For most of American history, a person’s tax returns have been considered sacrosanct and private.
In fact, the law makes it a crime to reveal another person’s tax information. Internal Revenue Service personnel are not allowed to disclose any portion of a tax return, any information about an audit, or even any information about fines and penalties imposed – unless and until criminal activity was discovered and the case was referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
In the mid-Twentieth Century, candidates for office began to publish their tax returns – at least the cover documents, if not all the backup information. That was a slippery slope that led to a “tradition” of candidates revealing their own tax information. That they can legally do. I never thought it was a good idea, but it became the thing to do.
While most attention was paid to the returns of presidential candidates, the practice spread to candidates for other offices – senators, congressmen, governors, mayors, etc. Although not legally required, public expectation and media pressure tended to solidify the practice.
I have never liked browbeating candidates into revealing tax returns. If they wish to reveal the returns, okay. But if they choose not to do so, that should be the end of the topic – and let the voters decide if that is important to them. For me, the privacy of tax returns should not be abridged – and I am very opposed to any law that would circumvent that right of privacy.
Tax returns have been a peculiar issue.
If a candidate decided not to reveal the returns, there would be a loud clamor from the public – promoted by opposing candidates, and negative stories in the press. But when measured as an issue affecting a person’s vote, it was virtually a non-factor. Refusing to reveal his returns had no impact on President Trump’s surprising election in 2016 – no matter how much Democrats and the media beat that drum.
I have expressed my opinion in writing over many years – and I have advised candidates not to reveal tax returns as part of their basic right of privacy. My campaign advice was to issue a statement that the returns would not be revealed – and why – and then never mention the subject again – and not to respond to badgering questions. The badgering question would subside, and the issue would disappear from the political debate.
My advice was to not equivocate or soften that position by suggesting that the candidate “may” think about it – or handle it later. That only keeps the issue alive.
I had some practical experience with the issue when I was the campaign press spokesperson for Chicago Democrat Mayor Eugene Sawyer. He did not wish to reveal his tax returns. Based on my advice, he issued a definitive statement. End of subject. Au Contraire. Shortly afterward, Sawyer responded to a question from a television reporter that he would “consider” revealing them – and the issue dogged his campaign.
TRUMP’S TAX RETURNS
Obviously, Trump was not privy to my advice. He did the worst possible thing by saying he would release his returns as soon as he was not under audit. That was transparent bullcrap from the start – and everyone knew it. Consequently, there were ever-present requests to know when he would release them. The issue dragged on … and on … and on.
OTHER MEANS TO FINANCIAL INFORMATION
It is important to understand that there are many other means to learning about a candidate’s financial dealings. Federal candidates – President, Vice President, and members of Congress – are required to file detailed financial statements. Candidates’ contributions to charity – and even other campaigns – are a matter of record. Candidates with extensive business activities or investments are often required to file documents as a matter of public record. If candidates are involved in questionable or illegal activities, the details of those activities become a matter of public record.
To understand the extent to which such financial information is available, there is no better example than Trump, himself. Even prior to the release of his returns, most of the information revealed was already a matter of public knowledge.
CREATING FALSE ISSUES
Tax returns tend to elevate petty and gossip-level issues to pseudo-importance. These include how much tax a person pays … what deductions they declare … how much they donate to charity (and what charities) … unique deductions available to businesses and investors. The IRS, itself, declares that a person of business has “The Right to Pay No More Than the Correct Amount of Tax,” – which can be (legally) zero in many cases. In other words, many folks pay no taxes because the law allows for all sorts of legitimate deductions. The public may wish to complain about the tax laws, but most folks would do the same. You do not find too many people trying to pay more taxes than they are legally required. Even if all the income and deductions are all be perfectly legal, revealing the tax filings can – and often do — hold the person up to unfair public ridicule based petty jealousy, class warfare, and partisan political abuse.
THE DANGER OF WEAPONIZING TAX RETURNS
According to the law, Congress has a right to review any person’s tax returns – but only when the purpose is to frame legislation. In Trump’s case, it was alleged to examine the Presidential Tax Audit act. Presidents are supposed to have their taxes privately audited by the IRS to see if they are getting income from questionable sources or filing false information.
This process got weaponized by Congressional Democrats. Their alleged legislative purpose is a thinly veiled effort to further attack and demonize Trump. Regardless of Trump’s culpabilities – yet to be determined — the so-called review of his tax returns for legislative purposes was simply a ruse.
That is further proven by the fact that they have now released Trump’s returns as fodder for the left-wing media mill. The public release serves no legislative purpose – even if they find the need to amend the Presidential Audit Act. That could have been done without releasing the actual taxes. The release was purely political.
There is clearly a right for Congress to see a President’s tax returns – or any other American citizen’s. Now that the tradition of privacy has been broken, will Republicans be acquiring and exposing President Biden’s tax information? Oh, I know he revealed his – but only a very small portion of the all-important details. And what about Hunter Biden’s tax returns? He is already under investigation by the IRS. Maybe all that should be made public. If it is in the public interest to take a deep dive into one political figure’s tax returns, then why not every candidate?
LACK OF ENFORCEMENT
One of the problems has been the lack of enforcement when tax returns have been illegally revealed. You may recall that a portion of Trump’s tax returns were leaked to the media. That was illegal. But there was no protest – or hearings – in Congress. There was no effort to find out – and punish – those who did it. Where is that rule-of-law theory in that case?
PRESIDENTIAL TAX AUDIT ACT
According to a law passed in the mid-1970s, a President’s tax filing is supposed to be audited by the IRS every year. This was not done with Trump in his first two years in office – even though that for the first year, the IRS was still run by President Obama’s appointees. The second year was the responsibility of a Trump appointee. According to some reports, there were lapses in the case of previous Presidents. Why it was not done has never been fully explained by the IRS.
SUMMARY
There are many good reasons why folks – including candidates and officeholders – prefer to keep their tax information private. If they are to be stripped of their right of privacy, maybe it would be in the public interest to see the tax returns of government bureaucrats – and even members of the Fourth Estate. The same public interest arguments could be made in those cases, too.
Exposing a person’s tax return without probable cause is bad enough. The IRS has more than enough power to deal with folks who cheat on their taxes. But to weaponize them for partisan political purposes further undermines an individual’s constitutional rights – even if that person is the President of the United States. It shifts more grains of sand away from personal rights to government power. At least, that is how this conservative sees it.
So, there ‘tis.
SOURCE: https://punchingbagpost.com/democrats-weaponize-tax-returns-a-dangerous-precedent/
