analysis didn't uncover Sec. 6103 then I don't really think you're an expert on this subject.
Click to expand...

Now show me where in you provision it states a Presidential candidate or the President of the United States is required to provide their tax return. You can't so let me help you out there as well.

One of the 10 largest law firms in the US. (Located in California) The Reeves Law Firm.

No. There is no legal requirement of any kind that presidential candidates release tax returns from any year. Indeed, there is a strict, strong constitutional right to privacy for all tax returns. Thus, tax returns can be released by an individual taxpayer, but cannot released by the IRS to the public.

Are Presidential Candidates Legally Required To Release Their Tax Returns? | The Reeves Law Group

Currently, the criteria for a presidential candidate, per the Constitution, is that the candidate must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older. That’s it. Congress can’t add to the constitutional criteria through federal legislation.

All you have to do is google is a president required to release his tax returns. Pretty simple.
 
Condor060 said:
Laws & Regulations Accountant's Liability

An accountant's liability describes the legal liability assumed while performing professional duties. An accountant is liable for a client's accounting misstatements. This risk of being responsible for fraud or misstatement forces accountants to be knowledgeable and employ all applicable accounting standards. An accountant who is negligible in his or her examination of a company can face legal charges from either the company or investors and creditors that rely on the accountant's work.

Accountant's Liability

So we determined you got that wrong.
Click to expand...

OK, I've been doing returns for about 30 years now and I'm glad you let me know that I'm on the hook for shortfalls on my clients' returns! I didn't know that!

Like I said, we are liable for mistakes, but the vehicle for collecting back taxes or penalties or interest is through suing us for malpractice. IRS simply will never go to the accountant to make payments on a client's shortfall.

Now show me where in you provision it states a Presidential candidate or the President of the United States is required to provide their tax return. You can't so let me help you out there as well.

One of the 10 largest law firms in the US. (Located in California) The Reeves Law Firm.

No. There is no legal requirement of any kind that presidential candidates release tax returns from any year. Indeed, there is a strict, strong constitutional right to privacy for all tax returns. Thus, tax returns can be released by an individual taxpayer, but cannot released by the IRS to the public.

Are Presidential Candidates Legally Required To Release Their Tax Returns? | The Reeves Law Group

Currently, the criteria for a presidential candidate, per the Constitution, is that the candidate must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older. That’s it. Congress can’t add to the constitutional criteria through federal legislation.

All you have to do is google is a president required to release his tax returns. Pretty simple.
Click to expand...

OK, so you ignored the law to move the goal posts. The law allows Congress to obtain any return - upon request the Secretary "shall" provide it. There are limits on disclosing the return, but the legal authority to obtain a return for a legitimate purpose is clear.

And I'm glad you cited some personal injury lawyers for making your case. Seems appropriate somehow.... :roll:
 
Moderate Right said:
LOL. So, you're ok with a representative who breaks the law as long as she is an anti-Trump representative.
Click to expand...

As long as you didn't get massive amounts of tax breaks by breaking the tax law, I don't really get excited for it, and that also goes for Republicans too. Even if it turned out Trump broke the tax law in the same way, I don't really care since he is going to have to pay up anyway.
 
JasperL said:
OK, I've been doing returns for about 30 years now and I'm glad you let me know that I'm on the hook for shortfalls on my clients' returns! I didn't know that!
Click to expand...

You didn't know that you are liable for your clients fraud in producing their tax returns? I knew that just because I use accountants to do my company taxes.

Like I said, we are liable for mistakes, but the vehicle for collecting back taxes or penalties or interest is through suing us for malpractice. IRS simply will never go to the accountant to make payments on a client's shortfall.
Click to expand...

Like I stated in my earlier post. Trump uses some of the nations largest accounting firms in the nation and if Trump is committing tax fraud, its on the accounting firm.

OK, so you ignored the law to move the goal posts.
Click to expand...

Whos moving the goal post? You stated Trump is required by law to provide his tax return. I showed you that is not accurate. Now you are asserting Congress has a right to seize his tax return. Not sure how you equate that to the same thing.

