• 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

Kangaroo courts, false allegations, false convictions, false imprisonments and brutal political persecutions are some favorites among Marxists.

Like Guantanamo Bay, for example? Torture, illegal detention, denial of legal representation, extraordinary rendition. Yes, all components of American adherence to law, decency and democratic principles, wouldn't you agree? You do understand what hypocrisy is, I take it?
 
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.

Why didn't the OLC make that argument?


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:

Did you read Judge Mehta's opinion?
 
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.

Can congress change the confidentiality of the presidents tax returns?
 
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.

In 2017 congress looked at over 59 million pieces of tax information or returns... Is that a violation of the 4th amendment rights of all those taxpayers?

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



JCX-3-19
 
Trump's DOJ doesn't think Trump should have to release his taxes. Now, that is a surprise.

exactly.

there's too much demand for his financial records for them to remain secret forever.
 
Why didn't the OLC make that argument?

Did you read Judge Mehta's opinion?

I have now, as it can be found here:

READ: Judge Amit Mehta's opinion in Trump's subpoena case - CNNPolitics

However, I personally do not agree with his legal analysis in requesting information on the President's financial history pre-election...up to 20 years prior to his election (if I read correctly) when determining "legislative action" regarding possible issues of emoluments alleged during his term in office.

This ruling is currently under appeal, and will eventually make it's way to SCOTUS where a more definitive answer will be provided.

BTW, do you not recall me mentioning that your original question about "legal basis" in response to the OP's citation position will ALSO likely be resolved by the SCOTUS?

I am willing to wait and see what the results are (if any) in BOTH the OP and your last citations. I am also willing to accept the SCOTUS ruling(s) if any.

Meanwhile, I have no problem with the OP citation of arguments.
 
Thanks for recap of congressional changes to tax privacy laws. Since the 4th hasn't changed during that time, can we assume you agree that tax records are public records and their confidentiality can and has been changed by congress and not changes to the 4th amendment?

Just for fun, how many times did congress use 6103(f) in 2017?


View attachment 67258172

JCX-3-19

The following excerpt is from the report YOU linked to -
The 1976 Act eliminated executive branch control over access to returns and return information and replaced it with a statutory regime governing disclosure.20 In contrast to the prior presumption that returns were public records, the 1976 Act provided that returns and return information are confidential. The 1976 Act also included a variety of exceptions to this general rule. These exceptions allowed disclosure for tax administration purposes, including the development of tax policy, as well as for purposes unrelated to the administration of the tax laws.

I will further note that the report this comes from was prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation to justify their request for Trump's returns. You can tell it's a political piece more than anything else because after going through the history of section 6103 and concluding that committee requests are subject a legislative purpose then then go into a whole second section on why it was fine for them to look at Nixon's returns and Agnew's returns even though all that stuff happened prior to the 1976 change AND with Nixon's permission.

Also, just so we're clear, there is a whole world of difference between "We need to see information on every taxpayer that filed a 3800 and had an AGI in excess of $75k. We don't want names and addresses but we do want to see filing status, age of primary and secondary taxpayer and their state of residence." and, "We need to see Trump's tax returns because we need to verify that he isn't a Russian agent."
 
Like Guantanamo Bay, for example? Torture, illegal detention, denial of legal representation, extraordinary rendition. Yes, all components of American adherence to law, decency and democratic principles, wouldn't you agree? You do understand what hypocrisy is, I take it?

Mueller raided Manafort's home at night and threw him into solitary confinement in prison, yet he gave Manafort's partner, Herr Tony Podesta, a kiss and a wave goodbye in spite of his clear involvement in the same crime. Why? Because Podesta was a democrat and Manafort was tied to Trump. This is a clear example of third world style politically motivated Marxist brutality.
 
Mueller raided Manafort's home at night and threw him into solitary confinement in prison, yet he gave Manafort's partner, Herr Tony Podesta, a kiss and a wave goodbye in spite of his clear involvement in the same crime. Why? Because Podesta was a democrat and Manafort was tied to Trump. This is a clear example of third world style politically motivated Marxist brutality.

