House Democrats ask IRS for Trump's tax returns

[GMDino]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-democrats-treasury-trumps-tax-returns/story?id=62150855&fbclid=IwAR0WHzEri5zGMSPDwWzKFP-s1PsGqATvUv5ObhphNifaGZ-bMAM9qDjCNxI

Quote:House Democrats have sent their long-anticipated request to the Internal Revenue Service for President Donald Trump’s tax returns, the opening salvo in what could prove an explosive battle between Democrats and the 
Trump administration over the president’s personal finances that is expected to wind up in the courts.


“I today submitted to IRS Commissioner Rettig my request for six years of the president’s personal tax returns as well as the returns for some of his business entities," House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., wrote in a statement. "We have completed the necessary groundwork for a request of this magnitude and I am certain we are within our legitimate legislative, legal, and oversight rights."

Neal said that the decision to request the returns was in the interest of ensuring "the accountability of our government and elected officials. To maintain trust in our democracy, the American people must be assured that their government is operating properly, as laws intend.”


Democrats have said they would use Trump’s tax returns to inform their investigations into allegations of corruption and wrongdoing in the administration and the president’s family business.


(MORE: In pursuit of Trump's tax returns, Democrats face legal, political hurdles)

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told lawmakers last month that the Treasury will “follow the law” and review any request. Trump, who has long considered any examination of his personal finances a red line for investigators, is expected to aggressively challenge Democrats’ request in court.


Trump broke with modern precedent as a White House candidate in 2016 when he refused to release his returns, and has continued to do so while in office. Most presidents since Richard Nixon have voluntarily released their tax returns over the past 40 years, which is not required by law.


(MORE: Treasury Secretary Mnuchin on turning over Trump's tax returns: 'We will follow the law')


Trump has said he continues to be under audit from the Internal Revenue Service, which the agency will not confirm or deny.


Trump’s attorney Jay Sekulow, who worked at the IRS shortly after law school, argued that Democrats would have to demonstrate a “legitimate legislative purpose” for obtaining the president’s returns, and predicted the request “probably gets litigated” in an interview with ABC News podcast “The Investigation.”


(MORE: Trump lawyer talks potential presidential pardons, tax returns and NY probes)


Democrats requested six years of Trump’s personal tax returns under a 1924 provision of the tax code requiring the Treasury secretary to “furnish” any individual’s tax return information to the chairs of three congressional committees “upon written request.”


Republicans have accused Democrats of weaponizing the tax code to target Trump, and said the move would set a dangerous precedent.


House Democrats have unsuccessfully tried to pass a measure requiring presidential and vice presidential candidates to release ten years of personal tax returns as part of a larger government reform package, which has stalled in the Senate.

[*michaelsean*]

I would say you would have to supply a very compelling reason.

[CJD]

I admire the Democrats' continued efforts to make Trump supporters realize Trump is flawed in any way, but this seems fruitless.

[GMDino]

(04-04-2019, 11:06 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I would say you would have to supply a very compelling reason.

Here is the wording:

Quote:(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress

(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
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.

[/url]
[url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103

I don't see where it says there must be a compelling reason.

Although I am SURE DJT will fight this tooth and nail because he has nothing to hide.  

[Benton]

1- All presidents should have to submit tax returns for a reasonable amount of time for transparency.
2- A current office holder shouldn't be singled out for politics. If enough of Congress thinks #1 is true, then pass a law requiring it of future candidates.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-04-2019, 11:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: Here is the wording:

[/url]
[url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103

I don't see where it says there must be a compelling reason.

Although I am SURE DJT will fight this tooth and nail because he has nothing to hide.  

No I'm saying for me.  Especially when we are dealing with Congress and the President, but I think they should have to offer a compelling reason to look at anyone's tax returns.  

[GMDino]

(04-04-2019, 11:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No I'm saying for me.  Especially when we are dealing with Congress and the President, but I think they should have to offer a compelling reason to look at anyone's tax returns.  

Maybe, but that's not what the law says.  Although I am fine with them doing it for any POTUS that doesn't release his returns.  For me it should be mandatory in order to even run for office.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-04-2019, 11:51 AM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe, but that's not what the law says.  Although I am fine with them doing it for any POTUS that doesn't release his returns.  For me it should be mandatory in order to even run for office.

