• 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

Captain Adverse said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well argued!

Trump would have to be insane to release his tax returns so that the congressional vultures could manipulate them for their own political agenda.
I don't look at this as Trump broke a campaign promise as much as I look at it now as the right thing to do. He certainly has the prerogative to change his mind to not release. IOW, his personal business does not belong in the hands of those who wish him harm.
 
Captain Adverse said:
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.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant bull crap. Nobody said anything about exposing anything.
 
Condor060 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your considerations are on the mark.
 
marke said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess that lets Bill Barr out now doesn't it.
 
Mycroft said:
This is a preview of what the Supremes will be ruling.
Click to expand...


https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1173756/download

I found the following snippets interesting...

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.

While the Executive Branch should accord due deference and respect to congressional requests, the Executive need not treat the Committee’s assertion of the legitimacy of its purpose as unquestionable. Id.The President stands at the head of a co-equal branch of government, and he is separately accountable to the people for the faithful performance of his responsibilities. Treasury thus had the responsibility to confirm for itself that the Chairman’s request serves a legitimate legislative end.

The Supreme Court has made clear that “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure,” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 200 (1957), and transmitting information “to inform the public . . . is not a part of the legislative function,” Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 133 (1979). In the absence of a legitimate legislative purpose, the disclosure of the President’s tax returns to the Chairman was barred by section 6103(a) and the Constitution.

Roseann:)
 
Captain Adverse said:
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.
Click to expand...

Utter and complete drivel, impressive drivel but drivel none the less. Have read that ruling. Irrelevant to the case of Congressional Oversight and Tax Returns.

The DOJ is making the argument that Congress can't get the returns because they MIGHT be released. Tough nuggies! Don't like the heat....get out of the kitchen. Nobody forces candidates for National Public Office to run. Running and most specifically winning automatically ends up putting your head above the grass line. Some candidates can stand that scrutiny, some can't. The chance that Trump would ever was a ludicrous proposition from the start.

There are specific Congressional Oversight responsibilities that relate to the President and there are specific Congressional Oversight responsibilities that might result in a private citizen to be exposed to more scrutiny if his head happens to be above the grass line.

Are we actually STUPID enough to think that Donald Trump walked the straight and narrow before he became President? Are we actually that dumb? Granted we tri-staters have an advantage over most of the rest of the country but certainly no member of the political establishment believed that and no member of the GOP believed that. His head is now way above the grass line and he stuck it there aided by the GOP and various and sundry OTHER entities.

The reason Trump will NEVER get past heavy scrutiny is because there is simply so much there to scrutinize once he came under scrutiny.
 
CharisRose said:
https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1173756/download

I found the following snippets interesting...

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.

While the Executive Branch should accord due deference and respect to congressional requests, the Executive need not treat the Committee’s assertion of the legitimacy of its purpose as unquestionable. Id.The President stands at the head of a co-equal branch of government, and he is separately accountable to the people for the faithful performance of his responsibilities. Treasury thus had the responsibility to confirm for itself that the Chairman’s request serves a legitimate legislative end.

The Supreme Court has made clear that “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure,” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 200 (1957), and transmitting information “to inform the public . . . is not a part of the legislative function,” Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 133 (1979). In the absence of a legitimate legislative purpose, the disclosure of the President’s tax returns to the Chairman was barred by section 6103(a) and the Constitution.

Roseann:)
Click to expand...
That's the rub though.

By default, the Legislative Branch are the one who get to decide if something is a legitimate legislative purpose.
The Courts have said that they will give the Legislative Branch the benefit of the doubt on these matters.

So, the PotUS would have not show that there could be no legitimate legislative purpose.
Showing that there are additional purposes, e.g. purely political purposes is insufficient.

It's a very high bar to demonstrate that there is no possibility legislation could be had on an issue.

Showing that there are political purposes at play as well is insufficient to cause the courts to intervene on the president's behalf.
It was already tried a while back in the 19th century iirc
 
Last edited:
Condor060 said:
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.
Click to expand...

fwiw, Congress had these investigatory powers confirmed by the ScotUS for more than a century.

So, if you want to imagine what the world would look like if Congress had these powers, you can just look around.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Legislative intent





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.
Click to expand...

