Is there a documented rationale why the House Ways and Means chairman can demand tax info?












11















The BBC says:




House Ways and Means chairman Richard Neal said failure to comply with the new deadline would be interpreted as a denial of request.



One of Mr Trump's top aides said last week that the Democrats would "never" see his tax returns.



Mr Neal is the only member of the House of Representatives authorised to request individual tax information under a federal law. He has asked for six years of Mr Trump's personal and business returns.




Is there some background how this law provision came about? And I don't mean just when, but also why, if there's enough historical record to tell us that.










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Why call it a "request", when the receiving party must comply? Sounds like a euphemism being used all around. It's a subpoena. Resistance can lead to prison time.

    – Michael_B
    10 hours ago











  • Plus, anybody in Congress can request tax info.

    – Michael_B
    10 hours ago











  • @Michael_B: fair enough, I changed the word to "demand" (although the BBC used the euphemism) .

    – Fizz
    10 hours ago


















11















The BBC says:




House Ways and Means chairman Richard Neal said failure to comply with the new deadline would be interpreted as a denial of request.



One of Mr Trump's top aides said last week that the Democrats would "never" see his tax returns.



Mr Neal is the only member of the House of Representatives authorised to request individual tax information under a federal law. He has asked for six years of Mr Trump's personal and business returns.




Is there some background how this law provision came about? And I don't mean just when, but also why, if there's enough historical record to tell us that.










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Why call it a "request", when the receiving party must comply? Sounds like a euphemism being used all around. It's a subpoena. Resistance can lead to prison time.

    – Michael_B
    10 hours ago











  • Plus, anybody in Congress can request tax info.

    – Michael_B
    10 hours ago











  • @Michael_B: fair enough, I changed the word to "demand" (although the BBC used the euphemism) .

    – Fizz
    10 hours ago
















11












11








11








The BBC says:




House Ways and Means chairman Richard Neal said failure to comply with the new deadline would be interpreted as a denial of request.



One of Mr Trump's top aides said last week that the Democrats would "never" see his tax returns.



Mr Neal is the only member of the House of Representatives authorised to request individual tax information under a federal law. He has asked for six years of Mr Trump's personal and business returns.




Is there some background how this law provision came about? And I don't mean just when, but also why, if there's enough historical record to tell us that.










share|improve this question
















The BBC says:




House Ways and Means chairman Richard Neal said failure to comply with the new deadline would be interpreted as a denial of request.



One of Mr Trump's top aides said last week that the Democrats would "never" see his tax returns.



Mr Neal is the only member of the House of Representatives authorised to request individual tax information under a federal law. He has asked for six years of Mr Trump's personal and business returns.




Is there some background how this law provision came about? And I don't mean just when, but also why, if there's enough historical record to tell us that.







united-states law taxes house-of-representatives






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 10 hours ago







Fizz

















asked 20 hours ago









FizzFizz

15.3k23798




15.3k23798








  • 1





    Why call it a "request", when the receiving party must comply? Sounds like a euphemism being used all around. It's a subpoena. Resistance can lead to prison time.

    – Michael_B
    10 hours ago











  • Plus, anybody in Congress can request tax info.

    – Michael_B
    10 hours ago











  • @Michael_B: fair enough, I changed the word to "demand" (although the BBC used the euphemism) .

    – Fizz
    10 hours ago
















  • 1





    Why call it a "request", when the receiving party must comply? Sounds like a euphemism being used all around. It's a subpoena. Resistance can lead to prison time.

    – Michael_B
    10 hours ago











  • Plus, anybody in Congress can request tax info.

    – Michael_B
    10 hours ago











  • @Michael_B: fair enough, I changed the word to "demand" (although the BBC used the euphemism) .

    – Fizz
    10 hours ago










1




1





Why call it a "request", when the receiving party must comply? Sounds like a euphemism being used all around. It's a subpoena. Resistance can lead to prison time.

– Michael_B
10 hours ago





Why call it a "request", when the receiving party must comply? Sounds like a euphemism being used all around. It's a subpoena. Resistance can lead to prison time.

– Michael_B
10 hours ago













Plus, anybody in Congress can request tax info.

– Michael_B
10 hours ago





Plus, anybody in Congress can request tax info.

– Michael_B
10 hours ago













@Michael_B: fair enough, I changed the word to "demand" (although the BBC used the euphemism) .

– Fizz
10 hours ago







@Michael_B: fair enough, I changed the word to "demand" (although the BBC used the euphemism) .

– Fizz
10 hours ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















18














This is explicitly stated in US tax law.



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




(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress



(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation



Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 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.




As best as I can tell, the penalty for failing to comply with a disclosure request can include up to 5 years in prison and the loss of their position. Though proving the requisite "intent to defeat" or other violations may be difficult in this or other situations.



This section of the tax code was enacted with the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (see page 152 in particular), which was a direct response to the tax abuses of the Nixon administration (including his personal tax cheats, which helped force his resignation). This was largely inherited from The Revenue Act of 1924, more details of which you can find in Fizz's answer.



The idea was to balance the needs for individual privacy with the needs for Congress and the government to perform its duties, as well as the general public interest in rooting out corruption.






share|improve this answer


























  • Any odds you located when section (f) was introduced?

