Ignoring
the political aspects of the case, the most interesting piece, I argue, is the
fight of jurisdiction on taking New York’s AG to court. Trump’s legal counsel is
asking for the trial to be in Washington D.C., while the AG is looking for this
lawsuit to be seen in a New York federal court.
The AG is arguing that D.C. does not have personal jurisdiction over
them and that the long-arm statute of D.C. is not valid in this case as they
don’t meet minimal contact with D.C. for federal courts there to take
jurisdiction over them[3]. We are seeing an interesting argument being
developed on whether a court in D.C. can take a case that involves a New York
tax return and a New York law, and have it taken away from courts in New York.
The reasoning of Trump’s legal team to bring the case to D.C., despite it
appearing that all parties involved belong under New York jurisdiction, is that
if his tax returns are released it would be to congress in D.C.
Questions?
In Washington D.C. there is a long-arm statute that would allow those to become under personal jurisdiction if
they are conducting any personal business in D.C.[4] The question I ask of you is: do you believe
that (ignoring everything else involved) the principle that an AG and a tax
official can come under the personal jurisdiction of another court based on the
idea that records would be sent to D.C. and that meets the long-arm statute? If
so, what is your reasoning? If not, what would be the proper venue for a case
such as this?
Another
debate I wanted to get into on this would be if just having your tax returns
released to congress, regardless of who it is, be enough to constitute harm to
give standing to this lawsuit?
[1] https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2019/07/08/cuomo-signs-law-allowing-new-york-to-hand-over-trumps-taxes-1087835
[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tax-returns-subpoenaed-new-york-prosecutors-subpoena-8-years-of-president-donald-trumps-tax-returns-ap-source/
I disagree with mandating anyone to be required to release tax returns, financials or personal information regardless of their position of power or capacity. This is an overstep of the legal system. Obviously, if there is a pattern of unlawful activity that is proven not speculated, then the legal course of action can be taken to try to acquire these documents without a political agenda. I am not sure I understand the question fully, but I believe you are asking if by sending documents to a repository in DC subjects the sender to personal jurisdiction in the forum of the depository. If so, I do not believe this should be adequate minimum requirement standards. I think of the housing market and storage of promissory notes and servicing. For example, the collateral for a mortgage is located in Utah, but the lender has sent the original note to another venue. Could you get personal jurisdiction in the forum where the note being foreclosed is housed? If this is the case, could Trump get personal jurisdiction merely because Tish James received her law degree from Howard University and lived in DC while acquiring her JD? Secondly, I do not believe that releasing tax returns to congress alone would be enough for standing. I think you would have to directly correlate the release to an injury in fact to the tax filer. I believe strongly that POTUS has the right to privacy unless he is being charged with a crime. He should not have to release any personal data until subpoenaed by the court or voluntarily surrenders. He is the Commander in Chief and the world's eyes watch all the unsettling within our borders from a leadership perspective. Maybe any action against POTUS should always be heard in DC in lieu of state jurisdictions. This blog post has been difficult for me...I have typed and erased numerous times. Great debate for sure aside from the political circus.
ReplyDeleteCain,
DeleteI agree that this blog post has taken more brain power from me than others in the past. It's an interesting topic to think about. I agree that the public does not have a right to that information, and if they want access to that information without going through the legal system, there is probably a political agenda at play.
Cain, interesting comments to make about tax returns and I think at one point or another I felt it wasn't necessary to release these as I wasn't sure what the purpose was for except to see immense amount of wealth for those who become our president! But then I personally went through a process where I had to petition for my immigrant spouse to come to the US. The petition was my application to petition the US federal government to allow approval for me to bring my spouse to join me in the US. I had to submit state and federal tax returns showing the past 3 years worth of my taxes. As a US citizen, to be granted the approval to bring my spouse to the US I had to show taxes and have the government comb through my personal finances. So to me the president of the US who has way more possibility of crimes against our country should be mandated to show their tax returns. Though it's just precedence that presidential candidates show their tax returns, the House and Senate should make a law requiring that presidential candidates release their tax returns. It also shows that their business dealings are legitimate and that they aren't lying or abusing tax laws. I feel like as a citizen who holds no office and has to show my taxes returns to be granted certain rights, then the president and candidates should have to as well. It shows that I'm not cheating the tax system and have enough funding to support my spouse, as well as what banking I'm doing in outside countries. Likewise for presidents it should show they are not cheating the system or being involved in bad (or legitimate) business deals with foreign countries.
