Trump Tax Returns

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/opinion/trump-tax-return-public-lawsuit.html

I am by no means a legal expert, but Mr Johnston is making a point that between the NY Governor, Manhattan District AG, NY Police Dept, and NY State Tax authorities, they have the means to retrieve and publicize Trump's tax returns? Does anybody know if this is a realistic argument?

I am somewhat intrigued by Trump's Tax Returns. He is a genius in figuring out what will make him look good or bad, and the fact that he is so adamant about not publicizing his tax returns must mean that he believes they will make him look bad (I am guessing with his base, because that's all he cares about). So I would really like to see them become public. In fact I am surprised that they have not been leaked yet (especially since they do not appear to be able to keep anything else a secret, which makes me even more interested in these returns). 

Well, then, I'm hoping to see a revelation on Rachel Maddow. . Actually I'm even curious to see his transcripts.

I would imagine that they will indicate that he is less wealthy than we wants everyone to believe.  God knows that the one thing Trump can't stand is not being the biggest and bestest.

gerritn said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/opinion/trump-tax-return-public-lawsuit.html
I am by no means a legal expert, but Mr Johnston is making a point that between the NY Governor, Manhattan District AG, NY Police Dept, and NY State Tax authorities, they have the means to retrieve and publicize Trump's tax returns? Does anybody know if this is a realistic argument?
I am somewhat intrigued by Trump's Tax Returns. He is a genius in figuring out what will make him look good or bad, and the fact that he is so adamant about not publicizing his tax returns must mean that he believes they will make him look bad (I am guessing with his base, because that's all he cares about). So I would really like to see them become public. In fact I am surprised that they have not been leaked yet (especially since they do not appear to be able to keep anything else a secret, which makes me even more interested in these returns). 

It appears that you are making an argument that individuals should be encouraged to break the law (namely, 26 USC 6103) in order to score political points.  Sounds dishonest and Machiavellian to me.

PS I detest DJT.  But encouraging violation of US law in order to injure political opponents seems to me very base, criminal and lacking in any moral foundation.

PPS  It sounds like you are encouraging the maxim: "the end justifies the means".  A maxim popular with dictators and despots the world over.

================================================

 26 USC 6103 Excerpt:

(a)General rule Returns and return information shall be confidential, and except as authorized by this title—(1)no officer or employee of the United States,

(2)no officer or employee of any State, any local law enforcement agency receiving information under subsection (i)(1)(C) or (7)(A), any local child support enforcement agency, or any local agency administering a program listed in subsection (l)(7)(D) who has or had access to returns or return information under this section or section 6104(c), and

(3)no other person (or officer or employee thereof) who has or had access to returns or return information under subsection (e)(1)(D)(iii), subsection (k)(10), paragraph (6), (10), (12), (16), (19), (20), or (21) of subsection (l), paragraph (2) or (4)(B) of subsection (m), or subsection (n),

shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee or otherwise or under the provisions of this section. For purposes of this subsection, the term “officer or employee” includes a former officer or employee.

See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103

--- jury nullification. 

I don't encourage anyone to break any laws (except those dealing with marijuana) but I would have a hard time voting to convict such an accused person if I were on the jury.

RFA,

If a person with access to a tax return sees clear evidence of cheating or other illegality and reports it to superiors who then take no action whatsoever, what should the person do?

LOST said:
RFA,
If a person with access to a tax return sees clear evidence of cheating or other illegality and reports it to superiors who then take no action whatsoever, what should the person do?

I generally don't do hypotheticals.  However, for you, LOST, I will make an exception.

In this instance, it appears that you are suggesting the person (described above) should disclose information about the taxpayer in violation of federal law.  See 26 USC 6103.  Additionally, such action would almost certainly be a violation of the IRS' ten deadly sins (defined below).  Going through with what you are suggesting would undermine the rule of law and people's expectation of privacy.  Enough suggestions like that and we as a nation will likely have a national value added tax ("VAT") at say 25% in lieu of the progressive income tax.

Are you working with Chelsea Manning or the Wikileaks people?

When did you become so Machiavellian (in past I believed you to be honest but misguided)?

PS Tax returns are summary documents by their very definition and nature.  Thus, it is very, very unlikely that this person would see clear evidence of cheating in a tax return (OTOH, if an audit was conducted then you would likely have access to the source documents where cheating would be more likely to be discovered, if present).  The IRS has red flags for numbers that are significantly outside the norm for various return items.  Tripping a red flag usually gets you attention from the IRS (usually in the form of an audit).  

