- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 49,278
- Reaction score
- 55,013
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1173756/download
Here's the part I like -
The request "raised a serious risk of abuse". Damned straight it did.
Opinions | OLC | Department of Justice
Congressional Committee’s Request for the President’s Tax Returns Under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f )
The provisions in 26 U.S.C. § 6103 protecting confidentiality of tax returns prohibited the Department of the Treasury from complying with a request by the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee for the President’s tax returns. The text of section 6103(f ), the statutory exception under which the request was made, does not require the Committee to state any purpose for its request. But Congress could not constitutionally confer upon the Committee the right to compel the Executive Branch to disclose confidential information without a legitimate legislative purpose. Under the facts and circumstances, the Secretary of the Treasury reasonably and correctly concluded that the Committee’s asserted interest in reviewing the Internal Revenue Service’s audits of presidential returns was pretextual and that its true aim was to make the President’s tax returns public, which is not a legitimate legislative purpose.
Here's the part I like -
During the prior Congress, Chairman Neal, who was then the Commit-tee’s Ranking Member, repeatedly urged the Committee to invoke section 6103(f ) to make the President’s tax returns “available to the public,” declaring that “Committee Democrats remain steadfast in [their] pursuit to have [President Trump’s] individual tax returns disclosed to the public.” H.R. Rep. No. 115-309, at 8 (2017) (dissenting views); H.R. Rep. No. 115-73, at 8 (2017) (dissenting views). Before the midterm elections, Chairman Neal (as well as other members of his party) promised that, if they won a majority in the House, then the Chairman would wield his authority to demand the President’s tax returns.
After becoming Chairman, he followed up on this promise by request-ing that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) disclose the President’s tax returns. In lieu of his prior focus on making the returns public, he asserted that the Committee required six years of President Trump’s tax returns because it was “considering legislative proposals and conducting over-sight related to our Federal tax laws, including, but not limited to, the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President.” April 3 Neal Letter at 1. To that end, Chairman Neal claimed that “t is necessary for the Committee to determine the scope of any such examination and whether it includes a review of underlying business activities required to be reported on the individual income tax return.” Id. The Chairman did not explain why, if the Committee were sincerely interested in understanding how the IRS audits presidential tax returns, he needed to review President Trump’s tax returns for many years before his presidency. Nor did the Chairman request any information concerning the IRS’s actual policies or practices governing presidential audits or the audit histories for any President other than President Trump.
In view of these marked discrepancies in the public record, Treasury, quite reasonably, concluded that Chairman Neal had not articulated the real reason for his request. The Chairman’s request that Treasury turn over the President’s tax returns, for the apparent purpose of making them public, amounted to an unprecedented use of the Committee’s authority and raised a serious risk of abuse. As you explained, Treasury was committed to complying with the law, but under the circumstances, it questioned whether the Chairman’s request was lawful. Accordingly, you requested this Office’s advice about whether Treasury should fulfill the request. See Letter for Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from Brent J. McIntosh, General Counsel, Department of the Treasury at 1 (May 2, 2019).
The request "raised a serious risk of abuse". Damned straight it did.
Opinions | OLC | Department of Justice