
<p>For most of American history, a person’s tax returns have been considered sacrosanct and private. ; </p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>Tax returns have been a peculiar issue. ; </p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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. ; ;</p>



<p>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.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-trump-s-tax-returns"><strong>Trump’s tax returns</strong></h2>



<p>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.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Other means to financial information</strong></h2>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Creating false issues</strong></h2>



<p>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 <strong>“</strong>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 &#8212; hold the person up to unfair public ridicule based petty jealousy, class warfare, and partisan political abuse. ; ; ;</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>The danger of weaponizing tax returns</strong></h2>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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 &#8212; the so-called review of his tax returns for legislative purposes was simply a ruse.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>There is clearly a right for Congress to see a President’s tax returns – or any other American citizen&#8217;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?</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Lack of enforcement</strong></h2>



<p>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?</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Presidential Tax Audit Act</strong></h2>



<p>According to a law passed in the mid-1970s, a President&#8217;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&#8217;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.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><strong>Summary</strong></h2>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Democrats Weaponize Tax Returns … a Dangerous Precedent
