The Hunt for Donald Trump's Tax Returns Has Begun
WASHINGTON - Ever since February of 2017, Bill Pascrell, a Democratic congressman from New Jersey, has been fighting a lonely battle from his seat on the House Ways and Means Committee. Pascrell, a white-haired gent who looks like he wandered out of an Allen Drury novel and who sounds like an extra in a Scorsese film, has been interested in getting a hold of the president*'s tax returns, which the president* promised to release as soon as whatever imaginary audit of them was completed. As a member of the House minority for two years, Pascrell had no chance of succeeding in his crusade. (Even some Democrats told him the whole business was quixotic at best.) Now, however, Bill Pascrell is a member of the House majority, and things are very much different.
"After two years of 17 resolutions on the floor, and having one person from the other side join us, we're moving along in a very diligent way and we're going to get the answers," Pascrell said. "This is about separation of powers and equal powers among the different branches of government. This isn't about some wonks who got together on a Saturday afternoon. This is for everybody. This president said he would release his returns because he thought, if he ever became president, he could manipulate the whole process. I mean, let's be honest."
Late Thursday afternoon, Pascell was sitting on the majority side of a Ways and Means oversight subcommittee examining the question of whether it would be proper to invoke an obscure law, much of which dates back to 1924 and the Teapot Dome scandal, that gives the Ways and Means Committee the right to demand the tax returns of every American. The law-26 U.S. 6103-says that the W&M chairman, who now is Richard Neal, a Democrat from the Commonwealth (God save it!), must be provided on demand with any tax returns that he requests. He can then decide whether or not to share the information with the entire committee in executive session.
The law also allows the committee to share the information with both the full House and the Senate. Neal already has said that he would prefer that the president* share the information with the committee voluntarily-fat chance-but that he would invoke 6103 if necessary. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin could refuse Neal's request, which would send us all into Depositionland for a couple of months, but the law is on Congress's side here.
On Thursday, subcommittee chairman John Lewis presided over a hearing at which several experts in this admittedly narrow legal speciality testified before the oversight subcommittee. The hearing was notable mainly for the fact that the Republicans in attendance were in a manic state of near panic. One of them, Brad Wenstrup of Ohio, compared Trump's refusal to turn over his tax returns to Franklin Roosevelt's having concealed the fact that he was in a wheelchair, which struck many observers as something of a stretch.
All of them asked the witnesses if there was a law that made the president* or the vice-president release their tax information, which everybody in the hall knew there wasn't. (Although that requirement is part of House Resolution 1, the massive good-government initiative currently pending in the Congress.) The difference, of course, is the fact that there is a law that says the W&M chairman can demand that information. There was much huffing and blowing about the right to privacy and "weaponizing" the IRS against ordinary citizens, and it was on this latter point that the minority side of the subcommittee fell into a ditch.
Back in 2014, as part of their performance piece about how the IRS was "targeting" conservative groups, the Republican majority on Ways and Means released the tax information of 51 individuals. Pascrell asked one of the witnesses, Professor George Yin, a law professor from the University of Virginia, about it.
PASCRELL: Professor Yin. Some of in committee have claimed that releasing the tax returns of the president under 61039, that short to be a political abuse of power. By the way we sent numerous letters to Mr. Brady when he was the chairman of the committee saying let's do this together so it is not partisan. Bull to what they are saying today. Professor Yin, you have written about in committee's use of 6103, this committee. To obtain and release the tax information of more than 50 taxpayers in 2014. That happened along partisan lines. Republicans voting to release the information. Democrats opposed. Can you explain your thoughts on the committee's use of 6103 in 2014?
YIN: Congressman Pascrell, I'd be happy to the committee released the tax information of 51 separate organizations with almost half of them having multiple pieces of tax return information disclosed. And I looked very closely at that whole situation. 41 of the organizations had absolutely nothing to do with the specific committee investigation and allegations relative to Lois Learner and the IRS and the purported discrimination by the agency against right leaning exempt organizations. They had absolutely nothing to do. And so the release of those -- the information for those 41 seemed to me to be a clear violation. For the other 10 organizations, which were all right leaning exempt organizations, the committee's allegations with respect to that were that they weren't processed quickly enough. The allegations did not go to the substance of the actual applications themselves.
And so it seemed to me that if the committee wanted to publish a letter indicating the objection as to how it viewed the IRS and Miss Learner's treatment there was absolutely no reason to name the organizations and to reveal any tax return information. They could have made exactly the same point as the Treasury Inspector General had made a few months earlier in bringing the matter up to the attention of the committee by referring to 10 right leaning exempt organizations or 10 Tea Party organizations or whatever name would be appropriate to provide the general sense, without necessarily naming and revealing any tax return information. So I concluded all 51 disclosures were a violation of the law.
"These were experts from all sides of the fence," said Bill Pascrell after the hearing adjourned. "For a witness to testify that the other side of the aisle committed a felony, that's kind of a big deal."
Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page here.
('You Might Also Like',)
