READ: DOJ Releases Opinion Justifying Refusal To Give Trump’s Tax Returns

Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., listens as President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with members of the House Ways and Means committee in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Tuesday, Sept. 26, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., listens as President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with members of the House Ways and Means committee in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Tuesday, Sept. 26, 2017, in Washingto... Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., listens as President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with members of the House Ways and Means committee in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Tuesday, Sept. 26, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

The Justice Department released an Office of Legal Counsel opinion late Friday afternoon providing an explanation for why it believes that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin cannot comply with a House request for President Trump’s tax returns.

“Under the facts and circumstances, the Secretary of the Treasury reasonably and correctly concluded that the Committee’s asserted interest in reviewing the Internal Revenue Service’s audits of presidential returns was pretextual and that its true aim was to make the President’s tax returns public, which is not a legitimate legislative purpose,” reads an introduction to the opinion, written by Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel.

Mnuchin had alluded to the opinion in a May 17 refusal of a subpoena from Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA) for Trump’s personal and business tax returns, and during testimony before Congress.

The 33-page legal opinion was sent upon request to Mnuchin, who asked for it to be composed after his subordinate, IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig, received a request for six years of the President’s taxes.

The OLC holds that Neal made the request in bad faith, and therefore it is illegitimate. The opinion also contends that the request’s stated purpose of examining the IRS’s ability to impartially audit its boss — President Trump — is nothing more than a pretext for publicizing Trump’s taxes, and should therefore be disregarded.

The opinion is addressed to Mnuchin, and appears to cite statements made by the Treasury Secretary.

“As you explained, Treasury was committed to complying with the law, but under the circumstances, it questioned whether the Chairman’s request was lawful,” the opinion reads.

“Under the circumstances, we agreed that it was reasonable to conclude that the Committee’s asserted interest in the IRS’s audit of presidential returns was pretextual, and that the true aim was to make the President’s tax returns public,” the document continues.

As head of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, Neal is the only Democrat in Congress empowered to demand that the Treasury Secretary provide him with the tax returns of any filer.

He tailored the April 3 request for success in an eventual court battle. That lawsuit has not yet been filed.

Read the opinion below:

Latest Muckraker

Notable Replies

  1. That dog won’t hunt.

  2. Avatar for jrw jrw says:

    “bad faith”? That’s hysterical. If bad faith were a determining factor, everything Republicans do would be illegal.

  3. Why hasn’t Neal requested Trump’s taxes from NY state, which enacted legislation several weeks ago to give Trump’s taxes to Neal upon his request? Will someone please provide a non-laughable explanation for that piece of political malpractice?

  4. IANAL…but this “explanation” is, itself, a pretext.

  5. So, without evidence, it’s okay for the Treasury Secretary to utilize mindreading to decide to disobey a lawful request from Congress. Can it just be the Secretary’s own natural clairvoyance, and if so – how does the Secretary show the rest of us how that works? If not, does that mean that subsequent (i.e. Democratically appointed) Secretaries will have to show some kind of certificate of completion of a course of work that entailed study of mindreading before they can choose to defy Congress? I hope the courts will clarify this for us for future use.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

279 more replies

Participants

Avatar for littlegirlblue Avatar for clemmers Avatar for cervantes Avatar for irasdad Avatar for sniffit Avatar for chelsea530 Avatar for tacoma Avatar for sparrowhawk Avatar for ralph_vonholst Avatar for tomanjeri Avatar for stephen_maturin Avatar for left_in_washington_state Avatar for darrtown Avatar for thunderclapnewman Avatar for tena Avatar for daulphin Avatar for misterneutron Avatar for jacksonhts Avatar for cub_calloway Avatar for jersey Avatar for rascal_crone Avatar for c_stedman Avatar for powwow Avatar for emiliano4

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: