Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-14-2019, 10:55 AM
Oly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,773

Trump tax returns


One thing I've wondered about: Trump has all along said he can't/won't release his tax return because it's under audit. Has anyone ever followed up with "OK then, how about releasing the previous years' returns, or other ones that are no longer under audit?"

Notwithstanding the whole excuse is BS, and what ever might spew forth would be just so much more BS, that seems like an obvious next question. But I don't recall ever hearing it specifically asked.
  #2  
Old 04-14-2019, 11:05 AM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 36,567
[Trump "reasoning"] If one return is under audit, they all are. [/Trump "reasoning"]
  #3  
Old 04-14-2019, 11:29 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,822
The IRS has stated than an audit wouldn't prohibit him, either. He's just a fucking liar, which endears him to Republicans.
  #4  
Old 04-14-2019, 01:30 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,822
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...eturns-n994291
Sarah Sanders:
"And frankly... I don't think Congress, particularly this group of congressmen and women, are smart enough to look through the thousands of pages that I would assume President Trump's taxes will be," Sanders said. "My guess is most of them don't do their own taxes, and I certainly don't trust them to look through the decades of success the president's had and determine anything."

Try them, genius. I dare you.
  #5  
Old 04-14-2019, 01:40 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
"My guess is most of them don't do their own taxes, and I certainly don't trust them to look through the decades of success the president's had and determine anything."
This has got to be the dumbest quote I've heard out of Trumpworld in recent memory.

1. You cannot examine Trump's returns because you had your returns done by someone else, yet
2. People who do their taxes prepared cannot possibly know about the existence of tax specialists. I guess they had their returns prepared by veterinarians or electricians or something, and
3. No other tax specialists are available for this task because I guess Trump has them all on retainer.

For the life of me I cannot imagine why nobody doesn't get the IRS chief on the record to say "his taxes aren't under audit, it wouldn't matter if they were, he's asked me 20 times to sit on them, and I'll joyfully comply with a proper subpoena to get this monkey off my back".
  #6  
Old 04-14-2019, 01:55 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 12,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...eturns-n994291
Sarah Sanders:
"And frankly... I don't think Congress, particularly this group of congressmen and women, are smart enough to look through the thousands of pages that I would assume President Trump's taxes will be," Sanders said. "My guess is most of them don't do their own taxes, and I certainly don't trust them to look through the decades of success the president's had and determine anything."

Try them, genius. I dare you.
Sort of the opposite reasoning to what they want to do with sanctuary cities.

"Give them what they want. Send them the immigrants. They won't be able to handle it. That'll show 'em!"

VS

"Don't give them the tax returns. They won't be able to handle it."

Sarah, might I suggest punishing Congress by burdening them with the impossible task of understanding Trump's tax returns? If it's a good idea for Los Angeles, it's a good idea for Congress.
__________________
Check out my t-shirt designs in Marketplace. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...php?p=21131885

Last edited by davidm; 04-14-2019 at 01:57 PM.
  #7  
Old 04-14-2019, 03:24 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,007
Not strictly relevant to this thread, but this piece from The Daily Beast on Trump's taxes, Congress, and the law, by Pulitzer Prize winner David Clay Johnston, was really, really informative.
  #8  
Old 04-14-2019, 03:37 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
...

For the life of me I cannot imagine why nobody doesn't get the IRS chief on the record to say "his taxes aren't under audit, it wouldn't matter if they were, he's asked me 20 times to sit on them, and I'll joyfully comply with a proper subpoena to get this monkey off my back".
Because Congress has made it illegal for him to say such things. He'd go to jail. The IRS cannot disclose any Taxpayer personal info. It's actually a crime to do so. Now yes, Congress can get the tax returns, as provided by law, but the Commissioner can not speak on what they contain. All he can do is send them.

This was apparent during the IRS is Evil Senate hearings, where Taxpayers can sit their and lie their assess off about how the IRS persecuted them, but the IRS was prevented from responding with actual facts. They had no more defense than a pinata.
  #9  
Old 04-14-2019, 04:46 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Sort of the opposite reasoning to what they want to do with sanctuary cities.

"Give them what they want. Send them the immigrants. They won't be able to handle it. That'll show 'em!"

VS

"Don't give them the tax returns. They won't be able to handle it."

Sarah, might I suggest punishing Congress by burdening them with the impossible task of understanding Trump's tax returns? If it's a good idea for Los Angeles, it's a good idea for Congress.
This is an excellent idea.

(Mainly because it would put SS to the trouble of thinking up some OTHER ridiculous excuse for Trump keeping his returns secret---because of course 'burdening' Congress in that way is not going to occur.)
  #10  
Old 04-14-2019, 09:38 PM
Oly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,773
Rather than not wanting stupid people to look at his tax returns, it’s just the opposite. Trump knows that if those returns ever saw the light of day, they’d be combed over more than the back of his head by the smartest tax people in the world, like David Cay Johnson.

But I was actually wondering about the question in the OP: Has Trump or a surrogate ever been asked to why not release a prior return that is no longer under audit? It just seems like such an obvious question, I feel like I must be missing something.
  #11  
Old 04-14-2019, 09:44 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,822
Post #2- that's just what Trump would contend.
  #12  
Old 04-14-2019, 10:56 PM
Oly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,773
I'm not interested in suppositions about "would contend" if asked. I'm looking for "has contended" when asked.

Since no one has brought anything forth, I suppose I should suppose no one has asked.
  #13  
Old 04-14-2019, 11:53 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oly View Post
I'm not interested in suppositions about "would contend" if asked. I'm looking for "has contended" when asked.

Since no one has brought anything forth, I suppose I should suppose no one has asked.

Yes, that has been asked... and dodged.
  #14  
Old 04-15-2019, 10:04 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oly View Post
I'm not interested in suppositions about "would contend" if asked. I'm looking for "has contended" when asked.

Since no one has brought anything forth, I suppose I should suppose no one has asked.
The reason no one has asked, (or the reason no one remembered it even though someone did ask) is that given that the audit excuse is itself an utter fabrication that has no merit, there is no reason that that question won't just be waved away with a similar fabrication, resulting in no significant effect.

Any of these responses could be given without anyone changing their opinion on Trump

"All years of my taxes are under audit"
"Revealing last years taxes would negatively affect this year's audit"
"Last years taxes are no longer relevant so there is no reason to release them"
"All previous tax years have been shredded as part of my increase in government efficiency"
"If I release my tax documents I'll have to release everyone's"
"There are no Wookies on Endor"

Last edited by Buck Godot; 04-15-2019 at 10:06 AM.
  #15  
Old 04-15-2019, 10:28 AM
dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...eturns-n994291
Sarah Sanders:
"And frankly... I don't think Congress, particularly this group of congressmen and women, are smart enough to look through the thousands of pages that I would assume President Trump's taxes will be," Sanders said. "My guess is most of them don't do their own taxes, and I certainly don't trust them to look through the decades of success the president's had and determine anything."

Try them, genius. I dare you.
I imagine it's a subset of congressional members and/or their aides with the actual expertise, but Kate Bolduan on CNN pointed out that if Congress can write the tax law, shouldn't they be able to read a tax return?

And claiming that Congress wouldn't understand the returns is not a legal justification for withholding them from Congress.
  #16  
Old 04-15-2019, 11:06 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasmoocher View Post
And claiming that Congress wouldn't understand the returns is not a legal justification for withholding them from Congress.
"Your honor, I move that the DNA evidence me be discarded on the grounds that you don't understand it!"

This is going to go to the courts. Nobody in Treasury is going to authorize their release, and if they refuse to do so and get in legal trouble, they will get a pardon. It will go to the Supreme Court, which will rule that the law and the demand for the returns is valid. Then the administration will continue to refuse to release them, ignoring the Supreme Court. Susan Collins will protest half-heartedly.
  #17  
Old 04-15-2019, 11:21 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Because Congress has made it illegal for him to say such things. He'd go to jail. The IRS cannot disclose any Taxpayer personal info. It's actually a crime to do so. Now yes, Congress can get the tax returns, as provided by law, but the Commissioner can not speak on what they contain. All he can do is send them.

This was apparent during the IRS is Evil Senate hearings, where Taxpayers can sit their and lie their assess off about how the IRS persecuted them, but the IRS was prevented from responding with actual facts. They had no more defense than a pinata.
Did Congress make it illegal for him to confirm or deny what the President has said publicly countless times, that he is under audit?
  #18  
Old 04-15-2019, 12:01 PM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oly View Post
One thing I've wondered about: Trump has all along said he can't/won't release his tax return because it's under audit. Has anyone ever followed up with "OK then, how about releasing the previous years' returns, or other ones that are no longer under audit?"
The letter from Trump's tax attorneys back in March 2016 asserts that the returns that are being audited (i.e., 2009 forward) "report items that are attributable to continuing transactions or activities that were also reported on returns for 2008 and earlier. In this sense, the pending examinations are continuations of prior, closed examinations."