ReplyDeleteJess,
DeleteI agree with you. We are all subject to submitting our tax returns for various reasons, like buying a home. My bank requests my taxes each year just to maintain a line of credit, even when no credit has been extended.
As a general rule, I do believe that tax returns should be a required step in seeking the presidency. That said, it should go to committee and not to the public. Period.
Jess, I again disagree that a requirement to bring your spouse stateside should include disclosure of federal and state returns. If you have had previous convictions for fraud, tax evasion, financial crimes, etc. it should be mandatory; however, a law abiding citizen having never been convicted of a crime should not have to release personal finances unless court orders or voluntary surrender. I do not see the relevance of your personal wealth and allowing a spouse to be admitted entrance. If this is true, we should make all couples submit tax returns before choosing to have children.
DeleteI thought this Washington Post article was a good one to consider, especially in light of what Georgi is referencing for having a committee review the tax returns. The Washington Post states, 'the tax-review process of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over nominations to multiple executive branch agencies, is particularly stringent. The committee requires nominees to submit tax returns for the most recent three years, and if any concerns are identified in those returns, the committee may require the nominee to provide returns covering the past 10 years. The committee staff also conducts interviews of nominees. If the committee determines that a nominee’s taxes have not been paid in full, it offers a choice: The committee can release a public report detailing the noncompliance and require immediate payment of those amounts, or the nominee can withdraw and the committee will keep the tax information confidential." [1] Considering this is also for people within the Executive branch then it seems accurate that the President who is the head boss should also follow this. But I feel like a committee should review this and not have it released to the public. Then at least it would go through a review process and if there are any issues then the candidate can withdraw themselves if they don't want it released to the public. I especially thought it was accurate in the last line of this article stating, "paying taxes is a fundamental obligation of citizenship, and the public deserves to know whether its next leader has fulfilled this obligation.' [1] I wouldn't have been so mad about releasing my tax returns, especially since I have nothing to hide, if the highest person in power who is over our country must follow these same standards in paying taxes. However, I feel like that if a crime is committed in New York and part of evidence they need his taxes in part of the discovery process than it makes sense. But other than that I'm not sure why he should be forced now to give them up for records in the past based off this law. Perhaps moving forward he should give them up for upcoming years based off this state law, but to enact a law and then force someone to release previous state tax records doesn't seem accurate. I strongly believe that there should be legislation though to require at least 3 years of taxes for candidacy to be president though.
Delete[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/many-public-officials-must-share-their-tax-returns-why-not-the-president/2016/08/17/196e2b8c-63f2-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Jess and Georgi. Public officials should be required to release their tax returns to appropriate committees. This should be required not just to show they have followed the law and met their tax obligations, but also to disclose potential conflicts of interest. The Washington Post article Jess linked to makes a very important point, “The lack of any mechanism to require presidential candidates to disclose their returns means that our system holds candidates for the nation’s highest office to a much lower standard than many applicants for lesser federal positions.” (1)
DeleteCongress should remedy this to protect generations to come from having another clown as president. Do the tax returns matter? Bob Woodward thinks so. I heard him speak last winter and he said one of his regrets was not getting to the tax returns in 2016. He suspects the president is “a walking Conflict of Interest”. Mr. Woodward was basically recruiting another Deep Throat from the audience to help him gain access to the returns. :)
Anyways…back to being a law student and Ethan’s jurisdiction question. I do not believe the D.C. courts have jurisdiction over the NY AG. Attorneys for Mr. Trump argue that “Washington is an appropriate venue because the decision to ask for the documents would be made in Washington and the returns would be reviewed by lawmakers in the nation’s capital…” (2). If documents being created, requested from and reviewed in D.C. was enough to meet personal jurisdiction requirements, what cases could NOT be heard by a D.C. court?
Great question Ethan!!
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/many-public-officials-must-share-their-tax-returns-why-not-the-president/2016/08/17/196e2b8c-63f2-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html
2. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-18/trump-can-t-sue-new-york-over-tax-return-law-in-d-c-state-says
Cain,
DeleteThe current law requires one to demonstrate the ability to supports one's spouse stateside. This is usually demonstrated by releasing taxes.
