Pattaya Bar/Go-Go Death Watch

[heybruce]

On 4/11/2019 at 7:04 AM, Brigand said:

Funny, there's that entitled lefty thinking again. Despite many thinking he should, he is not legally bound to do so and you can expect it to be challenged all the way up to the top. Dream on Mr. Higgot. He is probably more likely to get legal recourse if he does release them haha.

Under the 1924 law being used, the IRS is legally obligated to hand over anyone's tax returns when requested by the House Ways and Means Committee.  The committee has an obligation to not release the returns to the public, but may use them as part of their investigation of possible conflicts of interest.

 

In short:

 

Yes, the House Ways and Means Committee can demand the IRS hand over Trump's tax returns.  I have yet to find a legal expert who says otherwise.

 

No, this does not mean Trump's tax returns will be made public.

[Jingthing]

21 minutes ago, MeePeeMai said:

Whether American's like Trump or not, just remember that we only had two choices.  Trump .... or Hillary.

 

It was an easy decision for me.  I'd rather have dropped dead than see evil Hillary become the President so no matter what Trump does or doesn't do, I always remember what our options were in that election and I keep that stiff perspective in the back of my mind.

Is there any level of evil that 45 could exhibit to you that would convince you that you made a mistake? I'm assuming not but feel free to surprise us.

[gamb00ler]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Is there any level of evil that 45 could exhibit to you that would convince you that you made a mistake? I'm assuming not but feel free to surprise us.

Maybe if Trump stood in the middle of 5th Ave and shot him MeePeeMai would be re-consider his 2016 choice.

[heybruce]

57 minutes ago, MeePeeMai said:

Whether American's like Trump or not, just remember that we only had two choices.  Trump .... or Hillary.

 

It was an easy decision for me.  I'd rather have dropped dead than see evil Hillary become the President so no matter what Trump does or doesn't do, I always remember what our options were in that election and I keep that stiff perspective in the back of my mind.

Off-topic, but it was an easy decision for me as well.  The circumstances of my life have caused me to give serious thought to the possibility and consequences of nuclear war.  I want the nuclear codes in safe, responsible, stable hands.  Hillary Clinton isn't perfect, but she was a much safer choice than Trump.

 

It seems that for many voters choosing a President isn't about competence and issues, it's about personalities and entertainment.

[lannarebirth]

Well played:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/us/maryanne-trump-barry-misconduct-inquiry.html

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

Well played:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/us/maryanne-trump-barry-misconduct-inquiry.html

Trump's sister retired rather than have her tax affairs investigated.

 

She should have a talk with her little brother.

[Ahab]

10 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Well, I chose Judge Napolitiano because he's a conservative voicing his opinion on Fox News. But I haven't found any reputable authority on taxes who says the 1924 law  is defunct. But if you have those sources, put up or shut up. The fact is, you've got nothing except bloviating to back you.

 

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

First off, there is nothing in the text you cited that states this list of items is exhaustive. And who are you to decide what law is applicable and what is not? Can you give me one reason why conservative legal experts wouldn't cite those passages if they believed it made a compelling case? Information that is available to a non-scholar like yourself has escaped their notice? People who devote their lives to studying these questions? I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be at best, so naive, or at worst, so conceited.

In 1924 Congress passed a law authorizing itself to request this information from the IRS. Until such a time as Congress passes another law revoking this power, it is the law of the land. No such law has been passed.

Enough already with your homemade legal opinions. Rational people will go with the experts. Especially when there is not one - not one - who supports  your position.

I can give you one reason why a legal or other type of "expert" would cite something that later turns out to be false (or not so), it is because they are wrong. You see it all the time, financial experts that say the a housing bubble wasn't going to cause a failure of the financial institutions, legal experts that say Trump was a Russian agent and his family members will be indicted for treason any day now, or environmentalists that claim 98% of scientists believe that climate change will end the world in 12 years. Even on the highest court of the US (SCOTUS) it is very common to have decisions that are split decisions (where 4 judges think one thing and the other 5 judges think something else). People are wrong and you are wrong in my opinion on this topic. Nothing wrong with being wrong the problem arises when someone is wrong and they refuse to admit they are wrong when it is clearly pointed out, by numerous valid references. 