The law allows Congress to obtain any return - upon request the Secretary "shall" provide it. There are limits on disclosing the return, but the legal authority to obtain a return for a legitimate purpose is clear.
Click to expand...

This is you now moving the goal post. Actually its a legal authority to request a return. The IRS has asserted Congress has no right to see it without a legislative purpose and the law firms supporting the IRS claim are asserting the 4th amendment for protection of privacy. It will go to the Supreme court before the IRS gives Congress Trumps return.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And I'm glad you cited some personal injury lawyers for making your case. Seems appropriate somehow.... :roll
Click to expand...

I selected one of thousands of easily found sites explaining why there is no law requiring a presidential candidate or the president to provide his tax returns because for some reason this information isn't available to you?
 
Condor060 said:
You didn't know that you are liable for your clients fraud in producing their tax returns? I knew that just because I use accountants to do my company taxes.
Click to expand...

I'm not liable for their fraud. If I make a mistake, or advise you to take a bogus deduction, you can sue me for malpractice, but if the IRS audits you and decides you own an additional $100k, IRS doesn't go to the tax preparer. They go to you. You owed the tax (or your company) and you are liable for it.

Often the 'fraud' is hidden from the accountants. I can't report what you don't tell me and I have no obligation to audit your records. So if you took a $million in cash and it didn't make it on your books, and I prepare the return based on your books, that's on you. Even if I know about the $million, that doesn't convert the tax owed when the fraud is discovered to a liability for me. You earned the money and are liable for the tax on it. And if you and me agreed not to report it, it's going to be very hard for you to sue and win a malpractice case, because you told me to assist you in defrauding IRS.

IRS can levy penalties on me, sometimes punitive ones, and I can be tried for participating in a crime, but that still doesn't make me liable for your taxes.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Like I stated in my earlier post. Trump uses some of the nations largest accounting firms in the nation and if Trump is committing tax fraud, its on the accounting firm.
Click to expand...

That's not true. See above.

Whos moving the goal post? You stated Trump is required by law to provide his tax return. I showed you that is not accurate. Now you are asserting Congress has a right to seize his tax return. Not sure how you equate that to the same thing.

This is you now moving the goal post. Actually its a legal authority to request a return. The IRS has asserted Congress has no right to see it without a legislative purpose and the law firms supporting the IRS claim are asserting the 4th amendment for protection of privacy. It will go to the Supreme court before the IRS gives Congress Trumps return.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

There are several good analyses of the constitutional questions surrounding Sec. 6103(f). That's not one of them. You are missing a lot of the picture. The biggest one is Congress has a legitimate oversight role, and that has to be weighed against the right to privacy. It's simply not an easy question. What happens, for example, if a thoroughly corrupt WH simply refuses to cooperate with Congress? Do we have an autocracy? What POTUS says is the law? If his DoJ won't look into it because POTUS orders them not to, and Congress cannot look into it, how do we hold the WH accountable?
 
Last edited:
distraff said:
As long as you didn't get massive amounts of tax breaks by breaking the tax law, I don't really get excited for it, and that also goes for Republicans too. Even if it turned out Trump broke the tax law in the same way, I don't really care since he is going to have to pay up anyway.
Click to expand...

And it is unlikely that Trump actually broke the law. He has been able to pay zero in federal income taxes for many years due to huge losses in the past. There's nothing illegal about that. And there's nothing illegal about an international businessman doing international business. But, claiming married on a return to get a cheaper tax rate when you know you aren't married to the person is a crime.
 
Moderate Right said:
And it is unlikely that Trump actually broke the law. He has been able to pay zero in federal income taxes for many years due to huge losses in the past. There's nothing illegal about that. And there's nothing illegal about an international businessman doing international business. But, claiming married on a return to get a cheaper tax rate when you know you aren't married to the person is a crime.
Click to expand...

The only problem with your analysis is you're guessing. Without seeing the returns, you have no idea how he's managed (if he has) to avoid paying taxes. Could be he's employed a number of now illegal tax avoidance schemes. We just don't know.
 
