Legal expert: President is NOT required to release his taxes!

[nat4900]

The question remains:


WHAT IS THE ORANGE MORON HIDING by not releasing his tax returns????

LMAO

You wanna see his dick, too??

It is NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS what Trump's or any other American's tax records show.

The ONLY way dimocrap FILTH in Congress are allowed to see his returns would be if he is accused of a CRIME by the IRS.

Then, and only THEN, will they be allowed by law to see them.

dimocraps are stupid little bitches

Hey foul mouth, your opinion has nothing to do with the law, something you do not understand, or don't bother to respect.

See Title 26 (IRS Code) which states:

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
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.

See: 26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

see: (F) Disclosure to Committees of Congress

Thank you for proving my point............but you're too dumb to even realize it..........lol

 

[Oddball]

The question remains:


WHAT IS THE ORANGE MORON HIDING by not releasing his tax returns????

LMAO

You wanna see his dick, too??

It is NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS what Trump's or any other American's tax records show.

The ONLY way dimocrap FILTH in Congress are allowed to see his returns would be if he is accused of a CRIME by the IRS.

Then, and only THEN, will they be allowed by law to see them.

dimocraps are stupid little bitches

Hey foul mouth, your opinion has nothing to do with the law, something you do not understand, or don't bother to respect.

See Title 26 (IRS Code) which states:

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
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.

See: 26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

see: (F) Disclosure to Committees of Congress

"Shall" is permissive, Francis.

Stuff this in your pipe of ignorance and smoke it.

http://www.ncsl.org/legislators-sta...volume-xxvi-issue-2-the-false-imperative.aspx

With the understanding that the Supreme Court ruled that…

What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."

 

[Care4all]

Trump CULT members.....like the above two idiots......don't want to get through their half brains that it is NOT up to Trump to determine whether he is "required" to release his tax returns......

THE LAW IS EXPLICIT and CLEAR..........Congress requests from the IRS...and the IRS MUST comply with the request....That is the law...and the ONLY "recourse" that the Trump criminal enterprise can exert, is to STALL the inevitable.

LIVE WITH IT !!!!

Poor little moonbat gnat never got the memo that USSC has ruled the words "must" and "shall" to be false imperatives....IOW, they mean the permissive "may" if the direction in question violates one's rights.

While I realize that you're too much of a brick head to learn something new, I'll post these for those who do have intellectual curiosity.

With the understanding that the Supreme Court ruled that…

http://www.ncsl.org/legislators-sta...volume-xxvi-issue-2-the-false-imperative.aspx

What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."

Here's the problem

1. This law was written in the 1920's, NOT the recent modern era of which your articles speak about, and the teaching of the issue at hand today.

Shall in early times, was NEVER used as a replacement for 'may', it meant MUST.... if you can find one itty bitty statute written in the 1920's that used the word MUST in Law, then you might or 'may' have a point....

SHALL meant MUST, in every instance from what I had read up on it.

These newly written articles about how it should be written in 'today's' times, base on a SC ruling a statue written in fairly modern times for a civil law case, means nothing when it comes to how and what the term "shall" meant, at the time the law was written, and justices would acknowledge that....

2. If what you are saying is true, that "shall" means "may" or could be argued to mean "may",

then some litigant can come in today and argue in court, that our 1st Thru 9th amendments of the 10 in our Bill of Rights in the Constitution, where the word "shall" is used, means "may" and NOT "must",

this would completely annihilate our Bill of Rights,

blow them in to SMITHEREENS.


============

So, before going with this theory you have bought in to,
I'd give it a second thought, Oddball.

 

[WillowTree]

The refusal to release his tax returns, if nothing else, is proof Trump never wanted to be president.

You only need to be an American citizen over the age of 35 to be President. Showing your tax returns is NOT required to run for President!!

Technically you are correct but it has long been a gesture of honesty and sincerity by those who would be president. If someone even comes into office with any expectation of financial privacy they are not fit for office. We give these people an astounding amount of political power over our lives, we should expect full disclosure from them

So that’s why the obamaturd gave us all his school records!

LMAO on this idiot's HYPOCRISY


School Administrators Say They Were Pressured to Hide Donald ...

How Trump buried his school transcript, days after challenging ...

Donald Trump's Lawyer Threatened Schools on His Grades

Moron. I asked ewe about obamaturd’s school records not Trumps! Where are obamaturd’s school records?

 

[WillowTree]

Trump CULT members.....like the above two idiots......don't want to get through their half brains that it is NOT up to Trump to determine whether he is "required" to release his tax returns......

THE LAW IS EXPLICIT and CLEAR..........Congress requests from the IRS...and the IRS MUST comply with the request....That is the law...and the ONLY "recourse" that the Trump criminal enterprise can exert, is to STALL the inevitable.

LIVE WITH IT !!!!

Poor little moonbat gnat never got the memo that USSC has ruled the words "must" and "shall" to be false imperatives....IOW, they mean the permissive "may" if the direction in question violates one's rights.

While I realize that you're too much of a brick head to learn something new, I'll post these for those who do have intellectual curiosity.

With the understanding that the Supreme Court ruled that…

http://www.ncsl.org/legislators-sta...volume-xxvi-issue-2-the-false-imperative.aspx

What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."

Here's the problem

1. This law was written in the 1920's, NOT the recent modern era of which your articles speak about, and the teaching of the issue at hand today.

Shall in early times, was NEVER used as a replacement for 'may', it meant MUST.... if you can find one itty bitty statute written in the 1920's that used the word MUST in Law, then you might or 'may' have a point....

SHALL meant MUST, in every instance from what I had read up on it.

These newly written articles about how it should be written in 'today's' times, base on a SC ruling a statue written in fairly modern times for a civil law case, means nothing when it comes to how and what the term "shall" meant, at the time the law was written, and justices would acknowledge that....

2. If what you are saying is true, that "shall" means "may" or could be argued to mean "may",

then some litigant can come in today and argue in court, that our 1st Thru 9th amendments of the 10 in our Bill of Rights in the Constitution, where the word "shall" is used, means "may" and NOT "must",

this would completely annihilate our Bill of Rights,

blow them in to SMITHEREENS.


============

So, before going with this theory you have bought in to,
I'd give it a second thought, Oddball.

So, all laws not written in the “modern era” may be disregarded?

 

[nat4900]

Constitution of United States of America
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Didn't work too well for either Nixon OR all those involved in the TeaPot Dome scandal......But, nice try......lol

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

University of Iowa Law Prof. Andy Grewal, however, questions the legitimacy of the letter(Democrats' request).

“As the letter hints, Congress has broad powers and they’re acting for proper purposes and usually the mental thoughts of the legislature don’t negate the validity of the inquiry, but the question here is, are they in fact pursing a legitimate purpose?” he said in an interview with Law&Crime.

“Generally, there are strong presumptions of Congress’ investigations, but that doesn’t mean it’s conclusive if they just say they need information,” he continued.

Earlier this month, Neal formally requested the last six years’ worth of President Trump‘s tax returns, citing what’s been dubbed a “little-known provision” in tax code to do so.





Tax Expert: ‘Far From Clear’ That IRS Can Be Compelled to Release Trump’s Returns

lol

No one said he does.

And no one says this is a legal issue, it’s a political issue.

As a political issue, it illustrates Trump’s arrogance, his contempt for government transparency, and the fact Trump is unfit to be president.

 

[Care4all]

The refusal to release his tax returns, if nothing else, is proof Trump never wanted to be president.

You only need to be an American citizen over the age of 35 to be President. Showing your tax returns is NOT required to run for President!!

Technically you are correct but it has long been a gesture of honesty and sincerity by those who would be president. If someone even comes into office with any expectation of financial privacy they are not fit for office. We give these people an astounding amount of political power over our lives, we should expect full disclosure from them

So that’s why the obamaturd gave us all his school records!

School records were not a tradition, as a recent example, Bush 2 never gave his college records... until they were leaked or going to be leaked, because somehow they were obtained, nor did several other candidates over the years since Nixon.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The question remains:


WHAT IS THE ORANGE MORON HIDING by not releasing his tax returns????

LMAO

You wanna see his dick, too??

It is NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS what Trump's or any other American's tax records show.

The ONLY way dimocrap FILTH in Congress are allowed to see his returns would be if he is accused of a CRIME by the IRS.

Then, and only THEN, will they be allowed by law to see them.

dimocraps are stupid little bitches

Hey foul mouth, your opinion has nothing to do with the law, something you do not understand, or don't bother to respect.

See Title 26 (IRS Code) which states:

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
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.

See: 26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

see: (F) Disclosure to Committees of Congress

"Shall" is permissive, Francis.

Stuff this in your pipe of ignorance and smoke it.

http://www.ncsl.org/legislators-sta...volume-xxvi-issue-2-the-false-imperative.aspx

With the understanding that the Supreme Court ruled that…

What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."

Oh, thanks for sharing that tidbit of wisdom. Your link opens up the debate on weather the 2nd A's phrase, "shall not infringe" really means.

From your link:

"We call "must" and "must not" words of obligation. "Must" is the only word that imposes a legal obligation on your readers to tell them something is mandatory. Also, "must not" are the only words you can use to say something is prohibited."

"Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may.""

Thus we can conclude that the 2nd A. permits under Amendment 10 that any State, commonwealth or territory of the Unites States can decide to impose gun controls.

 

[WillowTree]

The refusal to release his tax returns, if nothing else, is proof Trump never wanted to be president.

You only need to be an American citizen over the age of 35 to be President. Showing your tax returns is NOT required to run for President!!

Technically you are correct but it has long been a gesture of honesty and sincerity by those who would be president. If someone even comes into office with any expectation of financial privacy they are not fit for office. We give these people an astounding amount of political power over our lives, we should expect full disclosure from them

So that’s why the obamaturd gave us all his school records!

School records were not a tradition, as a recent example, Bush 2 never gave his college records... until they were leaked or going to be leaked, because somehow they were obtained, nor did several other candidates over the years since Nixon.

So you have conceded the point that Trump by law is not required to release his financial or tax records! Got it.

 

[Care4all]

Trump CULT members.....like the above two idiots......don't want to get through their half brains that it is NOT up to Trump to determine whether he is "required" to release his tax returns......

THE LAW IS EXPLICIT and CLEAR..........Congress requests from the IRS...and the IRS MUST comply with the request....That is the law...and the ONLY "recourse" that the Trump criminal enterprise can exert, is to STALL the inevitable.

LIVE WITH IT !!!!

Poor little moonbat gnat never got the memo that USSC has ruled the words "must" and "shall" to be false imperatives....IOW, they mean the permissive "may" if the direction in question violates one's rights.

While I realize that you're too much of a brick head to learn something new, I'll post these for those who do have intellectual curiosity.

With the understanding that the Supreme Court ruled that…

http://www.ncsl.org/legislators-sta...volume-xxvi-issue-2-the-false-imperative.aspx

What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."

Here's the problem

1. This law was written in the 1920's, NOT the recent modern era of which your articles speak about, and the teaching of the issue at hand today.

Shall in early times, was NEVER used as a replacement for 'may', it meant MUST.... if you can find one itty bitty statute written in the 1920's that used the word MUST in Law, then you might or 'may' have a point....

SHALL meant MUST, in every instance from what I had read up on it.

These newly written articles about how it should be written in 'today's' times, base on a SC ruling a statue written in fairly modern times for a civil law case, means nothing when it comes to how and what the term "shall" meant, at the time the law was written, and justices would acknowledge that....

2. If what you are saying is true, that "shall" means "may" or could be argued to mean "may",

then some litigant can come in today and argue in court, that our 1st Thru 9th amendments of the 10 in our Bill of Rights in the Constitution, where the word "shall" is used, means "may" and NOT "must",

this would completely annihilate our Bill of Rights,

blow them in to SMITHEREENS.


============

So, before going with this theory you have bought in to,
I'd give it a second thought, Oddball.

So, all laws not written in the “modern era” may be disregarded?

All laws written in the modern era, should not utilize, (according to Oddball's links), the word 'shall', and instead, replace it with the word 'must' is what they are trying to teach their law students or legislators today...

but at the time of this 6103 part F statute, shall meant must, and the law is and will be, recognized as such, by any court...

And the same with our Bill of Rights, "shall" meant "must" at the time it was written.


Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[WillowTree]

University of Iowa Law Prof. Andy Grewal, however, questions the legitimacy of the letter(Democrats' request).

“As the letter hints, Congress has broad powers and they’re acting for proper purposes and usually the mental thoughts of the legislature don’t negate the validity of the inquiry, but the question here is, are they in fact pursing a legitimate purpose?” he said in an interview with Law&Crime.