 

So it is your contention that a law was passed in 1924 and no law that modifies some provision of that law has been passed since 1924? Really?  Additional laws that have been passed relating directly to this topic include but are not limited to the Internal Revenue Code, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Freedom of Information Act.   IRS policies and practices are also clearly spelled out (as required by the Grahm-Leach-Billey Act of 1999).. Visit the IRS Electronic Freedom of Information Act Reading Room for more information about these laws. The IRS documents much of their internal policy on these laws in IRM 10.5.1, Privacy Policy. I.R.C. section 6713 prohibits any disclosure of return information.  

 

What I have been posting is not a "homemade legal opinion" but is instead based on references from the government agency and the information that is in question. A reasonable person might think it was a good idea to go to the website of the IRS and find out what the privacy policy of that agency is, as required by a law passed since 1924 (e.g. 1999). Maybe posting links to talking heads on opinion news shows is your idea of an "expert", I would prefer a reference with a bit more weight (i.e. The Privacy Act of 1974, and others listed above). While laws can be interpreted differently by various legal professionals government policies (in the US anyway) are reviewed by many legal expert to ensure that the policy follows the law so the agency does not get into legal trouble. The policies of the government agency will always be a good place to start to figure out what the applicable agency policy (and underlying laws) actually are. 

 

As to your contention that not a single expert supports my opinion I would say you are completely wrong and the people at the IRS qualify as experts on US tax policy.. It is a simple fact that leaking confidential tax records is against the law, punishable by a $5000 fine, up to five years in jail or both and a simple google search will get you to that answer..

 

Have a lovely day. 

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Trump's sister retired rather than have her tax affairs investigated.

 

She should have a talk with her little brother.

 

I'm thinking, her little brother had a talk with her.

[JustAnotherHun]

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

I want the nuclear codes in safe, responsible, stable hands.  Hillary Clinton isn't perfect, but she was a much safer choice than Trump.

Which wars did Trump start since he was elected? I don`t recall. But I remember Hillary as a strong supporter of the Bush wars, the Libya intervention and her demand to invade Syria. She`s a war driver. The red button in her hand would have scared me much more than in Trump`s.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Which wars did Trump start since he was elected? I don`t recall. But I remember Hillary as a strong supporter of the Bush wars, the Libya intervention and her demand to invade Syria. She`s a war driver. The red button in her hand would have scared me much more than in Trump`s.

And yet he's spearheading a massive buildup of the US military. Is he confused much?

[lannarebirth]

50 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 

I can give you one reason why a legal or other type of "expert" would cite something that later turns out to be false (or not so), it is because they are wrong. You see it all the time, financial experts that say the a housing bubble wasn't going to cause a failure of the financial institutions, legal experts that say Trump was a Russian agent and his family members will be indicted for treason any day now, or environmentalists that claim 98% of scientists believe that climate change will end the world in 12 years. Even on the highest court of the US (SCOTUS) it is very common to have decisions that are split decisions (where 4 judges think one thing and the other 5 judges think something else). People are wrong and you are wrong in my opinion on this topic. Nothing wrong with being wrong the problem arises when someone is wrong and they refuse to admit they are wrong when it is clearly pointed out, by numerous valid references. 

 

So it is your contention that a law was passed in 1924 and no law that modifies some provision of that law has been passed since 1924? Really?  Additional laws that have been passed relating directly to this topic include but are not limited to the Internal Revenue Code, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Freedom of Information Act.   IRS policies and practices are also clearly spelled out (as required by the Grahm-Leach-Billey Act of 1999).. Visit the IRS Electronic Freedom of Information Act Reading Room for more information about these laws. The IRS documents much of their internal policy on these laws in IRM 10.5.1, Privacy Policy. I.R.C. section 6713 prohibits any disclosure of return information.  