They really shot themselves in the foot with the Subpoena request though. The cat is already out of the bag. The Ways and Means sought Trumps return stating that committee has 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.” and said the committee needs to make sure the IRS is doing its duty in properly enforcing tax laws.

Really? And you need Trumps (and only Trumps) tax return to do this. Nope, not buying that for a second.

That is not a legislative purpose to seize someones tax return. When did the Ways and Means committee become the overseeing body of the IRS? This will be determined by the SCOTUS as any Federal judges the Democrats can find to rule in their favor will be appealed. See ya in about 4 years.
 
What harm comes to Trump if his tax info were released?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
fwiw, Congress had these investigatory powers confirmed by the ScotUS for more than a century.

So, if you want to imagine what the world would look like if Congress had these powers, you can just look around.
Click to expand...

Uh no. This is the first time in history the committee has done this under these conditions.

The Ways and Means sought Trumps return stating that committee has 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.” and said the committee needs to make sure the IRS is doing its duty in properly enforcing tax laws.

Really? And you need Trumps (and only Trumps) tax return to do this. Nope, not buying that for a second.

That is not a legislative purpose to seize someones tax return. When did the Ways and Means committee become the overseeing body of the IRS? This will be determined by the SCOTUS as any Federal judges the Democrats can find to rule in their favor will be appealed. See ya in about 4 years.
 
Condor060 said:
They really shot themselves in the foot with the Subpoena request though. The cat is already out of the bag. The Ways and Means sought Trumps return stating that committee has 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.” and said the committee needs to make sure the IRS is doing its duty in properly enforcing tax laws.
Really? And you need Trumps (and only Trumps) tax return to do this. Nope, not buying that for a second.
That is not a legislative purpose to seize someones tax return.
Click to expand...
The thing is the Courts have already established that the Legislative Branch gets to decide what is or is not a valid legislative purpose.
While you and I are free to disagree withe the Legislature, our recourse only comes once every couple of years.


Condor060 said:
When did the Ways and Means committee become the overseeing body of the IRS?
Click to expand...
When the Constitution gave the Legislative Branch the power to legislate and levy taxes.

The LB has a duty to see that their laws are working as intended.
If the laws are not working as intended, the LB has a duty to change the laws.

You may not like it.
You may vehemently disagree.
But it looks like the Courts have settled the matter.
obviously, ymmv

Condor060 said:
This will be determined by the SCOTUS ...
Click to expand...
It's possible that the ScotUS will rule on it.

It's more probable that the issue will be pursued to the ScotUS level.

Idk if the ScotUS will decide to hear the case or not.
They often skip cases which are straightforward and the lower courts' ruling seem in accord with the law.
However, the PotUS is involved.
So, the ScotUS may decide to get involved and make a statement.


Condor060 said:
See ya in about 4 years.
Click to expand...
I hope you have a good time while you are away.
☺
 
BlueTex said:
We have no idea how many were complete returns or tax information, there is no requirement to report that level of detail.
Click to expand...

Wait a second, A minute ago the 59 million request were all personal tax returns, now we have no idea?

The Joint Committee Staff is a tax legislative committee. If you can't divine the nature of their request from their actual field of expertise and job description then you are either just not familiar with the committee or you knowingly just looking for pie in the sky excuses.
 
Condor060 said:
Uh no. This is the first time in history the committee has done this under these conditions.
Click to expand...
Well obviously.
"These conditions" include having Trump as a president.
And Trump was not president during other rulings.

But the principles established by previous ruling can be applied to this situation and "these conditions".

Condor060 said:
The Ways and Means sought Trumps return stating that committee has 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.” and said the committee needs to make sure the IRS is doing its duty in properly enforcing tax laws.
Really? And you need Trumps (and only Trumps) tax return to do this. Nope, not buying that for a second.
That is not a legislative purpose to seize someones tax return. When did the Ways and Means committee become the overseeing body of the IRS? This will be determined by the SCOTUS as any Federal judges the Democrats can find to rule in their favor will be appealed. See If you will ya in about 4 years.
Click to expand...

