Trump Is Hiding His Taxes

[Flopper]

It would make more sense to ask the questions of the IRS, then have them bring out presidential returns for the last 20 years or so to illustrate their processes. Nothing ever revealed to the public, of course. No need to.

But it's obvious oversight had nothing to do with their ultimate goal.

What could you ask them about his returns without seeing them?

Now you're getting somewhere. Before the police can search your private papers and effects, it first has to be ascertained that a crime was committed, and a credible reason must be presented to a judge in order to get a search warrant. They cannot simply, on the word of a neighbor who's mad that you beat him out for president of the local HOA, search your house looking evidence of a possible crime. Thus, in this case, they should first get from the IRS the procedures in place for handling presidential tax returns, THEN ask for returns that can be checked against those procedures to be sure the IRS is following them. And if they were really concerned with oversight, they would demand returns from multiple presidents, not just Trump. The fact that they're ONLY interested in his returns blows their rationale out of the water.

This is not the same situation. The IRS, an agency of the federal government is the custodian of Trump's tax return. It can be shared with any agency, department, or division of the government as long as rules of privacy are present and adhered to. Such rules exist in congress and laws are in place to protect privacy. These is no data in any federal agency that can be withheld from congress, even classified information, again as long as security precautions are in place.

Not true. Oversight is not an enumerated power of Congress but an implied power of Congress, implied by the need to see how govenment agencies are functioning in order to carry out Congress's legislative function, and access to the President's taxes is in no way going to aid Congress in its legislative function. This will go to the courts after the Democrats do their little dance over it and in 3 or 4 years the Supreme Courts will issue its decision and you will see I am right.

The fact that they're insisting on only seeing Trump's returns makes it a partisan hunt. They didn't even pretend to go after multiple presidents' returns.

In case you haven't heard, every president since Nixon has released their tax returns. They are already available.

 

[OKTexas]

It would make more sense to ask the questions of the IRS, then have them bring out presidential returns for the last 20 years or so to illustrate their processes. Nothing ever revealed to the public, of course. No need to.

But it's obvious oversight had nothing to do with their ultimate goal.

What could you ask them about his returns without seeing them?

Now you're getting somewhere. Before the police can search your private papers and effects, it first has to be ascertained that a crime was committed, and a credible reason must be presented to a judge in order to get a search warrant. They cannot simply, on the word of a neighbor who's mad that you beat him out for president of the local HOA, search your house looking evidence of a possible crime. Thus, in this case, they should first get from the IRS the procedures in place for handling presidential tax returns, THEN ask for returns that can be checked against those procedures to be sure the IRS is following them. And if they were really concerned with oversight, they would demand returns from multiple presidents, not just Trump. The fact that they're ONLY interested in his returns blows their rationale out of the water.

This is not the same situation. The IRS, an agency of the federal government is the custodian of Trump's tax return. It can be shared with any agency, department, or division of the government as long as rules of privacy are present and adhered to. Such rules exist in congress and laws are in place to protect privacy. These is no data in any federal agency that can be withheld from congress, even classified information, again as long as security precautions are in place.

Wrong again hero, only 3 committees can request tax data, and they need a clear legislative purpose to do so. Requests that identify a tax payer by name are even more restricted.

.

Yet the law allows congress; that is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee access to tax payer data. Since Congress makes the law, it can pass legislation to grant access to any information held by government as long as it does not violate the constitution.

I think the courts will find requests for political fishing expeditions does violate the Constitution. You can't violate a persons privacy for grins and giggles.

.

 

[hadit]

What could you ask them about his returns without seeing them?

Now you're getting somewhere. Before the police can search your private papers and effects, it first has to be ascertained that a crime was committed, and a credible reason must be presented to a judge in order to get a search warrant. They cannot simply, on the word of a neighbor who's mad that you beat him out for president of the local HOA, search your house looking evidence of a possible crime. Thus, in this case, they should first get from the IRS the procedures in place for handling presidential tax returns, THEN ask for returns that can be checked against those procedures to be sure the IRS is following them. And if they were really concerned with oversight, they would demand returns from multiple presidents, not just Trump. The fact that they're ONLY interested in his returns blows their rationale out of the water.