Moderate Right said:
And it is unlikely that Trump actually broke the law. He has been able to pay zero in federal income taxes for many years due to huge losses in the past. There's nothing illegal about that. And there's nothing illegal about an international businessman doing international business. But, claiming married on a return to get a cheaper tax rate when you know you aren't married to the person is a crime.
Click to expand...

Its actually very easy to commit a tax crime. Just getting one number wrong in your tax return to underestimate income or overestimate deductions is technically a crime. So by that definition, we are all criminals since in our 60 years of tax returns, we have made a mistake at least once. What really matters is the degree of the crime and how much in taxes we underpaid. If she only underpaid by a few thousand dollars, then its not a big deal, if the number is much higher, then she can face big penalties and prison time.

The difference between her and most people is that there is a case to be made that she intentionally made the error since to most people a married filing is pretty obvious to understand. However, according to the law, a crime is a crime whether you knew about it or not. Young people often make big mistakes out of inexperience. For example, my wife took an education credit when she wasn't supposed to a couple years. Maybe Omar just viewed the married filing as a couple filing and thought she could take it if she was sharing expenses with a partner. Maybe it was her partner who was managing the taxes and she didn't really think about it. Young people make very dumb mistakes. Unless she is proven guilty in a court of law of intentional fraud of a significant amount of money, I don't have the evidence to make such an accusation.
 
JasperL said:
I'm not liable for their fraud. If I make a mistake, or advise you to take a bogus deduction, you can sue me for malpractice, but if the IRS audits you and decides you own an additional $100k, IRS doesn't go to the tax preparer. They go to you. You owed the tax (or your company) and you are liable for it.
Click to expand...

Yet all evidence to the contrary.

An accountant's liability describes the legal liability assumed while performing professional duties. An accountant is liable for a client's accounting misstatements. This risk of being responsible for fraud or misstatement forces accountants to be knowledgeable and employ all applicable accounting standards.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I provided you the actual law. Seems you may have some misunderstanding in your accountability to the IRS.



There are several good analyses of the constitutional questions surrounding Sec. 6103(f). That's not one of them. You are missing a lot of the picture. The biggest one is Congress has a legitimate oversight role, and that has to be weighed against the right to privacy. It's simply not an easy question. What happens, for example, if a thoroughly corrupt WH simply refuses to cooperate with Congress? Do we have an autocracy? What POTUS says is the law? If his DoJ won't look into it because POTUS orders them not to, and Congress cannot look into it, how do we hold the WH accountable?
Click to expand...

I believe the executive authority of the President of the United states is pretty clear. Democrats don't like the fact that Trump has these powers and now wants to change the law. Sorry, these are Constitutional powers and not up for debate.

As far as the 6103 (f) The Ways and Means committee is stating they have the responsibility to conduct oversight of the federal tax system and “determine how Americans — including those elected to our highest office — are complying with those laws.” Jerry Nadler also claims the committee needs to make sure the IRS is doing its duty in properly enforcing tax laws.

So under this subpoena request (as stated above) Nadler wants the IRS to produce a single Tax return. (President Trumps) for 6 years prior to coming to office. They didn't have a legislative purpose for requesting Trumps return so they subpoenaed the return under those request.

Since when did the Ways & Means committee become the oversight for IRS employees in making sure Americans comply with tax laws?

Every legal analyst that supports the IRS and the WH has determined this is nothing but a clear attempt to get Trumps tax returns for political purposes which isn't legal. If Democrats can find a Federal Judge to uphold their request it will be appealed and sent to the SCOTUS. See ya in 4 years or so.
 
Condor060 said:
Yet all evidence to the contrary.

An accountant's liability describes the legal liability assumed while performing professional duties. An accountant is liable for a client's accounting misstatements. This risk of being responsible for fraud or misstatement forces accountants to be knowledgeable and employ all applicable accounting standards.

Hmm, I provided you the actual law. Seems you may have some misunderstanding in your accountability to the IRS.
Click to expand...

