Trump taxes requested

[Shodan]

To be clear - the chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee can request the tax returns of any American, at any time, for any reason? So Chuck Grassley could just say, “I feel like having a peek at Jussie Smollett’s tax returns - fork them over”?

Hmm.

As I have mentioned, everyone might want to keep in mind that genies are notoriously hard to get back into bottles.

Regards,
Shodan

[BrotherCadfael]

@Buck_Godot

I’d take that trade, so probably would Mr. Neal.

OK, perhaps Hatch requests the Clinton’s taxes. As Shodan quite rightly points out, this could indeed be difficult to contain once released.

[Ravenman]

@Shodan

As I have mentioned, everyone might want to keep in mind that genies are notoriously hard to get back into bottles.

We could say the same thing about the nuclear option being invoked in the Senate several times now, but no conservatives are currently wringing their hands about that genie.

[Aspenglow]

@Shodan

To be clear - the chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee can request the tax returns of any American, at any time, for any reason? So Chuck Grassley could just say, “I feel like having a peek at Jussie Smollett’s tax returns - fork them over”?

Hmm.

As I have mentioned, everyone might want to keep in mind that genies are notoriously hard to get back into bottles.

Regards,
Shodan

This has always been a rule. It dates back to 1924, I believe, arising out of the Tea Pot Dome scandal.

The genie is already out of the bottle, and Chuck Grassley has always had this power. Stop acting like this is something new.

[Shodan]

@Aspenglow

This has always been a rule. It dates back to 1924, I believe, arising out of the Tea Pot Dome scandal.

The genie is already out of the bottle, and Chuck Grassley has always had this power. Stop acting like this is something new.

Not aware that it has been used before, although I am open to correction.

But much of my point is, if this lawsuit is upheld, it would be naive to expect that anyone is going to pay the slightest bit of attention when the Democrats yell “no backsies!”

What goes around, comes around. And turn about is, in fact, fair play.

Regards,
Shodan

[CalMeacham]

@Shodan

Not aware that it has been used before, although I am open to correction.

But much of my point is, if this lawsuit is upheld, it would be naive to expect that anyone is going to pay the slightest bit of attention when the Democrats yell “no backsies!”

What goes around, comes around. And turn about is, in fact, fair play.

Regards,
Shodan

This would make sense if someone even implied that there was some sort of deal – “Don’t do it to us, and we won’t do it to you.”

But as the present crop of Republican politicians (considered as a group, at least) have made clear, they feel justified in taking any action that is legally allowed, or can be argued for. There is no sort of deal or understanding. In fact, now that the idea has been brought up, even if Democrats were not to exercise this option, there’s nothing to prevent Republicans, when next they are in power, to use the same tool.

There’s really no compelling reason for the Democrats not to push this button. It’s not as if not using it will prevent the Republicans from doing it.
“No backsies”? Why worry if they might well do it anyway?

[kenobi_65]

@Shodan

Not aware that it has been used before, although I am open to correction.

I’m looking for cites (and not finding them, because all Google wants to return is stories about the request for Trump returns), but while watching MSNBC last night, I heard mention of this sort of request being made several times in the 1970s, at least. I remember that they mentioned three people’s returns, in particular; the two names I can remember with certainty are Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller, and I think that the other was Richard Nixon.

Also, various articles I’m finding indicate that the request actually goes to the Secretary of the Treasury (Steve Mnuchin), as he has responsibility for the IRS.

Edit: this Washington Post article from 2017 mentions the Nixon situation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-has-the-power-to-obtain-and-release-trumps-tax-returns/2017/02/07/aa53254c-ea63-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.86695f6cad06

[VinylTurnip]

@Shodan

Not aware that it has been used before, although I am open to correction.

But much of my point is, if this lawsuit is upheld, it would be naive to expect that anyone is going to pay the slightest bit of attention when the Democrats yell “no backsies!”

What goes around, comes around. And turn about is, in fact, fair play.

This could definitely prove a liability someday if the Democrats ever consider making a corrupt con man who refuses to reveal his tax returns the leader of the party.

[bobot]

[quote=“CalMeacham, post:26, topic:832037”]

…
There’s really no compelling reason for the Democrats not to push this button. …/QUOTE]

What about the fact that Trump, man of honor, has said that he was going to ha ha ha release his taxes as soon as the “audit” was over, hmm?

[Aspenglow]

@Shodan

Not aware that it has been used before, although I am open to correction.

But much of my point is, if this lawsuit is upheld, it would be naive to expect that anyone is going to pay the slightest bit of attention when the Democrats yell “no backsies!”

What goes around, comes around. And turn about is, in fact, fair play.

Regards,
Shodan

This document should clear up your confusion about what rule is being invoked, and you’ll be pleased to learn that in response to (Republican) Nixon’s abuses of power under 26 U.S. Code § 6103, it was reformed in 1976 to not allow flagrant misuse such as you fear.

By the way, can you point me to what “lawsuit” has been filed? I’m aware only that a lawful request has been made by the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to the lawful agency of the IRS for submission of tax returns to which they are entitled to ensure lawful oversight of the Executive.

[Kimstu]

@Shodan

Not aware that it has been used before, although I am open to correction.

Ha, this is adorable. It’s used all the time.

Congress invokes Section 6103(f) routinely to allow the JCT staff and Government Accountability Office to obtain tax data in bulk for the purpose of analyzing proposed tax legislation and performing audits of the IRS, respectively. The authority was used as part of congressional investigations as recently as 2013 and 2014, as the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee explored allegations of political bias in the IRS’ handling of conservative-leaning groups’ applications for recognition of tax-exempt status.

@Shodan

What goes around, comes around.

The thing is, it is not a particularly alarming prospect for non-crook Presidential candidates to have their tax returns potentially available for request by Congressional committees. Because they disclose their tax returns publicly anyway:

As far as we know, Congress has never invoked Section 6103(f) to obtain a president’s tax returns; over the last four decades, it has not been necessary. Every president, and, indeed, every major party nominee for president, voluntarily released his or her tax returns to the public—until Donald Trump—and no recent president before President Trump maintained such extensive business holdings while in office. Instead, recent presidents have placed their investment portfolios in blind trusts.

@Shodan

it would be naive to expect that anyone is going to pay the slightest bit of attention when the Democrats yell “no backsies!”

What’s naive is you sitting there chortling gleefully at the imagined prospect of Democrats suddenly being blindsided by some mean old Congressional committee demanding that they turn over their tax returns which they routinely disclose to the public anyway.

Honestly, Shodan, sometimes you let your ignorance combined with your desire to show off as a cynical political sophisticate lead you into some very silly posturing.

[Shodan]

@VinylTurnip

This could definitely prove a liability someday if the Democrats ever consider making a corrupt con man who refuses to reveal his tax returns the leader of the party.

You’re missing the point, which is that it is going to be a liability for everybody, not just politicians, and especially not just for politicians the Dems don’t like.

@Kimstu

Ha, this is adorable. It’s used all the time.

It’s interesting that you should post a cite, and then post something that contradicts it.

As far as we know, Congress has never invoked Section 6103(f) to obtain a president’s tax returns…

So, no, it has never been used this way.

I wonder if you recognize that.

What’s naive is you sitting there chortling gleefully at the imagined prospect of Democrats suddenly being blindsided by some mean old Congressional committee demanding that they turn over their tax returns which they routinely disclose to the public anyway.

Really? Could you cite where, for instance, Nancy Keenan has released her tax returns?

Honestly, Shodan, sometimes you let your ignorance combined with your desire to show off as a cynical political sophisticate lead you into some very silly posturing.

You shouldn’t let yourself get so upset.

Regards,
Shodan

[septimus]

I predict that House Ways and Means Committee vs Donald Trump will be decided in the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote. Chief Justice Roberts’ will be the only vote in doubt.

Any gamblers in the house?

[AlsoNamedBort]

@Shodan

Really? Could you cite where, for instance, Nancy Keenan has released her tax returns?

I don’t remember her being a major presidential candidate before.

Oh wait, I see that you specifically quoted every single part of that post except for that fact that Kimstu was referring to presidential candidates.

[BobLibDem]

The taxes weren’t requested, they were demanded. The law is clear, the IRS must hand them over. If it goes to a court fight, the Democrats will win. I think it will be 8-1, or even 9-0 if Kavanaugh is sober.

[ThelmaLou]

Even FOXsays it’s the law.

President Trump once again said on Wednesday he’s not “inclined” to release his tax returns because he says they’re under audit — but even Fox News believes his hands are probably tied at this point.

Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, has formally requested Trump’s tax returns in a letter to the IRS, but the president batted down the suggestion, per The New York Times.

Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano on Thursday concluded that an audit doesn’t matter, saying the “obscure statute” Neal cited says the committee can ask for anyone’s tax returns without needing a reason. He also said that Trump’s taxes being under audit would “not be a defense,” and he wasn’t sure what the legal argument against releasing them would be, per Mediaite.

Fox’s analyst was in agreement with one over on MSNBC, with Jake Sherman saying on Morning Joe that it’s the law that the committee “has the unilateral right to obtain any American’s tax returns.” Sherman noted that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin can perhaps “put up some roadblocks” by saying Trump is under audit, but he noted that “this is the law.” MSNBC’s Willie Geist, meanwhile, mocked the very idea that Trump is still under audit after years, quipping, “This is the longest audit in the history of audits, if in fact there is an audit.” Earlier, Hardball’s Chris Matthews said the situation is “black and white” because the law requires Trump to turn over his taxes when requested.
…

[bobot]

Alexandri Ocasio-Cortez seems rather confident that Trump has no say in the matter. (Me, I have no idea.)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

"Congress: “We’re going to need a copy of the President’s tax returns from 2013-2018.”

45: “No, I’m ‘under audit.’ ”

Congress: “We didn’t ask you.”

[bobot]

(Can’t edit again for some reason.)
Ahem: Alexandria

[BigT]

This is entirely non-controversial to anyone who doesn’t support Trump. Even previous Republicans have all shown their taxes. There is no reason for anyone who does not support Trump to even worry about showing his taxes.

There is no “genie” involved here. Congress is simply using the tools at their disposal to do an investigation. We are investigating a corrupt politician. No one who isn’t a corrupt politician has any reason to be worried about this. They’re just going to release their tax returns, to prove they aren’t corrupt.

There is no reason for anti-Trump Republicans and Democrats to be on opposite sides on this. There is no reason to make excuses for the Republicans from the previous Congress refusing to do this. They did it for exactly one reason: they’re scared of Trump supporters not voting for them, while the Democrats have the luxury of not worrying about that.

There is no reason for partisan bickering in defense of Trump. He’s just a RINO. He’s the guy you want to remove from the Republican Party, and discredit everything he stands for.

[snoe]

@BigT

This is entirely non-controversial to anyone who doesn’t support Trump. Even previous Republicans have all shown their taxes. There is no reason for anyone who does not support Trump to even worry about showing his taxes.

Shodan seems to disagree. He has, indeed, implied (“the GOP Senate will ask for everybody’s taxes!!!11!”-- paraphrasing, there) a threat. Not a serious threat-- I don’t believe Shodan is a Senator. But it’s an argument based on a threat that Shodan’s party can carry out. And I’m curious why he thinks asking for Nadler’s tax returns is equivalent to asking for Trump’s.

I suspect that I will not hear anything substantial about Nadler’s record in any reply this gets.