Trump’s Tax Returns Don’t Contain What So Many Hoped
Donald Trump in July, 2021. Photo by Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0
For those who do not lead such exciting lives, there are other everyday “secrets” we’d rather the public not see, such as our tax returns. Many people’s tax returns are as banal as one would expect. It’s two pages of income, deductions, and perhaps a credit here or there, and that’s it. Still, we don’t leave them lying around the house or workplace for anyone to look through, which is our prerogative.
The United States House Ways and Means Committee recently released former President Donald Trump’s personal and business tax returns from 2015 to 2020. The committee had no reason for releasing them publicly. The battle over the returns stemmed from a committee request regarding IRS procedures involving the tax returns of presidents and whether or not the agency performed mandatory audits. The IRS leadership, which still had Obama appointees at the time, did not perform those audits. The committee should have an issue with the IRS, not Donald Trump.
Some people have argued, “Trump had an obligation to release his tax returns when he first ran!” He didn’t have an obligation. It is customary for candidates to release their tax returns, and Trump said he’d release them. He also said he couldn’t release them because of an audit, which was a blatant lie. As he did throughout his campaign and his presidency, Trump violated norms and broke rules the country was accustomed to with presidential races and administrations. Trump is and always was about himself. If tradition and practices benefitted him, great. If it didn’t, he smashed through for his benefit.
All that said, what value, other than being petty and punitive, did the committee offer to the public by releasing Trump’s tax returns?
In a word: nothing.
How do we know this? From the reaction of the mainstream press. The New York Times says, “Trump’s Tax Returns Were Released to the Public. Here’s What They Reveal.”
The subhead reads, “Donald Trump, who fought for years to keep his tax returns private, made no charitable donations in 2020, and his own tax law may have cost him.”
Wow! He didn’t make charitable donations in 2020. When do we call out the firing squad?
The Washington Post has a piece entitled, “What we’ve learned from Trump’s tax returns.” Their first two revelations:
- Trump’s fortunes rose and fell, as he aggressively reported losses.
- The Trumps contributed inconsistently to charity.
Pulitzer material.
Does anyone remember what people speculated would be in the tax returns, and that’s why Trump didn’t want them made public? Connections and/or payments from Russia.
Here’s Citizens For Ethics, whose board includes former Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill:
Your daily reminder that Trump is the first president elected since Richard Nixon to refuse to release his tax returns, and any payments from Russia remain secret.
— Citizens for Ethics (@CREWcrew) September 12, 2020
On Joy Reid’s MSNBC show, Rep. Jackie Speier suggested they’d find in Trump’s tax returns why he pushed for Russia to get back into the G7.
"I think his tax returns may give us the answer."@JackieSpeier on why Trump consistently supports Russia entering back into the G7. #Hardball
— The ReidOut (@thereidout) August 28, 2019
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell went on air saying Trump’s tax returns would reveal he had taken out loans from Russia. Lawrence had to retract the story in full because it was false, and he relied on a single source.
In March 2019, Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono said it was time to investigate Trump’s tax returns, suggesting it would show financial ties to Russia.
All that hoopla. All those suggestions. All those theories and what were we left with after all that time? The Trumps were inconsistent with their charitable giving.
Naturally, it raises the question, “Why didn’t he release them, and why did he fight it for so long?”
Because it’s Donald Trump, and he’s not a rational human being. More than likely, he didn’t want people to see how much he reduced his personal tax liability via losses from his various businesses. For example, in 2015, Trump’s taxes show that despite income from capital gains, dividends, and other areas totaling $52 million, his business losses (-$76M) were so high his adjusted gross income for the year was negative $31 million. It was only due to the Alternative Minimum Tax that Trump had any tax liability, with a bill for $707K.
It would do more to shatter the myth (one of his — and Jeff Zucker’s making) of the highly successful billionaire businessman. Nothing drives Trump more than his delicate ego.
I don’t feel sorry for Trump. No one did him an injustice. But, still, the committee made a mistake. One of Trump’s strange qualities is he can get his opponents to act like him. Releasing his tax returns to the public was a petty and vindictive move, serving no purpose other than to embarrass him. It’s something Trump would do, given the opportunity.
One of the more childish aspects of modern politics is the era of “New rules!” They are naturally unwritten, but it boils down to the fact that once one side does something, it’s within bounds for the other side to do it.
At some point, expect someone’s tax returns to get released for no other reason than those are the “new rules.”
Because the revaluation that he kept open an account with a Chinese bank after becoming President means nothing I guess.Report
You released Trump’s tax returns. So we’ll release the returns of your President. … What? Oh. Never mind.Report
I called it.