You didn't cite the law, you cited a very poorly written article in Investopedia that was at best woefully incomplete, and mostly involved accountant's obligations to their audit clients, which are different than my obligation to my tax clients. Just for starters, I am supposed to trust what you tell me without checking on the veracity of your statements. I'm only obligated to request evidence for what you tell me if I have some reason to know or suspect what you tell me is untrue. If you tell me you drove 150,000 miles for business last year, and are not a traveling salesman but work in an office, I can't report that number without seeing some evidence or inquiring further about how that happened. If you tell me you had 4,000 business miles, I will not ask to see your log book. I should ask if you have one and if you tell me yes, that's enough. Etc.

And on the big questions, let's use mortgage payments as an example. If I tell you you can as a CEO deduct your mortgage for your $6 million ocean front house in Florida because sometimes you have office parties at the house, you can sue me for malpractice and recover interest and penalties, because that position has no basis in the law, and I should know better. But the TAX liability is still all yours, and so are the interest and penalties. All you can do is in an action unrelated to your dealings with IRS sue me in civil court to recover those damages. IRS is no party to that proceeding - that's between me and you.

If you want to cite the Internal Revenue code (i.e. the law), be my guest. There's nothing there that makes tax return preparers liable for tax shortfalls by our clients. IRS can levy sometimes very large penalties on me for taking positions on your return that are not based in the law and that I should know are fraudulent, but those actions are also unrelated to YOUR liabilities. If I pay IRS $1 million in penalties, that doesn't reduce your tax liabilities by even a $1. I can be tried criminally in some cases for facilitating tax fraud by my clients, but again, that doesn't reduce YOUR tax obligations.

I believe the executive authority of the President of the United states is pretty clear. Democrats don't like the fact that Trump has these powers and now wants to change the law. Sorry, these are Constitutional powers and not up for debate.

As far as the 6103 (f) The Ways and Means committee is stating they have the responsibility to conduct oversight of the federal tax system and “determine how Americans — including those elected to our highest office — are complying with those laws.” Jerry Nadler also claims the committee needs to make sure the IRS is doing its duty in properly enforcing tax laws.

So under this subpoena request (as stated above) Nadler wants the IRS to produce a single Tax return. (President Trumps) for 6 years prior to coming to office. They didn't have a legislative purpose for requesting Trumps return so they subpoenaed the return under those request.

Since when did the Ways & Means committee become the oversight for IRS employees in making sure Americans comply with tax laws?

Every legal analyst that supports the IRS and the WH has determined this is nothing but a clear attempt to get Trumps tax returns for political purposes which isn't legal. If Democrats can find a Federal Judge to uphold their request it will be appealed and sent to the SCOTUS. See ya in 4 years or so.
Click to expand...

I'll trust the analysis of actual lawyers. Thanks for the opinion though.
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
LOL. So, you're ok with a representative who breaks the law as long as she is an anti-Trump representative.
Click to expand...

If the law was broken indict her.


What is trump waiting for?
 
Fletch said:
Thats not true at all. More often than not, the cry of 'whataboutism' is used by those whose hypocrisy has just had a bright light shined upon it.
Click to expand...

No.

1. Unethical position.
2. Whataboutism.


It's a refuge for immorality.
 
JasperL said:
Yes, and? Citing the Constitution isn't actually an argument that the law as written and applied violates it.
Click to expand...
WTF are you talking about? That's exactly what it does, If Congress can demand and receive several years of Trump's tax returns just because they hat him, it's a total violation of the protections of the Constitution. It would be like the cops coming to the door and arresting you because they don't like the color of your house.
 
Bullseye said:
WTF are you talking about? That's exactly what it does, If Congress can demand and receive several years of Trump's tax returns just because they hate him, it's a total violation of the protections of the Constitution. It would be like the cops coming to the door and arresting you because they don't like the color of your house.
Click to expand...

Here's a recent law review article on the subject. There's a link to a pdf below. Let's just say it's not a simple question.

The President's Tax Returns by Andy Grewal :: SSRN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom