SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - US Politics Thread 2021-24

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - US Politics Thread 2021-24 (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=248184)

Likely unless something slips out during the NY tax fraud trial that has now been set for October 2023.

IRS just sent me a demand I pay a whopping $13.52 due immediately. Apparently I missed something on my 2019 return.

Anyway this is what the SCOTUS used to allow access to Trump’s returns.

26 U.S.C. § 6103
https://casetext.com/statute/united-...rn-information

SCOTUS Blog
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/j...s-tax-returns/

EMERGENCY DOCKET

Justices clear the way for House committee to obtain Trump’s tax returns

Quote:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request from former President Donald Trump to block the disclosure of his tax returns to a congressional committee. The brief order clears the way for the House Committee on Ways and Means to obtain six years’ worth of federal tax returns for Trump and his companies.

The court did not explain its reasoning, and no justices noted dissent.

The order is the latest, and perhaps final, chapter in long-running litigation that began in 2019, when the Ways and Means Committee, led by Democrats, asked the IRS for Trump’s tax returns. The committee said it wants to use the records to inform potential legislation on how federal tax laws apply to a sitting president. And in requesting the recors, the committee relied on a federal law, 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f), which allows the committee to obtain “any return or return information” from the IRS, including tax returns for individual taxpayers.

Under the Trump administration, the Department of the Treasury refused to turn over the returns. It was not until after President Joe Biden took office in January 2021 that the Treasury Department agreed to turn them over.

Trump nonetheless asked a federal district judge to block the disclosure of the tax returns to the committee. He argued that the committee lacked a legitimate purpose for seeking the records and that the real motive behind the request was to expose Trump’s finances and gather evidence to use against him in a criminal case. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, ruled against Trump, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld his ruling.

Trump came to the Supreme Court on Oct. 31, asking the justices to intervene. He contended that releasing his tax returns to the committee would violate the Supreme Court’s holding in Trump v. Mazars, a 2020 case involving different requests from congressional committees seeking Trump’s financial records. In Mazars, the court held that such requests must be backed by a valid legislative purpose.

The Biden administration and the committee urged the justices to stay out of the dispute. The Supreme Court has long held, they stressed, that courts should look only at whether there is a valid legislative purpose for Congress’ request – not at what other motives may have prompted it. And if the release of Trump’s returns were delayed, the committee added, it would “leave the Committee and Congress as a whole little or no time to complete their legislative work” before the current Congress ends on Jan. 3, 2023.

Moreover, the committee warned, a ruling for Trump on the merits would make it much more difficult for Congress to do its job: Congress would never be able to investigate a former president “whenever there are allegations that the investigation was politically motivated.”

This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
Posted in Featured, Emergency appeals and applications
Cases: Trump v. Committee on Ways and Means

IMO it looks more like a fishing expedition.

So does this set a precedent that all presidential tax returns are available for scrutiny?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto Harkaman (Post 2839146)

So does this set a precedent that all presidential tax returns are available for scrutiny?

From the above write-up. The committee wanted it for “legislative purposes” and “whenever there are allegations that an investigation was politically motivated”. What ever that means.

The few narcotics smuggling and fisheries cases I’ve worked you actually had to have at least some probable cause or evidence that a crime was committed before you started digging around in peoples private affairs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto Harkaman (Post 2839146)

So does this set a precedent that all presidential tax returns are available for scrutiny?

I think was the only president who didn't allow his tax returns to made public.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid (Post 2839151)

I think was the only president who didn't allow his tax returns to made public.

There are no laws anywhere on the books in this country requiring a president to make his private affairs public.. The first one to voluntarily to do so was Nixon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2839152)

There are no laws anywhere on the books in this country requiring a president to make his private affairs public.. The first one to voluntarily to do so was Nixon.

I'm not disagreeing and I never said it was mandatory, however, Trumps efforts to put a stay on turning over the records was demied by a unanimous Supreme Court decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid (Post 2839153)

I'm not disagreeing and I never said it was mandatory, however, Trumps efforts to put a stay on turning over the records was demied by a unanimous Supreme Court decision.

True but as far as I can tell it has nothing to do with a law enforcement agency’s desire to collect information concerning a criminal investigation. It was according to the linked article done at the request of the Ways and Means committee, for “legislative purposes”. 26 U.S.C. § 6103.

I could be wrong but as mentioned earlier it looks to me like a fishing expedition. The boondoggle has been going now for 2,133 days and counting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2839164)

I wonder how long it'll be before they get leaked :hmmm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 2839165)

I wonder how long it'll be before they get leaked :hmmm:

Who knows, what day does the October Surprise normally make the headlines?

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 2839048)

Interesting article by Bill Barr:

https://www.commonsense.news/p/bill-...-burn-down-the

Look how they roasted Tulsi Gabbard over comments she made about U.S. funded bio labs in Ukraine. I guess that’s not presidential behavior either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2839166)

Who knows, what day does the October Surprise normally make the headlines?

One day in October?

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 2839216)

One day in October?

:haha: Wiseass :03:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2839164)

Put whatever label on that makes you happy. Obviously those legislative purposes were found to be binding so the 2133 odd days is curtesy of Trump's legal delaying tactics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid (Post 2839219)

Put whatever label on that makes you happy. Obviously those legislative purposes were found to be binding so the 2133 odd days is curtesy of Trump's legal delaying tactics.

Put whatever label on it that makes me happy? I don’t say the things I do just to make myself happy. It’s my opinion based on what I’ve read and my take on the drama. The number represents the days politicians have spent at the tax payer expense on this political boondoggle drama, accusations, probes, committees and investigations from the day of his inauguration until today (2,134). They’re all getting paid and so the rich keep getting richer.

“Obviously those legislative purposes were found to be binding” What’s your point? The House Ways and Means Committee’s says it needs the information to ‘probe’ how the IRS conducts the auditing process for presidents. Really? Are you telling me Democrats in congress can’t legislate new laws without Trump’s tax returns? They seemed quite content to legislate Obamacare without reading what was in it.

I see it as just another boondoggle obviously you see it as something else. Care to enlighten us?