Romney released his taxes and it was used against him simply because he had lots of money and paid taxes as according to his class and tax advisor. Ergo it was politically useful for Trump, and everyone else who had above a certain level of assets, to not do so. Ergo we could no longer tell the difference between “hiding because there’s something to hide” and “hiding because he’s rich and it’s politically useful”.
Now we also have his taxes illegally released to the public showcasing that Blue doesn’t respect privacy or the rule of law when it’s not useful so there’s that.Report
So multiple courts – in directing the IRS to release the taxes to another branch of government – broke the law? And Congress – as a branch of government that should be as transparent as possible in its dealing rom an ethic draperies – broke the law by making them public? Which mostly shamed the IRS?
Fascinating.Report
There is a difference between “a branch of gov should have access to this” and “leaking it to the NYT is legal and fine”.Report
Which actual law do you think the Committee violated by making the returns public? Please be specific. Reasonable people can disagree about whether they should have released them, but “illegally” presuppose a law that someone violated.Report
26 U.S. Code § 7213 – Unauthorized disclosure of information
(a)Returns and return information
(1)Federal employees and other persons
It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States or any person described in section 6103(n) (or an officer or employee of any such person), or any former officer or employee, willfully to disclose to any person, except as authorized in this title, any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)). Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable upon conviction by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution, and if such offense is committed by any officer or employee of the United States, he shall, in addition to any other punishment, be dismissed from office or discharged from employment upon conviction for such offense.
(2)State and other employees
It shall be unlawful for any person (not described in paragraph (1)) willfully to disclose to any person, except as authorized in this title, any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) acquired by him or another person under subsection (d), (i)(1)(C), (3)(B)(i), or (7)(A)(ii), (k)(10), (13), (14), or (15), (l)(6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (12), (15), (16), (19), (20), or (21) or (m)(2), (4), (5), (6), or (7) of section 6103 or under section 6104(c). Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7213Report
I also have the NYT admitting 5 years ago that publishing tax returns is black letter illegal unless Trump himself was the one to leak them.
Far as I can tell, there really isn’t a question as to whether this sort of thing is legal. It isn’t.Report
Nice try:
“Ineligibility Clause
Main article: Ineligibility Clause
Members of the United States Congress—the legislative branch of the United States government—are not “officers of the United States” and cannot simultaneously serve in Congress and as an officer of the United States under the “Ineligibility Clause” (also called the “Incompatibility Clause”) of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2). This provision states:[3]”Report
If they get paid, they are an employee….Report
No, they aren’t. If they were we could put them on Performance improvement Plans so they do things like pass their appropriations by the start of the Fiscal year (which they required themselves to do decades ago by federal statute).
I know its an unsatisfying answer. but for Congress that’s how the cookie crumbles.Report
They are not employees perhaps like FBI or other federal employees, but they get a check. They are paid by the federal govt. They are employees. At a minimum, provide a legal argument that they are NOT employees and that the law you quoted above excludes them from coverage. Then tell me how someone can get a check from the federal govt on a regular basis, not part of some “aid” program, who is all appearance is a federal employee (and gets better or similar benefits) and is legally NOT an employee.
Their PP is their reelection or not.Report
Its in the Constitution:
Article I Legislative Branch
Section 6 Rights and Disabilities
Clause 2 Bar on Holding Federal Office
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.Report
IRS Publication 1, Your Rights as a Taxpayer, includes a full list of taxpayers’ rights.
It includes The Right to Confidentiality.
Taxpayers have the right to expect that any information they provide to the IRS will not be disclosed unless authorized by the taxpayer or by law. Taxpayers have the right to expect appropriate action will be taken against employees, return preparers, and others who wrongfully use or disclose taxpayer return information.
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/taxpayer-bill-of-rights-8
Unless there’s a carve out for Congress to not be subject to this sort of thing, and there may very well be although it’s odd that the NYT thought it was black letter illegal, it probably includes them. They may use it for investigative purposes, leaking it to the NYT is probably not an investigative purpose.
The actual problem is two fold. After Congress has leaked it the damage is done. And figuring out which member of Congress did this is both difficult and what to do after that is problematic.Report
In this case it wasn’t leaked though – the Way’s and Means Committee released the returns via a public announcement on its public website after a public committee meeting and a recorded vote.
And again those regulations apply to federal employees. The Constitution says Congress aren’t federal employees. Last I check that would “trump” an subordinate federal statute.
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/30/1146215064/trumps-tax-returns-releasedReport
Not a lawyer but it seems not controversial that *Congress* can legally make this info public – that’s why there was a protracted legal battle about the IRS releasing to them in the first place.Report
Trump isn’t a mystery. His character and nature are documented with decades of information already public.
