House Ways and Means Complaint

Case 1:19-cv-01974 Document 1 Filed 07/02/19 Page 1 of 49
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

THE TREASURY,
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
STEVEN T. MNUCHIN,
in his official capacity as Secretary of the
United States Department of the Treasury,
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
CHARLES P. RETTIG,
in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
Internal Revenue Service,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
1. The Committee on Ways and Means of the United States House of
Representatives (Ways and Means or Committee) brings this action against Defendants United
States Department of the Treasury (Treasury or Treasury Department), the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS), Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin, and IRS Commissioner Charles P. Rettig
to seek relief from Defendants’ refusal to produce tax return information concerning President
Donald J. Trump in response to the Committee’s valid oversight requests.
2. Section 6103(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f), requires in
mandatory terms that Treasury “shall furnish” the Committee with “any” requested tax return
information. Enacted in 1924, in the wake of Congressional attempts to investigate agency
wrongdoing in the Teapot Dome corruption scandal, Section 6103(f) was intended to provide the
Committee with unfettered access to tax return information necessary to carry out its broad
mandate to oversee Treasury, the IRS, and the Nation’s tax laws. Since its passage, the
Committee has routinely used Section 6103(f) for these purposes, and the Executive Branch has
met its duty to comply with those requests.
3. Defendants have now—for what the Committee believes is the first time ever—
denied a Section 6103(f) request in order to shield President Trump’s tax return information from
Congressional scrutiny. In refusing to comply with the statute, Defendants have mounted an
extraordinary attack on the authority of Congress to obtain information needed to conduct
oversight of Treasury, the IRS, and the tax laws on behalf of the American people who
participate in the Nation’s voluntary tax system.
4. Nothing in Section 6103(f) requires the Committee to explain to Treasury its
reasons for seeking tax return information. But the Committee’s need for the materials requested
here is evident. The Committee is investigating the IRS’s administration of various tax laws and
policies relating to Presidential tax returns and tax law compliance by President Trump,
including whether the IRS’s self-imposed policy of annually auditing the returns of sitting
2
Presidents is working properly, even though it has not been updated in decades. Indeed,
President Trump himself has repeatedly questioned the integrity of the process by which the IRS
audits his tax returns, complaining that his returns are under “continuous audit” and that the
IRS’s policy of annually auditing Presidential returns is “extremely unfair.” The President has
also publicly theorized that the IRS audits him because of his assertedly strong Christian faith.
5. These complaints by President Trump underscore the appropriateness of the
Committee’s review of IRS audits of Presidential returns, including those of President Trump.
6. Thus far, however, the Committee has been unable to evaluate President Trump’s
claims about the audit program or investigate its other concerns because the President has
declined to follow the practice of every elected President since Richard Nixon of voluntarily
disclosing their tax returns. Without reviewing the requested return materials, the Committee
cannot ensure that the IRS’s audit process is functioning fairly and effectively, understand how
provisions of the tax code are implicated by President Trump’s returns, or exercise its legislative
judgment to determine whether changes to the code may be warranted.
7. Not only have Defendants improperly denied the Committee’s Section 6103(f)
request, they have also refused to comply with the Committee’s duly authorized subpoenas for
nearly identical information. For each refusal, Defendants cited advice from the Office of Legal
Counsel of the Department of Justice (OLC), which concluded that Defendants correctly
disregarded the statutory command in Section 6103(f) as well as the Committee’s subpoenas
because OLC has purported to detect a “political” motive for these requests.
8. But Defendants, abetted by OLC, gravely misunderstand the operative law: The
Committee’s power to conduct oversight and investigations is firmly rooted in Congress’s
Article I legislative authority. And courts have long recognized that Congress’s “power of
3
inquiry—with process to enforce it—is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative
function.”1 It is not for the Executive or the Judiciary to examine the Committee’s motivations
for its oversight inquiries. Nor does the Executive’s disdain for the Committee’s investigation
provide any basis for the denial of the Committee’s Section 6103(f) request.
9. Defendants’ continued refusal to produce the requested materials—in violation of
Section 6103(f), the Committee’s Article I subpoena power, and the Administrative Procedure
Act—is depriving the Committee of information necessary to complete its time-limited
investigation, thereby impeding its most basic constitutional functions. To redress these injuries,
the Committee asks this Court to order Defendants to comply with Section 6103(f) and the
subpoenas by producing the requested information immediately.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361. The
Committee’s claims arise under Article I of the U.S. Constitution and various federal statutes, 5
U.S.C. §§ 702, 704, 706; 26 U.S.C. § 6103; 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202; and 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
11. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (e), and 5
U.S.C. § 703.
PARTIES
12. Plaintiff Committee on Ways and Means is a standing committee of the United
States House of Representatives that, among other things, conducts Congressional oversight of
Treasury, the IRS, and the administration of our Nation’s tax laws.
13. Defendant United States Department of the Treasury is a federal agency
headquartered in Washington, D.C. It is the Executive Branch agency responsible for
1
McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927).
4
administering and enforcing the Nation’s tax laws and determining tax policy for the Executive
Branch.
14. Defendant Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Treasury Department
headquartered in Washington, D.C. It is responsible for assessing and collecting internal revenue
in the United States and for processing and determining the accuracy of income tax returns,
including, where appropriate, by auditing returns.
15. Defendant Steven T. Mnuchin is sued in his official capacity as Secretary of the
Treasury Department.
16. Defendant Charles P. Rettig is sued in his official capacity as Commissioner of
the IRS.
17. Defendants have possession, custody, and control over the information sought by
the Committee.
ALLEGATIONS
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. The Committee’s Constitutional Authority to Investigate Tax-Related Matters

and Conduct Oversight of Treasury and the IRS
18. Article I of the Constitution vests Congress with “[a]ll legislative Powers.”2
These powers include the authority to inquire into and investigate matters relating to subjects
within Congress’s broad legislative purview; conduct oversight of Executive Branch agencies;
examine whether those agencies are faithfully, effectively, and efficiently executing the laws;
and determine whether changes to federal law are necessary and proper.
2
U.S. Const., Art. I, § 1.
