• 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!

OLC determines that Trump's tax returns DO NOT have to be disclosed

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?
 
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.

Imagine how all encompassing such a ruling would be for future presidents..... The mind reels with possibilities...
 
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

SUH-MACK.
Remember how the Weissmann Report used voodoo to make an OLC finding say something it didn't?
th
 
Trump's DOJ doesn't think Trump should have to release his taxes. Now, that is a surprise.

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.
 
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.

Only a Marxist would make claims about 'illegal prosecutions'.
 
Only a Marxist would make claims about 'illegal prosecutions'.

Kangaroo courts, false allegations, false convictions, false imprisonments and brutal political persecutions are some favorites 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?

This is your answer:

Congress has no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of Congress.
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.

Are you not familiar with 26 USC 6103(f)?

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Evidence of the bolded?
 

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?
 
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... 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.

The law you cite itself indicates that these records are confidential. Thus not generally open to the public without the citizen's expressed permission.

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).
 
"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.


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.

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).

When was the last time an appeals court or the supreme court ruled against a congressional subpoena based on legislative intent?
 
Did you forget to READ the OLC's response provided in the OP? :unsure13:

That's not evidence, that's the opinion of a biased leg of the DOJ. Nothing at this point can be trusted coming out of the DOJ due to Barr's overt display of political bias.
 
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.

That might be one argument. A counter-argument is that the Congress "leaks like a sieve," and Congressmen also have a habit of making "declarations" that "evidence shows" whatever political point they choose to make.

When was the last time an appeals court or the supreme court ruled against a congressional subpoena based on legislative intent?

I don't know at the moment, but that point is irrelevant as the SCOTUS often makes rulings without any prior history...most famously Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) which established the power of judicial review. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
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:
 
: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:

No, legal opinion is not evidence. It is just that, and for true resolution, the courts will decide.

I asked for evidence that what you say is true: that the only reason Ways & Means wants the information is to make it public. Please provide evidence for the claim you made in this regards.
 
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?

Congress wrote the law and provides the funding. Oversight. No issue with that.
But Congress here is asking for specific information from a specific executive branch person for reasons which the executive branch judges to be beyond the scope of Congress authority. Checks and balances and all that.
 
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.

Could be. That is the chance you take when you decide to run for public office. But for the DOJ to write a diatribe claiming that as a basis for denying the House the tax returns is laughably absurd.

You stick your head in the nose of running for National Public Office, ANY National Public Office, you take your chances. Neal might release them and he might not. To default to a surety that HE WILL in order to rationalize denying the House the Tax Returns is laughable.
 
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.
DId the committee ever state that they want to make the returns 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.

You are making the wrong argument to the wrong person. I am just stating the IRS position. I am not sure how you have determined on your own your argument as to who owns what. That isn't stated anywhere I can find. If you want to provide it that would be fine but other that that, it is just your opinion.

I would think the 4th amendment is pretty clear.

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.

I didn't find anything supporting your position. Unreasonable would include seizure of personal papers to include invasion of personal privacy without a legislative purpose or the conviction of a criminal act.

Lets just say for a second, Congress has the right to look at anyone's tax returns just because they are in Congress. Do you think this will end with Trump? You don't think this will be used to exploit everyone who is in opposition of whomever has the gavel from here to eternity. Less we forget, Democrats were just recently bit in the ass over the same problem and for some reason has no ability to learn from the past.

Example: During the Obama years, Democrats didn't have enough votes in the Senate to get their SCOTUS picks through. They had a temper tantrum and decided to change the law from 60% to 50% because they had enough votes to accomplish that. They were told over and over, if you do this it will come back to haunt you. They did it anyway.

Because of there lack of forward thinking and (I want my way) attitude, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were confirmed to the Supreme court, who are both huge 4th amendment supporters and would have not been confirmed if Democrats left well enough alone.

Any Federal Judge Democrats can find to uphold their position will be met with an appeal to Supreme court who now has the conservative majority. They will bring into the equation the fact that allowing seizures of Tax returns for political gain will supersede the 4th and will be a disaster in future events. I am not saying how they will rule but it will be a consideration. If I was a betting man, I would put a lot of money on how this will turn out.
 
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.
Why and when said that it is to be made public?
 
Back
Top Bottom