This is not the same situation. The IRS, an agency of the federal government is the custodian of Trump's tax return. It can be shared with any agency, department, or division of the government as long as rules of privacy are present and adhered to. Such rules exist in congress and laws are in place to protect privacy. These is no data in any federal agency that can be withheld from congress, even classified information, again as long as security precautions are in place.

Not true. Oversight is not an enumerated power of Congress but an implied power of Congress, implied by the need to see how govenment agencies are functioning in order to carry out Congress's legislative function, and access to the President's taxes is in no way going to aid Congress in its legislative function. This will go to the courts after the Democrats do their little dance over it and in 3 or 4 years the Supreme Courts will issue its decision and you will see I am right.

The fact that they're insisting on only seeing Trump's returns makes it a partisan hunt. They didn't even pretend to go after multiple presidents' returns.

In case you haven't heard, every president since Nixon has released their tax returns. They are already available.

So they could then easily gain oversight without needing Trump's returns. All they'd need to do is get the IRS to detail their procedures, then use the readily available returns to check. Problem solved with no one's privacy violated.

Unless, of course, oversight is just a ruse to gain access to Trump's returns. They wouldn't do that, would they?

 

[Flopper]

What could you ask them about his returns without seeing them?

Now you're getting somewhere. Before the police can search your private papers and effects, it first has to be ascertained that a crime was committed, and a credible reason must be presented to a judge in order to get a search warrant. They cannot simply, on the word of a neighbor who's mad that you beat him out for president of the local HOA, search your house looking evidence of a possible crime. Thus, in this case, they should first get from the IRS the procedures in place for handling presidential tax returns, THEN ask for returns that can be checked against those procedures to be sure the IRS is following them. And if they were really concerned with oversight, they would demand returns from multiple presidents, not just Trump. The fact that they're ONLY interested in his returns blows their rationale out of the water.

This is not the same situation. The IRS, an agency of the federal government is the custodian of Trump's tax return. It can be shared with any agency, department, or division of the government as long as rules of privacy are present and adhered to. Such rules exist in congress and laws are in place to protect privacy. These is no data in any federal agency that can be withheld from congress, even classified information, again as long as security precautions are in place.

Wrong again hero, only 3 committees can request tax data, and they need a clear legislative purpose to do so. Requests that identify a tax payer by name are even more restricted.

.

Yet the law allows congress; that is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee access to tax payer data. Since Congress makes the law, it can pass legislation to grant access to any information held by government as long as it does not violate the constitution.

I think the courts will find requests for political fishing expeditions does violate the Constitution. You can't violate a persons privacy for grins and giggles.

.

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that it would violate his privacy. That might be a good political argument, but not a good legal argument. The statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it. The court is not going to speculate on whether a member congress will or will not make the returns public because the law sets the condition for release of the information to the public.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of the president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

 

[OKTexas]

Now you're getting somewhere. Before the police can search your private papers and effects, it first has to be ascertained that a crime was committed, and a credible reason must be presented to a judge in order to get a search warrant. They cannot simply, on the word of a neighbor who's mad that you beat him out for president of the local HOA, search your house looking evidence of a possible crime. Thus, in this case, they should first get from the IRS the procedures in place for handling presidential tax returns, THEN ask for returns that can be checked against those procedures to be sure the IRS is following them. And if they were really concerned with oversight, they would demand returns from multiple presidents, not just Trump. The fact that they're ONLY interested in his returns blows their rationale out of the water.

This is not the same situation. The IRS, an agency of the federal government is the custodian of Trump's tax return. It can be shared with any agency, department, or division of the government as long as rules of privacy are present and adhered to. Such rules exist in congress and laws are in place to protect privacy. These is no data in any federal agency that can be withheld from congress, even classified information, again as long as security precautions are in place.

Wrong again hero, only 3 committees can request tax data, and they need a clear legislative purpose to do so. Requests that identify a tax payer by name are even more restricted.

.

Yet the law allows congress; that is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee access to tax payer data. Since Congress makes the law, it can pass legislation to grant access to any information held by government as long as it does not violate the constitution.

I think the courts will find requests for political fishing expeditions does violate the Constitution. You can't violate a persons privacy for grins and giggles.

.

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would violate his privacy. I don't think that is a good legal argument. However, the statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Or they can rule the request is a sham, supported by more than 2 years of history. If the commies get their hands on his returns they will leak at least parts of them, that's been their intent all along.

.

 

[Redfish]

the dem/libs failed on russia russia russia, so now they are trying taxes taxes taxes, and will fail there too. Rich people like trump get audited every year and have a staff of tax lawyers and accountants to ensure that their returns are in full compliance with the tax code. If he was cheating the obama IRS crooks would have screamed it during the campaign, sorry libs, nothing here either.

Trump is such a despicable person in the minds of most Americans, allowing him to keep his returns hidden may well be the best tactic. Most voters will assume that if he hasn't got anything to hide why doesn't he release them.
The latest Gallup poll shows only 4% of democrats approve of Trump's job in office, and only 13% of independents while 90% of republicans approve. Whether Trump's returns are made public or not is not going to make much difference in the election.

most of your post is bullshit. his latest approval ratings are over 50%. the vast majority of americans dont give a shit about seeing his tax returns. demanding them is nothing but a dem political stunt to cover their own failures and the fact that their corruption in the last election is coming to full public view.

you are correct that his taxes wont make much difference in the election, he will beat whichever clown the dems run by a huge margin.

Wrong on all counts.

RCP Average, 43.2 (3/23-4/11)
Rasmussen, 49
Economist, 43
Reuters, 39
Politico, 40
Gallup , 45
GU Politics, 43
IBD/TIPP, 41
The Hill, 46
PPP (D), 42
NPR/PBS/Marist, 44
NBC/WSJ, 43

Donald Trump's highest average job approval rating was 46% the week of his inauguration. Rasmussen is the only major poll that reported a rating higher than 50% and that has happen only about 4 times since he took office.

A majority, or 51%, of registered voters support Democrats’ efforts to obtain the president’s tax returns, versus 36% who oppose the push, according to a Morning Consult/Politico poll released Wednesday. Among independent voters, 46% back the Democratic lawmakers’ effort, while 34% do not. The Morning Consult/Politico poll of 1,992 registered voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval
Trump says 'people don't care' about his tax returns, but polls show otherwise

then there's this
Gallup: Trump Approval Up 50% or More in 17 States

note that they polled 73,000 people (out of 330,000,000). If you think that's a representative sample, then I suggest a stat 101 course at your local high school.

the polls of today are nothing but propaganda tools aimed at influencing public opinion, not reporting on it.

remember those same pollsters said that hillary had a 97% chance of winning and that Trump had no path to 270 EC vote, they lied then and are lying now.

 

[Redfish]

This is not the same situation. The IRS, an agency of the federal government is the custodian of Trump's tax return. It can be shared with any agency, department, or division of the government as long as rules of privacy are present and adhered to. Such rules exist in congress and laws are in place to protect privacy. These is no data in any federal agency that can be withheld from congress, even classified information, again as long as security precautions are in place.

Wrong again hero, only 3 committees can request tax data, and they need a clear legislative purpose to do so. Requests that identify a tax payer by name are even more restricted.

.

Yet the law allows congress; that is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee access to tax payer data. Since Congress makes the law, it can pass legislation to grant access to any information held by government as long as it does not violate the constitution.

I think the courts will find requests for political fishing expeditions does violate the Constitution. You can't violate a persons privacy for grins and giggles.

.

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would violate his privacy. I don't think that is a good legal argument. However, the statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Or they can rule the request is a sham, supported by more than 2 years of history. If the commies get their hands on his returns they will leak at least parts of them, that's been their intent all along.

.

leak parts of them,out of context and make up lies about what they say. as you said, thats been their plan form the beginning.

