• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trump Presidency 14

Status
Not open for further replies.
You challenge the Law in court, not by disobeying it. It would be like the Police coming to arrest me for something, and me telling them that I will be challenging the law under which I am to be charged. If I try that on by resisting arrest, it will not end well for me.

First I must comply with the Law, then I can challenge it.

If Trump wants to challenge the right of Congress to get his Tax returns, he must first comply with the Law, then take Congress to court.

Surely, one can ask a court to overturn the law before complying with it in cases like these? Once the returns are turned over, the game is done. Seems to me suing for an injunction (or whatever the proper term is) prior to compliance would be totally reasonable.

Just spitballing here, with no real knowledge of legal procedures. I mean, I have watched a lot of Law & Order, but missed the episode where Treasury balked at turning over a president's tax returns.
 
Surely, one can ask a court to overturn the law before complying with it in cases like these? Once the returns are turned over, the game is done. Seems to me suing for an injunction (or whatever the proper term is) prior to compliance would be totally reasonable.

Just spitballing here, with no real knowledge of legal procedures. I mean, I have watched a lot of Law & Order, but missed the episode where Treasury balked at turning over a president's tax returns.

What grounds would they have for an injunction? "I don't want to do this" isn't really a compelling argument.
 
Roofgardener didnt make the claim. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. They can't say it is on someone else to prove it.

Correct, Roofgardenener did not make the claim.
Correct, the burden is on the person making the claim.
I don't see any post at all saying that someone else had to prove it.
 
Why ?
This has never happened before. Doesn't this look a bit like political harassment ? We already know that there is nothing illegal in the Presidents tax returns, or the IRS would have intervened. So what is the PURPOSE for the WaM Committee to inspect his tax returns ?

In an extreme case, even some legal stuff might show that Trump is, for instance, compromised by foreign interests.
 
... Wake up Americans! The Democracy you love so dearly is in mortal danger!
:thumbsup:

I wish that were the only place it is. Or not: the copycat, bandwagon or <whatever> effect Strongman USA is having across the globe is wildly pernicious, meaning that a rogue USA is about as bad for international affairs as someone being elected in Germany last century. Regardless, I am thinking Trump wins in 2020, and it will be authentic hell after that. He is far more clever than people give him credit for, and has the sharp instincts of a mobster. He knows exactly whom to throw red meat to, whom to vilify, and which fears to monger.

Meanwhile, Democrats are not getting into the news as focused on health care, the signature issue voters identified when putting the new House into Congress. I think people who are facing pressing, pragmatic issues they can see no solution to will continue to vote their fears, and at this pace, 2020 is all Trump's, providing he does not shoot himself in the foot while bragging about this or that, as is his wont.

Bottom line: Has anyone given fearful rural white people any reason to think Democrats have any answers? Anyone assuaged the fears of the 10% at the top who are not the 1%, but vote with them if they see an Ocasio-Cortez coming? If the answer is Sanders, oh boy.

TLDR: Democrats are born losers and need to hit the mental gym, or it's Trump 2020.
 
Last edited:
Really ? Recognized by whom ? And since when ? 2016 ?

Recognized by a majority of both chambers of Congress.

Since the 1920s, when they passed the law in the wake of the Teapot Dome scandal ans other improprieties in the federal government.

Those who don't learn from history ...

Congress’ authority to obtain tax returns from the IRS is an important part of its oversight powers—and the law establishing it was intended for situations just like the one Congress faces today. It was enacted to enhance Congress’ investigative powers in the wake of past executive branch corruption: the infamous Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s.

The legislative history behind the provision is richly described by University of Virginia School of Law Professor George Yin in a recent article.10 In sum, in 1922, President Warren Harding’s secretary of the interior accepted bribes from businessmen in exchange for favorable no-bid leases on public oil reserves, including the Teapot Dome oil field in Wyoming. Word of the shady transactions got out in the press, and Congress began a multiyear investigation.11 As part of that investigation, Congress sought some of the tax returns of those involved in the scandal.12 But President Harding’s successor, Calvin Coolidge, initially refused. At the time, Congress had no power to compel tax returns; the president had to approve any release, including to Congress.13 Although Coolidge ultimately granted Congress’ request, this episode helped convince Congress that its requests for tax return information to aid investigations should not be dependent on the president’s approval.14