Anyone thinking there would be some titanic reveal in his taxes hasn’t really been paying attention.
The returns show he cheats, but we already knew that. They show he gets income from foreign governments, but we already knew that. They show he lies with nearly every breath, but we already knew that. They show that he uses any position of trust for his own personal enrichment, but we already knew that.
He is a convicted fraudster and conman, demonstrably corrupt and contemptuous of the concept of public service and patriotism. But again, we already knew that.
The returns haven’t been audited, so if and when that happens, there may be some surprises, but really, the only surprise will be if the audit finds no fraud because c’mon.
As ever, the dog that isn’t barking here is why, of all the con men and grifters and carnival hucksters in all the world, did the Republican voting base elevate this one to the pinnacle of power, and may yet do it again.Report
Got it. Trump lies again and again so who is really at fault here. The Dem’s. This type of apologia is old and sad. Even when a trump defender admits he lied the blame has to be deflected onto D’s.
Every prez should release their tax records. So should every fed elected official , high secretary , SJ justice. This does, if nothing else, try to keep the good norm in place. Blaming D’s is just a step in allowing corrupt trumpy norms.Report
“should”
Correct me if I’m wrong, as it has been the custom to release tax records, but no one is required to do so. Just because 99% of candidates have, doesn’t mean a candidate is required to do so. I am, for the record, supportive of making it a requirement that all candidates for congress or president be required to do so.Report
Yes it is “only”‘ the custom but it should be law. If a candidate hides something likes their taxes it should be held against them.Report
I don’t think it should be mandatory but my thoughts aside, you have to be 35, born in the US, and not convicted of treason and the ilk. Adding anything else is a properly hard road to travel.Report
Conservatism can’t be failed, it can only be failed. So if conservatism is revealed to be an empty shell that allegedly believes in small government but really believes in entrenched plutocracy buttressed by cultural grievances; it is the fault of the Democratic Party and the libz. Murc’s law must surviveReport
I’m not sure what your gripe is, and your accusation that I am engaging in “apologia” is short-sighted at best, but it strikes me more as bad faith.
The committee wanted the tax returns, not because a person “should” release them. They said it was related to an inquiry about the IRS. So releasing them to the public was for what purpose? Because Trump didn’t release them? That is not a decision for them to make. The idea that since Trump is so bad, Democrats automatically get a pass for their behavior is complete nonsense.Report
Thanks to the Committee releasing them, we now know that the IRS failed to do it statutorily mandated duty to audit him while President for his first two years in office. With the flip in control of the House committee I expect nothing to come of that, but I believe its new news . . .Report
I’d be concerned about this if someone provides evidence that the audit wasn’t performed because the IRS was “told” not to do, and by who, versus standard bureaucracy incompetence. And the committee could have released a statement indicating that the IRS didn’t do the job they were supposed to without actually releasing the tax records.Report
Priors: I assume Trump has committed Tax Fraud somewhere. I’m not entirely sure you can be in NYC real estate plus own multiple LLC’s and S-corps plus sell yourself as a product that crosses over into personal, corporate and political fortunes *without* violating IRS tax policies. Especially if you’re ambivalent about IRS tax policies and perfectly willing to skirt laws and guidelines. I mean, duh.
Hunch1: I thought the Returns would show him to have personal wealth in the 10s of $M shielded from large real estate debt. Like, with the right leverage I could own $1B in assets with $1.1B in debt too. Only makes me a genius for keeping the float going.
Hunch2: I thought we’d see some ‘shady’ financing through ‘legit’ banks like HSBC ‘suggesting’ ties to Russian $Bs as a real estate money laundering game. Probably legal, but hey, are you debt financing or laundering those Rubles via condos?
Assumption: Won’t it take a few weeks for the audit nerds to dissect the returns?
Question: Do we really know what the returns show or are we just posting priors? Like, is the only bombshell to come out of this the “revelation” that Trump had a Chinese bank account?
Observation: If the nerds have indeed combed through the returns and the bombshell really is a Chinese Bank Account… there had better be some really really juicy forensic accounting to bribery charges forthcoming. Because if not? If Congress just released into to the Public Domain private documents without any wrong doing? Yeah, that’s bad politics because:
1) Congress shouldn’t use subpoena powers like that. Period.
2) How dumb do you have to be to know there’s no actual wrong doing and release clean tax returns when your team has been claiming that the tax returns would prove *everything* – and none of the things they thought it would prove involved a bank account in China for an International Hotel Financier.
So, I’ll go back to my assumption and wait for the nerds to sound the all clear.Report
Trump does development in China.