“Generally, there are strong presumptions of Congress’ investigations, but that doesn’t mean it’s conclusive if they just say they need information,” he continued.

Earlier this month, Neal formally requested the last six years’ worth of President Trump‘s tax returns, citing what’s been dubbed a “little-known provision” in tax code to do so.





Tax Expert: ‘Far From Clear’ That IRS Can Be Compelled to Release Trump’s Returns

lol

No one said he does.

And no one says this is a legal issue, it’s a political issue.

As a political issue, it illustrates Trump’s arrogance, his contempt for government transparency, and the fact Trump is unfit to be president.

By libtarded standards! We Republicans elected him. We found that fat white cow Hillary to be unfit, not because of arrogance but because she actually destroyed evidence that was under supeona,, smashed her phones and bleached her computers, you asswipes have some funny standards!

 

[WillowTree]

Trump CULT members.....like the above two idiots......don't want to get through their half brains that it is NOT up to Trump to determine whether he is "required" to release his tax returns......

THE LAW IS EXPLICIT and CLEAR..........Congress requests from the IRS...and the IRS MUST comply with the request....That is the law...and the ONLY "recourse" that the Trump criminal enterprise can exert, is to STALL the inevitable.

LIVE WITH IT !!!!

Poor little moonbat gnat never got the memo that USSC has ruled the words "must" and "shall" to be false imperatives....IOW, they mean the permissive "may" if the direction in question violates one's rights.

While I realize that you're too much of a brick head to learn something new, I'll post these for those who do have intellectual curiosity.

With the understanding that the Supreme Court ruled that…

http://www.ncsl.org/legislators-sta...volume-xxvi-issue-2-the-false-imperative.aspx

What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."

Here's the problem

1. This law was written in the 1920's, NOT the recent modern era of which your articles speak about, and the teaching of the issue at hand today.

Shall in early times, was NEVER used as a replacement for 'may', it meant MUST.... if you can find one itty bitty statute written in the 1920's that used the word MUST in Law, then you might or 'may' have a point....

SHALL meant MUST, in every instance from what I had read up on it.

These newly written articles about how it should be written in 'today's' times, base on a SC ruling a statue written in fairly modern times for a civil law case, means nothing when it comes to how and what the term "shall" meant, at the time the law was written, and justices would acknowledge that....

2. If what you are saying is true, that "shall" means "may" or could be argued to mean "may",

then some litigant can come in today and argue in court, that our 1st Thru 9th amendments of the 10 in our Bill of Rights in the Constitution, where the word "shall" is used, means "may" and NOT "must",

this would completely annihilate our Bill of Rights,

blow them in to SMITHEREENS.


============

So, before going with this theory you have bought in to,
I'd give it a second thought, Oddball.

So, all laws not written in the “modern era” may be disregarded?

All laws written in the modern era, should not utilize, (according to Oddball's links), the word 'shall', and instead, replace it with the word 'must' is what they are trying to teach their law students or legislators today...

but at the time of this 6103 part F statute, shall meant must, and the law is and will be, recognized as such, by any court...

And the same with our Bill of Rights, "shall" meant "must" at the time it was written.


Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Oddball’s link was to a legal expert. Are ewe a legal expert?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The question remains:


WHAT IS THE ORANGE MORON HIDING by not releasing his tax returns????

LMAO

Ask Mueller and the IRS they didn't find anything wrong



.

 

[Care4all]

The refusal to release his tax returns, if nothing else, is proof Trump never wanted to be president.

You only need to be an American citizen over the age of 35 to be President. Showing your tax returns is NOT required to run for President!!

Technically you are correct but it has long been a gesture of honesty and sincerity by those who would be president. If someone even comes into office with any expectation of financial privacy they are not fit for office. We give these people an astounding amount of political power over our lives, we should expect full disclosure from them

So that’s why the obamaturd gave us all his school records!

School records were not a tradition, as a recent example, Bush 2 never gave his college records... until they were leaked or going to be leaked, because somehow they were obtained, nor did several other candidates over the years since Nixon.

So you have conceded the point that Trump by law is not required to release his financial or tax records! Got it.