    – Denis de Bernardy
    13 hours ago











  • @DenisdeBernardy I'm still trying to sort out Section (f)'s history. I believe the whistleblower provision at the end was added in 1998, but I think item (1) pre-existed that. If you check the first link in the answer there's a "Notes" tab that gives a rundown of amendments, related laws, etc. It's quite lengthy on its own and hard to make much sense out of, but maybe a savvy eye might catch this information therein.

    – zibadawa timmy
    13 hours ago











  • @DenisdeBernardy Found it, it was from the Tax Reforms Act of 1976, which was a response to the abuses of Nixon, though going by Fizz's answer much of this particular subsection predated even that.

    – zibadawa timmy
    11 hours ago













  • @DenisdeBernardy: 1924; minor amendment in 1976.

    – Fizz
    11 hours ago



















7














Reuters has a bit of background:




In 1924, Congress awarded itself the power to obtain tax returns. Previously only the president could disclose them. The change came during a bribery scandal involving federal officials and Wyoming oil field leases known as the Teapot Dome scandal.



The law was crafted in part to help Congress investigate wealthy businessman Andrew Mellon, who was Treasury secretary under Republican President Warren Harding. Like Trump, Mellon kept his business interests while in high public office.



The law says the Treasury secretary “shall furnish” tax returns requested by the chairman of any of three congressional tax panels: the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation.




It's confirmed on Wikipedia's page on the Teapon Dome scandal from a different source, albeit also a pretty recent one




Congress subsequently passed legislation, enduring to this day, giving subpœna power to House and Senate for review of tax records of any US citizen without regard to elected or appointed position, nor subject to White House interference




The fact that tax returns were germane to the scandal is covered in the 2013 book Why Coolidge Matters (p. 134). In 1921 Coolidge (availing himself of the laws in force at the time) refused to release the tax returns of some of the people involved in the scandal, which were being investigated by Congress. This conflict lasted years. Coolidge even rejected the Senate's resolution of 12 March 1924 which was asking for the aforementioned tax records (pp. 142-143).



An article by George K. Yin has more details on the 1924 change, :




Congress changed the law in 1924 to address a
separation-of-powers concern. Democratic Rep.
John Nance Garner of Texas, then-ranking member
of the Ways and Means Committee, described the
problem succinctly on the House floor:




Under the present law, if this House passed a
resolution requesting the Secretary of the Treasury to send the returns of John N. Garner to
Congress, he could not do it without violating
the law. The law tells him that he cannot send
it to the House of Representatives without the
direction of the President of the United States.
So the House of Representatives itself has not
the power to get these returns. Now, I think the
House of Representatives ought to have the power
to ask the Secretary of the Treasury for these
returns and get them.
[Emphasis added.]




Republican Rep. William Green of Iowa, then chair of the Ways and Means Committee, promptly concurred with Garner’s recommendation. The remaining debate mostly concerned which committees should be given the authority — only the tax committees, or other committees as well — and what protection should be given to the confidential information once Congress obtained it. [...]



Several matters, including two involving possible conflicts of interest, helped bring the
separation-of-powers imbalance to Congress’s attention.



During that period, Congress was investigating the Teapot Dome scandal — the alleged
bribery of government officials in exchange for the
leasing of public oil fields to private interests. As
part of its investigation, Congress sought from
President Coolidge the tax returns of the alleged
principals involved in the scandal, but the president
initially resisted the request. Although Coolidge
ultimately acceded, the experience undoubtedly
made Congress aware of its need to be able to
obtain tax information even without the president’s
permission.



Another matter concerned possible conflicts involving former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon,
who continued to own many business interests
while serving in government. Some in Congress
wanted to obtain Mellon’s tax information to learn
how his interests would be affected by tax legislation that Treasury was proposing to Congress.8
Congress was especially exercised by the issue
because of the suspicion that Mellon had previously
revealed to the public the confidential tax information of Republican Sen. James Couzens of Michigan
in connection with a feud between the two men.



Finally, partly as a result of that feud, in early
1924 the Senate began an investigation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (predecessor to today’s
IRS), and its initial inquiries had been stymied by
the inability of the investigating committee to examine tax returns. Among other things, some
members of Congress wanted to determine if the
Bureau had shown favoritism to Mellon and his
companies.



[...]



The unqualified right was necessary
to correct the separation-of-powers imbalance; because the right of access of the president and the
executive branch to the information was unrestricted, so too should be the legislature’s. Aside
from slight changes in the language, the law remains the same today.




As footnoted there, The Revenue Act of 1924, ch. 234, section 257(a) later became Section 6103(f).



Yin also notes:




The 1924 law also authorized the tax committees
to submit any ‘‘relevant or useful’’ tax information
to the House or Senate, effectively making it public.
In 1976 Congress amended the statute to delete the
words ‘‘relevant or useful.’’ Thus, the current code
authorizes the tax committees to submit any tax
information to the House or Senate. [...]



I argued that because public disclosure of confidential information is more violative of privacy rights
than the mere seizure of the same information by
Congress, Congress’s right to disclose must be
subject at a minimum to the same implicit condition
applicable to its investigative power.



In 1974 Democratic Rep. Wilbur Mills of Arkansas, then-chair of
the JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation], referred to the authority [of the 1924 Act] when the committee, on a bipartisan basis, submitted to the House its
staff report containing and analyzing the confidential tax information of President Nixon. Although
Nixon had already released a substantial amount of
his tax information to the public, Mills referred to
the committee’s special authority perhaps out of an
excess of caution.



In 2014 the Ways and Means
Committee invoked the same authority to release to
the public the tax return information of 51 taxpayers.




FWIW, Dave Camp (R.-Mich.) was the Ways &
Means Committee Chairman in 2014.



As background to the background, the general anti-disclosure provision affecting the IRS (except as amended later) goes back to 1894.



An earlier 1921 attempt by Senator Reed (D.-Mo.) to amend it as make returns “open to inspection by any committee of Congress” was dropped (in part) because Senator Smoot (R.-Ut.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee objected to it on privacy basis, although no official explanation exists on record why Reed dropped his amendment. (There seems to be a little historical discrepancy here because Smoot apparently only became chairman of that committee in 1923, but it's unclear what the trajectory of the Reed amendment was and since it's not too germane to my initial question, I won't try to clarify this bit this any further.)






share|improve this answer


























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "475"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40577%2fis-there-a-documented-rationale-why-the-house-ways-and-means-chairman-can-demand%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    18














    This is explicitly stated in US tax law.



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




    (f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress



    (1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation



    Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 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.




    As best as I can tell, the penalty for failing to comply with a disclosure request can include up to 5 years in prison and the loss of their position. Though proving the requisite "intent to defeat" or other violations may be difficult in this or other situations.



    This section of the tax code was enacted with the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (see page 152 in particular), which was a direct response to the tax abuses of the Nixon administration (including his personal tax cheats, which helped force his resignation). This was largely inherited from The Revenue Act of 1924, more details of which you can find in Fizz's answer.



    The idea was to balance the needs for individual privacy with the needs for Congress and the government to perform its duties, as well as the general public interest in rooting out corruption.






    share|improve this answer


























    • Any odds you located when section (f) was introduced?

      – Denis de Bernardy
      13 hours ago











    • @DenisdeBernardy I'm still trying to sort out Section (f)'s history. I believe the whistleblower provision at the end was added in 1998, but I think item (1) pre-existed that. If you check the first link in the answer there's a "Notes" tab that gives a rundown of amendments, related laws, etc. It's quite lengthy on its own and hard to make much sense out of, but maybe a savvy eye might catch this information therein.

      – zibadawa timmy
      13 hours ago











    • @DenisdeBernardy Found it, it was from the Tax Reforms Act of 1976, which was a response to the abuses of Nixon, though going by Fizz's answer much of this particular subsection predated even that.

      – zibadawa timmy
      11 hours ago













    • @DenisdeBernardy: 1924; minor amendment in 1976.

      – Fizz
      11 hours ago
















    18














    This is explicitly stated in US tax law.



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




    (f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress



    (1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation



    Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 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.




    As best as I can tell, the penalty for failing to comply with a disclosure request can include up to 5 years in prison and the loss of their position. Though proving the requisite "intent to defeat" or other violations may be difficult in this or other situations.



    This section of the tax code was enacted with the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (see page 152 in particular), which was a direct response to the tax abuses of the Nixon administration (including his personal tax cheats, which helped force his resignation). This was largely inherited from The Revenue Act of 1924, more details of which you can find in Fizz's answer.



    The idea was to balance the needs for individual privacy with the needs for Congress and the government to perform its duties, as well as the general public interest in rooting out corruption.






    share|improve this answer


























    • Any odds you located when section (f) was introduced?

      – Denis de Bernardy
      13 hours ago











    • @DenisdeBernardy I'm still trying to sort out Section (f)'s history. I believe the whistleblower provision at the end was added in 1998, but I think item (1) pre-existed that. If you check the first link in the answer there's a "Notes" tab that gives a rundown of amendments, related laws, etc. It's quite lengthy on its own and hard to make much sense out of, but maybe a savvy eye might catch this information therein.

      – zibadawa timmy
      13 hours ago











    • @DenisdeBernardy Found it, it was from the Tax Reforms Act of 1976, which was a response to the abuses of Nixon, though going by Fizz's answer much of this particular subsection predated even that.

      – zibadawa timmy
      11 hours ago













    • @DenisdeBernardy: 1924; minor amendment in 1976.

      – Fizz
      11 hours ago














    18












    18








    18







    This is explicitly stated in US tax law.



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




    (f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress



    (1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation



    Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 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.




    As best as I can tell, the penalty for failing to comply with a disclosure request can include up to 5 years in prison and the loss of their position. Though proving the requisite "intent to defeat" or other violations may be difficult in this or other situations.



    This section of the tax code was enacted with the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (see page 152 in particular), which was a direct response to the tax abuses of the Nixon administration (including his personal tax cheats, which helped force his resignation). This was largely inherited from The Revenue Act of 1924, more details of which you can find in Fizz's answer.



    The idea was to balance the needs for individual privacy with the needs for Congress and the government to perform its duties, as well as the general public interest in rooting out corruption.






    share|improve this answer















    This is explicitly stated in US tax law.



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




    (f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress



    (1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation



    Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 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.




    As best as I can tell, the penalty for failing to comply with a disclosure request can include up to 5 years in prison and the loss of their position. Though proving the requisite "intent to defeat" or other violations may be difficult in this or other situations.



    This section of the tax code was enacted with the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (see page 152 in particular), which was a direct response to the tax abuses of the Nixon administration (including his personal tax cheats, which helped force his resignation). This was largely inherited from The Revenue Act of 1924, more details of which you can find in Fizz's answer.



