Supreme Court Denies Trump’s Request To Shield Tax Records
[guest post by Dana]
After a three year court battle, this:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected former President Donald Trump’s last-ditch plea to block the release of his tax records to House Democrats, paving the way for their possible disclosure to the lawmakers.
The decision by the court in a brief order noting no dissenting votes means the committee can try to access the documents before Republicans take over the House in January. The committee, however, has not said how quickly it expects to get the documents. Upon taking control, Republicans are expected to withdraw the request.
“While it is possible that Congress may attempt to threaten the sitting President with an invasive request after leaving office, every President takes office knowing that he will be subject to the same laws as all other citizens upon leaving office,” a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August.
“This is a feature of our democratic republic, not a bug,” Judge David Sentelle, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, wrote in the panel’s opinion.
P.S.: “The Committee points to instances when Trump has boasted about “a history of aggressive tax avoidance” and has called IRS audits of his business activities “unfair.” Quite possibly, it will all come back to bite him. Bigly.
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (1225fc) — 11/22/2022 @ 1:57 pmSince he had no hesitation in denying the results of the general election, I doubt he’ll have any qualms about denying the contents of his tax records.
John B Boddie (18ca17) — 11/22/2022 @ 2:31 pm1) “history of aggressive tax avoidance” is not illegal. In fact, tax avoidance is typical of every tax payors, especially the wealthy.
2) I look forward to future Presidents to show their complete taxes over the years, instead of just the recent years previous candidates have done.
whembly (d116f3) — 11/22/2022 @ 2:41 pmThe Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected former President Donald Trump’s last-ditch plea to block the release of his tax records to House Democrats, paving the way for their possible disclosure to the lawmakers.
So group of berobed bureaucrats who cannot keep track of their own paperwork rule others should reveal theirs?
Piss on’ em. No leaker; no compliance.
Storm the castle.
DCSCA (6e74a0) — 11/22/2022 @ 2:44 pm@3, me too. I honestly can’t see a downside for this.
Time123 (975613) — 11/22/2022 @ 3:30 pmThe over/under for me getting to see them is about 3 days.
Kevin M (1ea396) — 11/22/2022 @ 4:03 pm1) “history of aggressive tax avoidance” is not illegal. In fact, tax avoidance is typical of every tax payors, especially the wealthy.
I will admit that I try to squeeze the last legal dime out of my tax bill.
“A fool and his money are soon parted”
Kevin M (1ea396) — 11/22/2022 @ 4:06 pm— sign over the IRS HQ entryway
The main problem with a businessman releasing ALL of his records is that he releases other people’s records, too. Partnerships, for example, have to be reported and other people’s information is necessarily included. If this can be redacted and/or summarized to exclude invading other people’s privacy it would be a lot better. Gifts to individuals (not a Trump issue) also name individuals and their tax ID numbers (I assume these ARE redacted). Gifts to charities can politicize charities who may not want everyone to know that Ted Cruz gave them money.
The point being here that just because you file form 1040EZ doesn’t mean everyone does, and there is a lot more in a tax return than just numbers.
Kevin M (1ea396) — 11/22/2022 @ 4:14 pm2) I look forward to future Presidents to show their complete taxes over the years, instead of just the recent years previous candidates have done.
Please explain why it is any of your damn business what a politician made 30 years ago.
Kevin M (1ea396) — 11/22/2022 @ 4:16 pmTrump promised to release his tax returns during the 2016 campaign. He can still keep that promise, though it is a bit late.
That would be the best outcome in this situation, IMHO.
Jim Miller (f29931) — 11/22/2022 @ 5:55 pmWhat I don’t understand is, if the economy is so bad and Trump supporters cannot afford milk, gas, and baby formula, where do they find the money they send him to pay for all the lawyers in all these lawsuits?
nk (115b95) — 11/22/2022 @ 6:24 pmme too. I honestly can’t see a downside for this.
Time123 (975613) — 11/22/2022 @ 3:30 pm
I’m sure we won’t hear about any downsides until Republicans do it.
JF (da63a1) — 11/22/2022 @ 6:51 pmI’m glad that the USSC is holding Trump to his original pledge about releasing his tax returns.
Paul Montagu (b351b8) — 11/22/2022 @ 7:17 pmI think every taxpayer should be very diligent and aggressive about avoiding taxes, and saying as much shouldn’t be grounds for an audit by the House of Representatives. The IRS has Trump’s returns and have had every opportunity to review them and audit any red flag issues. The Trump returns will be leaked and crowd sourced, but if the crowd sourcing shows evasion the IRS missed, the IRS should be embarrassed
I’m self employed in field(s) that are considered by the IRS to have a lot of red flags.
steveg (e38090) — 11/22/2022 @ 10:54 pmMy returns have been formally audited 4 times in the last 20 years but it is clear to me that the IRS (and state of CA) are constantly reviewing or auditing internally because I get random checks from them $1.76 to thousands. One of the oddest things in a formal IRS audit is them insisting I provide them with copies of returns from past years. What did they do with the returns I sent them? Don’t they keep them on file? Someone once told me this is an artifact from past century and they are fishing to see if you are stupid enough to send the second set of books, but I just think the IRS system is so hopelessly layered with bureaucracy that they cut through the red tape and go direct. State of CA doesn’t even try to audit. They get a notice from IRS that the IRS is auditing me and then the state of CA sends me a letter saying they will be piggybacking on the IRS results and will bill accordingly. The bill of course is due immediately with interest and penalties, but any refund will show up in 90 days
@9
It’s not anyone’s business.
But, if folks are so interested in Trump’s tax returns, then future Presidents will need to share to the same degree as Trump’s.
This is what I mean but applying the same rules to Democrats. Time123 might argue that’s governmental abuses. But it’s only applying the same rule to everyone.
whembly (d116f3) — 11/23/2022 @ 6:10 am@13
That’s not their justification. Politicians lie all the time and courts simply don’t enforce broken-promises by politicians.
The court’s justification was that Congress’ oversight more than adequate to overcome Trump’s objection.
whembly (d116f3) — 11/23/2022 @ 6:12 amYes, whembly. My comment was on the snark end of the spectrum.
Paul Montagu (b351b8) — 11/23/2022 @ 6:16 amWhembly, I said it before and I’ll be more explicit. I have no problem if the House wants to look at the tax returns for Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton etc. Google will show you that many of them did make their returns public and have for a long time.
After Nixon the norm was that presidential candidates would make their tax returned public. That was a good norm. Transparency about presidential candidates is good. Respect for the power of congressional oversite is also good, even when that power is used in silly ways.
You seem opposed to this, is there some harm I’m not seeing or is it just “oppose everything the other side does”?
Time123 (975613) — 11/23/2022 @ 7:42 am@18 I’m not opposed to it.
What I want acknowledged is that using the Congressional oversight to plow through a POTUS’ tax history is unprecedent, and I’m personally fine with it. IN fact, all politician’s tax records ought to be made public for transparency imo.
Also, let me state this: Since Nixon, Presidential candidates submitted what essentially amounted to a summary of their taxes. They don’t release all the forms/documentations needed to file the taxes.
That’s a big difference than what this Congressional subpoena is doing regarding Trump.
Again, I’m not really that opposed to what’s happening here.
What I oppose to, is the one-way ratchet such that Democrats cries afoul when the same is applied to them.
I’m willing to bet a substantial amount of money that if the GOP-led house invokes its own subpoena power for tax records (ala, like Ds did to Trump) for not only Joe Biden, but also his family, Democrats and corporate media will claim government abuse.