 

What I have been posting is not a "homemade legal opinion" but is instead based on references from the government agency and the information that is in question. A reasonable person might think it was a good idea to go to the website of the IRS and find out what the privacy policy of that agency is, as required by a law passed since 1924 (e.g. 1999). Maybe posting links to talking heads on opinion news shows is your idea of an "expert", I would prefer a reference with a bit more weight (i.e. The Privacy Act of 1974, and others listed above). While laws can be interpreted differently by various legal professionals government policies (in the US anyway) are reviewed by many legal expert to ensure that the policy follows the law so the agency does not get into legal trouble. The policies of the government agency will always be a good place to start to figure out what the applicable agency policy (and underlying laws) actually are. 

 

As to your contention that not a single expert supports my opinion I would say you are completely wrong and the people at the IRS qualify as experts on US tax policy.. It is a simple fact that leaking confidential tax records is against the law, punishable by a $5000 fine, up to five years in jail or both and a simple google search will get you to that answer..

 

Have a lovely day. 

 

The " Really"? was a nice touch.

 

[heybruce]

50 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Which wars did Trump start since he was elected? I don`t recall. But I remember Hillary as a strong supporter of the Bush wars, the Libya intervention and her demand to invade Syria. She`s a war driver. The red button in her hand would have scared me much more than in Trump`s.

Everyone supported the war in Afghanistan, and almost everyone fell for the bad intelligence and hype leading to the Iraq war.  The US supported the UK and France in Libya, after the UK reluctantly followed us into Iraq it would have been churlish for us not too.  I don't recall HRC calling for an invasion of Syria, but she did call for a more aggressive approach.  Trump has been bragging about his more aggressive approach.

 

HRC also knows what the nuclear triad is, knows how to handle Putin (which is why Putin didn't want her to win), knows the importance of relying on experience and expertise, understands not to blind-side the military with random tweet commands, and, as stated earlier, is safe, responsible and stable.  Everything Trump is not.

[Becker]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Everyone supported the war in Afghanistan, and almost everyone fell for the bad intelligence and hype leading to the Iraq war.  The US supported the UK and France in Libya, after the UK reluctantly followed us into Iraq it would have been churlish for us not too.  I don't recall HRC calling for an invasion of Syria, but she did call for a more aggressive approach.  Trump has been bragging about his more aggressive approach.

 

HRC also knows what the nuclear triad is, knows how to handle Putin (which is why Putin didn't want her to win), knows the importance of relying on experience and expertise, understands not to blind-side the military with random tweet commands, and, as stated earlier, is safe, responsible and stable.  Everything Trump is not.

Say what??? Trump's a stable genius! How do I know that? Well, he said so himself and that beacon of integrity and wisdom never lies!!

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

The " Really"? was a nice touch.

 

You actually read the whole thing? I stopped at this: "or environmentalists that claim 98% of scientists believe that climate change will end the world in 12 years. "

 

[lannarebirth]

On 4/11/2019 at 8:03 PM, lannarebirth said:

I think that is true.  Washington and Connecticut have passed law I think. A dozen or so, bluish states to follow.

 

Things are moving apace:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-must-release-tax-returns-110100111.html

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

 

I can give you one reason why a legal or other type of "expert" would cite something that later turns out to be false (or not so), it is because they are wrong. You see it all the time, financial experts that say the a housing bubble wasn't going to cause a failure of the financial institutions, legal experts that say Trump was a Russian agent and his family members will be indicted for treason any day now, or environmentalists that claim 98% of scientists believe that climate change will end the world in 12 years. Even on the highest court of the US (SCOTUS) it is very common to have decisions that are split decisions (where 4 judges think one thing and the other 5 judges think something else). People are wrong and you are wrong in my opinion on this topic. Nothing wrong with being wrong the problem arises when someone is wrong and they refuse to admit they are wrong when it is clearly pointed out, by numerous valid references. 