Willow, correct, Trump does not have to release his own tax returns, it has been a tradition to do so, but that certainly does not mean he SHALL release his own returns!

BUT this 6103f law, has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH, President Trump or Candidate Trump releasing his tax returns to the public, as tradition had become.

6103f is not asking Pres Trump to do this.

6103f, gets President Trump's tax returns directly from the IRS, in a secret setting for the authorized under law, Committee Chair , when requested. (and other committee members)

It is not released to the Public, it is not gotten from President Trump.

 

[Oddball]

The question remains:


WHAT IS THE ORANGE MORON HIDING by not releasing his tax returns????

LMAO

You wanna see his dick, too??

It is NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS what Trump's or any other American's tax records show.

The ONLY way dimocrap FILTH in Congress are allowed to see his returns would be if he is accused of a CRIME by the IRS.

Then, and only THEN, will they be allowed by law to see them.

dimocraps are stupid little bitches

Hey foul mouth, your opinion has nothing to do with the law, something you do not understand, or don't bother to respect.

See Title 26 (IRS Code) which states:

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
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.

See: 26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

see: (F) Disclosure to Committees of Congress

"Shall" is permissive, Francis.

Stuff this in your pipe of ignorance and smoke it.

http://www.ncsl.org/legislators-sta...volume-xxvi-issue-2-the-false-imperative.aspx

With the understanding that the Supreme Court ruled that…

What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."

Oh, thanks for sharing that tidbit of wisdom. Your link opens up the debate on weather the 2nd A's phrase, "shall not infringe" really means.

From your link:

"We call "must" and "must not" words of obligation. "Must" is the only word that imposes a legal obligation on your readers to tell them something is mandatory. Also, "must not" are the only words you can use to say something is prohibited."

"Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may.""

Thus we can conclude that the 2nd A. permits under Amendment 10 that any State, commonwealth or territory of the Unites States can decide to impose gun controls.

It means that "must" and "shall" become the permissive "may", when construing the imperative violates your rights, which includes all of the BoR.... But good luck with your case, Francis.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The refusal to release his tax returns, if nothing else, is proof Trump never wanted to be president.

You only need to be an American citizen over the age of 35 to be President. Showing your tax returns is NOT required to run for President!!

Technically you are correct but it has long been a gesture of honesty and sincerity by those who would be president. If someone even comes into office with any expectation of financial privacy they are not fit for office. We give these people an astounding amount of political power over our lives, we should expect full disclosure from them

So that’s why the obamaturd gave us all his school records!

School records were not a tradition, as a recent example, Bush 2 never gave his college records... until they were leaked or going to be leaked, because somehow they were obtained, nor did several other candidates over the years since Nixon.

So you have conceded the point that Trump by law is not required to release his financial or tax records! Got it.

Cool, then you won't be able to vote.

 

[Edgetho]

The ONLY way dimocrap FILTH in Congress are allowed to see his returns would be if he is accused of a CRIME by the IRS.

Wipe, flush and wash your hands after THAT "interpretation" pf the law, Trump ass licker.......LMAO

Let us all know when you see his taxes, dickbreath

 

[Clipper]

Just because some past presidents did release their tax returns does NOT make it a law, or even a smart thing to do. It was done as a trick by past losers. Trump should tell those dick likkers to go plug a stump.

Awwwwww! Another Trumptard afraid his hero's tax returns will show he's a money laundering, tax evading gangster! Btw assclown, Trump' is not a billionaire either And if his returns made him look good he'd have released them like 3 years ago with his usual blabbering & bullshit thrown in for good measure. It's as plain as the nose on your face. That why you haven't figured it out yet?

 

[Edgetho]

Just because some past presidents did release their tax returns does NOT make it a law, or even a smart thing to do. It was done as a trick by past losers. Trump should tell those dick likkers to go plug a stump.

Awwwwww! Another Trumptard afraid his hero's tax returns will show he's a money laundering, tax evading gangster! Btw assclown, Trump' is not a billionaire either And if his returns made him look good he'd have released them like 3 years ago. It's as plain as the nose on your face. That why you haven't figured it out yet?

What's gonna be your excuse when you get your clocks cleaned in 2020, "Trump didn't release his taxes, WA-Wa-Wa-Wa-Wa....."

All you got is hate.

All ANY dimocrap scumbag has is hate.