Yes it should be for everyone or nobody, but I'm one that goes with nobody unless there's a compelling reason.

[GMDino]

(04-04-2019, 01:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes it should be for everyone or nobody, but I'm one that goes with nobody unless there's a compelling reason.

I'd withhold it for people in elected positions or those appointed by those in elected positions.  i don't need to see your tax returns unless you are in a position to affect someone else's life with your decisions.  Which, if taken out from that point, some could say includes doctors or police or others in a service field.  But I'm more worried about a President or a governor being financially beholden to someone that could control their policies.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-04-2019, 02:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'd withhold it for people in elected positions or those appointed by those in elected positions.  i don't need to see your tax returns unless you are in a position to affect someone else's life with your decisions.  Which, if taken out from that point, some could say includes doctors or police or others in a service field.  But I'm more worried about a President or a governor being financially beholden to someone that could control their policies.

By everybody I mean elected people.  

[CJD]

(04-04-2019, 11:46 AM)Benton Wrote: 1- All presidents should have to submit tax returns for a reasonable amount of time for transparency.
2- A current office holder shouldn't be singled out for politics. If enough of Congress thinks #1 is true, then pass a law requiring it of future candidates.

2- For what it's worth, the Democrats tried in the House. But it died in the Senate.
DJT would almost certainly veto it even if it did pass in the Senate though.

[GMDino]

(04-04-2019, 02:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: By everybody I mean elected people.  

Ah!  I should have caught that!  Sorry!

[*michaelsean*]

(04-04-2019, 03:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: Ah!  I should have caught that!  Sorry!

Yeah if you saw my returns you'd feel like you should call me sir or lord, and it would just become very awkward.  

[BmorePat87]

(04-04-2019, 11:46 AM)Benton Wrote: 1- All presidents should have to submit tax returns for a reasonable amount of time for transparency.
2- A current office holder shouldn't be singled out for politics. If enough of Congress thinks #1 is true, then pass a law requiring it of future candidates.

Seems like common sense. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-04-2019, 11:46 AM)Benton Wrote: 1- All presidents should have to submit tax returns for a reasonable amount of time for transparency.
2- A current office holder shouldn't be singled out for politics. If enough of Congress thinks #1 is true, then pass a law requiring it of future candidates.

Agreed with both.

I would even go so far as expanding #1 to include Presidential Cabinet Members, Senators, Representatives, and Federal Judges.

[BmorePat87]

(04-04-2019, 06:12 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Agreed with both.

I would even go so far as expanding #1 to include Presidential Cabinet Members, Senators, Representatives, and Federal Judges.

I'm on board with this.

[*bfine32*]

(04-04-2019, 11:51 AM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe, but that's not what the law says.  Although I am fine with them doing it for any POTUS that doesn't release his returns.  For me it should be mandatory in order to even run for office.

Dino doesn't think a woman deserves to be president.


OK, my work is done here. 

[GMDino]

(04-04-2019, 09:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dino doesn't think a woman deserves to be president.


OK, my work is done here. 

Based on past results.

But I'm just going off what "they say".  

[Benton]

(04-04-2019, 06:12 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Agreed with both.

I would even go so far as expanding #1 to include Presidential Cabinet Members, Senators, Representatives, and Federal Judges.

I'd be ok with that, especially for appointments. 

I get that donors are going to get appointed to things. It's just the way the world works. But at least be honest about it. When someone is a six digit contributor to a political party or significant donor to a campaign, at least balls up and say 'yeah, they're completely unqualified, but they have tons of cash!!!1!!!1!'

[Mike M (the other one)]

I really don't see how it's anyone's business or how it will prevent someone from doing the job they've been elected/recommended to do.
Now I have no problems auditing their campaign money and any foundations they have established to make sure there is no collusion.

This is about as exciting to me as trying to dig up someone's Birth Certificate.

If he owed, it would be on the news. It's not so it's not a big deal. All that these guys want to do is try to show us what we already know. Trump pays less in % than we do. Much of that has to do with the fact that if you make over $2mil/Year then the SS is capped at $128k. I don't understand why it was capped, needs to be uncapped, so that it's the same % for everyone. But that's a different thread.