 

So it is your contention that a law was passed in 1924 and no law that modifies some provision of that law has been passed since 1924? Really?  Additional laws that have been passed relating directly to this topic include but are not limited to the Internal Revenue Code, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Freedom of Information Act.   IRS policies and practices are also clearly spelled out (as required by the Grahm-Leach-Billey Act of 1999).. Visit the IRS Electronic Freedom of Information Act Reading Room for more information about these laws. The IRS documents much of their internal policy on these laws in IRM 10.5.1, Privacy Policy. I.R.C. section 6713 prohibits any disclosure of return information.  

 

What I have been posting is not a "homemade legal opinion" but is instead based on references from the government agency and the information that is in question. A reasonable person might think it was a good idea to go to the website of the IRS and find out what the privacy policy of that agency is, as required by a law passed since 1924 (e.g. 1999). Maybe posting links to talking heads on opinion news shows is your idea of an "expert", I would prefer a reference with a bit more weight (i.e. The Privacy Act of 1974, and others listed above). While laws can be interpreted differently by various legal professionals government policies (in the US anyway) are reviewed by many legal expert to ensure that the policy follows the law so the agency does not get into legal trouble. The policies of the government agency will always be a good place to start to figure out what the applicable agency policy (and underlying laws) actually are. 

 

As to your contention that not a single expert supports my opinion I would say you are completely wrong and the people at the IRS qualify as experts on US tax policy.. It is a simple fact that leaking confidential tax records is against the law, punishable by a $5000 fine, up to five years in jail or both and a simple google search will get you to that answer..

 

Have a lovely day. 

Trump should fire his lawyer and hire you:

"The lawyer, , argued that Democrats who have demanded to see Mr. Trump’s tax information had no legitimate legislative reason to request it and that Representative Richard E. Neal’s decision this week to ask for six years of the president’s personal and business returns flouts “fundamental constitutional constraints.” He also called it a “gross abuse of power.”

“Even if Ways and Means had a legitimate committee purpose for requesting the president’s tax returns and return information, that purpose is not driving Chairman Neal’s request,” the lawyer wrote, referring to Mr. Neal, Democrat of Massachusetts, who leads the House Ways and Means Committee. "

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/us/politics/trump-tax-returns.html

 

William S. Consovoy

https://fedsoc.org/contributors/william-consovoy

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

And yet he's spearheading a massive buildup of the US military. Is he confused much?

It is known as peace through strength. 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Trump should fire his lawyer and hire you:

"The lawyer, , argued that Democrats who have demanded to see Mr. Trump’s tax information had no legitimate legislative reason to request it and that Representative Richard E. Neal’s decision this week to ask for six years of the president’s personal and business returns flouts “fundamental constitutional constraints.” He also called it a “gross abuse of power.”

“Even if Ways and Means had a legitimate committee purpose for requesting the president’s tax returns and return information, that purpose is not driving Chairman Neal’s request,” the lawyer wrote, referring to Mr. Neal, Democrat of Massachusetts, who leads the House Ways and Means Committee. "

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/us/politics/trump-tax-returns.html

 

William S. Consovoy

https://fedsoc.org/contributors/william-consovoy

Maybe you are correct and President Trump should start requesting the tax information of Democrat members of congress. The whining and crying over him doing the exact same thing they are trying to do to him would be overwhelming. 

 

I agree with Trump's lawyer, the Democrats have no legitimate legislative or any other reason to request his tax returns. This will run its course and we will find out who is correct. If Trump has to release his tax returns I will apologize to you, I have no expectation of anyone doing the same to me. 

 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

 

I can give you one reason why a legal or other type of "expert" would cite something that later turns out to be false (or not so), it is because they are wrong. You see it all the time, financial experts that say the a housing bubble wasn't going to cause a failure of the financial institutions, legal experts that say Trump was a Russian agent and his family members will be indicted for treason any day now, or environmentalists that claim 98% of scientists believe that climate change will end the world in 12 years. Even on the highest court of the US (SCOTUS) it is very common to have decisions that are split decisions (where 4 judges think one thing and the other 5 judges think something else). People are wrong and you are wrong in my opinion on this topic. Nothing wrong with being wrong the problem arises when someone is wrong and they refuse to admit they are wrong when it is clearly pointed out, by numerous valid references. 

 

So it is your contention that a law was passed in 1924 and no law that modifies some provision of that law has been passed since 1924? Really?  Additional laws that have been passed relating directly to this topic include but are not limited to the Internal Revenue Code, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Freedom of Information Act.   IRS policies and practices are also clearly spelled out (as required by the Grahm-Leach-Billey Act of 1999).. Visit the IRS Electronic Freedom of Information Act Reading Room for more information about these laws. The IRS documents much of their internal policy on these laws in IRM 10.5.1, Privacy Policy. I.R.C. section 6713 prohibits any disclosure of return information.  

 

What I have been posting is not a "homemade legal opinion" but is instead based on references from the government agency and the information that is in question. A reasonable person might think it was a good idea to go to the website of the IRS and find out what the privacy policy of that agency is, as required by a law passed since 1924 (e.g. 1999). Maybe posting links to talking heads on opinion news shows is your idea of an "expert", I would prefer a reference with a bit more weight (i.e. The Privacy Act of 1974, and others listed above). While laws can be interpreted differently by various legal professionals government policies (in the US anyway) are reviewed by many legal expert to ensure that the policy follows the law so the agency does not get into legal trouble. The policies of the government agency will always be a good place to start to figure out what the applicable agency policy (and underlying laws) actually are. 

 

As to your contention that not a single expert supports my opinion I would say you are completely wrong and the people at the IRS qualify as experts on US tax policy.. It is a simple fact that leaking confidential tax records is against the law, punishable by a $5000 fine, up to five years in jail or both and a simple google search will get you to that answer..

 

Have a lovely day. 

 

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

 

I can give you one reason why a legal or other type of "expert" would cite something that later turns out to be false (or not so), it is because they are wrong. You see it all the time, financial experts that say the a housing bubble wasn't going to cause a failure of the financial institutions, legal experts that say Trump was a Russian agent and his family members will be indicted for treason any day now, or environmentalists that claim 98% of scientists believe that climate change will end the world in 12 years. Even on the highest court of the US (SCOTUS) it is very common to have decisions that are split decisions (where 4 judges think one thing and the other 5 judges think something else). People are wrong and you are wrong in my opinion on this topic. Nothing wrong with being wrong the problem arises when someone is wrong and they refuse to admit they are wrong when it is clearly pointed out, by numerous valid references. 

 

So it is your contention that a law was passed in 1924 and no law that modifies some provision of that law has been passed since 1924? Really?  Additional laws that have been passed relating directly to this topic include but are not limited to the Internal Revenue Code, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Freedom of Information Act.   IRS policies and practices are also clearly spelled out (as required by the Grahm-Leach-Billey Act of 1999).. Visit the IRS Electronic Freedom of Information Act Reading Room for more information about these laws. The IRS documents much of their internal policy on these laws in IRM 10.5.1, Privacy Policy. I.R.C. section 6713 prohibits any disclosure of return information.  

 

What I have been posting is not a "homemade legal opinion" but is instead based on references from the government agency and the information that is in question. A reasonable person might think it was a good idea to go to the website of the IRS and find out what the privacy policy of that agency is, as required by a law passed since 1924 (e.g. 1999). Maybe posting links to talking heads on opinion news shows is your idea of an "expert", I would prefer a reference with a bit more weight (i.e. The Privacy Act of 1974, and others listed above). While laws can be interpreted differently by various legal professionals government policies (in the US anyway) are reviewed by many legal expert to ensure that the policy follows the law so the agency does not get into legal trouble. The policies of the government agency will always be a good place to start to figure out what the applicable agency policy (and underlying laws) actually are. 

 

As to your contention that not a single expert supports my opinion I would say you are completely wrong and the people at the IRS qualify as experts on US tax policy.. It is a simple fact that leaking confidential tax records is against the law, punishable by a $5000 fine, up to five years in jail or both and a simple google search will get you to that answer..

 

Have a lovely day. 

This is the law being used to demand the IRS turn over Trump's tax returns:

 

(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation 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 Tax-ation, 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.    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/pdf/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleF-chap61-subchapB-sec6103.pdf

 

Show us how this law conflicts with any subsequent law.  Before you do, I suggest you read the law you are passing opinion on (that's what legal experts do).  It makes it clear that only the House Ways and Means Committee can see the tax returns, so there are no privacy issues. 

 

[heybruce]

35 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Trump should fire his lawyer and hire you:

"The lawyer, , argued that Democrats who have demanded to see Mr. Trump’s tax information had no legitimate legislative reason to request it and that Representative Richard E. Neal’s decision this week to ask for six years of the president’s personal and business returns flouts “fundamental constitutional constraints.” He also called it a “gross abuse of power.”

“Even if Ways and Means had a legitimate committee purpose for requesting the president’s tax returns and return information, that purpose is not driving Chairman Neal’s request,” the lawyer wrote, referring to Mr. Neal, Democrat of Massachusetts, who leads the House Ways and Means Committee. "

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/us/politics/trump-tax-returns.html

 

William S. Consovoy

https://fedsoc.org/contributors/william-consovoy

The law does not require the Ways and Means Chairman to give a reason for requesting the returns, it simply allows it.  The House Ways and Means Committee, as the chief tax writing committee, is allowed to demand whatever returns it wants as part of its oversight responsibilities.  Sort of a surprise inspection to keep everyone on their toes. 

 

However if a reason is needed, Trump has given ample reason to suspect conflicts of interests and violations of the Emoluments Clause.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The law does not require the Ways and Means Chairman to give a reason for requesting the returns, it simply allows it.  The House Ways and Means Committee, as the chief tax writing committee, is allowed to demand whatever returns it wants as part of its oversight responsibilities.  Sort of a surprise inspection to keep everyone on their toes. 

 

However if a reason is needed, Trump has given ample reason to suspect conflicts of interests and violations of the Emoluments Clause.

Constitutional questions come to bear. A legislative body can't just issue requests to harass someone. I think a "legimate legislative purpose" is a pretty widely accepted standard. Which is why Neal worded his request the way he did. At the same time, courts are usually reluctant to interfere with Congress, so most likely it will come down to how strict a standard should be applied.

[lannarebirth]

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The law does not require the Ways and Means Chairman to give a reason for requesting the returns, it simply allows it.  The House Ways and Means Committee, as the chief tax writing committee, is allowed to demand whatever returns it wants as part of its oversight responsibilities.  Sort of a surprise inspection to keep everyone on their toes. 

 

However if a reason is needed, Trump has given ample reason to suspect conflicts of interests and violations of the Emoluments Clause.

 

I don't find a person's tax returns to be particularly elucidating as far as illegal behaviour they might be involved in. Spiro Agnew might be an exception, but I dont think Congress ever requested his returns. He was brought down by a regional US Attorney's office.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I don't find a person's tax returns to be particularly elucidating as far as illegal behaviour they might be involved in. Spiro Agnew might be an exception, but I dont think Congress ever requested his returns. He was brought down by a regional US Attorney's office.

Al Capone would disagree.

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I don't find a person's tax returns to be particularly elucidating as far as illegal behaviour they might be involved in. Spiro Agnew might be an exception, but I dont think Congress ever requested his returns. He was brought down by a regional US Attorney's office.

It can be if they show you were laundering money.