You will find if you ever are at risk for a Federal Prosecution that unlike Civil Tort or the State Attorney's office a Federal Prosecutor will not likely Indict unless he has you by the balls. They Indict not because they think they will achieve a guilty verdict or a guilty plea but because they know they will. Even at that, it ain't like falling out of bed in the morning. Took all of 1 screwball jury member and 1 whacky judge to kill of 10 of the 18 charges against Manafort even though he was dead to rights DEAD on all 18.

If they ever Indict Podesta it will be because they have HIM by the balls.
 
Last edited:
the SCotUS


This is a preview of what the Supremes will be ruling.
Which precedent will the SCotUS use?


Previous precedent has established that the Courts are to give Congress the benefit of the doubt wherever possible.
As long as legislation could be had on the subject, the Courts have been generally willing to let Congress proceed.
The default assumption is that legislation could be had on most any subject.
The petitioner would have to conclusively counter the argument that legislation could be had on w/e subject.
The use of the word "could" makes that a very hight bar.
Congress doesn't even have to be contemplating specific legislation, just that legislation could be had on the subject.




Legislative intent
They want his tax returns so they can try to smear him and spread gossip over his tax returns.
They have zero legitimate reason to have access to them. The Supreme court won't allow this to happen!
So in short, Without a criminal case or a legislative purpose, Congress doesn't get anyone's tax returns they want just because they ask for it and the information contained is the personal property of the filer.
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.
Congress determines what tax information can be shared with the public and nobody else... The precedent is clear and the law requires no justification for seeking the tax returns...
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.
The Courts have ruled that bey default Congress gets to decide on which subjects legislation could be had.


So, while there are constraints on Congress's investigatory powers — that legislation could be had on a subject — by default Congress gets to decide is there's a legitimate legislative purpose for Congress's inquiry.
The courts have held that in theory there could be cases where they could step in.
But those'd be cases where the Courts were unable to give congress the benefit of the doubt that legislation could be had on a subject.


The Courts have said that the existence of other reasons beyond legislative purposes does NOT invalidate the the existence of a legislative purpose.
So, even if the petitioner proves that the motivation of the investigation is purely political, it doesn't matter
The bar the petitioner must hurdle is whether or not legislation could be had on the subject.
If legislation could be had on the subject, the courts have decided to let the Legislative Branch exercise their Constitutional authority o investigate matters on which legislation could be had.
 
Constitutional Authority
The Constitution limits what congress is allowed to do. If you want to put congress in charge of everything then get rid of the Constitution.
Congress's investigatory powers are rooted in the Constitution.
By default, Congress gets to decide what matters are fit for Congress to investigate.
The test the Courts have created to see if Congress is overstepping is whether or not legislation could be had on a subject.
The Courts have ruled that the existence or possible existence of an ulterior motive on the part of the Legislative Branch is superfluous.
The critical question is whether or not legislation could be had.




4th Amendment
Because the law passed a hundred years ago violates the Fourth Amendment. Constitution supersedes IRS Code.
The nature of the demand from Neal is that of a "search". His purpose is, purportedly, to discover failings in the IRS audit process but his request is ONLY for Trump's records and that pretty much proves that his stated purpose and his actual intent are two different things. No matter how much you guys hate Trump you really need to remember that all the stuff you do to hurt him can also be used against the rest of the population and those of us in "the rest of the population" aren't about to allow you to blow a USS Cole sized hole in the Constitution.
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.
Fourth Amendment as I said.
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.


Congress's whole rigmarole is likely reasonable due process.
( And therefore is not an unreasonable search. )

How many other due processes require a pack Congresscritter's to agree to act?
 
In 2017 congress looked at over 59 million pieces of tax information or returns... Is that a violation of the 4th amendment rights of all those taxpayers?

What are you talking about. Those aren't personal tax return request. The Joint Committee on Taxation is a committee of the United States Congress who assist Members of the majority and minority parties in both houses of Congress on tax legislation.

The Joint Committee Staff is involved with every aspect of the tax legislative including:

Assisting Congressional tax-writing committees and Members of Congress with development and analysis of legislative proposals;
Preparing official revenue estimates of all tax legislation considered by the Congress;
Drafting legislative histories for tax-related bills; and
Investigating various aspects of the Federal tax system.