IRS Disclosure Laws
ReplyDeleteThe law protects your tax return from disclosure to other parties by the Internal Revenue Service. IRC Section 6103 generally prohibits the release of tax information by an IRS employee. However, there are important exceptions that you should be aware of according to the IRS Disclosure Laws. As Ethan has pointed out, there is no federal law or requirement that specifically binds a president to disclose his federal taxes to the public.
The exceptions that the IRS refers to are IRC 6103(d) which provides that return information may be shared with state agencies responsible for tax administration.
IRC 6103(i)(1) provides that pursuant to court order, return information may be shared with law enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution of non-tax criminal laws. (1)
IRC 6103(k)(6) allows the IRS to make limited disclosures of return information in the course of official tax administration investigations to third parties if necessary, to obtain information that is not otherwise reasonably available. (1)
IRC 6103(l)(1) and IRC 6103e(6) and (c) refer to Social Security issues and provide for permission for authorized parties to take action on one’s behalf.(1)
In my opinion, based on the Disclosure Laws of the IRS, there is nothing short of a felonious act that would require that Mr. Trump’s taxes be exposed to the scrutiny of the federal government.
The subpoenas that were issued by several congressional committees would require the release of Trump’s taxes to the committees, are based on the notion that Trump falsely stated his net-worth in order to receive business loans among other alleged misdoings.(2) As such, if any of the allegations are true, he has committed bank fraud. That fraud would likely set-off one of the IRS Disclosure Laws which would get the action started.
But, at this point, that issue is moot. So, for me, here is where it gets interesting: falsifying business records can be a crime under state law.
Ethan, in answer to your question regarding the long-arm statute which would allow Mr. Trump to come under the personal jurisdiction of D.C.. I believe bringing suit in D.C. would nullify his alleged wrong doing in the state of New York, where he does business and where his alleged wrongdoings occurred and where if guilty, would be the most likely venue to get a conviction.
This is not what the congressional committees would want (like you, I am not a lawyer). As a student of MLS law, and given what we have studied, thus far, this is my interpretation of the issue at hand and not meant in any way to accuse or exonerate Mr. Trump who is not mandated to open his tax records based on his presidency alone. As for the real answer to your query, I am not certain that the political wangling over venue really has made a solid case for jurisdiction, YET!
1.https://www.irs.gov/government-entities/federal-state-local-governments/disclosures-laws
2. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tax-returns-subpoenaed-new-york-prosecutors-subpoena-8-years-of-president-donald-trumps-tax-returns-ap-source/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEthan,
ReplyDeleteThis was a good topic to discuss jurisdiction. Personally, I disagree that President Trump, and other New York congressional members should have to release their tax return information as a matter of privacy. As a matter of jurisdiction, the court does have subject matter jurisdiction under U.S.C. 1331 Federal Question, and the proper venue of New York as stated by U.S.C. 1391 Venue generally.(1) However, during the scandal of Watergate in 1973, the Justice Department enacted a policy that the President of the United States cannot be subject to criminal prosecution and is constitutionally immune to indictment while sitting in office.(2) Though there is much disagreement to whether that policy is constitutional or not or is binding to special counsel, the investigation regarding his alleged criminal behavior could be continued after his presidency.
Answering your question, I do not think that sending documents to D.C. constitutes as sufficient minimum contact therefore, the Attorney General and Tax Commissioner should not have to go to trial in D.C. In the President’s complaint it states the proper venue to be in New York.
(1) Donald J. Trump v. Cyrus R. Vance JR. No.19-cv-08694-VM
(2) Wolfe, J. (2019, February 26). Can a sitting U.S. president face criminal charges? Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTrump argues that the AG regularly visits D.C. to attend events for campaign contributions and that the Tax Official used to live in D.C.(1) Neither of these are enough sufficient minimum contact for personal jurisdiction. He also suggested that D.C. would be the proper venue because most of the relevant conduct taking place in the case deals with D.C. but personal jurisdiction is defined by what has already happened not what will take place. This case deals with a state statute permitting disclosure of state tax information. The proper venue is New York. As for the release of tax returns, I'm uncomfortable with setting a precedent of having to release them but I am also uncomfortable with his resistance (especially his method).