[Ahab]

18 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

This is the law being used to demand the IRS turn over Trump's tax returns:

 

(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation 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 Tax-ation, 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.    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/pdf/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleF-chap61-subchapB-sec6103.pdf

 

Show us how this law conflicts with any subsequent law.  Before you do, I suggest you read the law you are passing opinion on (that's what legal experts do).  It makes it clear that only the House Ways and Means Committee can see the tax returns, so there are no privacy issues. 

 

Never said I was a tax expert, but even the quote you supplied (from a valid source by the way) seems to specifically not apply to any "return or return information that can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer".  So this law fits perfectly with the other laws and regulations prohibiting the release of taxpayer information by the IRS. 

 

So the committee can request Trump's tax returns, but since they could directly be related to him they are excepted from being released by the IRS.

 

I will continue to comment on all sorts of issues without becoming a "legal expert" I don't have the money or space for all the legal references and case law, but I can comment in a reasonable way about issues without passing the bar exam or getting a law degree. Also since lawyers or often over ruled and lose cases doesn't make them any less of an expert. Even four of the highest judges in the USA on the supreme court are on the losing side of arguments very often. So it is possible that Trump loses on this one but I think it is as unlikely as some of his other actions like the ban on people entering from select countries with crap security procedures (a list that Obama developed by the way) which was upheld by the courts (eventually). 

[Ahab]

 

16 hours ago, heybruce said:

Al Capone would disagree.

Al Capone didn't file tax returns.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Never said I was a tax expert, but even the quote you supplied (from a valid source by the way) seems to specifically not apply to any "return or return information that can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer".  So this law fits perfectly with the other laws and regulations prohibiting the release of taxpayer information by the IRS. 

 

So the committee can request Trump's tax returns, but since they could directly be related to him they are excepted from being released by the IRS.

 

I will continue to comment on all sorts of issues without becoming a "legal expert" I don't have the money or space for all the legal references and case law, but I can comment in a reasonable way about issues without passing the bar exam or getting a law degree. Also since lawyers or often over ruled and lose cases doesn't make them any less of an expert. Even four of the highest judges in the USA on the supreme court are on the losing side of arguments very often. So it is possible that Trump loses on this one but I think it is as unlikely as some of his other actions like the ban on people entering from select countries with crap security procedures (a list that Obama developed by the way) which was upheld by the courts (eventually). 

Please read this law again. 'seems to not apply ...' is not correct.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Please read this law again. 'seems to not apply ...' is not correct.

I was specifically referring to his post and the part that he quoted in his post. There are other provisions in the pdf that he linked that allow that information can be released to congressional committees under very specific circumstances that are spelled out in the regulation. 

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I was specifically referring to his post and the part that he quoted in his post. There are other provisions in the pdf that he linked that allow that information can be released to congressional committees under very specific circumstances that are spelled out in the regulation. 

Please, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

The law is very specific in allowing this.

[Srikcir]

On 4/11/2019 at 4:04 PM, Srikcir said:

"The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Internal Revenue laws."

The Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over all federal government taxation, tariffs, and other revenue-raising measures, as well as a number of other programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Ways_and_Means

IRC Part 3. Submission Processing, Chapter 28. Special Processing Procedures, Section 3. Individual Income Tax Returns states:

1. Purpose: This Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) provides instructions for processing returns and the accounts of the President and Vice President of the United States of America.
2. Audience: This IRM is used by tax examiners and clerks in Austin Submission Processing site.

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part3/irm_03-028-003#idm140587193522144

 

The Committee in its government oversight responsibility has the mandatory right to assure proper processing and examination of the president's and vice president's tax return through independent review.

For Treasury and/or the IRS Commissioner to deny the Committee's request for tax returns violates the Committee's legal oversight of governmental operations and, thus, Congressional responsibility as a check and balance against Executive Branch abuse of power as provided by the US Constitution.

 

As of today Secretary of Treasury and the IRS Commissioner failed to meet the Commission's deadline for production of Trump's tax returns with indication that they will not comply at all. Therefore, both have violated the law and the Committee should request the US Attorney General enforce the law by holding Secretary of Treasury and the IRS Commissioner accountable for their criminal acts.