Around the same time, some members of Congress were also frustrated by their inability to obtain tax information from Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon to determine whether his sprawling business interests influenced his recommendations to Congress on tax policy. Mellon was one of the country’s wealthiest men, and the tax policy changes he recommended to Congress would surely have affected his finances; thus, members sought information on those interests to determine how much weight to place on his recommendations.15 The Senate also launched an investigation into the Bureau of Internal Revenue, now known as the IRS, including whether it was showing favoritism toward businesses owned by Mellon. Senators found their investigation hampered by their reliance on the executive branch to obtain tax returns and by President Coolidge’s hostility to the investigation.16

Against this background, Congress, via the Revenue Act of 1924, gave itself the power to compel the secretary of the treasury to furnish tax returns upon request.17 In approving the provision, legislators cited Congress’ need to review tax return information “to evaluate Administration tax proposals, develop its own tax legislative initiatives, and carry out investigations.”18 The provision faced opposition from some parties, including Coolidge, Mellon, and members of the business community, on the grounds that it could compromise taxpayer privacy. But in enacting the provision, Congress determined that access to tax returns was important for its legislative prerogatives, including gathering information for prospective legislation and performing oversight of the executive branch. The 1924 provision, with some amendments, is still in effect today.


tl;dr

The law was passed, nearly a century ago, to allow Congress to investigate cases of senior government officials using their offices for self-enrichment. This was the result of a major scandal related to senior government officials using their offices for self-enrichment.

Trump's administration is almost tailor-made to be a reasonable target of this statute.
 
Umm.. isn't that unconstitutional ? In effect, Washington State is interfering with the right of a voter to vote for their preferred candidate ? Or rather.. they are putting restrictions on the right of an American Citizen to stand for election ?

Can they DO that ?

I believe you could still vote for the candidate. They just won't be listed on the ballot.
 
In an extreme case, even some legal stuff might show that Trump is, for instance, compromised by foreign interests.


Yeah, this. It's not actually illegal if, say, 100% of his income for the ten years prior to being elected came directly from business with Vladimir Putin, but it's pretty damn important for us to know that, if such were the case.
 
I can't help but think that the Washington senate KNOW this, and know that their "law" will be struck down if challenged. They are just indulging in "virtue signalling".

Actually, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. See Bush v Gorel. This allowed the State of Florida to halt a recount and certify George W Bush President in 2001. Don't you just hate precedent?
 
I just filed mine, Federal and Georgia, on Friday.

Using TurboTax, I found no significant difference in complexity. All the relevant
numbers went in all the relevant boxes. With the larger standard deductible,
I did not even bother adding up deductions* - no way I’d have enough to make
a difference.

Just a single data point, of course, but I think I benefited from both the much
higher standard deductible, plus the slightly lower marginal tax rate for my
income level.


*We did get a straight $7,500 off our tax liability this year, due to the fact we
bought a qualified Plug-In Hybrid EV last year. That credit only counts against
taxes owed - most years we would not have that much in taxes - which is why
we made the purchase in 2018 in the first place.


I actually do taxes by hand, just use the computer for printing out the forms.
I didn't change tax brackets at all. Only form 1040 got broke up into eight post
card pieces. As far as a tax cut, even with the large standard decidable, I got
back about 150 dollars over the average of what I paid over the last five years.
Despite a decline in mutual funds and higher than average medical costs.

I've been thinking about getting a used EV, maybe getting wind generator and
lithium ion pack to power it. The biggest expense this year a $7,500 lease on
10 kW of solar power, according to Bright Ridge, it'll generate 15 kWh a year.
I wish I could get a tax credit, like the producers do, something small like $250
a year over the twenty years of the lease. But Trump being Trump, you know
the odds of that happening.


P. S. Most people say they didn't get a tax break.

Trump Gave Most Americans A Tax Cut And They Didn't Notice?

But an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll this month showed that just 17 percent
of Americans believe their taxes have been cut. A Reuters/Ipsos poll in March
found that 21 percent thought their taxes were lowered.

That’s despite an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center that two out
of three taxpayers would see their taxes go down. The biggest benefits, though,
go to the top 1 percent, who are projected to receive an average tax break of
$62,000 in 2018, while the middle one-fifth of income earners got an average
tax cut of $1,090 — about $20 per biweekly paycheck.
 
Which is why I hope they do NOT go too hard after this till Trump is out of office.

No, now is the perfect time. The campaigns are starting to ramp up. You'll have it all out in the open by the general election.
 
Recognized by a majority of both chambers of Congress.

Since the 1920s, when they passed the law in the wake of the Teapot Dome scandal ans other improprieties in the federal government.

Those who don't learn from history ...



tl;dr

The law was passed, nearly a century ago, to allow Congress to investigate cases of senior government officials using their offices for self-enrichment. This was the result of a major scandal related to senior government officials using their offices for self-enrichment.

Trump's administration is almost tailor-made to be a reasonable target of this statute.

:thumbsup:
 
Umm.. isn't that unconstitutional ? In effect, Washington State is interfering with the right of a voter to vote for their preferred candidate ? Or rather.. they are putting restrictions on the right of an American Citizen to stand for election ?



Can they DO that ?
I haven't looked, but I would guess this is about required documentation to get your name on the ballot.
 
Soooo... let me see if I understand this properly ?



The Chairman of the Ways and Means committee - a Democrat and hence political opponent of President Trump - wants to see the Presidents tax returns.



Why ?

This has never happened before. Doesn't this look a bit like political harassment ? We already know that there is nothing illegal in the Presidents tax returns, or the IRS would have intervened. So what is the PURPOSE for the WaM Committee to inspect his tax returns ?
A fine topic for discussion.

In the meantime, both law and precedent allow for it.
 
Soooo... let me see if I understand this properly ?

The Chairman of the Ways and Means committee - a Democrat and hence political opponent of President Trump - wants to see the Presidents tax returns.
Yes, the push to see Trump's tax returns is coming from politicians from a different party than the president. And when the Republicans controlled the committee they SHOULD have asked for the returns, but didn't.

It would be wonderful if U.S. politics wasn't so hyper-partisan, but unfortunately that ship sailed a long time ago.
Why ?
This has never happened before.
In recent times, Presidents have released their tax returns. Its only Trump that is bucking the trend. (Plus, Trump is unique in that he has significant business assets that he has not divested himself of.)

It "may not have happened before" where the committee has asked for a president's taxes, but they've never had the NEED to.

Doesn't this look a bit like political harassment?
Nope, not at all. It looks like the regular oversight that congress SHOULD have when dealing with the executive branch.
We already know that there is nothing illegal in the Presidents tax returns, or the IRS would have intervened.
Uhhh... no.

The IRS can verify some of the information in a tax return, but much of what they do is simple "do these numbers add up". They do not have the resources to investigate every tax payer to see that (for example) there is undeclared income, or that all income declared is from legitimate sources.
So what is the PURPOSE for the WaM Committee to inspect his tax returns ?
As has been pointed out... the president has not divested himself of his business assets, and his current business holdings have dealings with foreign governments. This would leave him open to abuses of the Emoluments clause of the constitution. (Given the fact that there are currently multiple lawsuits against the president over just this issue, there are valid reasons for wanting to investigate.)

Then there is the possibility that if there ARE illegal activities uncovered by the committee's investigation, it would have meant that the president of the U.S. was a criminal (which might have made him a target of blackmail.)
 
C) If it is about an audit, it sure doesn't look like it. Who is the committee going to use to conduct an audit? Since the committee to lacks the expertise to audit, what safeguards are they putting in place to ensure neither them or their staff view the returns?
Umm.... what exactly makes you think that the committee lacks the expertise to audit?

Multiple members of congress were former accountants before they entered politics. Tom Suozzi (democrat) sits on the Ways and Means committee, and he is both a CPA and used to work as an auditor. Tom Rice (republican) also sits on the committee, and he too is a CPA.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/news...xes-but-10-members-are-accountants/ar-BBVWcVw
 
The IRS can verify some of the information in a tax return, but much of what they do is simple "do these numbers add up". They do not have the resources to investigate every tax payer to see that (for example) there is undeclared income, or that all income declared is from legitimate sources.

Every return is reviewed by the Automated Under Reporting system.
 
Umm.... what exactly makes you think that the committee lacks the expertise to audit?

Multiple members of congress were former accountants before they entered politics. Tom Suozzi (democrat) sits on the Ways and Means committee, and he is both a CPA and used to work as an auditor. Tom Rice (republican) also sits on the committee, and he too is a CPA.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/news...xes-but-10-members-are-accountants/ar-BBVWcVw

What's more they can hire accountants to help them as required.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom