1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

Trump will win Tax Return fight in Supreme Court.

Discussion in 'Latest Political News and Current Events' started by Nostra, Apr 17, 2019.

  1. Nostra

    Nostra Governor

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2018
    Messages:
    10,541
    Likes Received:
    2,067
    The law is on his side, and he will surely fight this illegal attempt to use his tax returns for purely partisan political purposes.

    In fact, the law in question was ruled on by none other than Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 1986, so unless she is the partisan hack she has shown herself to be she will be one who sides with Trump's position.

    Isn't it funny how this request came up only after Mueller served up his Nothingburger? The partisanship behind this is blatant.



    Should elected officials be allowed to gain access to the federal income tax returns of American taxpayers? When President Nixon tried to do this to get dirt on his political opponents he was deservedly condemned and Congress passed a law in 1976 to bar the practice. But now Democrats want to ignore that law to get their hands on President Trump’s tax returns.

    Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code guarantees the confidentiality of all our tax returns – yours, mine and even President Trump’s.

    A recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report notes that federal officials are prohibited from disclosing taxpayer returns and information without the taxpayer’s consent. Criminal penalties apply to unauthorized disclosures.

    According to CRS, Congress passed this provision because of “revelations that President Nixon sought to use tax return information for improper purposes.”

    What improper purposes? Partisan politics.

    But while Democrats vilify Republican Nixon for using the power of government to go after opponents on his infamous enemies list, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., is being hailed a hero by his party for following in Nixon’s footsteps.

    Neal has written Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rettig demanding copies of the tax returns filed by President Trump and eight of his companies for the last six years.

    Trump lawyer William Consovoy has contested that demand, contending in an April 5 letter that Neal’s demand is illegal and “the IRS cannot legally divulge” the Trump tax returns.

    The court fight over whether Congress can get the Trump returns is complicated, as I will explain below. It’s virtually certain to wind up in the Supreme Court.

    If I had to bet on who will ultimately win the court fight I would put my money on Consovoy, a well-known and skilled Supreme Court litigator.

    Getting President Trump’s tax returns has become a crusade for many Democrats – especially now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has concluded Trump and his campaign didn’t collude with Russia to get elected in 2016.

    Interestingly, in 1986 a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia supported the law keeping tax returns private, finding in the case of National Treasury Employees Union v. the Federal Labor Relations Authority that taxpayer privacy is “fundamental to a tax system that relies on self-reporting.”

    The judge was right.

    Few people had heard of that judge in 1986, but you’ve likely heard her name in more recent years. She got a big promotion and is now Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If she winds up hearing the case dealing with the fight over the Trump tax returns it will be interesting to see if she sticks with her position of 33 years ago, or adopts a different position to strike a blow against President Trump.

    The House Democratic majority that took control of the chamber in January is clearly more interested in investigating every aspect of President Trump’s life than legislating.

    Getting President Trump’s tax returns has become a crusade for many Democrats – especially now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has concluded Trump and his campaign didn’t collude with Russia to get elected in 2016.

    Neal notes that an exception to the general rule of privacy for tax returns allows the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee – that’s him – to request tax returns or information about the returns.

    Democrats are claiming this exception gives Neal the absolute right to get the Trump returns, with no exceptions. But that’s a gross oversimplification.

    If tax return information requested by the Ways and Means chairman includes information that can identify the taxpayer, it can be provided only when the requesting committee is “in closed executive session.”

    Both the Congressional Research Service and Trump attorney Consovoy point out that the committee can exercise its power under this law only in the context of its constitutional oversight and investigative authority. This is a critical distinction.

    The committee’s power is “subject to the same legal limitations that generally attach to Congress’ use of other compulsory investigative tools,” CRS observes. It adds: “Notably, the inquiry must further a ‘legislative purpose’ and not otherwise breach relevant constitutional rights or privileges.”

    Consovoy cites numerous court decisions holding that legislative “investigations” like Neal’s must have a legitimate legislative purpose. Congress doesn’t have a “stand-alone” investigation power.

    In a 1957 case, Watkins v. U.S., the Supreme Court told the House Un-American Activities Committee that “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure” and especially not the “private affairs” of individuals.

    Furthermore, according to the high court, Congress can’t use its investigation to act like a “law enforcement or trial agency” – or, as Consovoy put it in a follow-up letter to the Treasury Department Monday, like “a junior-varsity IRS, rerunning individual examinations or flyspecking the agency’s calculations.”

    The point is that the House committee has no power to conduct its own examination and audit of any individual taxpayer – be it the president or anyone else.

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/han...e-a-tough-court-fight-trump-has-a-strong-case
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  2. The Thinker

    The Thinker Over The Top Abuser

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2015
    Messages:
    40,551
    Likes Received:
    9,038
    Another dry hole for kook leftists. Speaking of dry holes, I wonder if @JuliefromOhio will chime in on this.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2019
  3. Nostra

    Nostra Governor

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2018
    Messages:
    10,541
    Likes Received:
    2,067
    Dimwingers have avoided this one.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Bugsy McGurk

    Bugsy McGurk President

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    85,683
    Likes Received:
    6,790
    Your prediction is that the GOP hacks on the SCOTUS will read the law and conclude that the word “shall” means “maybe.”

    Is their hackery THAT extreme? Hard to believe.

    ;-)
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  5. sensible don

    sensible don Mayor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,682
    Likes Received:
    538
    Yet just another wishful thinking thread with no real basis for the conclusion, GEEZUS !

    Oh wait - it's FOX NEWS OPINION so it has to be true !
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  6. Nostra

    Nostra Governor

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2018
    Messages:
    10,541
    Likes Received:
    2,067
    No, they will read where you can't see tax returns for purely political hack purposes.....per court ruling precedent.....and rule in favor of the law and against the lawless attempt to get tax returns to use for political purposes.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Bugsy McGurk

    Bugsy McGurk President

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    85,683
    Likes Received:
    6,790
    Ah, a statutory “rewrite.” Ignore the word “shall,” pretend the statute is limited to certain purposes, and then have GOP hack judges rule that they don’t like the purpose.

    Now THAT would be some extreme GOP hackery!

    ;-)
     
  8. Bronwyn

    Bronwyn Unapoligetically Republican

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2019
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    125
    You mean like the demonrats do all the time? men are women, up is down, black is white kind of thing they keep trying to get people to swallow? Not going to happen. We'll just sit back an d watch the dums drive themselves in a frenzy like they did when madcow said she had Trumps taxes! LOL!
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Bugsy McGurk

    Bugsy McGurk President

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    85,683
    Likes Received:
    6,790
    No, I don’t mean that.

    Try to focus.
     
  10. Nostra

    Nostra Governor

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2018
    Messages:
    10,541
    Likes Received:
    2,067
    So, it is your position that Congress can get anyone’s tax returns for any purpose whatsoever.

    That is moronic, but what we expect from you, hack.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Bronwyn

    Bronwyn Unapoligetically Republican

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2019
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    125
    Hard to focus on all the crap splattered by liberal idiots.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Bugsy McGurk

    Bugsy McGurk President

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    85,683
    Likes Received:
    6,790
    Nope. Not “Congress.” The specific committee chairmen listed in the statute. That’s what the statute says. Unequivocally. It says “shall.” Period. But in the lawless Trump era, he directly violates statutes, and his sycophants applaud like trained seals.
     
  13. Nostra

    Nostra Governor

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2018
    Messages:
    10,541
    Likes Received:
    2,067
    Ruth Bader Ginsberg disagrees with you.............are at least she did before Trump became your President.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1

Share This Page