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

[BlueTex]

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.

Did the 4th not apply to tax returns in 1925?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lutherf]

Is this a new interpretation of the 4th? The 4th existed in 1925 and the supreme court was very clear that CONGRESS determines what tax information is public and what is not....

United States v. Dickey :: 268 U.S. 378 (1925) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Did the supreme court get it wrong in 1925?

You should be aware that the Dickey decision is with regard to the Revenue Act of 1924. That act has been superseded multiple times and the code sections that case references no longer exist as we now have a US Code which we did not have in 1925.

 

[BlueTex]

You should be aware that the Dickey decision is with regard to the Revenue Act of 1924. That act has been superseded multiple times and the code sections that case references no longer exist as we now have a US Code which we did not have in 1925.

Does US code supersede the constitution? Why wasn't the Revenue Act of 1924 struck down as a violation of the 4th? Why would the opinion state the following:

Information, which everybody is at liberty to acquire and the acquisition of which Congress seemed especially desirous of facilitating, in the absence of some clear and positive provision to the contrary, cannot be regarded otherwise than as public property, to be passed on to others as freely as the possessors of it may choose.

United States v. Dickey :: 268 U.S. 378 (1925) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

 

[Barnacle]

He said he would during the campaign. People voted for him with that assurance.
Personal responsibility. Responsibility to his constituents. Responsibility to everyone.
You'll play the victim card to excuse Trump from all responsibility, even when he lies in your face.

People voted for Trump because he promised them to disclose his tax returns one day?!?

:lamo

 

[ecofarm]

People voted for Trump because he promised them to disclose his tax returns one day?!?

It was an assurance provided during the campaign. It was meant to dissuade any concerns. You can't deny that. It turns out to be a lie.

Still going with the victim card instead of personal responsibility?

 

[Barnacle]

It was an assurance provided during the campaign. It was meant to dissuade any concerns. You can't deny that. It turns out to be a lie.
Still going with the victim card instead of personal responsibility?

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.

:lol:

 

[ecofarm]

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.

:lol:

It was a campaign assurance. A personal promise that is entirely within his ability to uphold. He can't claim unforeseen factors influenced the outcome. He cannot claim to have made a mistake.

It was a lie in the face of America.

And you play the victim card for him instead of expecting personal responsibility. That's immoral and pathetic.

 

[Barnacle]

It was a campaign assurance. A personal promise that is entirely within his ability to uphold. He can't claim unforeseen factors influenced the outcome. He cannot claim to have made a mistake.
It was a lie in the face of America.
And you play the victim card for him instead of expecting personal responsibility. That's immoral and pathetic.

"campaign assurance" (whatever that is in your twisted mind) ...

 

[ecofarm]

"campaign assurance" (whatever that is in your twisted mind) ...

Choose victim card over personal responsibility. Support outright lying by the President. But don't expect others to respect that.

 

[Lutherf]

Does US code supersede the constitution? Why wasn't the Revenue Act of 1924 struck down as a violation of the 4th? Why would the opinion state the following:

Information, which everybody is at liberty to acquire and the acquisition of which Congress seemed especially desirous of facilitating, in the absence of some clear and positive provision to the contrary, cannot be regarded otherwise than as public property, to be passed on to others as freely as the possessors of it may choose.

United States v. Dickey :: 268 U.S. 378 (1925) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

The USC doesn't supersede the Constitution. It is created to function within the confines of the Constitution. That's why, on occasion, somebody will sue the government because they believe a given law is unconstitutional. Also, laws change. The Revenue Act of 1924 was replaced by various statutes in the US Code in 1926. In 1939 the tax statutes were codified under Title 26 of the US Code and have been updated multiple times since then, most significantly in 1954 and 1986. Furthermore, every year there are multiple laws passed by congress that make adjustments to various parts of the tax code. None of those changes, however, obviate the rights US citizens have under other sections of the code and under the Constitution as a whole. Just because one section of the law says one thing DOES NOT mean that a given situation isn't also subject to interpretation by other sections of the code.

 

[MovingPictures]

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.

One tiny little problem with this idea.

The 4th covers personal property. IRS records are government records, not the personal property of the individual.