ReplyDelete(1) https://thehill.com/policy/finance/459307-new-york-files-new-motion-to-dismiss
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom coast to coast, whether for a political agenda or not, the attempt to release President Trumps tax returns is never ending. I have mixed feelings about this because on one hand there is no law requiring such, yet on the other hand past presidents for decades have done this and it sets a precedent they have nothing to hide. However, President Trump is now attempting to block such attempts to release his tax returns by filing lawsuits in federal courts in New York, California and Washington, DC. (1)
ReplyDeleteIf his attorney’s are filing in these states then that shows they are willing to play ball and defend in those states. However, in the filing against the New York Attorney General, Letitia James, I think it is only appropriate and fair litigation takes place in the Federal Court in Manhattan because she lives and works in New York.
While President Trump lives in D.C. he still has ties to New York, and is possibly still a resident there. Therefore litigation makes sense in New York. However, he is the Commander and Chief and I think there should be an exception for litigation to take place without his presence, but rather with his attorneys.
Furthermore, I do think all cases, no matter the state, should be heard in Federal Court, especially in the New York case where the President “is arguing that the subpoena is unconstitutional because a sitting president cannot be criminally charged, and that means a president can't be subjected to "criminal process," such as a grand jury subpoena. (1)
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-lawsuit-tax-returns-new-york-cy-vance
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo solve this issue, we must scrub away the politics and understand the origin of the subpoena by the Manhattan Attorney General. This subpoena is not to fulfill the precedent set by previous presidential candidates. It is regarding a criminal investigation.
ReplyDeleteAt the heart of the matter is hush-money payments. The Manhattan AG believes there was criminal conduct and the tax records contain the evidence. Therefore, the AG has subpoenaed to compel the release of this evidence. Trump’s lawyers sued to block the release of the taxes in DC.
If we assume for one second that President Trump was a private citizen living in the white house. He is no longer domiciled in Manhattan. Therefore, there is diversity jurisdiction, and the case should be heard in federal court.
Having established this, it becomes a question of which court has personal jurisdiction. In this case since Mr Trump still has a residence in NY and regularly conducts business in NY. Mr Trump didn’t separate himself from his company. He meets the requirement for the New York long-arm statute. The state of New York has personal jurisdiction over Mr. Trump.
The next question is, what’s the right venue? Since the alleged criminal activity occurred in Manhattan, and is being investigated in Manhattan, and the taxes in question are New York state taxes filed in Manhattan, then the lawsuit to block the subpoena should be heard in Manhattan.
This situation is complicated since Mr. Trump is the president. However, one can argue, the private citizen who is alleged to have committed the crimes being investigated by the AG of Manhattan is still domiciled in Manhattan, New York and is on assignment in DC as the President of the USA. Therefore, there is no diversity, and the entire matter should be handled within the New York State Court System.
I agree with Lenny! If you strictly look at the facts of the case and take out this is the President and everything else going on with politics all signs point to New York. There are several reasons under the law versus one long arm statue for D.C. that it should be in New York.
DeleteLenny this was a great breakdown of some of the details of the facts i wasn't able to put in. Thank you. WHen looking at articles regarding this matter I would think this case needs and should be in NY. AFter Trump was elected he kept his family in NY so his son could stay in school. THis to me indicates that he intends to keep his residence in NY and this matter is based mostly in NY so I can't see how DC courts could hold this case at all.
DeleteThank you for putting that out there Lenny. I think it's so easy to get bogged down in ideological, political and principal based interests in situations like this that the basic facts of the matter get lost in translation. Putting aside bias, this being a criminal case, or at least an attempt at discovery with the intention of exposing criminal activity, then absolutely the president should be compelled to produce his returns in NY, as I think the jurisdictional requirements are pretty clear.
DeleteI don't think that a President should have to release their tax returns unless their is a matter of tax fraud or any other type of financial fraud that would involve the need to review financial documents. For Ethan's question it appears wanting the jurisdiction in a D.C. court is a little far reaching. I think it should stay in New York and they would have more of a substantial reasoning for jurisdiction based on the fact that Trump lived in New York during the time frame of the allegations, owned property there, conducted most of his business in New York, Trump had citizenship in the state of New York as well. I know Trump as many businesses in other states but I am not sure where his corporate headquarters are. I am assuming it would be Trump Towers and that is located in New York. Although I have no proof of this it would appear that the wanted change of venue is a political/strategic move from Trump's legal team. Also, currently Trump is residing in D.C. because that is his job but Trump Towers is still conducting business and Trump still has a residence in New York. Because I do payroll I know that per IRS regulations when we have employees that live in another state other than the state our company is located in as a business we have to report the taxes in the state they are working in not where they live. The employee is responsible to file taxes in both states. The one they live in and the one they work in. This probably could get a little tricky when deciding jurisdiction with Trump as well.
ReplyDeleteAs far as personal jurisdiction goes, I don’t believe that merely sending documents to D.C would qualify as “business”. I think that is a stretch to qualify that for any type of jurisdiction. I think it should stay in New York as both parties are “citizens” of New York and they are also seeking the release of state taxes, not federal taxes. I also agree that it is fair and should be law for the president to or any high ranking official of the nation should release their tax returns. Money is such a powerful tool and by releasing tax documents would keep those in power more accountable. Like it was stated in the first article Ethan posted, “top elected officials have a responsibility to be more transparent and accountable.” Those holding the highest positions in this nation should be held to a higher standard and should be more transparent than the “common folk”. They are the ones making the most important decisions for our country and making/passing the laws that affect everyone. Do we not want these people to be the best of the best? The most honest? If one is cheating on their taxes, what else are they hiding or being dishonest about?
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of the comments on here that I don't think releasing tax returns should always be needed. Cain made a good point that nobody should need to release their personal information, no matter their power or position. I understand sharing certain kinds of personal information with an employer, but releasing tax returns or other personal information to the public shouldn't ever happen. In regards to the question, I'm not sure if it would meet the long-arm statutes. I mean, isn't it against the office of the President for Trump to do any personal business while he is in office?
ReplyDeleteSuccinctly put, “no.” While I do not have all the pertinent information per the New York AG or the state or federal tax official, it appears it could credibly be argued they do not have sufficient minimum contacts with D.C. to move the case from New York to D.C. The argument to move the case based on the understanding related tax information would be released to Congress in D.C. is flawed. While Congress members meet in D.C., D.C. is a place of employment and is not those members domicile or place of residency. Theoretically, perhaps the President’s tax document is released to a member on a pertinent committee as found in IRS Code 6103(f) for legislative purposes while she or he sits back at home in their district and then meets back up in D.C. to discuss it in meetings.(1) The official release may have actually occurred in another state, depending on if part or all of the tax information was sent electronically, which would then further nullify the argument if the literal place the tax documents were released were physically in other states. Arguing tax information released to members sitting on committees in D.C. is not sufficient to have the case moved to D.C. and the case should remain in New York. However, due the unique nature of the President’s role, it could be plausibly argued exceptions or accommodations in scheduling must be met if and when the case comes to trial.
ReplyDeleteHowever, with that in mind New York's law requiring President Trump’s release of state tax returns taking effect immediately effuses political jockeying and belies the sincerity of the measure. It is obviously speculative as to whether New York's bill was really crafted to keep the public informed about key public officials or if it was ongoing party bias harassment against the current president. (2) It is hypocritical on many levels for those arguing the importance and expectations of precedent and then on the other hand dismissing the eminence of precedent as time for change or moving forward. Just because something or someone has done something repeatedly, does not qualify that it always will be that way. So while many expected and hoped President Trump would release his taxes, he is not required to. (3) Nonetheless, if the American public finds value in having their elected officials including the president release tax information beyond what is already allowed for in the IRS tax code, for the purposes of transparency and scrutiny then that is something that should be effectuated through statutory law or possibly constitutional amendment as a requirement for running for President of the United States. Likewise, if it is structured in a way that protects rights to privacy along with legislative purpose then it would be a requirement moving forward but not retroactively applied. For presidential hopefuls and other office holders that have released tax information, the number of tax returns varies greatly from 1 or 2 to 10 or 15 years worth with skipped years suggesting candidates are not necessarily enthusiastic about submitting tax returns albeit most succumb to the political expectation or precedent.(4)
(1) https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-enacts-law-allowing-release-of-trumps-state-tax-returns-to-congress-11562601048
(2) https://www.pressherald.com/2019/07/08/new-york-governor-signs-law-allowing-congress-access-to-trumps-state-tax-returns/
(3) https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/LSB10275.pdf
(4) https://www.taxnotes.com/presidential-tax-returns
Regarding the jurisdictional issue, I’m going to have to agree with Yvette (who apparently does not sleep).