Really? Come on man.
 
Constitutional Authority

Congress's investigatory powers are rooted in the Constitution.
By default, Congress gets to decide what matters are fit for Congress to investigate.
The test the Courts have created to see if Congress is overstepping is whether or not legislation could be had on a subject.
The Courts have ruled that the existence or possible existence of an ulterior motive on the part of the Legislative Branch is superfluous.
The critical question is whether or not legislation could be had.




4th Amendment







Congress's whole rigmarole is likely reasonable due process.
( And therefore is not an unreasonable search. )

How many other due processes require a pack Congresscritter's to agree to act?

I am still waiting on your information provision where a tax return is not considered personal property and is not covered under the 4th amendment.

Was that just a personal opinion or do you have some legislation that supports that.
 
The following excerpt is from the report YOU linked to -


I will further note that the report this comes from was prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation to justify their request for Trump's returns. You can tell it's a political piece more than anything else because after going through the history of section 6103 and concluding that committee requests are subject a legislative purpose then then go into a whole second section on why it was fine for them to look at Nixon's returns and Agnew's returns even though all that stuff happened prior to the 1976 change AND with Nixon's permission.

Also, just so we're clear, there is a whole world of difference between "We need to see information on every taxpayer that filed a 3800 and had an AGI in excess of $75k. We don't want names and addresses but we do want to see filing status, age of primary and secondary taxpayer and their state of residence." and, "We need to see Trump's tax returns because we need to verify that he isn't a Russian agent."

Hmmmm.... So congress CAN change the confidentiality of tax records.... They even had a report prepared and everything... Sure looks like legislative intent...
 
I am still waiting on your information provision where a tax return is not considered personal property and is not covered under the 4th amendment.
Was that just a personal opinion or do you have some legislation that supports that.

Double-check the usernames, please.

I am unable to remember making the claims you are asking me to justify.
 
Mueller raided Manafort's home at night and threw him into solitary confinement in prison, yet he gave Manafort's partner, Herr Tony Podesta, a kiss and a wave goodbye in spite of his clear involvement in the same crime. Why? Because Podesta was a democrat and Manafort was tied to Trump. This is a clear example of third world style politically motivated Marxist brutality.

Greetings, Marke. :2wave:

W.T.H. is going on - and WHY is it being allowed? :thumbdown:
 
You will find if you ever are at risk for a Federal Prosecution that unlike Civil Tort or the State Attorney's office a Federal Prosecutor will not likely Indict unless he has you by the balls. They Indict not because they think they will achieve a guilty verdict or a guilty plea but because they know they will. Even at that, it ain't like falling out of bed in the morning. Took all of 1 screwball jury member and 1 whacky judge to kill of 10 of the 18 charges against Manafort even though he was dead to rights DEAD on all 18.

If they ever Indict Podesta it will be because they have HIM by the balls.

If Podesta is ever indicted or if Hillary is ever indicted it will be by prosecutors who hold all Americans accountable the same, not those who just hold opponents of the party who hired you accountable.
 
I tell you what, man: the "assurance" was for the idiots on the left. Nobody who voted for Trump cared about his tax returns, nobody who voted for Trump had any "concerns" about his tax returns.
The morons who voted for Trump did not have any concerns for integrity, intellect and competence either.
 
What are you talking about. Those aren't personal tax return request. The Joint Committee on Taxation is a committee of the United States Congress who assist Members of the majority and minority parties in both houses of Congress on tax legislation.

The Joint Committee Staff is involved with every aspect of the tax legislative including:

Assisting Congressional tax-writing committees and Members of Congress with development and analysis of legislative proposals;
Preparing official revenue estimates of all tax legislation considered by the Congress;
Drafting legislative histories for tax-related bills; and
Investigating various aspects of the Federal tax system.

Really? Come on man.

We have no idea how many were complete returns or tax information, there is no requirement to report that level of detail.
 
People voted for Trump because he promised them to disclose his tax returns one day?!?
No they voted for him because they are way too stupid to understand what they did and are still doing by kissing his ass.
 
Back
Top Bottom