Maybe I missed it but how did this tax information come to be? How was it obtained?
Not defending Trump in the least, but I have many questions about the setup of this article:
1) Tax records are protected under severe criminal and civil penalties under IRS Pub 1075 (Federal Tax Information). A revenue employee can be fired, fined, and/or imprisoned for searching anyone’s (including his/her own) personal tax records in a revenue database or receiving such information.
*”Tax records” are quoted numerous times. Where did they originate?
2) “Private records” are deemed private by society in general, and no one wants their own private records disclosed to the general public. And if those records are obtained illegally, the possession and transfer of them pose its own moral and legal dilemmas.
*Where did the “private records” originate?
3) Tax avoidance is not illegal because the taxpayer is operating within the confines of existing tax law (regardless of one’s opinion of the fairness of specific policies). Tax evasion is illegal because taxpayers operate outside of tax policy. Most folks on this board practice tax avoidance to every extent possible, most often through pre-tax deductions. And folks who have income sources beyond W2s often have ways to use their enterprises legally to minimize their tax liability.
Aside: I am certain that most do not pay their fair share of state use tax for items purchased online and out of state unless auto withheld by larger companies like Amazon. It would be interesting to know how many people do that “willingly and knowledgeably.” Just an observation not meant to defend any tax evasion that might exist by any party.
4) Who owns the burden of proof in this situation? If tax records are protected and disclosure of private records is unethical, how should this be defended? The only acceptable defense against this case of assertion (per CNN’s own articles and interviews) would be the exposure of private information—a norm established by precedent, not law. And the court of public opinion voted that as less important than other factors in the last election. If we want to change tax policy for rich folks, write new policy. If we want to ensure that an elected official cannot sit in office without disclosing private information, write new ethics laws. Demonizing a person who exercises their lawful choices and is willing to face the consequences (from voters or auditors) doesn’t build a credible case. If an assertion of an offense can’t be defended adequately by an assertion of innocence, then we have a hostile he said/she said situation—just before the first debate, the timing of which also seems highly suspect, similar to the Brett Kavanaugh accusations.
And Trump is guilty of numerous sins which I can’t begin to count, but I do believe it’s disingenuous to claim the higher ground and act as though the end justifies the means when it suits us. This seems more like a “he’s doing bad to us so we’re going to do bad back to him.”