Taxes, freedom of information act...

[Brian37]

Backstory

Decades before 45 decided to run because Obama poked fun of him. I I was in college. I was taking journalism. During my stay there, one of my fellow students got accused of stealing credit card info, he had worked in offices where he had access to such.  He got arrested. I wont say I remember the outcome now as to convictions. I do remember going down town to the city office to ask for records. When I did, I got stonewalled by the clerk, arguing privacy issues. I was persistent in bringing up the "freedom of information act" and finally she relented. I will admit, after the file was handed to me, not being a lawyer, all I could make out was dates and times.

But when you are talking about office of public trust, and not some no name, like the guy I was looking into, even without criminal convictions, it would seem important to me that such a person seeking to hold power, should be subject to far more scrutiny than a no name. 

It is been over a year, and even the orange fuck has claimed he would release his taxes. But just like his bullshit recently "I'd be happy to meet with Mueller", and also knowing the IRS has said repeatedly NOTHING is stopping him from doing releasing his taxes, 45 as always is lying his ass off. My question is, why cant "The Freedom Of Information Act" force the fucker to call his bluff? If I can gain access to a no name, why should a high profile politician at the top seat of power be immune to the same scrutiny?

[Minimalist]

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicc03.pdf

The above is the long answer which balances the IRS' duty to protect the confidentially of tax return info along with the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

What you are looking for, though, is here.

26 USC 6103 (h)

(h) Disclosure to certain Federal officers and employees for purposes of tax administration, etc.
(1) Department of the Treasury
Returns and return information shall, without written request, be open to inspection by or disclosure to officers and employees of the Department of the Treasury whose official duties require such inspection or disclosure for tax administration purposes.
(2) Department of Justice In a matter involving tax administration, a return or return information shall be open to inspection by or disclosure to officers and employees of the Department of Justice (including United States attorneys) personally and directly engaged in, and solely for their use in, any proceeding before a Federal grand jury or preparation for any proceeding (or investigation which may result in such a proceeding) before a Federal grand jury or any Federal or State court, but only if—
(A)
the taxpayer is or may be a party to the proceeding, or the proceeding arose out of, or in connection with, determining the taxpayer’s civil or criminal liability, or the collection of such civil liability in respect of any tax imposed under this title;
(B)
the treatment of an item reflected on such return is or may be related to the resolution of an issue in the proceeding or investigation; or
©
such return or return information relates or may relate to a transactional relationship between a person who is or may be a party to the proceeding and the taxpayer which affects, or may affect, the resolution of an issue in such proceeding or investigation.
(3) Form of requestIn any case in which the Secretary is authorized to disclose a return or return information to the Department of Justice pursuant to the provisions of this subsection—
(A)
if the Secretary has referred the case to the Department of Justice, or if the proceeding is authorized by subchapter B of chapter 76, the Secretary may make such disclosure on his own motion, or
(B)
if the Secretary receives a written request from the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or an Assistant Attorney General for a return of, or return information relating to, a person named in such request and setting forth the need for the disclosure, the Secretary shall disclose return or return the information so requested.

Translation:  If Mueller wants them he can subpoena them for his grand jury.

[Brian37]

Ok for some stupid FUCKING reason what you are about to read is automatically being posted in quotes, when all I am doing is trying to respond here. I have refreshed the page multiple times but it STILL puts me quoting ME!

[quote pid='1697416' dateline='1517722250']
It is a balance ultimately but the balance between privacy and the right to the sunlight of scrutiny is more about power than absolutes. Privacy is a priority more for no names, and having taken journalism in college, the famous people, regardless if you like them, or they do or don't support your political or economic views, no matter the industry, or a politician, are in the public eye. Your neighbor however, whom nobody knows whom does not have fleets of lawyers like Trump or Hillary or Bill Gates or Ann Coulter. My point is the guy I looked into was a no name. While I did gain access to those files, it bothers me that with famous people that it is sometimes harder to do the same, it should not be when we are talking about those who are not only famous, but in a high office of public trust.
[/quote]

[chimp3]

I despise Trump, but if I were a candidate I would never release my personal financial information. Fuck all those nosey people. If someone thought I was committing tax fraud let them get a warrant.

[Brian37]

I despise Trump, but if I were a candidate I would never release my personal financial information. Fuck all those nosey people. If someone thought I was committing tax fraud let them get a warrant.

No sorry, I am glad you like Wendy O, but no.

If you are going to be given consent to hold power and be in the position of having the ability to create policy or have others arrested, yes, you better disclose your finances. Why? Because if you dont, you can allow criminals and or other nations to BLACKMAIL YOU.

I am all for privacy, but when it comes to public office, law or politician, the scrutiny is there to insure someone else cannot hold you hostage. 

I am not talking about the private citizen, I am talking about public office.

[Minimalist]

A lot of this shit goes back to Nixon's attempt to use the IRS against his political "enemies," Brian.  These laws are put in place for a reason and usually in reaction to some abuse.

That they then lead to other problems is called the "Law of Unintended Consequences."

[Brian37]

A lot of this shit goes back to Nixon's attempt to use the IRS against his political "enemies," Brian.  These laws are put in place for a reason and usually in reaction to some abuse.

That they then lead to other problems is called the "Law of Unintended Consequences."

I totally agree. It is sick and sad that 40 years later the GOP is holding a grudge. Nobody told Nixon to order the break in. Just like nobody forced 45 to spend 5 years on birther bullshit, a campaign of scapegoating race and religion and war vets and media and intel. 

45 is the result of that clown car buildup. GOP never got over the fact their hero got his hand caught in the cookie jar. Now they have an ever worse asshole in charge.

[Minimalist]

Our current dysfunction began with Nixon and his "Moral Majority" horseshit.  Those racist, right-wing, assholes were told that they are the "good people," the "real Americans" and they gobbled it up.  Now they have the FOX FUX reinforcing the message on a daily basis.

[chimp3]

I despise Trump, but if I were a candidate I would never release my personal financial information. Fuck all those nosey people. If someone thought I was committing tax fraud let them get a warrant.

No sorry, I am glad you like Wendy O, but no.

If you are going to be given consent to hold power and be in the position of having the ability to create policy or have others arrested, yes, you better disclose your finances. Why? Because if you dont, you can allow criminals and or other nations to BLACKMAIL YOU.

I am all for privacy, but when it comes to public office, law or politician, the scrutiny is there to insure someone else cannot hold you hostage. 

I am not talking about the private citizen, I am talking about public office.

Fuck that! Only if I had something to hide would I be open to blackmail. Only the governmental business conducted by the prez is open to public scrutiny. If there is a crime, get a warrant. Not a fan of the cops, myself. No use making things easier for them.

[Brian37]

Our current dysfunction began with Nixon and his "Moral Majority" horseshit.  Those racist, right-wing, assholes were told that they are the "good people," the "real Americans" and they gobbled it up.  Now they have the FOX FUX reinforcing the message on a daily basis.

^^^^ Yep!

I attended a college, NOT FUCKWELLS, but a college in the same city. Long before I attended, two of the professors wrote a book about Jerry's history of being a fucking dick. Even when I lived there, I got to know the conservatives living there, and outside his Church and college. EVEN the other conservatives hated him.

https://www.amazon.com/Jerry-Falwell-Wil...B0012GEAHU

Another tidbit. I graduated from the college that Jerry Falwell dropped out of. Not the one he later founded, but the one he attended. His excuse for leaving was "They didn't teach true Christianity". Now wile I was not an A student myself, I still completed my college degree.