Your belief would be shot down in flames in court, hence why the OLC didn't even attempt to go there.

 

[MovingPictures]

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.

Why then did Trump promise to make them public after the election? Oh right, he lied and suckered you, but you don't care.

 

[apdst]

One tiny little problem with this idea.

The 4th covers personal property. IRS records are government records, not the personal property of the individual.

Your belief would be shot down in flames in court, hence why the OLC didn't even attempt to go there.

The information contained in the returns is private. The law says tax returns are confidential.

 

[Lutherf]

One tiny little problem with this idea.

The 4th covers personal property. IRS records are government records, not the personal property of the individual.

Your belief would be shot down in flames in court, hence why the OLC didn't even attempt to go there.

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.

 

[MovingPictures]

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.

You conveniently avoided my point, which was that the documents being requested do not belong to Trump, but to the IRS, which means they are not protected by the 4th. You can keep saying this is related to the 4th all you want, that won't make it any less absurd.

The committees are going to win this battle. The OLC came right out and admitted the courts are almost certain to side against the Treasury, which renders their memo rather pointless. Hell, the IRS's own internal memo said the law was against Trump, so while you can delude yourself with propaganda that this somehow relates to the 4th, you won't change the reality of this dispute being clearly on the Democrats side, whether you accept it or not.

Further, the requests to Mazars and Deutsche Bank will also include either Trump's partial or full tax records. The circuit courts already ruled in favor of the committees and the appeals are going to do the same. When they do, the records will be in the hands of the House and unlike the 6103 statute, there's no law the prohibits that House from publicly disclosing records that are not IRS property. Which means sooner or latter they will get Trump's tax returns, so get yourself psychologically prepared for that.

Look, you can keep pulling stuff out of the air and mutter on about how this is some sort of attack on the constitution, but this really boils down to is the fact that you only respect the power of subpoena and the letter of the law, when it's to your benefit. I remember when the Tea Party got the power of subpoena and went bananas with 6103, leaking the records of private citizens, just to try and support a political narrative. Didn't hear a peep out of the right-wing, because it was all for a Republican cause.

Republicans went bananas with subpoena power to investigate their political opposition and many of the precedents set by D'Amato, Chaffetz, and Nunes are coming back to haunt them.

 

[Airyaman]

Every defeat that the communist democrats suffer is newsworthy. It's something to celebrate.

This is not a defeat. We already know Trump's DOJ will side with anything that is beneficial to Lord Trump. That's a given. Now we shall see if the Judiciary is the same (doubtful).

 

[Condor060]

Whataboutism almost always follows immorality.

OMG, You keep pushing the same ole platitude over and over to everyone in the thread? :lamo

Along with (And you play the victim card for him instead of holding him responsible)

Looks like just about everyone ignores you. Copy and paste much? :lamo

Now thats pretty embarrassing.

 

[Condor060]

One tiny little problem with this idea.

The 4th covers personal property. IRS records are government records, not the personal property of the individual.

Your belief would be shot down in flames in court, hence why the OLC didn't even attempt to go there.

Not so fast. The IRS considers your private information, your property and is protected.

10.5.1.2.7 (03-23-2018)
Privacy Act Information

The Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act) forms the core of IRS privacy policy. It provides certain safeguards for an individual against an invasion of personal privacy by requiring federal agencies to:

(a) Collect, maintain, use, or disseminate any record of identifiable personal information in a manner that ensures that such action is for a necessary and lawful purpose.

Your identifiable personal information and the right to personal privacy precludes any claim of who owns the document.

The Privacy Act applies to agency records retrieved by an identifier for an individual.

The term “record” includes, but is not limited to, education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a fingerprint or a photograph is protected under the Privacy Act of 1974.

And under such Privacy Act information protected includes:

10.5.1.2.4 (03-23-2018)
Tax Information

The term tax information refers to a taxpayer’s return and return information protected from unauthorized disclosure under IRC § 6103. The law defines return information as any information the IRS has about a tax return or liability determination. This return information includes, but is not limited to, a taxpayer’s:

Identity.

Income, payments, deductions, exemptions, or credits.

Assets, liabilities, or net worth.

Tax liability investigation status (whether the IRS ever investigates or examines the return).