PPS The IRS has TEN deadly sins for which IRS personnel are terminated always. Intentionally disclosing another's tax return violates at least one of the ten deadly sins as follows:

6.  Violations of the Code, Regulations, or policies of the Internal Revenue Service (including the Internal Revenue Manual) for the purpose of retaliating against, or harassing, a taxpayer, taxpayer representative, or other employee of the Internal Revenue Service;

See http://www.irstaxtrouble.com/irs-abuse-and-the-ten-deadly-sins/

RealityForAll, just to mention that Australia has both the GST (ie VAT by another name) and progressive income tax.  (We’ve also got massive tax cheating, usually by the inordinately well-heeled, who simply refuse to pay their share and get out of it by ‘sheltering’ their $$ in various dodgy pretend-companies hiding in other countries. And our Prime Minister, a former Goldman Sachs banker and sneaky lawyer, is known to be among the worst tax cheats)

RealityForAll said:

LOST said:
RFA,
If a person with access to a tax return sees clear evidence of cheating or other illegality and reports it to superiors who then take no action whatsoever, what should the person do?

I generally don't do hypotheticals.  However, for you, LOST, I will make an exception.
 
 

Are you working with Chelsea Manning or the Wikileaks people?

When did you become so Machiavellian (in past I believed you to be honest but misguided)?
 

 How kind of you to make an exception for me.

Are the questions in bold directed to me? I have no relationship with Chelsea Manning and wouldn't recognize her if I bumped into her in Chelsea.

I am not now nor have I ever been involved w ith Wikileaks

I am honest and not misguided but I read Machiavelli in High School.

LOST said:

RealityForAll said:

LOST said:
RFA,
If a person with access to a tax return sees clear evidence of cheating or other illegality and reports it to superiors who then take no action whatsoever, what should the person do?

I generally don't do hypotheticals.  However, for you, LOST, I will make an exception.
 
 

Are you working with Chelsea Manning or the Wikileaks people?

When did you become so Machiavellian (in past I believed you to be honest but misguided)?
 

 How kind of you to make an exception for me.
Are the questions in bold directed to me? I have no relationship with Chelsea Manning and wouldn't recognize her if I bumped into her in Chelsea.

I am not now nor have I ever been involved w ith Wikileaks
I am honest and not misguided but I read Machiavelli in High School.





I was actually thinking of Daniel Ellsberg as an example of someone breaking the law to expose government misdeeds. What's your take on that?

 IMHO, your hypothetical and the Ellsberg situation with the Pentagon papers are easily distinguished.  Ellsberg had proof of wrongdoing while your hypothetical person ("HP") merely has information set forth on a tax return (which is usually provided in a summary format).  And, therefore your HP merely has a hunch and lacks proof/evidence of wrongdoing.  Finally, HP's hunch aligns with HP's views of what politicians are friends or allies, and what politicians are enemies or adversaries (which begs the following question:  would HP be so strident, and such a zealot, if HP came across the same information about BHO, HRC or Joe Biden?).

I apologize for my hypothetical not being so precise. Let's try.

Mr. HP, a long time IRS employee, who is totally non-political, has no interest in politics and doesn't even vote in many elections discovers an actual crime in a Tax Return. Mr. TP has taken the cost of burglary tools as a business deduction. He reports it to his supervisor who says "shut up about it or I'll fire you. Mr. TP is my lover"

What result?

If the tax returns merely show that Trump is not as rich as he claims, that's enough cause for me.

Melania could legally leak all of the last several years of Trump tax returns to the press should she choose to (provided they file a joint return, that is).

LOST said:
I apologize for my hypothetical not being so precise. Let's try.
Mr. HP, a long time IRS employee, who is totally non-political, has no interest in politics and doesn't even vote in many elections discovers an actual crime in a Tax Return. Mr. TP has taken the cost of burglary tools as a business deduction. He reports it to his supervisor who says "shut up about it or I'll fire you. Mr. TP is my lover"
What result?

A1.  Is taking a tax return deduction for "burglar tools" per se a crime?  I do not think so.

A2.  How a deduction for burglar tools is treated depends on your line of business, whether you had earnings from such tools and the deduction percentage (namely, expense divided by gross income).  For example (extreme for sure), a professional burglar who earned say $20,000 per year "liberating" the personal, portable property of others would likely to be able to sustain a deduction for burglar tools so long as the income that the tools generated was also reported and the expense was reasonable.