 

[Redfish]

Now you're getting somewhere. Before the police can search your private papers and effects, it first has to be ascertained that a crime was committed, and a credible reason must be presented to a judge in order to get a search warrant. They cannot simply, on the word of a neighbor who's mad that you beat him out for president of the local HOA, search your house looking evidence of a possible crime. Thus, in this case, they should first get from the IRS the procedures in place for handling presidential tax returns, THEN ask for returns that can be checked against those procedures to be sure the IRS is following them. And if they were really concerned with oversight, they would demand returns from multiple presidents, not just Trump. The fact that they're ONLY interested in his returns blows their rationale out of the water.

This is not the same situation. The IRS, an agency of the federal government is the custodian of Trump's tax return. It can be shared with any agency, department, or division of the government as long as rules of privacy are present and adhered to. Such rules exist in congress and laws are in place to protect privacy. These is no data in any federal agency that can be withheld from congress, even classified information, again as long as security precautions are in place.

Wrong again hero, only 3 committees can request tax data, and they need a clear legislative purpose to do so. Requests that identify a tax payer by name are even more restricted.

.

Yet the law allows congress; that is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee access to tax payer data. Since Congress makes the law, it can pass legislation to grant access to any information held by government as long as it does not violate the constitution.

I think the courts will find requests for political fishing expeditions does violate the Constitution. You can't violate a persons privacy for grins and giggles.

.

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that it would violate his privacy. That might be a good political argument, but not a good legal argument. The statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it. The court is not going to speculate on whether a member congress will or will not make the returns public because the law sets the condition for release of the information to the public.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of the president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

that law only applies if the committed can make a valid case that they need them for some legislative purpose, not for political games.

 

[Redfish]

This is not the same situation. The IRS, an agency of the federal government is the custodian of Trump's tax return. It can be shared with any agency, department, or division of the government as long as rules of privacy are present and adhered to. Such rules exist in congress and laws are in place to protect privacy. These is no data in any federal agency that can be withheld from congress, even classified information, again as long as security precautions are in place.

Wrong again hero, only 3 committees can request tax data, and they need a clear legislative purpose to do so. Requests that identify a tax payer by name are even more restricted.

.

Yet the law allows congress; that is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee access to tax payer data. Since Congress makes the law, it can pass legislation to grant access to any information held by government as long as it does not violate the constitution.

I think the courts will find requests for political fishing expeditions does violate the Constitution. You can't violate a persons privacy for grins and giggles.

.

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that it would violate his privacy. That might be a good political argument, but not a good legal argument. The statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it. The court is not going to speculate on whether a member congress will or will not make the returns public because the law sets the condition for release of the information to the public.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of the president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

that law only applies if the committed can make a valid case that they need them for some legislative purpose, not for political games.[/QU

committee

 

[Cellblock2429]

Congress is trying to get Trump's taxes. Every President since Nixon has released theirs and Trump "claims" he'd like to release them.

He is however fighting tooth and nail to keep them secret. His claim here is that he's under audit and for some reason that precludes him from releasing them. It doesn't.

The IRS does not lock them down for that reason, and it's CONGRESS requesting them in accordance with the law. In fact a refusal would put the the head of the IRS or Treasury Secretary in contempt of Congress.

And for what it's worth, Trump's former attorney Cohen testified under oath that Trump WASN'T under audit

What do you suppose he's hiding? Tax evasion? Money Laundering?

He's afraid of something obviously

/——-/ More President’s have not released their taxes then have. Trump is in the majority. Suck on that, libtards.

 

[jc456]

What in heavens name is President Trump, so afraid of... they have to keep it confidential, it does not get released to the full congress or the public?

Why do you think he’s afraid?

 

[jc456]

Congress is trying to get Trump's taxes. Every President since Nixon has released theirs and Trump "claims" he'd like to release them.

He is however fighting tooth and nail to keep them secret. His claim here is that he's under audit and for some reason that precludes him from releasing them. It doesn't.

The IRS does not lock them down for that reason, and it's CONGRESS requesting them in accordance with the law. In fact a refusal would put the the head of the IRS or Treasury Secretary in contempt of Congress.