    The idea was to balance the needs for individual privacy with the needs for Congress and the government to perform its duties, as well as the general public interest in rooting out corruption.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 11 hours ago

























    answered 20 hours ago









    zibadawa timmyzibadawa timmy

    4,5001829




    4,5001829













    • Any odds you located when section (f) was introduced?

      – Denis de Bernardy
      13 hours ago











    • @DenisdeBernardy I'm still trying to sort out Section (f)'s history. I believe the whistleblower provision at the end was added in 1998, but I think item (1) pre-existed that. If you check the first link in the answer there's a "Notes" tab that gives a rundown of amendments, related laws, etc. It's quite lengthy on its own and hard to make much sense out of, but maybe a savvy eye might catch this information therein.

      – zibadawa timmy
      13 hours ago











    • @DenisdeBernardy Found it, it was from the Tax Reforms Act of 1976, which was a response to the abuses of Nixon, though going by Fizz's answer much of this particular subsection predated even that.

      – zibadawa timmy
      11 hours ago













    • @DenisdeBernardy: 1924; minor amendment in 1976.

      – Fizz
      11 hours ago



















    • Any odds you located when section (f) was introduced?

      – Denis de Bernardy
      13 hours ago











    • @DenisdeBernardy I'm still trying to sort out Section (f)'s history. I believe the whistleblower provision at the end was added in 1998, but I think item (1) pre-existed that. If you check the first link in the answer there's a "Notes" tab that gives a rundown of amendments, related laws, etc. It's quite lengthy on its own and hard to make much sense out of, but maybe a savvy eye might catch this information therein.

      – zibadawa timmy
      13 hours ago











    • @DenisdeBernardy Found it, it was from the Tax Reforms Act of 1976, which was a response to the abuses of Nixon, though going by Fizz's answer much of this particular subsection predated even that.

      – zibadawa timmy
      11 hours ago













    • @DenisdeBernardy: 1924; minor amendment in 1976.

      – Fizz
      11 hours ago

















    Any odds you located when section (f) was introduced?

    – Denis de Bernardy
    13 hours ago





    Any odds you located when section (f) was introduced?

    – Denis de Bernardy
    13 hours ago













    @DenisdeBernardy I'm still trying to sort out Section (f)'s history. I believe the whistleblower provision at the end was added in 1998, but I think item (1) pre-existed that. If you check the first link in the answer there's a "Notes" tab that gives a rundown of amendments, related laws, etc. It's quite lengthy on its own and hard to make much sense out of, but maybe a savvy eye might catch this information therein.

    – zibadawa timmy
    13 hours ago





    @DenisdeBernardy I'm still trying to sort out Section (f)'s history. I believe the whistleblower provision at the end was added in 1998, but I think item (1) pre-existed that. If you check the first link in the answer there's a "Notes" tab that gives a rundown of amendments, related laws, etc. It's quite lengthy on its own and hard to make much sense out of, but maybe a savvy eye might catch this information therein.

    – zibadawa timmy
    13 hours ago













    @DenisdeBernardy Found it, it was from the Tax Reforms Act of 1976, which was a response to the abuses of Nixon, though going by Fizz's answer much of this particular subsection predated even that.

    – zibadawa timmy
    11 hours ago







    @DenisdeBernardy Found it, it was from the Tax Reforms Act of 1976, which was a response to the abuses of Nixon, though going by Fizz's answer much of this particular subsection predated even that.

    – zibadawa timmy
    11 hours ago















    @DenisdeBernardy: 1924; minor amendment in 1976.

    – Fizz
    11 hours ago





    @DenisdeBernardy: 1924; minor amendment in 1976.

    – Fizz
    11 hours ago











    7














    Reuters has a bit of background:




    In 1924, Congress awarded itself the power to obtain tax returns. Previously only the president could disclose them. The change came during a bribery scandal involving federal officials and Wyoming oil field leases known as the Teapot Dome scandal.



    The law was crafted in part to help Congress investigate wealthy businessman Andrew Mellon, who was Treasury secretary under Republican President Warren Harding. Like Trump, Mellon kept his business interests while in high public office.



    The law says the Treasury secretary “shall furnish” tax returns requested by the chairman of any of three congressional tax panels: the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation.




    It's confirmed on Wikipedia's page on the Teapon Dome scandal from a different source, albeit also a pretty recent one




    Congress subsequently passed legislation, enduring to this day, giving subpœna power to House and Senate for review of tax records of any US citizen without regard to elected or appointed position, nor subject to White House interference




    The fact that tax returns were germane to the scandal is covered in the 2013 book Why Coolidge Matters (p. 134). In 1921 Coolidge (availing himself of the laws in force at the time) refused to release the tax returns of some of the people involved in the scandal, which were being investigated by Congress. This conflict lasted years. Coolidge even rejected the Senate's resolution of 12 March 1924 which was asking for the aforementioned tax records (pp. 142-143).



    An article by George K. Yin has more details on the 1924 change, :




    Congress changed the law in 1924 to address a
    separation-of-powers concern. Democratic Rep.
    John Nance Garner of Texas, then-ranking member
    of the Ways and Means Committee, described the
    problem succinctly on the House floor:




    Under the present law, if this House passed a
    resolution requesting the Secretary of the Treasury to send the returns of John N. Garner to
    Congress, he could not do it without violating
    the law. The law tells him that he cannot send
    it to the House of Representatives without the
    direction of the President of the United States.
    So the House of Representatives itself has not
    the power to get these returns. Now, I think the
    House of Representatives ought to have the power
    to ask the Secretary of the Treasury for these
    returns and get them.
    [Emphasis added.]




    Republican Rep. William Green of Iowa, then chair of the Ways and Means Committee, promptly concurred with Garner’s recommendation. The remaining debate mostly concerned which committees should be given the authority — only the tax committees, or other committees as well — and what protection should be given to the confidential information once Congress obtained it. [...]



    Several matters, including two involving possible conflicts of interest, helped bring the
    separation-of-powers imbalance to Congress’s attention.



    During that period, Congress was investigating the Teapot Dome scandal — the alleged
    bribery of government officials in exchange for the
    leasing of public oil fields to private interests. As
    part of its investigation, Congress sought from
    President Coolidge the tax returns of the alleged
    principals involved in the scandal, but the president
    initially resisted the request. Although Coolidge
    ultimately acceded, the experience undoubtedly
    made Congress aware of its need to be able to
    obtain tax information even without the president’s
    permission.



    Another matter concerned possible conflicts involving former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon,
    who continued to own many business interests
    while serving in government. Some in Congress
    wanted to obtain Mellon’s tax information to learn
    how his interests would be affected by tax legislation that Treasury was proposing to Congress.8
    Congress was especially exercised by the issue
    because of the suspicion that Mellon had previously
    revealed to the public the confidential tax information of Republican Sen. James Couzens of Michigan
    in connection with a feud between the two men.



    Finally, partly as a result of that feud, in early
    1924 the Senate began an investigation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (predecessor to today’s
    IRS), and its initial inquiries had been stymied by
    the inability of the investigating committee to examine tax returns. Among other things, some
    members of Congress wanted to determine if the
    Bureau had shown favoritism to Mellon and his
    companies.



    [...]



    The unqualified right was necessary
    to correct the separation-of-powers imbalance; because the right of access of the president and the
    executive branch to the information was unrestricted, so too should be the legislature’s. Aside
    from slight changes in the language, the law remains the same today.




    As footnoted there, The Revenue Act of 1924, ch. 234, section 257(a) later became Section 6103(f).



    Yin also notes:




    The 1924 law also authorized the tax committees
    to submit any ‘‘relevant or useful’’ tax information
    to the House or Senate, effectively making it public.
    In 1976 Congress amended the statute to delete the
    words ‘‘relevant or useful.’’ Thus, the current code
    authorizes the tax committees to submit any tax
    information to the House or Senate. [...]



    I argued that because public disclosure of confidential information is more violative of privacy rights
    than the mere seizure of the same information by
    Congress, Congress’s right to disclose must be
    subject at a minimum to the same implicit condition
    applicable to its investigative power.



    In 1974 Democratic Rep. Wilbur Mills of Arkansas, then-chair of
    the JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation], referred to the authority [of the 1924 Act] when the committee, on a bipartisan basis, submitted to the House its
    staff report containing and analyzing the confidential tax information of President Nixon. Although
    Nixon had already released a substantial amount of
    his tax information to the public, Mills referred to
    the committee’s special authority perhaps out of an
    excess of caution.



    In 2014 the Ways and Means
    Committee invoked the same authority to release to
    the public the tax return information of 51 taxpayers.




    FWIW, Dave Camp (R.-Mich.) was the Ways &
    Means Committee Chairman in 2014.



    As background to the background, the general anti-disclosure provision affecting the IRS (except as amended later) goes back to 1894.



    An earlier 1921 attempt by Senator Reed (D.-Mo.) to amend it as make returns “open to inspection by any committee of Congress” was dropped (in part) because Senator Smoot (R.-Ut.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee objected to it on privacy basis, although no official explanation exists on record why Reed dropped his amendment. (There seems to be a little historical discrepancy here because Smoot apparently only became chairman of that committee in 1923, but it's unclear what the trajectory of the Reed amendment was and since it's not too germane to my initial question, I won't try to clarify this bit this any further.)






    share|improve this answer






























      7














      Reuters has a bit of background:




      In 1924, Congress awarded itself the power to obtain tax returns. Previously only the president could disclose them. The change came during a bribery scandal involving federal officials and Wyoming oil field leases known as the Teapot Dome scandal.



      The law was crafted in part to help Congress investigate wealthy businessman Andrew Mellon, who was Treasury secretary under Republican President Warren Harding. Like Trump, Mellon kept his business interests while in high public office.



      The law says the Treasury secretary “shall furnish” tax returns requested by the chairman of any of three congressional tax panels: the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation.




      It's confirmed on Wikipedia's page on the Teapon Dome scandal from a different source, albeit also a pretty recent one




      Congress subsequently passed legislation, enduring to this day, giving subpœna power to House and Senate for review of tax records of any US citizen without regard to elected or appointed position, nor subject to White House interference




      The fact that tax returns were germane to the scandal is covered in the 2013 book Why Coolidge Matters (p. 134). In 1921 Coolidge (availing himself of the laws in force at the time) refused to release the tax returns of some of the people involved in the scandal, which were being investigated by Congress. This conflict lasted years. Coolidge even rejected the Senate's resolution of 12 March 1924 which was asking for the aforementioned tax records (pp. 142-143).



      An article by George K. Yin has more details on the 1924 change, :




      Congress changed the law in 1924 to address a
      separation-of-powers concern. Democratic Rep.
      John Nance Garner of Texas, then-ranking member
      of the Ways and Means Committee, described the
      problem succinctly on the House floor:




      Under the present law, if this House passed a
      resolution requesting the Secretary of the Treasury to send the returns of John N. Garner to
      Congress, he could not do it without violating
      the law. The law tells him that he cannot send
      it to the House of Representatives without the
      direction of the President of the United States.
      So the House of Representatives itself has not
      the power to get these returns. Now, I think the
      House of Representatives ought to have the power
      to ask the Secretary of the Treasury for these
      returns and get them.
      [Emphasis added.]




      Republican Rep. William Green of Iowa, then chair of the Ways and Means Committee, promptly concurred with Garner’s recommendation. The remaining debate mostly concerned which committees should be given the authority — only the tax committees, or other committees as well — and what protection should be given to the confidential information once Congress obtained it. [...]



      Several matters, including two involving possible conflicts of interest, helped bring the
      separation-of-powers imbalance to Congress’s attention.



      During that period, Congress was investigating the Teapot Dome scandal — the alleged
      bribery of government officials in exchange for the
      leasing of public oil fields to private interests. As
      part of its investigation, Congress sought from
      President Coolidge the tax returns of the alleged
      principals involved in the scandal, but the president
      initially resisted the request. Although Coolidge
      ultimately acceded, the experience undoubtedly
      made Congress aware of its need to be able to
      obtain tax information even without the president’s
      permission.



      Another matter concerned possible conflicts involving former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon,
      who continued to own many business interests
      while serving in government. Some in Congress
      wanted to obtain Mellon’s tax information to learn
      how his interests would be affected by tax legislation that Treasury was proposing to Congress.8
      Congress was especially exercised by the issue
      because of the suspicion that Mellon had previously
      revealed to the public the confidential tax information of Republican Sen. James Couzens of Michigan
      in connection with a feud between the two men.



      Finally, partly as a result of that feud, in early
      1924 the Senate began an investigation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (predecessor to today’s
      IRS), and its initial inquiries had been stymied by
      the inability of the investigating committee to examine tax returns. Among other things, some
      members of Congress wanted to determine if the
      Bureau had shown favoritism to Mellon and his
      companies.



      [...]



      The unqualified right was necessary
      to correct the separation-of-powers imbalance; because the right of access of the president and the
      executive branch to the information was unrestricted, so too should be the legislature’s. Aside
      from slight changes in the language, the law remains the same today.




      As footnoted there, The Revenue Act of 1924, ch. 234, section 257(a) later became Section 6103(f).



      Yin also notes:




      The 1924 law also authorized the tax committees
      to submit any ‘‘relevant or useful’’ tax information
      to the House or Senate, effectively making it public.
      In 1976 Congress amended the statute to delete the
      words ‘‘relevant or useful.’’ Thus, the current code
      authorizes the tax committees to submit any tax
      information to the House or Senate. [...]



      I argued that because public disclosure of confidential information is more violative of privacy rights
      than the mere seizure of the same information by
      Congress, Congress’s right to disclose must be
      subject at a minimum to the same implicit condition
      applicable to its investigative power.



      In 1974 Democratic Rep. Wilbur Mills of Arkansas, then-chair of
      the JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation], referred to the authority [of the 1924 Act] when the committee, on a bipartisan basis, submitted to the House its
      staff report containing and analyzing the confidential tax information of President Nixon. Although
      Nixon had already released a substantial amount of
      his tax information to the public, Mills referred to
      the committee’s special authority perhaps out of an
      excess of caution.



      In 2014 the Ways and Means
      Committee invoked the same authority to release to
      the public the tax return information of 51 taxpayers.




      FWIW, Dave Camp (R.-Mich.) was the Ways &
      Means Committee Chairman in 2014.



      As background to the background, the general anti-disclosure provision affecting the IRS (except as amended later) goes back to 1894.



      An earlier 1921 attempt by Senator Reed (D.-Mo.) to amend it as make returns “open to inspection by any committee of Congress” was dropped (in part) because Senator Smoot (R.-Ut.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee objected to it on privacy basis, although no official explanation exists on record why Reed dropped his amendment. (There seems to be a little historical discrepancy here because Smoot apparently only became chairman of that committee in 1923, but it's unclear what the trajectory of the Reed amendment was and since it's not too germane to my initial question, I won't try to clarify this bit this any further.)






      share|improve this answer




























        7












        7








        7







        Reuters has a bit of background:




        In 1924, Congress awarded itself the power to obtain tax returns. Previously only the president could disclose them. The change came during a bribery scandal involving federal officials and Wyoming oil field leases known as the Teapot Dome scandal.



        The law was crafted in part to help Congress investigate wealthy businessman Andrew Mellon, who was Treasury secretary under Republican President Warren Harding. Like Trump, Mellon kept his business interests while in high public office.



        The law says the Treasury secretary “shall furnish” tax returns requested by the chairman of any of three congressional tax panels: the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation.




        It's confirmed on Wikipedia's page on the Teapon Dome scandal from a different source, albeit also a pretty recent one




        Congress subsequently passed legislation, enduring to this day, giving subpœna power to House and Senate for review of tax records of any US citizen without regard to elected or appointed position, nor subject to White House interference




        The fact that tax returns were germane to the scandal is covered in the 2013 book Why Coolidge Matters (p. 134). In 1921 Coolidge (availing himself of the laws in force at the time) refused to release the tax returns of some of the people involved in the scandal, which were being investigated by Congress. This conflict lasted years. Coolidge even rejected the Senate's resolution of 12 March 1924 which was asking for the aforementioned tax records (pp. 142-143).



        An article by George K. Yin has more details on the 1924 change, :




        Congress changed the law in 1924 to address a
        separation-of-powers concern. Democratic Rep.
        John Nance Garner of Texas, then-ranking member
        of the Ways and Means Committee, described the
        problem succinctly on the House floor:




        Under the present law, if this House passed a
        resolution requesting the Secretary of the Treasury to send the returns of John N. Garner to
        Congress, he could not do it without violating
        the law. The law tells him that he cannot send
        it to the House of Representatives without the
        direction of the President of the United States.
        So the House of Representatives itself has not
        the power to get these returns. Now, I think the
        House of Representatives ought to have the power
        to ask the Secretary of the Treasury for these
        returns and get them.
        [Emphasis added.]




        Republican Rep. William Green of Iowa, then chair of the Ways and Means Committee, promptly concurred with Garner’s recommendation. The remaining debate mostly concerned which committees should be given the authority — only the tax committees, or other committees as well — and what protection should be given to the confidential information once Congress obtained it. [...]



        Several matters, including two involving possible conflicts of interest, helped bring the
        separation-of-powers imbalance to Congress’s attention.



        During that period, Congress was investigating the Teapot Dome scandal — the alleged
        bribery of government officials in exchange for the
        leasing of public oil fields to private interests. As
        part of its investigation, Congress sought from
        President Coolidge the tax returns of the alleged
        principals involved in the scandal, but the president
        initially resisted the request. Although Coolidge
        ultimately acceded, the experience undoubtedly
        made Congress aware of its need to be able to
        obtain tax information even without the president’s
        permission.



        Another matter concerned possible conflicts involving former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon,
        who continued to own many business interests
        while serving in government. Some in Congress
        wanted to obtain Mellon’s tax information to learn
        how his interests would be affected by tax legislation that Treasury was proposing to Congress.8
        Congress was especially exercised by the issue
        because of the suspicion that Mellon had previously
        revealed to the public the confidential tax information of Republican Sen. James Couzens of Michigan
        in connection with a feud between the two men.



        Finally, partly as a result of that feud, in early
        1924 the Senate began an investigation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (predecessor to today’s
        IRS), and its initial inquiries had been stymied by
        the inability of the investigating committee to examine tax returns. Among other things, some
        members of Congress wanted to determine if the
        Bureau had shown favoritism to Mellon and his
        companies.



        [...]



        The unqualified right was necessary
        to correct the separation-of-powers imbalance; because the right of access of the president and the
        executive branch to the information was unrestricted, so too should be the legislature’s. Aside
        from slight changes in the language, the law remains the same today.




        As footnoted there, The Revenue Act of 1924, ch. 234, section 257(a) later became Section 6103(f).



        Yin also notes:




        The 1924 law also authorized the tax committees
        to submit any ‘‘relevant or useful’’ tax information
        to the House or Senate, effectively making it public.
        In 1976 Congress amended the statute to delete the
        words ‘‘relevant or useful.’’ Thus, the current code
        authorizes the tax committees to submit any tax
        information to the House or Senate. [...]



        I argued that because public disclosure of confidential information is more violative of privacy rights
        than the mere seizure of the same information by
        Congress, Congress’s right to disclose must be
        subject at a minimum to the same implicit condition
        applicable to its investigative power.



        In 1974 Democratic Rep. Wilbur Mills of Arkansas, then-chair of
        the JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation], referred to the authority [of the 1924 Act] when the committee, on a bipartisan basis, submitted to the House its
        staff report containing and analyzing the confidential tax information of President Nixon. Although
        Nixon had already released a substantial amount of
        his tax information to the public, Mills referred to
        the committee’s special authority perhaps out of an
        excess of caution.



        In 2014 the Ways and Means
        Committee invoked the same authority to release to
        the public the tax return information of 51 taxpayers.




        FWIW, Dave Camp (R.-Mich.) was the Ways &
        Means Committee Chairman in 2014.



        As background to the background, the general anti-disclosure provision affecting the IRS (except as amended later) goes back to 1894.



        An earlier 1921 attempt by Senator Reed (D.-Mo.) to amend it as make returns “open to inspection by any committee of Congress” was dropped (in part) because Senator Smoot (R.-Ut.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee objected to it on privacy basis, although no official explanation exists on record why Reed dropped his amendment. (There seems to be a little historical discrepancy here because Smoot apparently only became chairman of that committee in 1923, but it's unclear what the trajectory of the Reed amendment was and since it's not too germane to my initial question, I won't try to clarify this bit this any further.)






        share|improve this answer















        Reuters has a bit of background:




        In 1924, Congress awarded itself the power to obtain tax returns. Previously only the president could disclose them. The change came during a bribery scandal involving federal officials and Wyoming oil field leases known as the Teapot Dome scandal.



        The law was crafted in part to help Congress investigate wealthy businessman Andrew Mellon, who was Treasury secretary under Republican President Warren Harding. Like Trump, Mellon kept his business interests while in high public office.



        The law says the Treasury secretary “shall furnish” tax returns requested by the chairman of any of three congressional tax panels: the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation.




        It's confirmed on Wikipedia's page on the Teapon Dome scandal from a different source, albeit also a pretty recent one




        Congress subsequently passed legislation, enduring to this day, giving subpœna power to House and Senate for review of tax records of any US citizen without regard to elected or appointed position, nor subject to White House interference




        The fact that tax returns were germane to the scandal is covered in the 2013 book Why Coolidge Matters (p. 134). In 1921 Coolidge (availing himself of the laws in force at the time) refused to release the tax returns of some of the people involved in the scandal, which were being investigated by Congress. This conflict lasted years. Coolidge even rejected the Senate's resolution of 12 March 1924 which was asking for the aforementioned tax records (pp. 142-143).



        An article by George K. Yin has more details on the 1924 change, :




        Congress changed the law in 1924 to address a
        separation-of-powers concern. Democratic Rep.
        John Nance Garner of Texas, then-ranking member
        of the Ways and Means Committee, described the
        problem succinctly on the House floor:




        Under the present law, if this House passed a
        resolution requesting the Secretary of the Treasury to send the returns of John N. Garner to
        Congress, he could not do it without violating
        the law. The law tells him that he cannot send
        it to the House of Representatives without the
        direction of the President of the United States.
        So the House of Representatives itself has not
        the power to get these returns. Now, I think the
        House of Representatives ought to have the power
        to ask the Secretary of the Treasury for these
        returns and get them.
        [Emphasis added.]




        Republican Rep. William Green of Iowa, then chair of the Ways and Means Committee, promptly concurred with Garner’s recommendation. The remaining debate mostly concerned which committees should be given the authority — only the tax committees, or other committees as well — and what protection should be given to the confidential information once Congress obtained it. [...]



        Several matters, including two involving possible conflicts of interest, helped bring the
        separation-of-powers imbalance to Congress’s attention.



        During that period, Congress was investigating the Teapot Dome scandal — the alleged
        bribery of government officials in exchange for the
        leasing of public oil fields to private interests. As
        part of its investigation, Congress sought from
        President Coolidge the tax returns of the alleged
        principals involved in the scandal, but the president
        initially resisted the request. Although Coolidge
        ultimately acceded, the experience undoubtedly
        made Congress aware of its need to be able to
        obtain tax information even without the president’s
        permission.



        Another matter concerned possible conflicts involving former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon,
        who continued to own many business interests
        while serving in government. Some in Congress
        wanted to obtain Mellon’s tax information to learn
        how his interests would be affected by tax legislation that Treasury was proposing to Congress.8
        Congress was especially exercised by the issue
        because of the suspicion that Mellon had previously
        revealed to the public the confidential tax information of Republican Sen. James Couzens of Michigan
        in connection with a feud between the two men.



        Finally, partly as a result of that feud, in early
        1924 the Senate began an investigation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (predecessor to today’s
        IRS), and its initial inquiries had been stymied by
        the inability of the investigating committee to examine tax returns. Among other things, some
        members of Congress wanted to determine if the
        Bureau had shown favoritism to Mellon and his
        companies.



        [...]



        The unqualified right was necessary
        to correct the separation-of-powers imbalance; because the right of access of the president and the
        executive branch to the information was unrestricted, so too should be the legislature’s. Aside
        from slight changes in the language, the law remains the same today.




        As footnoted there, The Revenue Act of 1924, ch. 234, section 257(a) later became Section 6103(f).



        Yin also notes:




        The 1924 law also authorized the tax committees
        to submit any ‘‘relevant or useful’’ tax information
        to the House or Senate, effectively making it public.
        In 1976 Congress amended the statute to delete the
        words ‘‘relevant or useful.’’ Thus, the current code
        authorizes the tax committees to submit any tax
        information to the House or Senate. [...]



        I argued that because public disclosure of confidential information is more violative of privacy rights
        than the mere seizure of the same information by
        Congress, Congress’s right to disclose must be
        subject at a minimum to the same implicit condition
        applicable to its investigative power.



        In 1974 Democratic Rep. Wilbur Mills of Arkansas, then-chair of
        the JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation], referred to the authority [of the 1924 Act] when the committee, on a bipartisan basis, submitted to the House its
        staff report containing and analyzing the confidential tax information of President Nixon. Although
        Nixon had already released a substantial amount of
        his tax information to the public, Mills referred to
        the committee’s special authority perhaps out of an
        excess of caution.



        In 2014 the Ways and Means
        Committee invoked the same authority to release to
        the public the tax return information of 51 taxpayers.




        FWIW, Dave Camp (R.-Mich.) was the Ways &
        Means Committee Chairman in 2014.



        As background to the background, the general anti-disclosure provision affecting the IRS (except as amended later) goes back to 1894.



        An earlier 1921 attempt by Senator Reed (D.-Mo.) to amend it as make returns “open to inspection by any committee of Congress” was dropped (in part) because Senator Smoot (R.-Ut.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee objected to it on privacy basis, although no official explanation exists on record why Reed dropped his amendment. (There seems to be a little historical discrepancy here because Smoot apparently only became chairman of that committee in 1923, but it's unclear what the trajectory of the Reed amendment was and since it's not too germane to my initial question, I won't try to clarify this bit this any further.)







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 10 hours ago

























        answered 12 hours ago









        FizzFizz

        15.3k23798




        15.3k23798






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40577%2fis-there-a-documented-rationale-why-the-house-ways-and-means-chairman-can-demand%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            GameSpot

            日野市

            Tu-95轟炸機