Willing to take such bets?
whembly (d116f3) — 11/23/2022 @ 8:33 amI don’t think the committee is legally allowed to release the tax returns without a vote approving that by the full House, or maybe its the Rules of the House
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/president-trump-cannot-hide-tax-returns-congress
The committee cannot make them public,
Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 11/23/2022 @ 8:55 amalthough maybe they can leak it, and then Kevin McCarthy can bounce the putative leakers from the committee if he gets to be Speaker (still not fully settled, although the dissenters are more likely to settle for some concessions)
nk (115b95) — 11/22/2022 @ 6:24 pm
Trump supporters are not situated all alike – there are always some who have more money.
Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 11/23/2022 @ 8:59 amHere is an archive of released presidential (and presidential candidate) tax returns.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 11/23/2022 @ 9:17 am@22. 504 Gateway Time-out
Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 11/23/2022 @ 9:30 amWhembly, as long as they’re keeping it to Presidential candidates I’m good.
I’d add federal elected officials and governors. I think this would become burdensome if applied at local levels. But I’m open to the arguments.
I think seeking the records of family members would be a bridge too far, but I’m open to exceptions for very good reasons. So Trumps elder 3 /maybe/ his younger 2 *definitely not*.
Time123 (b674f2) — 11/23/2022 @ 9:32 amThen there are people an executive may be close to but who are not family members.
https://freebeacon.com/democrats/new-york-nepotism-nyc-gives-mayors-close-friend-one-of-its-highest-paying-jobs/
And this:
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2022/10/18/mayor_adams_nyc_schools_chief_hire_each_others_girlfriends_859168.html\You can’t devise a rule that will cover all circumstances.
And then there was the Bess Myerson scandal:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/bess-myerson-a-miss-america-tarnished-by-scandal-dies-at-90/2015/01/05/4d0373a4-94fe-11e4-8005-1924ede3e54a_story.html
Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 11/23/2022 @ 10:07 amWhat I don’t understand is, if the economy is so bad and Trump supporters cannot afford milk, gas, and baby formula, where do they find the money they send him to pay for all the lawyers in all these lawsuits?
They are the thrifty working-class folks he so loves.
Kevin M (1ea396) — 11/23/2022 @ 10:09 amI didn’t mean to cut and paste so much – but only the last paragraphs I quoted.
The job was a job that would ordinarily have attracted no attention.
Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 11/23/2022 @ 10:09 amThe only issue here (besides the leaks, crowd-sourcing and spin-doctoring of the returns) is that the requirement to disclose falls unevenly on candidates and does not adequately explore potential lawlessness.
Example: 2012
Romney, whose return is very complex and involves multiple business arrangements, releases a summary of returns, listing the bottom-line numbers. For this he is castigated and a senior government official lies about having seen the “real” returns.
Obama, whose wife is getting a 6-figure sinecure job from a beneficiary of government grants, releases his returns which are fairly simple, if uninformative. His treasury secretary is a known tax cheat, but Congress decides that doesn’t matter and no charges are ever brought.
The problem is not the returns, but the fact that they are unequally scrutinized and the press only really looks at one of them.
Kevin M (1ea396) — 11/23/2022 @ 10:18 amHere’s the best rule: Candidates at every level disclose what they are comfortable with. You vote for whom you want.
Kevin M (1ea396) — 11/23/2022 @ 10:22 amLet’s say that Trump’s returns show that he exaggerated a business write-off. I have no doubt he would do that. Would it affect my vote if he did (or didn’t)? No. Would it affect the vote of those who would be OK with him shooting a gay handicapped immigrant nurse on 5th avenue? Probably not.
This seems more counting coup than anything. And believe me I’d like to see him in prison rather than running again, but this won’t do it; if the IRS didn’t flag anything when they reviewed it (and they did), reasonable doubt is easy to come by.
