OLC Opinion: Congressional Committee's Request for the President's Tax Returns

U.S. Office of Legal Counsel ^ | June 13, 2019 | Steven A. Engel

[Cboldt]

The provisions in 26 U.S.C. S: 6103 protecting confidentiality of tax returns prohibited the Department of the Treasury from complying with a request by the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee for the President's tax returns. The text of section 6103(f), the statutory exception under which the request was made, does not require the Committee to state any purpose for its request. But Congress could not constitutionally confer upon the Committee the right to compel the Executive Branch to disclose confidential information without a legitimate legislative purpose. Under the facts and circumstances, the Secretary of the Treasury reasonably and correctly concluded that the Committee's asserted interest in reviewing the Internal Revenue Service's audits of presidential returns was pretextual and that its true aim was to make the President's tax returns public, which is not a legitimate legislative purpose.

Because section 6103(a) prohibited the disclosure of the tax returns sought in the Chairman's request, as well as in the corresponding subpoenas, the Department of the Treasury's refusal to provide the information did not violate either 26 U.S.C. S: 7214(a)(3) or 2 U.S.C. S: 192.

[Cboldt]

Actual opinon. There are news reports out on this subject as well.

OLC Opinion Denying Release of Trump Tax Returns | Law & Crime

DOJ Releases Opinion Justifying Refusal To Give Trump's Tax Returns | Talking Points Memo

[cdcdawg]

Well, this is certainly at odds with what Rachel Maddow was braying about. I’m sure she will clear this up. Ha!

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks so much for your support to this point... I personally apprecaite it...
FReepers, it's far beyond time to wrap up this FReep-a-thon.  Lets do it today.  Please chip in.

President Donald J. Trump and the Free Republic of the United States of America
President Donald J. Trump's address to the United Nations on 09/19/2017.

Ramirez political cartoon:  Google LARGE VERSION 06/12/2019: LINK  LINK to regular sized versions of his political cartoons (archive).
Garrison political cartoon:  Socialism the Millennial Flytrap LARGE VERSION 06/2019: LINK  LINK (scroll down) to regular sized versions of his political cartoons (archive).

FReepers, 99.216% of the Second Quarter FReep-a-thon goal has been met.  Click above and pencil in your donation now.  Please folks, lets end this FReepathon.  Thank you!
...this is a general all-purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

Just $690.00 dollars to 100%.

[thinden]

Thanx for posting the good news

[Jim Robinson]

Bump!

[eyeamok]

And section G of the Same Law, gives the President the Right to pull Anyone’s Tax Return, Let’s see the returns for every Member of CONgress.

[shelterguy]

But but but they need the returns to see how much money Trump has received from the Russians.

[cdcdawg]

Exactly! Rachel said that turning over the returns was “mandatory” because of some secret memo and that there was no room for argument. She repeated this many times. It was the focus of an entire show. It was a pivot from the Mueller Disappointment, but the tax returns could tie it all together!!

Disclosure: my son thinks it’s funny to turn on MSNBC as a contest to see which one of us breaks first. I’ve lasted 35 minutes with breaks to refill my drink.

[bigbob]

I’d rather see what’s in those sealed Sexual Harassment settlement files.

IF that became public, I suspect we would see a very different Congress in a matter of weeks.

[eyeamok]

Just think of all the Un-Reported Income they LIED to the IRS about, I doubt they got 1099’s for their Rape Fund payouts.

[Cold War Veteran - Submarines]

A 33 page “not only no but hell no”. I am no lawyer but I do recognize a middle finger when I see one

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

But Congress could not constitutionally confer upon the Committee the right to compel the Executive Branch to disclose confidential information without a legitimate legislative purpose.

What is the definition of "a legitimate legislative purpose?" The word "legitimate" in some contexts can be subjective. One of the most difficult concepts for me is how to be certain about motive/intent.

[Gene Eric]

Democrat Thug Party displeased.

[musicman]

Less Tha $395 To Go!!
Free Republic!!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Continue Giving You Many Satisfying Returns!!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Let’s see Omar’s tax returns, Tlaib’s, AOC’s, Julian Castro’s (pesos, anyone?), Kamala Harris’, Pelosi’s (crooked real estate deals, anyone - the same for Sen. Feinstein’s husband), Cummings and his (soon to be jailed wife’s), Schiff’s (Calif-Red Chinese money, the same for Rep. Lieu and Judy Chu and Grace Meng in New York City), that nut from Oregon (PlayitForeward or Payalpal?), etc.

[Cboldt]

-- What is the definition of "a legitimate legislative purpose?" --

Inquiry for the purpoose of informing a change in law. Not "oversight" or "to decide whether or not to form a committee on imeachment."

Funny thing is, Congress could pass a law that all tax returns be a matter of public record. They iused to be, but that was mighty unpopular, so they had their political necks on the chopping block. This particular privacy has its foundation in legislation.

[Ann Archy]

Cummings wife is NEVER going to jail! She’s a BLACK, WOMAN DEMOCRAT!

[Ann Archy]

Barron Trump will be in prison before her!

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Thanks. Meanwhile, the OLC and Dem lawyers rehearse arguments for an appeal, if it goes that far. Nadler always wants to be able to say they are doing “something.”

[Cboldt]

-- Meanwhile, the OLC and Dem lawyers rehearse arguments for an appeal, if it goes that far. --

The OLC opinion "stands on its own" at this point. It hasn't been introduced to any Court. I don't know if Nadler and company have sued to compel production from Treasury. What the OLC opinion does is give formal legal cover to Treasury. The court decision is a function of which judge gets the case, not on what the law is.