And for what it's worth, Trump's former attorney Cohen testified under oath that Trump WASN'T under audit

What do you suppose he's hiding? Tax evasion? Money Laundering?

He's afraid of something obviously

/——-/ More President’s have not released their taxes then have. Trump is in the majority. Suck on that, libtards.

Honestly, it doesn’t make sense

 

[Flopper]

This is not the same situation. The IRS, an agency of the federal government is the custodian of Trump's tax return. It can be shared with any agency, department, or division of the government as long as rules of privacy are present and adhered to. Such rules exist in congress and laws are in place to protect privacy. These is no data in any federal agency that can be withheld from congress, even classified information, again as long as security precautions are in place.

Wrong again hero, only 3 committees can request tax data, and they need a clear legislative purpose to do so. Requests that identify a tax payer by name are even more restricted.

.

Yet the law allows congress; that is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee access to tax payer data. Since Congress makes the law, it can pass legislation to grant access to any information held by government as long as it does not violate the constitution.

I think the courts will find requests for political fishing expeditions does violate the Constitution. You can't violate a persons privacy for grins and giggles.

.

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would violate his privacy. I don't think that is a good legal argument. However, the statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Or they can rule the request is a sham, supported by more than 2 years of history. If the commies get their hands on his returns they will leak at least parts of them, that's been their intent all along.

.

Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. No court will deny congress that right as it is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
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. No court is going to deny oversight as long it done as required by statue.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

 

[Cellblock2429]

Wrong again hero, only 3 committees can request tax data, and they need a clear legislative purpose to do so. Requests that identify a tax payer by name are even more restricted.

.

Yet the law allows congress; that is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee access to tax payer data. Since Congress makes the law, it can pass legislation to grant access to any information held by government as long as it does not violate the constitution.

I think the courts will find requests for political fishing expeditions does violate the Constitution. You can't violate a persons privacy for grins and giggles.

.

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would violate his privacy. I don't think that is a good legal argument. However, the statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Or they can rule the request is a sham, supported by more than 2 years of history. If the commies get their hands on his returns they will leak at least parts of them, that's been their intent all along.

.

Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. No court will deny congress that right as it is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
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. No court is going to deny oversight as long it done as required by statue.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

/---/ "Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?"
Maybe the judge reads the paper and has a clue.

 

[Flopper]

Yet the law allows congress; that is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee access to tax payer data. Since Congress makes the law, it can pass legislation to grant access to any information held by government as long as it does not violate the constitution.

I think the courts will find requests for political fishing expeditions does violate the Constitution. You can't violate a persons privacy for grins and giggles.

.

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would violate his privacy. I don't think that is a good legal argument. However, the statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Or they can rule the request is a sham, supported by more than 2 years of history. If the commies get their hands on his returns they will leak at least parts of them, that's been their intent all along.

.

Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. No court will deny congress that right as it is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
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. No court is going to deny oversight as long it done as required by statue.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

/---/ "Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?"
Maybe the judge reads the paper and has a clue.

Courts make ruling based on points of law, not newspaper articles and opinions of reporters.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I think the courts will find requests for political fishing expeditions does violate the Constitution. You can't violate a persons privacy for grins and giggles.

.

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would violate his privacy. I don't think that is a good legal argument. However, the statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Or they can rule the request is a sham, supported by more than 2 years of history. If the commies get their hands on his returns they will leak at least parts of them, that's been their intent all along.

.

Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. No court will deny congress that right as it is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
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. No court is going to deny oversight as long it done as required by statue.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

/---/ "Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?"
Maybe the judge reads the paper and has a clue.

Courts make ruling based on points of law, not newspaper articles and opinions of reporters.

/——/ And you are that naive.

 

[jc456]

I think the courts will find requests for political fishing expeditions does violate the Constitution. You can't violate a persons privacy for grins and giggles.

.

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would violate his privacy. I don't think that is a good legal argument. However, the statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Or they can rule the request is a sham, supported by more than 2 years of history. If the commies get their hands on his returns they will leak at least parts of them, that's been their intent all along.

.

Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. No court will deny congress that right as it is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
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. No court is going to deny oversight as long it done as required by statue.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

/---/ "Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?"
Maybe the judge reads the paper and has a clue.

Courts make ruling based on points of law, not newspaper articles and opinions of reporters.

Or message board choir bois

 

[Flopper]

You are making the assumption that if the IRS turns over the Trump tax returns to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would violate his privacy. I don't think that is a good legal argument. However, the statute says the IRS “shall furnish” tax returns to the committee chair upon request and that’s the end of it.

However, the Trump administration can delay action for months but eventually the court will have to rule either that the 1924 law is unconstitutional or allow the committee access. I don't see how the administration can claim that the privacy of president overrides federal law.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Or they can rule the request is a sham, supported by more than 2 years of history. If the commies get their hands on his returns they will leak at least parts of them, that's been their intent all along.

.

Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. No court will deny congress that right as it is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
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. No court is going to deny oversight as long it done as required by statue.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

/---/ "Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?"
Maybe the judge reads the paper and has a clue.

Courts make ruling based on points of law, not newspaper articles and opinions of reporters.

/——/ And you are that naive.

Judges make ruling based on law because they know that they will likely be overturned by a higher court if there decision is not based on law. This is why a judge when rendering a decision will cite legal precedents in defense of their decision. For a judge, being overturned is seen as a rebuke.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Or they can rule the request is a sham, supported by more than 2 years of history. If the commies get their hands on his returns they will leak at least parts of them, that's been their intent all along.

.

Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. No court will deny congress that right as it is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
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. No court is going to deny oversight as long it done as required by statue.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

/---/ "Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?"
Maybe the judge reads the paper and has a clue.

Courts make ruling based on points of law, not newspaper articles and opinions of reporters.

/——/ And you are that naive.

Judges make ruling based on law because they know that they will likely be overturned by a higher court if there decision is not based on law. This is why a judge when rendering a decision will cite legal precedents in defense of their decision. For a judge, being overturned is seen as a rebuke.

/——/ That never stopped the activist judges from blocking Trump’s lawful EOs or did you forget that?

 

[Flopper]

Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?

Oversight of the executive branch of goverment is a responsibility of congress and no reason is required for such oversight. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. No court will deny congress that right as it is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
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. No court is going to deny oversight as long it done as required by statue.
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

/---/ "Since the law does not require the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to state a reason for the request, how can a judge rule the reason is a sham?"
Maybe the judge reads the paper and has a clue.

Courts make ruling based on points of law, not newspaper articles and opinions of reporters.

/——/ And you are that naive.

Judges make ruling based on law because they know that they will likely be overturned by a higher court if there decision is not based on law. This is why a judge when rendering a decision will cite legal precedents in defense of their decision. For a judge, being overturned is seen as a rebuke.

/——/ That never stopped the activist judges from blocking Trump’s lawful EOs or did you forget that?

I know this would never cross your mind, but there may have been good legal cases presented.

Administrations, both republican and democrat win about 70% of their cases. The Trump win rate stands at 6% which is why conservatives constantly blame loses on liberal judges even thou many of those judges were far from being liberal.

There's a simple reason for the administration’s repeated defeats. In case after case, judges have rebuked Trump officials for failing to follow the most basic rules of governance for shifting policy, including providing legitimate explanations supported by facts and, where required, public input. In 2/3 of the cases, the administration was trying to short cut the legal procedures by failing to present sufficient grounds for the court to rule in there favor.

What you apparently do not understand about federal judges is all of them have politician biases, some strong and some weak but they all have some politician leaning. Regardless of the judges biases, his decision will be reviewed if either party carries the case forward. In each decision, the judge will specify the legal precedents, evidence of the case, and how his decision was reached. Any judge that does not base his decision on sold legal grounds will be overturned, regardless of his political opinion.

For a judge, having his decisions overturned is akin to an employee whose boss is constantly overriding him. He find himself with lesser assignments and not being considering for higher positions. Political partisanship of federal judges is greatly overstayed.
Why Is the Trump Administration Always Getting Shut Down in Court?