So, I think that's probably how they would respond if asked.
  #19  
Old 04-15-2019, 12:27 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
"Your honor, I move that the DNA evidence me be discarded on the grounds that you don't understand it!"

This is going to go to the courts. Nobody in Treasury is going to authorize their release, and if they refuse to do so and get in legal trouble, they will get a pardon. It will go to the Supreme Court, which will rule that the law and the demand for the returns is valid. Then the administration will continue to refuse to release them, ignoring the Supreme Court. Susan Collins will protest half-heartedly.
If things go down that way, wouldn’t that be a constitutional crisis? I assume that the next step should things reach that point would be for John Roberts to issue cite Steve Mnuchin for contempt of court or to back down. Here’s how I see the options.

1a. John Roberts backs down. This is seen as admitting the SCOTUS is powerless.

1b. John Roberts cites Mnuchin as being in contempt of the SCOTUS, move on to 2.

2a. To enforce the contempt, Roberts orders federal marshals to arrest Mnuchin. The marshals refuse to do so, again basically neutering the SCOTUS.

2b. The marshals do arrest Mnuchin, or Mnuchin backs down before it gets to this point. I’m not sure I even want to think things would reach this point, or what would happen if they did. Would Trump try to resist by force? Either way, I think we would be moving into extremely dangerous territory.

ETA. I hope that Sanders resorting to name calling means that even Trump realizes how bad it would be if things went down this way, and that he is posturing for the sake of his base but already knows that he will give in before it gets this far.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 04-15-2019 at 12:31 PM.
  #20  
Old 04-15-2019, 12:31 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
If things go down that way, wouldn’t that be a constitutional crisis?.
Is "Constitutional Crisis" a legal term that forces Trump to release his tax returns and/or cost him any money and/or remove him from office? If not, then he won't give a flying fuck if there is a "Constitutional Crisis".
  #21  
Old 04-15-2019, 12:33 PM
dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Not strictly relevant to this thread, but this piece from The Daily Beast on Trump's taxes, Congress, and the law, by Pulitzer Prize winner David Clay Johnston, was really, really informative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
"
This is going to go to the courts. Nobody in Treasury is going to authorize their release, and if they refuse to do so and get in legal trouble, they will get a pardon. It will go to the Supreme Court, which will rule that the law and the demand for the returns is valid. Then the administration will continue to refuse to release them, ignoring the Supreme Court. Susan Collins will protest half-heartedly.
From the David Clay Johnston article:

Quote:
Donald Trump and his top White House aide declare that the administration will not give the president's tax returns to Congress, as required under a 1924 anti-corruption law. But both the Treasury secretary and the tax commissioner have been much more nuanced, saying that they will obey the law even as they delay actually doing so.

I know why Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Charles Rettig, the IRS commissioner, are so cautious. They don’t want to be removed from office and sent to prison for five years just for doing Trump’s bidding.

...

Congress earlier applied this law to Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace after a second audit of his returns showed he was a major league tax cheat. Nixon fabricated deductions worth more than $3.4 million in today’s money. Nixon got off with a pardon, while his tax lawyer went to prison.

The IRS had audited Nixon’s 1969 tax return but failed to catch major league cheating by the sitting president. Only when Congressional tax lawyers went over it, and the IRS did a second audit, did they spot blatant tax evasion.

...

Removal from office would require disclosures to future employers and investors, limit or block service on corporate boards and require disclosures to lenders. Even someone running a privately held company, as Trump still does, would be affected by heightened disclosure requirements.

Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs partner and savings and loan company chief executive, is only 56. Removal from office alone could mean an end to his big paydays in finance under existing regulations.

Rettig, 61, a tax lawyer whose specialty was helping wealthy tax dodgers who got caught in audits, could lose his California law license, especially were he to be convicted.

So, I guess in Nixon's case, Congress was smart enough to understand tax returns. Of course, who knows what bullshit Trump has been filing. I'm sure it's more than fake deductions.

And, as Johnston points out, would Mnuchin and Rettig want to jeopardize future income, even if they had a pardon? It would be interesting to see if their financial self-interest trumps (ha!) loyalty to the president, who has demonstrated no loyalty to anyone, including family.

I like the secondary headline in this article:

Michael Cohen Testifies That Trump Thinks Don Jr. Is Too Dumb to Be Trusted

The whole family is just Fredos all the way down.

