- Joined
- Apr 29, 2013
- Messages
- 22,637
- Reaction score
- 2,295
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I would love to debate rationally... What is the legal basis for his refusal to allow the IRS to comply with the law?
Trump's legal basis?
I would love to debate rationally... What is the legal basis for his refusal to allow the IRS to comply with the law?
It's going to be a constitutional question. The opinion agrees that the law does not require any reason for requesting the information. However, the OLC is saying Congress cannot constitutionay mandate the release of confidential information from the Executive branch.
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
Trump's DOJ doesn't think Trump should have to release his taxes. Now, that is a surprise.
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
Democrats do not respect DOJ officials who support conservative interpretations of the Constitution. They are like Kamala Harris unknowingly admitted when she said, "If I am elected, my AG..." They believe democrat presidents are right to own the Justice Department but if Trump is benefitted by a current Justice Department ruling on the law they think the Justice Department is evil for not siding with the democrats falsely accusing and seeking to illegally prosecute Trump for a whole range of false allegations.
Imagine how all encompassing such a ruling would be for future presidents..... The mind reels with possibilities...
Only a Marxist would make claims about 'illegal prosecutions'.
Kangaroo courts are a favorite among Marxists.
But what is the legal reasoning for withholding the tax returns? Trump claims lots of things that aren't based on any law.
Then why would he withhold them from congress and defy the law? The American people?
The JCT is allowed, by federal law, to request the returns. There are no exceptions and no wiggle room.
I would love to debate rationally... What is the legal basis for his refusal to allow the IRS to comply with the law?
Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957). Watkins v. United States :: 354 U.S. 178 (1957) :: Justia US Supreme Court CenterCongress has no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of Congress.
Are you not familiar with 26 USC 6103(f)?
This is your answer:
Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957). Watkins v. United States :: 354 U.S. 178 (1957) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
The argument posed by the OP citation is based on this ruling. The point being based on the history of publicly declared motivations, it is clear that the current Committee Chairman's motivation for "reviewing" the tax records rests on a prurient interest in "exposing" President Trump's tax returns publicly.
This is not a valid exercise of Congressional authority.
Such as?
Evidence of the bolded?
This is your answer:
Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957). Watkins v. United States :: 354 U.S. 178 (1957) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
The argument posed by the OP citation is based on this ruling. The point being based on the history of Chairman Neal's publicly declared motivations, it is clear that his demand to "review" the tax records rests on a prurient interest in "exposing" President Trump's tax returns publicly.
This is not a valid exercise of Congressional authority.
Yes, I am thanks to these debates on the issue.
That law itself states that tax records are confidential and cannot be released publicly without the citizen's permission. It also states that Congress may review them in "closed executive session" unless permission otherwise is granted by the taxpayer.
Chairman Neal wants to expose these tax records publicly, and his stated reasons for requesting the records are specious as explained by the OLC's response.
SCOTUS may end up deciding one way or the other.
Sigh... Watkins v. United States applies to congressional testimony, not public records...
From the opinion...
Held: Petitioner was not accorded a fair opportunity to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer, and his conviction was invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 354 U. S. 181-216.
Nobody is being asked to testify about Trump's tax returns...
Can congress pass a law making all current presidents tax returns public information? The answer, of course, is yes... Now you have legislative intent...
"Sigh" NO!
A SCOTUS decision is generally applicable to similar issues. The decision made it plain that Congress must have a valid legislative purpose in revealing personal information to the public.
However, I added the caveat that this will probably be sent to SCOTUS for final ruling on application in the current case. Which is why the OLC made the argument supporting the Treasury response refusing to supply the tax returns, and the Administration will continue to refuse to do so (at least while it remains in office).
Did you forget to READ the OLC's response provided in the OP? :unsure13:
The tax returns are requested for use in closed session, therefore, the argument that they are for revealing personal information to the public is nonsense.
When was the last time an appeals court or the supreme court ruled against a congressional subpoena based on legislative intent?
That's not evidence, that's the opinion...
:roll: (Quote deletes your own biased response to focus on the only real point).
That's exactly how things work. One party make a claim, the other party counter's it...the COURT decides. :coffeepap:
Just one example... The very same statute being argued in this case also requires a yearly report (26 USC 6103(p)(3)(c) of disclosures
(C) Public report on disclosures
The Secretary shall, within 90 days after the close of each calendar year, furnish to the Joint Committee on Taxation for disclosure to the public a report with respect to the records or accountings described in subparagraph (A) which—
(i) provides with respect to each Federal agency, each agency, body, or commission described in subsection (d), (i)(3)(B)(i) or (7)(A)(ii), or (l)(6), and the Government Accountability Office the number of—
(I) requests for disclosure of returns and return information,
(II) instances in which returns and return information were disclosed pursuant to such requests or otherwise,
(III) taxpayers whose returns, or return information with respect to whom, were disclosed pursuant to such requests, and
(ii) describes the general purposes for which such requests were made
This is congress mandating through statute confidential information... Would this be unconstitutional?
How many reports does the executive branch provide to congress pursuant to statutory mandates each year?
It was always about circumventing the confidentiality of individual tax returns and revealing them to the public despite Trump's (who has not lost rights shared by any other citizen simply by being elected President) choice to keep them confidential.
DId the committee ever state that they want to make the returns public?That isn't what 1603(f) says. It specifically states that permission must be obtained from the tax payer whose returns they are, for Congress to make any information public.
None of what you quoted supported the premise that IRS records are an individual citizens property. That's because they're not, otherwise authorities wouldn't be able to obtain them without your knowledge in an investigation.
What you're talking about is federal law that bars the IRS or an accounting firm from disclosing private tax records, which has nothing to do with the 4th amendment. The OLC didn't bring up the 4th at all, so you have no idea what you're talking about. Just like criminal and traffic records are not your property, but the governments, and they disclosed publicly because the 4th doesn't apply there. OTOH, we have other laws that protect peoples privacy rights relating to health records and such, but when it comes to the president and oversight purposes, the congress always wins these battles.
The law CLEARLY states the W&M committee can have these records with or without a legislative reason.
Look, I know that right wing pundits are assuring you the law is on the presidents side, but it's not at all. Just like it wasn't in the Mazars and Deutsche bank lawsuits.
Why and when said that it is to be made public?Are you asking what part of the Constitution is violated by congress getting their hands on the tax returns of private citizens for the purpose of making them public? That would be the 4th Amendment.