Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
35. Nobody is saying that Congress has unlimited power
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 06:54 PM
Apr 2019

But the U.S. Code specifies that the chairmen of three specific committees (one House, one Senate, one Joint) have the power, "Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

There are no limitations on that power, no reason needs to be given by any of the specified chairmen under subsection (f). The House Ways and Means Committee can review the requested returns in closed executive session, and may not publicize the return without the consent of the taxpayer whose return was requested. I didn't see any penalty or sanction should the committee reveal the contents of a requested return outside a closed executive session (which is not to say that there isn't a penalty or sanction). Considering the way the Trump administration has conducted its affairs, it would be fitting for it to be treated in the same cavalier manner it has treated the rights of individuals.

Oddly, under subsection (g)(1)(D) pertaining to the Executive or a cabinet Secretary, a request for a taxpayer's return must state a specific reason for the request. So clearly Congress knew how to write legislation so that a reason for a request for taxpayer information could be required (Executive) or not required (Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Committee on Finance or the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation).

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

"The law is very clear." Blecht Apr 2019 #1
He put his tiny hand on the book and SWORE to uphold the laws of this nation. Haggis for Breakfast Apr 2019 #40
trump doesn't believe in laws. spanone Apr 2019 #2
Neither does his law-and-order, strict-construction party dalton99a Apr 2019 #4
Exactly. And I'm afraid the Democrats will TrishaJ Apr 2019 #22
I'm afraid you may be right about arrests. bitterross Apr 2019 #39
Agreed. TommyCelt Apr 2019 #23
Damn. That was badass. Dave Starsky Apr 2019 #3
Nice! (n/t) corbettkroehler Apr 2019 #6
Irrelevant! Mnuchin Must Protect Drumpf's "Privacy" corbettkroehler Apr 2019 #5
This will not go to the Supreme Court. crazytown Apr 2019 #24
I Sure Hope You're Right But Tremble In Fear (n/t) corbettkroehler Apr 2019 #31
I would think in no uncertain terms that Kav will be impeached defacto7 Apr 2019 #32
Experience we can trust! NANCY PELOSI ROCKS!!! NurseJackie Apr 2019 #7
To Seth Moulton and Kurt Schrader and the other Pelosi refuseniks calimary Apr 2019 #18
I did and do Laura PourMeADrink Apr 2019 #21
They don't know that 3rd-person SHALL is imperative. raging moderate Apr 2019 #8
They speak Amurikan, not that foreign language, English! csziggy Apr 2019 #9
Right. "But it doesn't say 'will,' or 'must.' pangaia Apr 2019 #20
Clearly. calimary Apr 2019 #30
The reporter's question seemed to be that there wasn't a law on the books gratuitous Apr 2019 #10
Dumb reporter. dalton99a Apr 2019 #11
Actually, that wasn't it at all FBaggins Apr 2019 #34
Nobody is saying that Congress has unlimited power gratuitous Apr 2019 #35
Of course there are limitations on that power FBaggins Apr 2019 #36
Our side is so damned smart! samnsara Apr 2019 #12
Who's the reporter, which media outlet? SMC22307 Apr 2019 #13
It is not possible for me to admire her more than I do now, but I do! ffr Apr 2019 #14
Republicans do not LogicFirst Apr 2019 #15
Those eyes. God, I love Pelosi's eyes tymorial Apr 2019 #16
Well said, Speaker Pelosi! Yet again! FakeNoose Apr 2019 #17
I will bet 10 farthings, watoos Apr 2019 #19
It's called "oversight." Look it up. Fritz Walter Apr 2019 #25
"Shall" in legal terms is direct and unambiguous. Every lawyer and Judge knows the significance of Pepsidog Apr 2019 #26
Nancy's bit is awesome ... however it's not actually answering the question being asked. mr_lebowski Apr 2019 #27
SHALL JGug1 Apr 2019 #28
Mama Nancy schools again! NastyRiffraff Apr 2019 #29
Exactly. defacto7 Apr 2019 #33
"Shall" is even stronger than "will." This isn't liberal interpretation. The law *is* clear. n/t Beartracks Apr 2019 #37
Pelosi is a Strong and Savvy Politician - I Loved Watching Her School those Silly Reporters dlk Apr 2019 #38
Awesome Highway61 Apr 2019 #41
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»You had me at "I'll read ...»Reply #35