Heh. Fredos. "I can handle things. I’m smart. Not like everybody says, like dumb. I’m smart and I want respect!"
  #22  
Old 04-15-2019, 12:35 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
If things go down that way, wouldn’t that be a constitutional crisis? I assume that the next step should things reach that point would be for John Roberts to issue cite Steve Mnuchin for contempt of court or to back down. Here’s how I see the options.

1a. John Roberts backs down. This is seen as admitting the SCOTUS is powerless.

1b. John Roberts cites Mnuchin as being in contempt of the SCOTUS, move on to 2.

2a. To enforce the contempt, Roberts orders federal marshals to arrest Mnuchin. The marshals refuse to do so, again basically neutering the SCOTUS.

2b. The marshals do arrest Mnuchin, or Mnuchin backs down before it gets to this point. I’m not sure I even want to think things would reach this point, or what would happen if they did. Would Trump try to resist by force? Either way, I think we would be moving into extremely dangerous territory.

ETA. I hope that Sanders resorting to name calling means that even Trump realizes how bad it would be if things went down this way, and that he is posturing for the sake of his base but already knows that he will give in before it gets this far.
We're two years, five months and an odd number of days late to worry about that.

As for Roberts, I don't see him "backing down." He's bound and determined that The Roberts Court is going to be historic, and not for the wrong reasons. To secure his legacy, he'll thrown Trump under the nearest bus and provide him with a sack lunch and a flashlight.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)

Last edited by CaptMurdock; 04-15-2019 at 12:36 PM.
  #23  
Old 04-15-2019, 02:55 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Did Congress make it illegal for him to confirm or deny what the President has said publicly countless times, that he is under audit?
Huh? No Congress did not make any Trump specific law on tax returns. But the IRS cannot release any personal tax info, including whether or not a return is under audit or not. So the Comm cannot speak on whether or not Trump is under audit.
  #24  
Old 04-15-2019, 03:01 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Huh? No Congress did not make any Trump specific law on tax returns. But the IRS cannot release any personal tax info, including whether or not a return is under audit or not. So the Comm cannot speak on whether or not Trump is under audit.
Trump has already claimed that he is under audit, so is there no private information that is released if they confirm what he says.
  #25  
Old 04-15-2019, 03:15 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Trump has already claimed that he is under audit, so is there no private information that is released if they confirm what he says.
Yes, there is= 'confirming".

Read the Privacy Act someday. A lot lot of people would lose their jobs or go to prison.

Note that no expert is saying the IRS can confirm this, so this is some weird idea of just yours.
  #26  
Old 04-15-2019, 08:30 PM
Oly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falchion View Post
The letter from Trump's tax attorneys back in March 2016 asserts that the returns that are being audited (i.e., 2009 forward) "report items that are attributable to continuing transactions or activities that were also reported on returns for 2008 and earlier. In this sense, the pending examinations are continuations of prior, closed examinations.
Ok, thanks. This is the kind of answer I was looking for.

Last edited by Oly; 04-15-2019 at 08:31 PM.
  #27  
Old 04-15-2019, 08:36 PM
Oly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
The reason no one has asked, (or the reason no one remembered it even though someone did ask) is that given that the audit excuse is itself an utter fabrication that has no merit, there is no reason that that question won't just be waved away with a similar fabrication, resulting in no significant effect.
If no one asked Trump a question that there wasn’t a high probability would be “waved away with...fabrication”, how often do you think he’d be asked questions, who would ask them, and to what would those vanishingly rare questions pertain?
  #28  
Old 04-17-2019, 08:20 PM
PoppaSan's Avatar
PoppaSan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West shore Lake Michigan
Posts: 2,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, there is= 'confirming".

Read the Privacy Act someday. A lot lot of people would lose their jobs or go to prison.

Note that no expert is saying the IRS can confirm this, so this is some weird idea of just yours.
President's tax returns are automatically auditted under IRS rules
Quote:
The IRS... treats presidential and vice-presidential returns similarly to those of IRS employees, who also receive a mandatory audit. The procedures are spelled out in detail in Internal Revenue Manual Section 4.2.1.11:
So 2016-2018 returns are at the moment.
__________________
This place is beginning to feel like a tin foil hat convention.
  #29  
Old 04-17-2019, 09:08 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,822
Are at the moment...what? Available to be released if Trump was honest?
(Boy, how long does a fucking audit take, am I right? Wink, wink.)
And the lying fuck isn't locked down even if the fake audit was a real audit. He's just a fucking liar.

Last edited by bobot; 04-17-2019 at 09:11 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017