Ergo it’s probably impossible for him to function without having a Chinese bank account.
Ergo getting spun up about this is approaching “it’s Trump” reasoning.
Now the entire Trump empire is a massive FU towards good governance so there’s that. It’s the Clinton Charity on massive steroids combined with legit economic existence. Impossible to police if someone wanted to use it for influence selling.Report
Right… that alone can’t possibly be the sole outcome of this? Else it’s a massive own-goal.Report
A President having active bank accounts in an adversarial foreign nation – which he lied about closing – presents some nasty national security questions.Report
Foreign bank accounts with funds greater than a certain amount are REQUIRED to be disclosed IIRC. I assume that this info is required for disclosure on a company’s tax filings as well.Report
Well considering that the IRS didn’t audit him while in office like they are required by law to do – and these returns showed he maintained his accounts open and usable even though he mad public statements to the contrary, I wouldn’t bet on disclosure.Report
This is an interesting topic… I was not aware of the policy until the reports started coming out.
My limited research suggests that it is a “Policy” of the IRS board and not specifically a law; it arose out of the 1973 Nixon Tax Return Scandal. Since then (as far as we know) the IRS Audits presidential returns (confidentially).
As far as I can tell, the Law (TM) was just passed in DEC 2022… so not a Law, Law that Trump would have been subject to… a policy:
“IRS policy requires that sitting presidents are audited every year — which has been the case since 1977 — but the terms are outlined in the agency’s regulatory manual, not federal law.” [from The Hill, or if you want to google 1977 Tax Law requiring IRS Audit of President – there isn’t one]
So on the one hand, I totally understand the House Ways and Means committee asking if the Policy was followed and – surprise – it was only belatedly followed when oversight asked. We can assume that the Policy was ‘suspended’ at the discretion of the the Executive Policy Maker in Chief, the President. Alas, that’s what the President can with Policies.
The interesting play on the Law (at some future time) will be whether Congress has the Power to Audit the President qua President. Possibly yes, possibly no. Were I president, I’d expand The LAW into Policy that would include the Speaker, Majority Leaders, Minority Leaders and whips… maybe even all of Congress. In the name of good governance. The idea being expressed is that the “Tax Enforcer in Chief” should also be the “Tax Payer in Chief” – a sentiment with which I agree – but so also should the “Tax Spenders in Chief” be audited.
Being particularly interested in Good Governance (TM) — I’d also make the Audit Required for an additional 10-years after holding office. After 10-years any windfalls can be assumed fairly gotten under ordinary law.
For the 10-yr law I’d include the entirety of Congress plus the President, VP and all Cabinet Members. The returns and audits should remain confidential; up until actual charges are filed. Confidentiality would include errors, penalties and all manner of misfiling short of actual fraud/evasion/etc.
Now, a more aggressive policy would supplement confidentiality with ‘Disclosures’ on sources of income and other ‘relevant’ but non-specific information to assist voters on real and imagined biases. But that might be a bridge too far. But Audits for 10-yrs? What’s the downside? there’s $87B starter fund to get the program staffed.Report
I’d support this.Report
This is like standing on an iceberg and complaining about one ice cube. The Trump business was WAY past “owning a bank account” and deep into “owning dozens or hundreds of businesses”.
If someone buys anything from a hotel room to a piece of land, are they overpaying in an effort to pay off Trump? For rooms you at least can get a market, for land in a country where the gov owns the land, did he get approval because of political influence?Report
Why bother putting question marks on these words?
We already know the answer. Trump has demonstrated his nature, that he abuses any trust given to him in pursuit of self-gain.
He is a proven grifter, cheat, fraud and con man who has betrayed every vow he has ever made, and can easily be purchased with flattery and aggrandizement.
The various court cases, the Jan. 6 commission, his taxes, they all just add detail but the basic story was known before he ever rode the escalator in 2015.Report
I have no idea if I’ve ever stayed at a Trump owned business but if I had, paying off Trump was the last thing on my mine.
If we can’t tell the difference between legit business and corruption then it defaults to being legit unless we have a lot more evidence. This is why HRC got away with selling pardons, even she didn’t quite pass that bar.
Which brings us to the other problem, in 2015 Trump ran as the cleaner and more ethical candidate.Report
(Trump wriggles out of the jam easily)
“ah, well. Nevertheless…”Report
PS this is now getting to be like the people who were insisting that if you look really carefully at Barack Obama’s birth certificate you can see where they clearly cut out letters and pasted them in…Report
So, like, is he a billionaire? I remember hearing about how he’s not a real billionaire and that’s why we need to see his taxes.Report