Constitutionally Required Disclosures — Some situations require disclosure of information, including SBU data, such as criminal cases where the IRS has a constitutional obligation to disclose, upon the defendant's request, evidence material either to guilt or punishment (exculpatory evidence). For more details, refer to IRM 11.3.35, Requests and Demands for Testimony and Production of Documents.

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.

 

[MovingPictures]

Not so fast. The IRS considers your private information, your property and is protected.

10.5.1.2.7 (03-23-2018)
Privacy Act Information

The Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act) forms the core of IRS privacy policy. It provides certain safeguards for an individual against an invasion of personal privacy by requiring federal agencies to:

(a) Collect, maintain, use, or disseminate any record of identifiable personal information in a manner that ensures that such action is for a necessary and lawful purpose.

Your identifiable personal information and the right to personal privacy precludes any claim of who owns the document.

The Privacy Act applies to agency records retrieved by an identifier for an individual.

The term “record” includes, but is not limited to, education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a fingerprint or a photograph is protected under the Privacy Act of 1974.

And under such Privacy Act information protected includes:

10.5.1.2.4 (03-23-2018)
Tax Information

The term tax information refers to a taxpayer’s return and return information protected from unauthorized disclosure under IRC § 6103. The law defines return information as any information the IRS has about a tax return or liability determination. This return information includes, but is not limited to, a taxpayer’s:

Identity.

Income, payments, deductions, exemptions, or credits.

Assets, liabilities, or net worth.

Tax liability investigation status (whether the IRS ever investigates or examines the return).

Constitutionally Required Disclosures — Some situations require disclosure of information, including SBU data, such as criminal cases where the IRS has a constitutional obligation to disclose, upon the defendant's request, evidence material either to guilt or punishment (exculpatory evidence). For more details, refer to IRM 11.3.35, Requests and Demands for Testimony and Production of Documents.

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.

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.

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure

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.

 

[BlueTex]

The USC doesn't supersede the Constitution. It is created to function within the confines of the Constitution. That's why, on occasion, somebody will sue the government because they believe a given law is unconstitutional. Also, laws change. The Revenue Act of 1924 was replaced by various statutes in the US Code in 1926. In 1939 the tax statutes were codified under Title 26 of the US Code and have been updated multiple times since then, most significantly in 1954 and 1986. Furthermore, every year there are multiple laws passed by congress that make adjustments to various parts of the tax code. None of those changes, however, obviate the rights US citizens have under other sections of the code and under the Constitution as a whole. Just because one section of the law says one thing DOES NOT mean that a given situation isn't also subject to interpretation by other sections of the code.

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?




JCX-3-19

 

[snakestretcher]

SIAP. Why must Trump reveal his taxes?

Because he promised he would? Don't you want His Serene Magnificence to keep his promises? Then again he has broken so many, and lied so frequently that I guess you've become inured to it. But he's making America great again (despite all the evidence to the contrary), apparently, so that's ok.

 

[cabse5]

He said he would during the campaign. People voted for him with that assurance.

Personal responsibility. Responsibility to his constituents. Responsibility to everyone.

You'll play the victim card to excuse Trump from all responsibility, even when he lies in your face.

Trump didn't say when he'd release his taxes...But now he can't. Maybe you'll just have to wait until he taxes aren't under litigation?

 

[BlueTex]

Trump didn't say when he'd release his taxes...But now he can't. Maybe you'll just have to wait until he taxes aren't under litigation?

Why would litigation prevent him from releasing his taxes?

 

[snakestretcher]

Trump didn't say when he'd release his taxes...But now he can't. Maybe you'll just have to wait until he taxes aren't under litigation?

Of course he can, there's nothing stopping him. He also said he would release his tax information as soon as his 'audit' had finished. Strange, don't you think, how magically every other president's taxes had been available for scrutiny? Here's some information for you; every business has an annual audit, so what's wrong with showing us what has already been audited from previous years? Sorry, but the 'audit' excuse doesn't wash. He's hiding something.

 

[snakestretcher]

Why would litigation prevent him from releasing his taxes?

It wouldn't, is the short answer. There's nothing in law (as far as I know), preventing him. It's his personal property to do with as he pleases.