Iirc President Buchanan objected to the investigatory powers of Congress on the basis that Congress was only using the powers to "[furnish] material for harassing [the President], degrading him in the eyes of the country..."
Does that sound familiar?

Buchanan said Congress lacked the powers to investigate the President, except during impeachment. Buchanan feared that if the Legislative Branch had the power to investigate the PotUS, then it “would establish a precedent dangerous and embarrassing to all my successors, to whatever political party they might be attached.”
Does that sound familiar too?

Do either of those objection sound similar to objections in "these conditions"?

How do you think the ScotUS ruled on that case?


The Courts ruled that the Legislative Branch gets to determine what is or is not a valid legislative purpose.
If the Courts left themselves the ability to intervene if no legislation "could be had" on a subject.

Do you think that legislation "could be had" on tax matters?
The Courts likely will believe that there could be laws made about taxes.
 
Condor060 said:
Wait a second, A minute ago the 59 million request were all personal tax returns, now we have no idea?

The Joint Committee Staff is a tax legislative committee. If you can't divine the nature of their request from their actual field of expertise and job description then you are either just not familiar with the committee or you knowingly just looking for pie in the sky excuses.
Click to expand...

The report is from the IRS, not the JCF... I was clear when I said the requests were for tax returns and/or tax information, just like the IRS is required to report to congress by statute..
 
marke said:
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.
Click to expand...
What is the official explanation for the different treatment?

Is there one?
 
marke said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, you're saying that they will not be indicted during Trump's presidency?
That sounds likely.

If they are never indicted, is that a failing of Trump's DoJ?
Or would it mean that you may have misunderstood the situation?
 
BlueTex said:
So we agree, the committee has the right to demand the returns per the law, they just can't publicly disclose them... I assume you disagree with the OLC opinion?
Click to expand...

The committee won't like your idea because their main purpose is to release that information to the public in hopes of using that information for their sole purpose.

Sole purpose being: Using it to smear A Duly Elected POTUS in hopes of removing a President they hate out of office.

I don't like your idea because if they get what they demand what I suspect will follow is the "by any means necessary tactic" will come into play.

The information will be released to the public via a leak to some of the media pals by some unknown committee member(s).

Well, I may need to rethink my first idea that the committee won't like your idea based on the reason why I don't like your idea.;)

Roseann:)
 
CharisRose said:
The committee won't like your idea because their main purpose is to release that information to the public in hopes of using that information for their sole purpose.
Sole purpose being: Using it to smear A Duly Elected POTUS in hopes of removing a President they hate out of office.
I don't like your idea because if they get what they demand what I suspect will follow is the "by any means necessary tactic" will come into play.
The information will be released to the public via a leak to some of the media pals by some unknown committee member(s).
Well, I may need to rethink my first idea that the committee won't like your idea based on the reason why I don't like your idea.;)
Roseann:)
Click to expand...

What harm comes to Trump if his tax info were released?
 
BlueTex said:
The report is from the IRS, not the JCF... I was clear when I said the requests were for tax returns and/or tax information, just like the IRS is required to report to congress by statute..
Click to expand...

You asked me if the JCF was violating the 4th amendment by looking at tax information. Since the JCF was formed to institute tax laws, I am not sure how this is even a discussion. I provided you with the responsibilities of the JCF.

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.

If you can't divine the reasons why the JCF isn't violating the 4th amendment due to their actual job description, I don't really know what to tell you. It like asking the same question about the IRS.
 
ecofarm said:
Playing the victim card to avoid the fact that he lied to everyone to become elected.

No personal responsibility for Trump. Not even when he lies in your face.
Click to expand...

:attn1:Whataboutism alert!!!

Candidate Trump didn't lie. After, becoming President he had an epiphany and changed his mind following in the footsteps of some of his Presidential predecessors.

Roseann:)
 
BlueTex said:
Hmmmm.... So congress CAN change the confidentiality of tax records.... They even had a report prepared and everything... Sure looks like legislative intent...
Click to expand...

It would be completely unconstitutional for congress to legislate themselves into a situation where they become a SUPERIOR branch of government to the Executive or Judicial branches and that is EXACTLY what such a broad interpretation of "legislative intent" does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom