Supreme Court allows release of Trump's tax returns to House Democrats

Already posted. 6103 f 4

 

I have no idea what qualifications you claim to interpret the law and/or apply it as you see fit.

Do you doubt that the incoming Republican congressional majority will pursue such matters in the appropriate manner if they descry justification for doing so?

Certainly, Trump's repeated promise to release his tax returns was one he never thought would be honored or fulfilled. His claiming enormous deductions to avoid his patriotic burden will, no doubt, be pursued under law as well, but I make no presumptions regarding the results of such litigation.

 

The issue is that Trump said he would release them, and then he didn't. What does he have to hide?

 

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.

To our knowledge, Trump has not given the House permission to release his taxation. In fact, further from the truth he practically litigated to try to prevent this very scenario from happening. But there's other arguments against what the House is doing from a legal prospective, inside the very law in question. Chapter A of the the law reads as followed:

Returns and return information shall be confidential, and except as authorized by this title—
(1)
no officer or employee of the United States,
(2)
no officer or employee of any State, any local law enforcement agency receiving information under subsection (i)(1)(C) or (7)(A), any local child support enforcement agency, or any local agency administering a program listed in subsection (l)(7)(D) who has or had access to returns or return information under this section or section 6104(c), and
(3)
no other person (or officer or employee thereof) who has or had access to returns or return information under subsection (c), subsection (e)(1)(D)(iii), paragraph (10), (13), (14), or (15) of subsection (k), paragraph (6), (10), (12), (13) (other than subparagraphs (D)(v) and (D)(vi) thereof), (16), (19), (20), or (21) of subsection (l), paragraph (2) or (4)(B) of subsection (m), or subsection (n),
shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee or otherwise or under the provisions of this section. For purposes of this subsection, the term “officer or employee” includes a former officer or employee.

In order to even remotely claim 'insurrection' or anything therein, the House cannot deny its status as a seat of the government and therefore its members are officers and employees of the United States. Therefore they are governed(or should be) under this statue.

 

6103 f 4 says:
may be submitted by the committee to the Senate or the House of Representatives, or to both

 

Sure, but it can't be released to the general public without the expressed intent of the taxpayer, in this case being Trump. We all know Trump has no intent of releasing his returns, the House is voting to say 'screw your intent, we're releasing it anyway'.

If the House can screw Trump's intent, it can screw with the rest of us. The reforms to create the IRS to begin with and the post-Nixon reforms are undermined by the need for 'transparency' to something that's private for 99.9% of us.

 

Yes it can. Judge McFadden even said so.

 

That's a violation of the stature of law, as written. A judge does not get to make up the rules, as he goes along. He must follow the law to the letter, and nothing else. This will be something for the Senate Judiciary Committee(inactive as it always is) to recall the judge.

 

It’s not, I’ve posted it several times.
and don’t you think one of the Republicans on the committee would’ve mentioned it if it was against the law LOL

 

Completely legal.

 

Hyper-partisans continually presume to interpret law and issue verdicts. (See "Lock her up!" Lock her up!")

If the House Ways and Means Committee (or anyone else) is suspected of violating the law, the law in prosecuting the matter must be followed.

Presumably, the incoming Republican House leadership will avail itself of its power to pursue the matter under law.

There are several Trumpy matters currently being properly adjudicated.

 

Im sorry you are unable to understand what only viewed in a closed session unless the taxpayer gives consent means.

I’ll chalk you up as another person who is happy to go back to the days of Nixon.

 

I have my hope, but at the same time I'm not optimistic because let me make it clear: The security of private tax documents is OUR rights as citizens, it is not a right or privilege of Congress. Given the new expressed permission to take those rights away what makes you think Congress or any form of government will protect it even with a new party leadership?

The answer is nil, when government gains new power it never relinquishes it.

 

Such suspected illegalities can only be pursued in a lawful manner.

Trump had every right to pursue his lie that he had won the 2020 election in a "Landslide!" via recounts, audits, court appeals. When he exhausted his legal options, he did not have the right to deploy his goons to attack the Capitol, attempt to intimidate Republican governors and secretaries--of-state, target poll workers for vilification, or contrive fake electors.

If the incoming Republican leadership does not satisfy your desires, you and other like-minded citizens can petition them to do follow your instructions.

 

That isn’t what the law says, and don’t you think one of the republicans on the committee would have said if they thought it was illegal?? The trump appointed judge said they can release it. Why do you think you know better??

 

The law allowing Congress to access anyone's tax returns dates back to 1927 and has been held before the SCOTUS on multiple occasions.

This false outrage from MAGA only exists because Trump is the one being targeted.

 

Illegality of not fulfilling a campaign promise??? Are you kidding? You just convicted every president and every congressperson for the last 100 years or so, not to mention governors and state representatives.

 

You didn’t understand what you replied to. Maybe read it again. Poster is not claiming violating a promise is illegal

 

Submitted

(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress

(4) Agents of committees and submission of information to Senate or House of Representatives
(A) Committees described in paragraph (1)
Any committee described in paragraph (1) or the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation shall have the authority, acting directly, or by or through such examiners or agents as the chairman of such committee or such chief of staff may designate or appoint, to inspect returns and return information at such time and in such manner as may be determined by such chairman or chief of staff. Any return or return information obtained by or on behalf of such committee pursuant to the provisions of this subsection may be submitted by the committee to the Senate or the House of Representatives, or to both. The Joint Committee on Taxation may also submit such return or return information to any other committee described in paragraph (1), 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.

(B) Other committees
Any committee or subcommittee described in paragraph (3) shall have the right, acting directly, or by or through no more than four examiners or agents, designated or appointed in writing in equal numbers by the chairman and ranking minority member of such committee or subcommittee, to inspect returns and return information at such time and in such manner as may be determined by such chairman and ranking minority member. Any return or return information obtained by or on behalf of such committee or subcommittee pursuant to the provisions of this subsection may be submitted by the committee to the Senate or the House of Representatives, or to both, 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 the Senate or the House of Representatives only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.


What you have claimed is not what the statute holds. Without permission it can only be disclosed to Senate and House in closed session. That doesn't give them the right to later throw it out there, unless you have another portion of this very long statute you'd like to use.

 

I don’t think there is a closed session of the entire house. Even the trump appointed judge said they can release them. In fact I can’t find any (even rightwing) legal experts saying they can’t. Not a single Republican in the committee has claimed they can’t do this.

 

Her is a quote from the post, " illegality in fulfilling Trump's repeated promise to release his tax returns to the public, the law should be applied, of course. " It ain't rocket science or advanced reading comprehension.

 

Your reading comprehension still needs work. To repeat @ Reality 's post, "Any return or return information ...... may be submitted by the committee to the Senate or the House of Representatives, or to both, 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 the Senate or the House of Representatives only when sitting in closed executive session...........

 

And then they can vote to release it.
It was furnished in closed session….doesn’t mean it has to remain there.
Can you find any lawyers claiming they can’t do this? I can’t. Not even the usual RW hacks aren’t claiming what you are.

 

Yet you still didn’t understand it
The hypothetical illegality is fulfilling trumps promise for him, not that it was broken. I’m sure the poster will chime in and confirm the obvious.

 

Your reading comprehension improved a little bit, but it was overcome with inanity.