ReplyDeleteAs I read the D.C. long-arm statute I found it is fairly similar to Utah’s and, I assume, most other states. It contains the usual language regarding transacting business, tortious injury, owning property in D.C. etc. I don’t see a way a D.C. court could get personal jurisdiction over New York’s AG or the head of New York’s Department of Taxation and Finance, especially since the law only allows for the release of a state tax return, not the federal return.
There is not a federal question; it’s a New York state law. There is diversity of citizenship, but the matter doesn’t have a monetary value. The proper venue is a New York state court. If POTUS argues the state law violates the U.S. Constitution or is contradictory to a federal law, he could get it into a federal court. However, I think it would have to be in New York.
As a side note, as I read the D.C. statute, it contains a section I found interesting. it states:
§13-423. Personal jurisdiction based upon conduct
(a) A District of Columbia court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a claim for relief arising from the person's:
(7) marital or parent and child relationship in the District of Columbia if:
(E) “Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraphs (A) through (D), the court may exercise personal jurisdiction if there is any basis consistent with the United States Constitution for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.”
This section is in the context of marital or parent and child relationships and wouldn’t be applicable to the situation Ethan presented. However, it made me wonder. What if subsection (E) stood alone, i.e., what if the statute read, A District of Columbia court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person if there is any basis consistent with the United States Constitution for the exercise of personal jurisdiction? Is there a constitutional provision that a clever lawyer could argue gives a D.C. court jurisdiction? I don’t know the answer, but it’s an interesting (and probably futile) thought exercise.
I see Cain and Aleah’s point regarding privacy. However, I must agree with Shelby, Jess, Georgi, and others; when one becomes a public official they lose a great deal of privacy for, I believe, good reason. The public has a right to know certain things about their leaders, public funds, legal matters, etc. In Utah, for example, “the name, gender, gross compensation, job title, job description, business address, business email address, business telephone number, number of hours worked per pay period, dates of employment, and relevant education, previous employment, and similar job qualifications of a current or former employee or officer of the governmental entity…” are all public information. In enacting the law, the Utah Legislature said “In enacting this act, the Legislature recognizes two constitutional rights: the public's right of access to information concerning the conduct of the public's business; and the right of privacy in relation to personal data gathered by governmental entities.”
ReplyDeleteI’m not particularly excited about my gross compensation or education being public information; most public employees I’ve talked to feel the same. However, I understand and accept the legislature’s reasoning. The public has a right to know how their money is being spent. The public also has a right to know that the people conducting business on their behalf are qualified to do so. Whether it is a simple a policy writer at a community college or the president of the U.S., the concept is the same.
I believe honor is a particularly important qualification for president, and honor includes not cheating on one’s taxes. I want a president that isn’t a crook. The New York Times published an article that accused the president of tax evasion and fraud. “Because people have got to know whether or not their president is a crook,” we all have the right to know if the accusations are true. So, let’s see the returns.
1. D.C. Code § 13-423.
2. Utah Code Ann. § 63G-2-301.
3. Utah Code Ann. § 63G-2-102.
4. David Barstow, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner, Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father, N.Y. Times, Oct. 2, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/ 2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html.
5. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=245830047
Also, Ethan, what a fantastic question; everyone, what a great discussion.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the President, even the people that hold a certain position in government, should release their tax return. At least to a certain committee that will properly evaluate how their money is used. I also believe there should be a sense of transparency between leaders and its people. Otherwise, distrust and continuous worry takes over the people's mind. I understand that House Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard E. Neal had requested Trump’s personal and business tax returns from 2013 to 2018. After Neal’s request was called “unprecedented” by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, he sued the Trump Administration in federal courts. I understand the people's right to privacy, but I believe the people have the right to know if their political leaders are engaging in potentially dangerous transactions. A person can say many things to the public, but knowing where their money goes really can reveal where their true interests lie.
ReplyDelete