A3.  Alternatively, an instructor at the police academy would likely also be able to deduct expenses related to buying or acquiring burglar tools so long as such expenses were not reimbursed and the burglar tools were used in their duties as an instructor (for example, training recruits as to what burglar tools look like and how they are used).

Once again your hypothetical person ("HP") desires to act despite no crime over which the IRS has jurisdiction has been proven.

PS Supervisor dating/having-relations with a taxpayer would seem to be a violation of IRS procedure (if so, the violation of procedure should be reported - IRS will then likely scrutinize the supervisor's files).

PPS  You sound like the Anthony Imperiale (a well-known vigilante from Newark's North ward who is now deceased) of tax issues.  Imperiale was a well known Newark NJ vigilante of the 60's, 70s and 80s.  Similar to Imperiale you are employing "end-justifies-the-means-thinking" in this instance.

ml1 said:
Melania could legally leak all of the last several years of Trump tax returns to the press should she choose to (provided they file a joint return, that is).

 I would be shocked if they filed joint returns.

yahooyahoo said:

ml1 said:
Melania could legally leak all of the last several years of Trump tax returns to the press should she choose to (provided they file a joint return, that is).

 I would be shocked if they filed joint returns.

 their 2005 return was joint:

https://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/trump2005tax.pdf

RealityForAll said:

PS Supervisor dating/having-relations with a taxpayer would seem to be a violation of IRS procedure (if so, the violation of procedure should be reported - IRS will then likely scrutinize the supervisor's files).

 Damn, that's a harsh rule.

"Hey, do you come here often?"

"Do you pay taxes?"

"Uh, sure I do."

"Then get outta my face, before I violate IRS procedure."

RealityForAll said:

PPS  You sound like the Anthony Imperiale (a well-known vigilante from Newark's North ward who is now deceased) of tax issues.  Imperiale was a well known Newark NJ vigilante of the 60's, 70s and 80s.  Similar to Imperiale you are employing "end-justifies-the-means-thinking" in this instance.

 I lived and worked in Newark back then. In fact I lived in Imperiale's stronghold neighborhood. He was an elected Assemblyman and State Senator. I never voted for him and was involved in an enterprise with which he had an antagonistic relationship. 

I don't remember him ever saying the end justifies the means. He was, however, Trump-like long before Trump. 

RFA,

Do you oppose all forms of civil disobedience?

LOST said:
RFA,
Do you oppose all forms of civil disobedience?

 Do you support all forms of civil disobedience?

LOST said:

RealityForAll said:

PPS  You sound like the Anthony Imperiale (a well-known vigilante from Newark's North ward who is now deceased) of tax issues.  Imperiale was a well known Newark NJ vigilante of the 60's, 70s and 80s.  Similar to Imperiale you are employing "end-justifies-the-means-thinking" in this instance.

 I lived and worked in Newark back then. In fact I lived in Imperiale's stronghold neighborhood. He was an elected Assemblyman and State Senator. I never voted for him and was involved in an enterprise with which he had an antagonistic relationship. 
I don't remember him ever saying the end justifies the means. He was, however, Trump-like long before Trump. 

My recollection of various Anthony Imperiale tv interviews was implicit invocation of "the end justifies the means" by Imperiale.  Further recollection: Imperiale defended his actions as defense of hearth and home when society has run amok (sounds amazing like your justifications for violating US law).  

RealityForAll said:

LOST said:
RFA,
Do you oppose all forms of civil disobedience?

 Do you support all forms of civil disobedience?

 "Why do you always answer a question with a question"?

 "Why not"?

RealityForAll said:

 
My recollection of various Anthony Imperiale tv interviews was implicit invocation of "the end justifies the means" by Imperiale.  Further recollection: Imperiale defended his actions as defense of hearth and home when society has run amok (sounds amazing like your justifications for violating US law).  

 Implicit? Maybe, but I am not going to research all his statements to check that.

Your analogy is way of the mark. Imperiale was, if nothing else, a champion of "Law and Order". He opposed the Civil Disobedience of the Civil Rights movement.

In any event I have not justified anything. I have just asked questions.

But for what it's worth I disagree with the proposition set forth by Attorney General Sessions a person always has a duty to obey the law. Sometimes one has a duty to hide people in his basement in violation of law.