More on Trump’s Tax Returns
by Linda Beale
More on Trump’s Tax Returns
The New York Times Op-Ed by Mitchel Zuckoff (a journalism prof at Boston University), titled “Why We Ask to See Tax Returns” (Aug. 6, 2016), at A19, goes beyond my list of reasons taxpaying voters may learn items of interest from reviewing presidential candidates’ tax returns. Looking at the history of the tax return disclosure precedent and the way it adds value “as a measure of character”, Zuckoff says outright what I merely hinted at in talking about tax scams–a presidential candidate could be a crook and taxpayers deserve to know!
It started with Richard M. Nixon, and Congress’s July 1969 decision to eliminate what seemed like a gigantic tax-avoidance loophole that allowed sitting presidents to take large tax deductions for donating presidential papers to an archive. (For his historical information, Zuckoff references Joe Thorndike‘s paper for the Capitol Historical Society, JCT Investigation of Nixon’s Tax Returns (Feb. 2016).) Congress observed, notes Zuckoff, that “a president’s papers already belong[] to the public.” As for Nixon, his 1969 tax return claimed a half million dollar deduction (quite a huge sum 47 years ago) for donating presidential documents 4 months before the law change.
When Nixon’s deduction became public in 1973 (in connection with a Watergate-related lawsuit), it turned out that the donating deed was dated before the 1969 law change was enacted but was signed months after the change had come into effect (i.e., it appeared to be a backdated document intended to game the system to get the big tax deduction). At first, Nixon refused to release his returns and opposed any audit. The IRS at first “bowed to his wishes.” But then someone leaked information to a reporter about how much Nixon had actually paid in taxes in 1970 and 1971, when he had income of almost half a million–less than a thousand dollars both years. As Zuckoff puts it, “He paid the equivalent of a family of three earning about $8000 in 1970 dollars.”
This sounds a bit like the story of Warren Buffet paying a higher rate than his secretary, but worse. Or Mitt Romney, with his millions in income, paying at a rate of less than the preferential capital gains rate of 15%, but worse.
Eventually, the IRS did audit Nixon’s returns. Eventually, too, Nixon gave in to the pressure from the press and released 5 years of returns in December 1973 and asked a congressional committee to review his gift of presidential papers. Eventually, Nixon resigned from office under threat of impeachment because of the Watergate coverup, and had to pay a considerable amount to the IRS.
And taxpaying voters lived happily ever after (until now), since every nominee since has released tax returns (except Ford, who released only a summary). So, says Zuckoff, “Nixon got it right: The American people need to know if their president is a crook.”
cross posted with ataxingmatter
It really doesn’t matter, does it?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1993/12/28/bill-clintons-great-skivvies-give-away/0dac853d-cf3d-4faf-8104-bcf124bd93b4/
We know the Clintons are crooks, and it does not matter.
Warren,
What is your major malfunction?
When those federal records Clinton hid on her server get out!
DoJ calls FBI off!
Destroying and hiding federal records are felonies.
With holding tax returns aka privacy is no felony.
Ignoring information security are felonies.
When the “nation of laws” only applies to made up issues like individual tax returns……
The President has the power to sign or veto a bill from Congress that would change the tax laws, including tax rates, estate tax, deductions allowed.
We have seen many years of the Clinton’s tax returns. We know how they would be affected by changes in tax laws. We also know that Bill Clinton signed a tax bill in 1993 that raised tax rates, taking the top rate to 39.6%.
We don’t know anything about Donald Trump’s tax bill, possible tax avoidance schemes, deductions. This is basic information that we need to see how any future tax bill would affect him personally.
He is hoping to end the tradition that started in 1976 of presidential disclosure. If he wins, we will never see another candidate tax return.
Should we not, then, demand that all congresscritters release their tax returns?
Warren,
Yes, that would be helpful. Apparently some states also request tax return disclosure for office. Mark Sanford recently wrote that he released his tax returns for the governors race in South Carolina.
And the Clintons’ returns since 2000 show they paid as much as 60% of their rapaciously-gained incomes in either taxes or charitable contributions. Not even a Cayman Islands account, or a tax inversion scheme to be seen. For being corrupt, they sure are either dumb or very, very good. Of course, the absence of any illegality is proof tat it’s there. Those are the Clinton Rules by which journalists live or die.
Charitable contributions to their own foundation.
Should we not, then, demand that all congresscritters release their tax returns?
Sure, why not? In Norway everyone’s tax return is public.
“Charitable contributions to their own foundation.”
geez
It is pretty bad that a candidate from one of the major parties won’t release his tax returns.