Kevin M (1ea396) — 11/23/2022 @ 10:27 amRegarding tax returns, the only relevant item is conflict of interest….and normally candidates are publicly known well enough to have this information. With Trump, people did not have much insight into his business dealings and who we might be beholden to. Otherwise, the exercise is just a way to embarrass candidates who don’t give a lot to charity. It also triggers the “fair share” scream, which is the morality test of did the candidate use a bunch of loopholes to not maximize his “contributions” to the IRS. If it’s not illegal, who cares. I would be more worried if the person DID NOT takes deductions he was entitled to. Now, we also hear a lot about establishing whether Trump is lying about his wealth. Now there are certainly valuations in there, losses and gains, but you can at best get an idea of whether the wealth is going up or down. Again, it’s kind of a gotcha with not a lot of relevance that requires oversight. You don’t need his tax return to know he’s a grifter.
Yes, it’s become custom AND Trump did promise to release them, so at this point it looks like he lied and never intended to release them. Does he earn a demerit for that? He’s launched bigger lies. Should this open up requirements on family members and cabinet members to provide tax returns? Sounds like a big fishing exercise and more what-aboutism. If there’s cause, I guess. I want government servants to have followed the law and respect the law. I’m not sure if this exercise clarifies that….
AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 11/23/2022 @ 10:42 amTrump constantly brags he pays the least taxes possible, and he may have even paid no taxes in some years. No problem if it was legal, and the IRS likely would have investigated.
But Trump also brags about his immense wealth and has backed that claim up with countless statements and documents, often supported by his accountants. Taken together, those raise tax fraud issues and the NY trial is about that.
I expect Trump — the man who claims he is a brilliant when it comes to taxes — will do shat he always does. Blame others. Probably his accountants.
DRJ (44a85e) — 11/23/2022 @ 10:52 amKevin M (1ea396) — 11/23/2022 @ 10:18 am
I don’t recall if there was more than one issue, but one they talked about was using Turbo tax, which didn’t cover an unusual situation. Timothy Geithner worked for some international organization in New York, where his income was exempt from federal income tax, and I would guess that he did not get a W-2 form for that but it was considered earned income and was not exempt from Social Security tax (in this case self-employment) He was notified of this, (that he needed to pay self-employment tax) but this was not programmed into Turbo tax. One reason the IRS likes people to use professional tax preparers is because errors made the taxpayer are chalked up to ignorance,
Sammy Finkelman (9905c7) — 11/23/2022 @ 12:55 pmI have no doubts at all that Trump paid zero income tax for numerous years. Trump is also one of those guys that takes credit for the accomplishments of those he pays for services and his “genius” is usually him taking the credit because the people work for him- the great Donald Trump who said “do it”. I will say that it serves Trump well to hire people that are smarter than him to do a job. Hiring people with great skills, getting them the resources they need and then getting out of the way is a good strategy for success, but Trump seems the type to not get out of the way and can be penurious when it comes to resources, so it should be interesting.
Trump admits he has written off some huge losses. In consecutive years. HRC mocked him for it throughout her run. So how do I guess he did that?
I got a note a month or two back from a person who is smarter than me outlining this years “loss harvesting” program to offset gains. Losses happen because most portfolios have winners and losers. Sometimes with equities, there is little you can do, for example if you have large position that gets an in the money cash buyout. Real estate loss harvesting can be very different than equities harvesting due to the deep leveraging real estate offers, the lower than equities risk tax free cash you can raise by refinancing, the depreciation segregation and schedule, while also the avoiding and/or offsetting the depreciation recapture tax.
steveg (9c77e2) — 11/25/2022 @ 3:24 pmMy guess is that Trumps real trouble will be in if he committed fraud by undervaluing assets for property tax assessment while simultaneously overvaluing that same asset for the purpose of obtaining new loans. Trump should have refinanced much of his portfolio over the last decade or so because money was cheap, so there will be a lot of transactions to look at, a lot of timing his people needed to keep straight. Even if Trump does get some properties flagged, any punishment beyond tax, penalties, interest would probably depend on how many transactions within the total were problematic (10% + ?) and/or the percentage by $$$ of total transactions