5
19. The Origination Clause of the Constitution provides that “[a]ll Bills for raising
Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,” granting the House primary authority
regarding most federal income tax-related legislation.3
20. The Constitution expressly commits to each chamber of Congress the authority to
“determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”4 Pursuant to this authority, the 116th Congress
adopted the Rules of the House of Representatives (House Rules), which govern the House
during the current two-year term.5 The House Rules establish various standing committees,
including Ways and Means, and delegate “jurisdiction and related functions” to each.6 Ways and
Means’s jurisdiction includes “Revenue measures generally,” “Deposit of public monies,” “Tax
exempt foundations and charitable trusts,” and “National social security.”7
21. As a standing committee, Ways and Means also possesses “general oversight
responsibilities.”8 It thus is charged “on a continuing basis” with reviewing “the application,
administration, execution, and effectiveness of laws and programs” within its jurisdiction, as
well as “the organization and operation of [the] Federal agencies and entities” responsible for
administering these laws and programs.9 The Committee must determine whether such laws are
being “implemented and carried out in accordance with the intent of Congress” and if there are
“any conditions or circumstances that may indicate the necessity or desirability of enacting new
3
U.S. Const., Art. I, § 7, cl. 1.
4
U.S. Const., Art. I, § 5, cl. 2.
5
See H. Res. 6, 116th Cong. (2019) (adopting House Rules for 116th Congress).
6
Rule X.1, Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives (116th Cong.),
https://tinyurl.com/116thHouseRules.
7
House Rule X.1(t)(3), (6), (8), (9).
8
House Rule X.2(a).
9
House Rule X.2(b)(1).
6
or additional legislation.”10 The House Rules further mandate that “[a]ll bills, resolutions, and
other matters relating to” subjects within the Committee’s jurisdiction be referred to the
Committee for its consideration.11
22. The House Rules empower the Committee to “conduct at any time such
investigations and studies as it considers necessary or appropriate” of the matters within its
jurisdiction.12 To aid with these inquiries, it may issue subpoenas for testimony and
documents—a power that, as permitted by House Rule XI, the Committee has delegated to its
Chairperson.13
B. The IRS’s Nearly Century-Old Mandatory Duty to Provide Tax Return

Information to the Committee
23. To facilitate the Committee’s legislative, investigative, and oversight
responsibilities, Congress has imposed a mandatory duty on Treasury—codified in the tax code
for close to a century—to provide the Committee with a broad array of tax return and related
information.
24. Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code generally prohibits the disclosure of
tax return information by Treasury, absent an explicit statutory exception.14 One such exception,
Section 6103(f), requires in clear and mandatory terms that the agency disclose such information
upon the request of the Chairman of any of the three Congressional committees with jurisdiction
10
Id.
11
House Rule X.1, XII.2.
12
House Rule XI.1(b)(1).
13
See House Rule XI.2(m)(1)(B); House Rule XI.2(m)(3)(A)(i); Rule 15, Rules of the
Committee on Ways and Means for the 116th Congress (Jan. 24, 2019),
https://tinyurl.com/WaysMeansRules (Committee Rules).
14
26 U.S.C. § 6103(a).
7
over federal tax issues—specifically, the House Committee on Ways and Means, the Senate
Committee on Finance, and the Joint Committee on Taxation.15
25. Section 6103(f)(1) provides in full: “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.”16
26. Congress has further defined the term “return” to mean “any tax or information
return, declaration of estimated tax, or claim for refund required by, or provided for or permitted
under” the tax code, including “any amendment or supplement thereto, including supporting
schedules, attachments, or lists which are supplemental to, or part of, the return so filed.”17
27. Congress has also broadly defined “return information” to encompass “a
taxpayer’s identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions,
exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies,
overassessments, or tax payments,” including whether a particular return “was, is being, or will
be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data, received by,
recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return,” or
15
Id. § 6103(f)(1).
16
Id.
17
Id. § 6103(b)(1).
8
if there has been a determination of “liability” for “any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or
other imposition, or offense”18—that is, “virtually any information collected by the Internal
Revenue Service regarding a person’s tax liability.”19
28. Thus, “[u]pon written request” from the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means, Treasury “shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in
such request.”20
29. Section 6103(f) contains no exception to Treasury’s obligation to furnish return or
return information to the Committee upon written request, nor does it authorize Treasury to
refuse such a request, including on the purported basis that the Committee lacks a proper
legislative purpose for its request.
30. Treasury’s mandatory duty to release tax return information to the Committee
reflects Congress’s abiding concern that it have ready access to this information for its legislative
and oversight functions. Congress initially codified the Committee’s broad right of access in
1924, in the wake of various matters involving attempted Congressional oversight of alleged
Executive Branch wrongdoing.
31. Before 1924, authority to order that tax returns be inspected outside of Treasury
generally resided with the President.21 As part of its investigation of alleged bribery of high-
18
Id. § 6103(b)(2).
19
Landmark Legal Found. v. IRS, 267 F.3d 1132, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (citation and
internal quotations omitted).
20
26 U.S.C. § 6103(f)(1) (emphasis added). See also In re U.S. v. NorCal Tea Party
Patriots, 817 F.3d 953, 961 (6th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he IRS must disclose returns and return
information to Congressional committees upon written request.” (citing 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f))
(emphasis added)).
21
Revenue Act of 1918, ch. 18, § 257, 40 Stat. 1057, 1086-87; Revenue Act of 1921, ch.
136, § 257, 42 Stat. 227, 270.
9
ranking federal agency officials in exchange for no-bid leases at the Teapot Dome oil field, the
Senate sought from then-President Calvin Coolidge the tax returns of those allegedly involved—
a request that President Coolidge initially resisted.22
32. During this same period, a Congressional committee likewise sought tax return
information in connection with an investigation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the IRS’s
predecessor. Among other things, lawmakers questioned whether Treasury Secretary Andrew
Mellon had improperly maintained ownership interests in certain businesses while at Treasury
and whether the Bureau of Internal Revenue had given preferential treatment to Mellon and his
businesses during Mellon’s tenure at Treasury.23
33. Congress recognized that, in addition to facilitating these oversight inquiries,
unrestricted access to tax return information was critically important to its legislative
responsibilities: “If Congress had access to such data, it could more intelligently draft a
corporation income tax law.”24
34. Responding to these concerns, Congress, in 1924, enacted a statute—the
precursor to Section 6103(f)—providing that the “Committee on Ways and Means . . . shall have
the right to call on the Secretary of the Treasury” for tax return information and it “shall be the
22
See S. Res. 180, 68th Cong., 65 Cong. Rec. 3299 (1924) (requesting the returns); 65
Cong. Rec. 3699-3702 (1924) (setting out President Coolidge’s initial response).
23
See, e.g., 65 Cong. Rec. 6196 (1924) (Statement of Sen. Reed (D-MO)) (explaining
that the committee inquired into Mellon’s tax information because “if it should be found that he
had discriminated in favor of himself it would have immediately afforded reason for a demand
that he should be ousted from [his] office”); id. at 6196-97 (Statement of Sen. McKellar (D-TN))
(questioning whether Mellon had appropriately disposed of his stock before taking office).
24
65 Cong. Rec. 2919 (1924) (Statement of Rep. Jacobstein (D-NY)). See also, e.g., id.
at 2953 (Statement of Rep. Frear (R-WI)) (Congress “ought to have information on which to
draw bills and fix rates.”); id. at 7677 (Statement of Sen. Norris (R-NE)) (access to tax returns
would “enable [Congress] to legislate correctly and to finally get a law without loopholes”).
10
[Secretary’s] duty to furnish . . . any data of any character contained in or shown by the
returns.”25
35. In 1976, Congress overhauled the confidentiality provisions of the tax code
following revelations of wrongdoing by President Nixon and other White House officials.26 It
restricted the President’s control over access to tax returns and enacted the current version of
Section 6103, which provides that tax return information “shall be confidential,” unless one of 13
exceptions applies.27
36. In Section 6103(f), Congress specifically retained the mandatory disclosure
obligation that it had imposed on Treasury a half-century earlier: “Upon written request,” from
the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the agency “shall furnish such committee
with any return or return information specified in such request.”28 Congress kept its right to
obtain tax return information intact to ensure that the committees with jurisdiction over tax-
related issues, and ultimately Congress itself, could “carry out its legislative responsibilities.”29
As even OLC recognized at the time, in so amending the Internal Revenue Code, Congress was
“very much aware of its own needs” for tax return information.30
25
Revenue Act of 1924, ch. 234, § 257(a), 43 Stat. 253, 293. See also McGrain, 273
U.S. at 175 (explaining, in a case also arising out of the Teapot Dome investigation, that “[a]
legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting
the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative
body does not itself possess the requisite information—which not infrequently is true—recourse
must be had to others who do possess it”).
26
See Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-455, 90 Stat. 1520; Elec. Privacy Info.
Ctr. v. IRS, 910 F.3d 1232, 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
27
26 U.S.C. §§ 6103(a), (c)-(o).
28
Id. § 6103(f)(1).
29
S. Rep. No. 94-938 (Part I), at 319 (1976).
30
Cong. Access to Tax Returns—26 U.S.C. § 6103(f), 1 Op. O.L.C. 85, 86 (1977).
11
C. The Committee’s Long History of Oversight on Tax-Related Matters in Pursuit

of Legislative Solutions
37. Consistent with its constitutional and statutory authority, the Committee conducts
ongoing and robust oversight of all aspects of the IRS and its administration of the tax code. The
Committee routinely investigates the operations of the IRS, including collection, auditing,
enforcement, taxpayer assistance, and activities during the tax filing season. It also examines the
existing tax code and its implementation—including the IRS’s treatment of tax-exempt
organizations, the “tax gap” between taxes owed and taxes actually paid, and tax law compliance
by individuals and entities—to ensure that federal tax laws are being followed and fairly
administered and to identify legislative improvements.31
38. To further these inquiries, the Committee regularly conducts hearings and
requests documents from Treasury, the IRS, and other government agencies. It also frequently
relies on its authority under Section 6103(f) in a variety of oversight settings where access to tax
return information is necessary for the Committee’s work. For example, the Committee must
make a request under Section 6103(f) for Committee Members and their staff to visit IRS
facilities where return information is housed. Section 6103 authorization is likewise necessary
for the U.S. Government Accountability Office to provide certain reports and materials to assist
the Committee in its oversight of IRS operations and tax-related matters.
39. Over the last 30 years, the Committee has used its Section 6103(f) authority to
examine tax return information for individual, business, and other taxpayers in a wide range of
31
See, e.g., Authorization and Oversight Plans for all House Committees, H. Rep. No.
116-40, at 233-35 (2019); Report on the Legislative and Oversight Activities of the Committee
on Ways and Means, H. Rep. No 110-934, at 66-67, 74-79 (2009).
12
circumstances. For example, the Committee has employed Section 6103(f) to access and review
tax return information of:
 individuals, estates, and other taxpayers owing over $100 million in taxes, when
questions pertaining to tax law enforcement and the soundness of IRS tax
administration came to the Committee’s attention;
 individuals with unpaid tax liabilities, where the Committee was investigating the
IRS’s use of private debt collectors to collect unpaid federal tax;32
 individuals and businesses contracting with the Federal Government, where the
Committee was reviewing the IRS’s failure to implement procedures to seize
contract payments even though the agency possessed the authority to do so;33
 nonprofit organizations whose applications for tax-exempt status were subject to
heightened scrutiny allegedly based on their political affiliations, during the
Committee’s investigation of the processing of these applications by the IRS;34
 foreign-owned distributors within the U.S. of automobiles, motorcycles, and
electronics equipment, where the Committee was investigating the IRS’s
international enforcement program and international tax-avoidance schemes;35
 more than 200 large, tax-exempt organizations, where the Committee was
investigating the IRS’s audit and enforcement process for these organizations and
32
See 26 U.S.C. § 6306.
33
See id. § 6050M.
34
See id. § 501(c).
35
See id. § 482.
13
the salaries of their top executives;
 individuals who made cash payments of more than $10,000 to purchase
automobile and consumer goods, as well as the merchants involved, as part of the
Committee’s review of the IRS’s administration of tax laws related to the filing of
returns connected to business transacted in cash;36
 companies, including banks and automotive manufacturers, that received funds
from Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, where the Committee was
investigating unpaid federal income or employment taxes of program recipients;
 individuals engaging in tax refund fraud, where the Committee was investigating
IRS procedures to detect and prevent such fraud;
 small businesses, where the Committee was investigating the IRS’s use of civil
procedures to seize bank accounts of such businesses believed to be structuring
their deposits to avoid Bank Secrecy Act reporting requirements; and
 a municipal government, where the Committee was investigating the IRS’s
administration of rules related to the withholding and remitting of employment
taxes to the IRS.37
40. The Committee is not aware of any instance—other than its request for President
Trump’s tax return information (see infra II.C.-D.)—in which either Treasury or the IRS has
failed to comply with the plain meaning of Section 6103(f) and provide information requested by
the Committee.
36
See id. § 6050I.
37
See id. § 3401 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434.
14
41. In the Committee’s experience, Section 6103(f) requests are fulfilled by the IRS
as a matter of course.38
D. The IRS’s Internal Guidelines for Auditing Presidential Tax Returns
42. As part of its program for auditing taxpayer returns, IRS internal guidelines
specify that the individual returns of Presidents and Vice Presidents are subject to a mandatory
audit while they are in office.39 This policy was adopted in 1977 in the aftermath of an
investigation by the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation concluded that President
Nixon had filed erroneous tax returns while in office.40 The Joint Committee made these
findings despite the fact that President Nixon had been audited by the IRS and even commended
by the agency for the care taken in preparing his returns.41
43. The IRS observed at the time that converting to the automatic audit procedure for
Presidential returns would “remove[] from any particular employee of the IRS the necessity of
having to make a decision as to whether to audit the particular returns involved.”42 Then, as
now, the relevant Presidential audit procedures were not codified as part of the Internal Revenue
38
The Internal Revenue Manual, a compilation of guidelines for IRS employees on tax-
related topics, states that a committee request under Section 6103(f) “must receive high priority”
and the requested return information should be “furnished expeditiously.” Processing Requests
for Disclosure, I.R.M. 11.3.4.4 (May 20, 2005).
39
Processing Returns and Accounts of the President and Vice President, I.R.M. 4.2.1.15
(Apr. 23, 2014).
40
See Legislative Proposals and Tax Law Related to Presidential and Vice-Presidential
Tax Returns: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Oversight of the H. Comm. on Ways and Means,
116th Cong. (2019) (statement of Joseph J. Thorndike, Director, Tax History Project),
https://tinyurl.com/PresidentialTaxLawHearing (Ways and Means Hearing Transcript); Staff of
the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCX-3-19, Background Regarding the Confidentiality and
Disclosure of Federal Tax Returns 23-26 (2019), https://tinyurl.com/JCTReport (JCT Report).
41
See JCT Report at 25. See also Ways and Means Hr’g Tr. at 17.
42
JCT Report at 21 (quoting IRS spokesperson Leon Levine).
15
Code but instead are set forth in the IRS’s Internal Revenue Manual (Manual), a compilation of
internal guidelines for IRS employees on a broad range of tax-related topics, including how to
process returns, assess penalties, and conduct an audit.43 Procedures in the Manual do not have
the force of law and are not binding on either the IRS or taxpayers.44
44. In relevant part, the Manual provides that the “individual income tax returns for
the President and Vice President are subject to mandatory [audit] examinations” and that
“[r]elated returns, including estate and gift tax returns, will be handled in accordance with
procedures relating to all taxpayers.”45 The Manual also generally prescribes the process for the
review and handling of these returns, directing that there be “expeditious handling at all levels to
ensure prompt completion” of the audit, “that IRS personnel, including specialists, will be
assigned to the examination as appropriate,”46 and that returns filed as part of a “blind trust” (a
financial arrangement frequently used by high-ranking elected officials) be treated with “extreme
caution.”47
45. The Manual, however, leaves numerous critical details of the Presidential audit
process either ambiguous or unaddressed. For example, the Manual does not specify the scope,
43
See IRM Standards, I.R.M. 1.11.2.2 (Oct. 11, 2018).
44
See also Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr., 910 F.3d at 1244-45 (“It is well-settled . . . that the
provisions of the [M]anual are directory rather than mandatory, are not codified regulations, and
clearly do not have the force and effect of law.”) (quotation marks omitted).
45
Processing Returns and Accounts of the President and Vice President, I.R.M.
4.2.1.15(1), (6). See also Mandatory Examination, I.R.M. 3.28.3.4.3(1) (Jan. 1, 2019).
46
Processing Returns and Accounts of the President and Vice President, I.R.M.
4.2.1.15(5), (3)(b). See also, e.g., I.R.M. 4.2.1.15(5) (“The returns must be assigned within 10
business days of receipt in the group.”); I.R.M. 4.2.1.15(7) (“The returns should be kept in an
orange folder at all times” and “not be exposed to viewing by other employees”).
47
Blind Trust Income Tax Returns Filed by Presidential Appointees, I.R.M. 4.2.1.16
(April 23, 2014).
16
length, or depth of the IRS’s examination of the returns (including, whether the audit extends to
entities connected to the President or Vice President, open tax years, or ongoing audits), whether
more than one IRS agent is responsible for conducting the audit, or how that agent interacts with
the President during the audit.
II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
46. The Committee is currently exercising its oversight and investigative powers to
examine pressing matters concerning the IRS’s administration of various tax laws and policies
relating to Presidential tax returns and tax law compliance, including the annual audit of those
returns, to determine whether to legislate. Defendants’ refusal to provide the return information
requested by the Committee contravenes the mandatory statutory duty in Section 6103(f) and
impairs the ability of the Committee to exercise its essential powers, responsibilities, and
functions pursuant to Article I of the Constitution.
A. President Trump’s Statements and News Reports About His Tax Returns and
Audits Raise Questions
47. President Trump’s tax returns and their examination by the IRS have been the
subject of significant attention. Both as a candidate and once elected, President Trump has
frequently attacked the integrity of the IRS’s audit program. Candidate Trump stated that he
“unfairly get[s] audited,”48 is “audited when I shouldn’t be audited,” and that, “I tell my people:
Why is it that every single year, I’m audited, whereas other people that are very rich, people are
never audited[?]” 49 The reason for the frequent auditing, candidate Trump surmised, is “because
48
Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Feb 27, 2016, 7:12 AM),
https://tinyurl.com/27Feb2016Tweet.
49
Jenna Johnson, Donald Trump Says IRS Audits Could Be Tied to Being a ‘Strong
Christian’, Wash. Post (Feb. 26, 2016), https://tinyurl.com/TrumpAudits.
17
of the fact that I’m a strong Christian, and I feel strongly about it and maybe there’s a bias.”50
Once elected, President Trump has continued to express disdain for the IRS’s audit system,
including for the agency’s Presidential audit procedures. As Former White House Press
Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders stated in October 2018, “The President and First Lady filed
their taxes on time and as always they are automatically under audit, which the President thinks
is extremely unfair.”51
48. At the same time, numerous investigative reports have revealed that President
Trump, through the complex arrangements of his personal and business finances,52 has engaged
in multiple aggressive tax strategies and decades-long tax avoidance schemes, including taking a
questionable $916 million deduction,53 participating in and using a grantor trust to control
assets,54 manipulating tax code provisions pertaining to real estate taxes,55 and extensively using
50
Id.
51
Arden Farhi, Trump Files 2017 Taxes Following 6-month Extension, CBS News (Oct.
17, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/Trump2017TaxExtension.
52
See, e.g., David Barstow et al., Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped
Riches From His Father, N.Y. Times (Oct. 2, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/TrumpTaxSchemes. See
also Letter from Sheri A. Dillon and William F. Nelson, Tax Partners, Morgan Lewis, to Mr.
Donald J. Trump, Founder, The Trump Organization, Re: Status of U.S. federal income tax
returns 1 (Mar. 7, 2016) (noting the President’s operation of the more than 500 entities in the
Trump Organization through sole proprietorships and/or closely held partnerships means “your
personal federal income tax returns are inordinately large and complex for an individual”),
https://tinyurl.com/TrumpTaxAuditLetter (Dillon Letter).
53
See, e.g., David Barstow et al., Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have
Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found, N.Y. Times (Oct. 1, 2016),
https://tinyurl.com/TrumpTaxDeduction.
54
See, e.g., David Barstow et al., Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped
Riches From His Father, N.Y. Times (Oct. 2, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/TrumpTaxSchemes.
55
See, e.g., Steve Eder and Megan Twohey, Donald Trump Acknowledges Not Paying
Federal Income Taxes for Years, N.Y. Times (Oct. 10, 2016),
https://tinyurl.com/TrumpFederalIncomeTaxes. See also Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig,
Decade in the Red: Trump Tax Figures Show Over $1 Billion in Business Losses, N.Y. Times
(May 8, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/TrumpTaxLoss; Paul Sullivan, How Loopholes Help Trump
18
“pass through” entities.56 Media reports have also revealed that President Trump benefited from
massive conservation easements57 and that certain of his golf courses failed to properly account
for wages paid to employees (raising questions about compliance with payroll and Social
Security tax laws).58 In response to one such story, President Trump’s personal attorney said
“the headline should have been, ‘Donald Trump takes advantage of legal provisions in the tax
code.’”59 For his part, President Trump has taken pride in “brilliantly” maneuvering the tax laws
to his personal benefit.60 Even as he was championing what would become the Tax Cuts and
and Other Real Estate Moguls Avoid Taxes, N.Y. Times (May 10, 2019),
https://tinyurl.com/TrumpRealEstateLoopholes.
56
See, e.g., Jean Eaglesham et al., How Donald Trump’s Web of LLCs Obscures His
Business Interests, Wall St. J. (Dec. 8, 2016), https://tinyurl.com/TrumpPassThroughs.
57
See, e.g., Richard Rubin, Donald Trump’s Donations Put Him in Line for Conservation
Tax Breaks, Wall St. J. (Mar. 10, 2016), https://tinyurl.com/WSJEasements; Richard Rubin,
Donald Trump Got a Big Break on 2005 Taxes, Wall St. J. (Mar. 17, 2016),
https://tinyurl.com/WSJ2005TaxBreak. See also Peter Elkind, The Billion-Dollar Loophole,
Fortune (Dec. 20, 2017), https://tinyurl.com/FortuneLoophole.
58
See, e.g., Miriam Jordan, Making President Trumpʼs Bed: A Housekeeper Without
Papers, N.Y. Times (Dec. 6, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/MakingTrumpsBed. See also Joshua
Partlow and David A. Fahrenthold, At Trump Golf Course, Undocumented Employees Said They
Were Sometimes Told to Work Extra Hours Without Pay, Wash. Post (April 30, 2019),
https://tinyurl.com/TrumpGolfCourse.
59
See Julia Zorthian, Surrogates Say Donald Trump Is a ‘Genius’ If He Didn't Pay
Income Tax, Time (Oct. 2, 2016), https://tinyurl.com/TimeTax-Genius. The White House
acknowledged that President Trump “has always scoffed at the tax system.” Russ Buettner and
Susanne Craig, Decade in the Red: Trump Tax Figures Show Over $1 Billion in Business Losses,
N.Y. Times (May 8, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/TrumpTaxLoss.
60
See Lisa Hagen, Trump Says He Has ‘Brilliantly’ Used Tax Laws to His Advantage,
The Hill (Oct. 3, 2016), https://tinyurl.com/BrilliantTaxAvoidance. See also Donald J. Trump,
(@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (May 8, 2019, 3:56 AM), https://tinyurl.com/TrumpTaxSport
(“You always wanted to show losses for tax purposes….almost all real estate developers did –
and often re-negotiate with banks, it was sport.”); Eileen Sullivan, Trump Defends $1.17 Billion
in Losses as Just for ‘Tax Purposes’, N.Y. Times (May 8, 2019),
https://tinyurl.com/TrumpDefendsTaxLoss.
19
Jobs Act of 2017, President Trump referred to the tax code as “riddled with loopholes” for
“special interests, including myself.”61
49. Congress and the Committee, however, have thus far been unable to evaluate the
President’s claims about the IRS’s audit process or to assess if and how President Trump has
been able to take inappropriate advantage of the tax laws. That is because, both as a candidate
and as President, President Trump has refused to disclose his tax returns. President Trump has
repeatedly claimed that he cannot disclose his returns because his taxes are under “very
continuous audit.”62 President Trump’s tax attorneys have likewise stated that his personal
returns are “inordinately large and complex” and have been under “continuous” audit since
2002.63 While his attorneys have represented that his returns from 2002 to 2008 have been
“closed administratively,” the audit of his post-2009 returns, which include items attributable to
transactions that were reported on earlier returns, was said to be “ongoing.”64
50. President Trump has stated on more than one occasion that, but for the IRS’s
ongoing audit of his returns, he would be willing to disclose them to the public. “[A]s soon as
61
Remarks by President Trump on Tax Reform, White House (Nov. 29, 2017, 2:22 PM),
https://tinyurl.com/TrumpRemarksRiddle.
62
See, e.g., Remarks by President Trump in Press Conference After Midterm Elections,
White House (Nov. 7, 2018, 11:57 AM),
https://tinyurl.com/PressConferenceAfterMidterms. Defendant Rettig has cast doubt on
President Trump’s explanation that an ongoing audit prevents him from releasing his returns,
testifying before the House Appropriations Subcommittee that there is “no rule that would
prohibit the release of a tax return because it’s under audit.” Orion Rummler, IRS
Commissioner: No Rule Against Releasing Trump’s Tax Returns While Under Audit, Axios (Apr.
10, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/IRSCommissionerTrumpAudit.
63
Dillon Letter at 1.
64
Id.
20
the audit’s finished,” candidate Trump stated, his tax returns “will be released.”65 With respect
to disclosing his returns to Congress, President Trump stated as recently as April 2019 that he
“would love to give [his returns to Congress], but I’m not going to do it while I’m under
audit. It’s very simple.”66
B. The 116th Congress Commences with Multiple Legislative Proposals Relating to

Presidential Tax Returns
51. Since the start of the 116th Congress, the House has pursued legislative and
oversight efforts relating to Presidential tax returns. On January 4, 2019, for example, H.R. 1
was introduced in the House. That bill proposed to require the President, the Vice President, and
certain major party candidates to disclose their tax returns for the last 10 years to the Federal
Election Commission (FEC) and to amend Section 6103 to provide for Treasury disclosure to the
FEC upon written request.67 If enacted, H.R. 1 would require the FEC Chairman to make such
returns “publicly available,” after redacting “such information as the Federal Election
Commission and the Secretary [of Treasury] jointly determine is necessary for protecting against
identity theft, such as social security numbers.”68
52. Numerous similar bills related to Presidential tax returns or other tax compliance
issues that could be implicated by President Trump’s returns have also been introduced in the
65
September 26, 2016 Debate Transcript, Commission on Presidential Debates,
https://tinyurl.com/SepDebate. See also, e.g., CNN: The Situation Room, CNN (September 7,
2016) (President Trump stating, “When the audit is complete, I will release my returns. I have
no problem with it.”), https://tinyurl.com/CNNSitRoom; Meet the Press, NBC News (May 8,
2016) (President Trump stating, “I have no problem releasing the tax returns” and “I’ll do it as
fast as the auditors finish”), https://tinyurl.com/TrumpMTP.
66
Remarks by President Trump Before Marine One Departure, White House (Apr. 10,
2019, 9:28 AM), https://tinyurl.com/TrumpMarineOne.
67
For the People Act of 2019, H.R. 1, 116th Cong. § 10001. The bill passed the House
on March 8, 2019. See 165 Cong. Rec. H2602 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2019).
68
For the People Act of 2019, H.R. 1, 116th Cong. § 10001(c)(1).
21
House and referred, pursuant to House Rules X.1 and XII.2, to the Committee for its
consideration. These include:
 Tax Transparency Act of 2019, H.R. 1489, 116th Cong. (2019) (amending the
Internal Revenue Code to require public disclosure of seven years of individual
tax returns of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and candidates
for these offices, with redactions for “any Social Security number, any financial
account number, the name of any individual under age 18, or any home address of
any individual (other than the city and State in which such address is located)”);
 Presidential Allowance Modernization Act of 2019, H.R. 1496, 116th Cong.
(2019) (amending the Former Presidents Act of 1958, which provides a monetary
allowance to former Presidents, to prohibit a former President from receiving a
monetary allowance unless he or she discloses tax return information requested by
the Secretary of the Treasury for the purpose of properly calculating the taxes
owed by the former President);
 RIGHT Act of 2019, H.R. 1028, 116th Cong. (2019) (amending the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978 and the Internal Revenue Code to require candidates for
President or Vice President to provide the Office of Government Ethics with
individual tax return information for the previous 19 taxable years, along with
other financial disclosures, and providing that the Treasury Secretary may issue
regulations “authorizing the redaction of personal information as the Secretary
deems necessary to prevent identity theft or physical danger from disclosure of
tax returns”); and
22
 Charitable Conservation Easement Program Integrity Act of 2019, H.R. 1992,
116th Cong. (2019) (amending the Internal Revenue Code to limit the maximum
deduction that can be claimed by a partner in a partnership that donates certain
conservation easements).
53. On February 7, 2019, the Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight convened a
hearing entitled, “Legislative Proposals and Tax Law Related to Presidential and Vice-
Presidential Tax Returns.”69 Subcommittee Chairman John Lewis opened the hearing with two
questions the Subcommittee was exploring in its consideration of H.R. 1 and other legislation on
Presidential tax returns: (1) “Does the public have a need to know that a person seeking or
holding the highest office in our country obeys the tax laws?” and (2) “[I]s it fair to expect the
IRS to enforce Federal tax law against the President who is the head of the executive branch and
has final control of the agency?”70
54. Academics and tax experts testified at the February 7, 2019, hearing about
legislative reforms pertaining to Presidential tax returns, including requiring disclosure of
business and personal returns by Presidents and Vice Presidents and codifying the provisions that
govern the annual audits of Presidential and Vice-Presidential returns.71
69
See Ways and Means Hr’g Tr.
70
Id. at 8 (Statement of Rep. John Lewis). Subcommittee Chairman Lewis further
explained in a press statement that the hearing would inform the Committee’s consideration of
“the voluntary release of tax returns by presidents and others; the federal tax laws that protect
taxpayer information; recent bills—including H.R. 1—that would require presidents and vice-
presidents to disclose their tax return; and Internal Revenue Service audits of tax returns filed by
presidents and vice-presidents.” Press Release, Comm. Ways and Means, Rep. John Lewis,
Lewis Opening Statement at Hearing on Legislative Proposals and Tax Law Related to
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Tax Returns (Feb. 7, 2019),
https://tinyurl.com/LewisOpeningStatementPR.
71
Ways and Means Hr’g Tr.
23
55. Several witnesses testified at length both orally and in written reports about
important information that could be gleaned from President Trump’s tax return information, and
how this data could assist the Committee in its oversight of the IRS. The President’s tax return
information, one witness explained, would “enhance[] the ability of Congress to oversee the
executive branch,” because Congress could “use tax information to evaluate the fairness of IRS
audits”—specifically, information contained in “business and trust returns” as well as “IRS audit
work papers.”72 He further explained in written testimony that, given the President’s “sprawling
business empire” and claimed long-running audits, only by reviewing the President’s actual
returns could the Committee understand “whether the returns are being properly reviewed” by
the IRS and “how any disputes have been resolved, which is essential to overseeing the fair
administration of our tax system.”73 Finally, the returns would “shed light on exactly how
[President Trump] and his businesses will be affected by the massive tax legislation he
championed last year”74 and help the Committee identify specific portions of the tax code
implicated by President Trump’s businesses—including those related to real-estate tax
72
Id. at 23 (Statement of Steven M. Rosenthal, Sr. Fellow, Tax Policy Ctr.).
73
Steven M. Rosenthal, The Value of Presidential and Vice-Presidential Tax Returns to
the Public and Congress, Tax Policy Ctr. 2, 6 (Feb. 7, 2019) (written statement for the hearing
before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means),
https://tinyurl.com/RosenthalHearingStatement.
74
Ways and Means Hr’g Tr. at 25 (Statement of Noah Bookbinder, Exec. Dir., Citizens
for Responsibility and Ethics in Wash.). See also Lisa Gilbert and Susan Harley, Public Citizen
Statement for the Record in Support of Disclosure of Presidential and Vice Presidential Tax
Returns, Public Citizen (Feb. 7, 2019) (until it gains access to President Trump’s “individual and
business returns, [the Committee] will be unable to provide proper legislative oversight into
exactly how much he personally financially gained by pushing for those changes and signing the
bill into law”) (written statement for the hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the
House Committee on Ways and Means), https://tinyurl.com/PubCitizenWrittenTestimony.
24
preferences, trusts, complex partnerships, and limited liability companies (LLCs) organized as
“pass through” entities—that may need to be improved.75
C. The Committee’s Oversight Investigation and Efforts to Obtain President

Trump’s Tax Return Information
56. On March 1, 2019, as required by House Rule X.2, the Committee submitted its
“Oversight plan” for the 116th Congress. The Committee laid out its program for “[o]versight of
the major Internal Revenue Service programs, including enforcement, collection, taxpayer
services, returns processing, and information systems.”76 Among the matters listed under the
Committee’s tax jurisdiction is: “Tax Returns. Oversight of legislative proposals and tax law
related to Presidential and Vice-Presidential tax returns.”77
a. The Committee’s Initial Section 6103(f) Request
57. Consistent with the Committee’s oversight plan and its long-standing practice of
using its authority under Section 6103(f) to obtain tax returns and return information, the
Committee requested, by letter dated April 3, 2019, tax return information (including the
75
See William Rice, The Case for Congress Obtaining Trump’s Tax Returns, Americans
for Tax Fairness (Dec. 2018) (submitted to and accepted by Subcommittee during the hearing
before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means (Ways and
Means Hr’g Tr. at 79-80)), https://tinyurl.com/AmericansTaxFairness. See also, e.g., id. at 5
(understanding President Trump’s use of real estate depreciation deductions could “provide the
factual basis for a more informed policy discussion by the committee about whether and how this
tax preference should be restricted to increase tax fairness”); id. at 6 (same, for President
Trump’s use of complex business structures, which “could provide important information on
how some wealthy taxpayers may be using opaque business ownership, offshore activities, or
other devices to frustrate or impede enforcement of our tax laws” and “could help identify
specific weaknesses or gaps in the tax code which, if corrected, could strengthen tax
enforcement”).
76
H. Rep. No. 116-40, at 233-35 (April 12, 2019) (Authorization and Oversight Plans for
all House Committees).
77
Id. at 235.
25
“administrative files”) for President Trump and eight related entities for tax years 2013 through
2018.78
58. Although the Committee need not recite a reason for a Section 6103(f) request, it
has multiple oversight and legislative purposes for seeking to review this material, including:
(1) evaluating the IRS’s Presidential audit program and its application to President Trump;
(2) assessing the IRS’s review of President Trump’s tax law compliance; and (3) considering
whether legislation is warranted on Presidential tax audits, tax return transparency, or other tax
code provisions implicated by President Trump’s returns, including through numerous already
pending bills (see supra ¶¶ 51-52). Indeed, as summarized by Committee Chairman Richard
Neal in the April 3, 2019 request and in a public statement issued at the same time: “[T]he
Committee is considering legislative proposals and conducting oversight related to our Federal
tax laws, including, but not limited to, the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the
Federal tax laws against a President.”79
59. The Committee’s Section 6103(f) request furthers these oversight and legislative
aims. The Committee sought six years of tax return information, including “administrative
files,” for President Trump and eight related entities. The Committee’s review of this specific
material is critical for it to meaningfully evaluate the IRS’s implementation of the Presidential
78
See Exhibit A, Letter from the Hon. Richard E. Neal, Chairman, Comm. on Ways and
Means, to the Hon. Charles P. Rettig, Comm’r, IRS (Apr. 3, 2019). The Committee requested
that this information be produced by April 10, 2019. Id. at 2.
79
Id. at 1. See also Exhibit B, Press Release, Comm. on Ways and Means, Neal
Statement on Requesting President Trump’s Tax Returns (Apr. 3, 2019),
https://tinyurl.com/NealStatement (“The Ways and Means Committee in particular has a
responsibility to conduct oversight of our voluntary Federal tax system and determine how
Americans—including those elected to our highest office—are complying with those laws. It is
also our duty to evaluate the operation of the Internal Revenue Service in its administration and
enforcement of the tax laws.”).
26
audit program, including its scope, quality, and application to the returns of President Trump.
Only review and study of both the individual and entity returns will enable the Committee to
understand whether the audit program encompasses both types of returns as well as returns that
are already under or open for audit at the time a President takes office—and, as noted above (see
supra ¶ 49), the President’s lawyers have stated that this universe of returns is, and remains,
under audit. The requested “administrative files,” where IRS agents and their managers record
notes about their findings, are also necessary for the Committee to assess the extent of the audit
and the discretionary decisions made by IRS personnel regarding what has, and has not, been
examined. Because so “little is known about the effectiveness of this program,” Chairman Neal
explained, the Committee “must determine . . . whether these audits are conducted fully and
appropriately,”80 including by assessing “the scope of any such [audit] examination and whether
it includes a review of underlying business activities required to be reported on the individual
income tax return.”81
60. Consistent with the Committee’s regular practice with respect to Section 6103(f),
the entities selected include those about which questions have been raised before the Committee
and in the press. The Committee expects that its review of these particular entity returns will
inform its examination of the sufficiency of the IRS’s review of tax compliance issues—
including, but not limited to, income not subject to third-party reporting; employment taxes and
Social Security reporting and withholding; tax code provisions pertaining to real estate, tax
credits, and other preferences; trusts; partnerships and the partners therein; and conservation
easements.
80
Ex. B.
81
Ex. A at 1.
27
61. Review of this set of returns is also necessary for the Committee to exercise its
legislative judgment regarding the various bills mandating disclosure of Presidential and
candidate returns that have been referred to the Committee for consideration. Because these bills
require disclosure for different time periods and allow for different types of redactions (see supra
¶¶ 51-52), reviewing the requested returns will assist the Committee in understanding the
portions of candidate and officeholder tax returns that should or should not be released
(particularly in complex tax situations like that of President Trump) and over what period.
b. The White House Responds: The Committee Will “Never” Get the Tax
Materials
62. On April 5, 2019, private counsel for President Trump and the entities whose tax
return information the Committee requested wrote to Treasury’s General Counsel arguing that,
while Section 6103(f) generally “allows Ways and Means to obtain tax returns and return
information,” in this instance “Chairman Neal cannot legally request—and the IRS cannot
legally divulge—this information.”82 The letter also urged that IRS “refrain from divulging the
requested information until it receives a formal legal opinion from the Justice Department’s
Office of Legal Counsel.”83
63. Appearing on Fox News Sunday two days later, Acting White House Chief of
Staff Mick Mulvaney confirmed that the Committee would “never” receive President Trump’s
tax returns.84
82
Exhibit C, Letter from William S. Consovoy to Brent J. McIntosh, Gen. Counsel, Dep’t
of Treasury, at 1 (Apr. 5, 2019).
83
Id. at 3.
84
Exclusive: Mick Mulvaney on President Trump’s Border Security Push, Growing
Tensions with House Democrats, Fox News (Apr. 7, 2019),
http://tinyurl.com/MulvaneyFoxNews.
28
64. On April 10, 2019—the day the Committee had asked that the Section 6103(f)
material be produced—Secretary Mnuchin responded to the Committee’s letter to Commissioner
Rettig declaring that the agency would not meet the deadline.85 Secretary Mnuchin added that,
due to the “seriousness” of the issues raised by the Committee’s request, the agency had “begun
consultations with the Department of Justice to ensure that [its] response is fully consistent with
the law and the Constitution.”86
c. The Committee Reiterates the Section 6103(f) Request
65. On April 13, 2019, the Committee reiterated its Section 6103(f) request in another
letter to Commissioner Rettig.87 The Committee explained the importance of obtaining the
Section 6103(f) material for the Committee’s consideration of “legislative proposals and
oversight related to our Federal tax laws, including, but not limited to, the extent to which the
IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President.” 88 Stressing that “the statutory
language of section 6103(f) is unambiguous,” the Committee also explained why the concerns
raised by Treasury were unfounded and set a new deadline of April 23, 2019, for the agency to
provide the requested information.89
85
See Exhibit D, Letter from the Hon. Steven T. Mnuchin, Sec’y, Dept. of Treasury, to
Chairman Neal, at 1 (Apr. 10, 2019).
86
Id. at 2. That same day, President Trump claimed that there is “no law” requiring
disclosure of his returns to Congress: “I would love to give them, but I’m not going to do it
while I’m under audit. It’s very simple.” Remarks by President Trump Before Marine One
Departure, White House (Apr. 10, 2019) (9:28 AM), https://tinyurl.com/TrumpMarineOne.
87
See Exhibit E, Letter from Chairman Neal to Comm’r Rettig (Apr. 13, 2019).
88
Id. at 1.
89
Id. at 1-2.
29
d. President Trump’s Private Counsel Urges Treasury Not to Release the

Information
66. On April 15, 2019, private counsel for President Trump and the entities whose tax
return information the Committee requested wrote once more to Treasury’s General Counsel,
stating his view that the Committee’s Section 6103(f) request was “illegal” and not made “in
good faith” and applauding Treasury’s decision to consult with the Department of Justice prior to
responding.90
e. Treasury Declines to Act on the Section 6103(f) Request, Impugning the

Committee’s Motivations
67. Secretary Mnuchin responded to the Committee on April 23, 2019, noting that
because Treasury was continuing to confer with the Department of Justice on the “serious
constitutional questions” raised by the request, it “cannot act upon your request unless and until
it is determined to be consistent with law.”91
68. Despite the Committee’s long history of using Section 6103(f) to obtain both
individual and entity tax return information from the IRS without objection, Secretary Mnuchin
questioned the Committee’s expressed purpose for requesting this material, claiming that “the
Committee’s stated interest in ‘the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax
laws against a President’ is difficult to accept on its face.”92 Secretary Mnuchin insisted that the
Committee’s real purpose was not to further its legislative and oversight interests, but to release
the President’s returns “for the sake of exposure.”93
90
Exhibit F, Letter from William S. Consovoy to Brent J. McIntosh, at 1-2 (Apr. 15,
2019).
91
Exhibit G, Letter from Sec’y Mnuchin to Chairman Neal, at 1 (Apr. 23, 2019).
92
Id. at 4.
93
Id. at 3.
30
69. Secretary Mnuchin concluded with an acknowledgement that “the Executive
Branch and Legislative Branch have an obligation to work together to accommodate their
respective legitimate needs and interests.”94 Although Secretary Mnuchin did not offer to work
with the Committee to attempt to narrow or otherwise negotiate the scope of the request, he
conceded that the Committee’s oversight interest in the IRS’s Presidential audit procedures was
valid, noting that the Committee could have “genuine oversight purposes” for studying “how the
IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President” and that the IRS would
“accommodate that interest by providing additional information on the mandatory audit
process.”95
70. The IRS responded to the Committee the same day.96 Commissioner Rettig
explained that Treasury had referred the matter to the Department of Justice and, accordingly, the
IRS was “awaiting further guidance and direction on legal issues external to the internal revenue
laws before [responding].”97
f. Treasury Refuses to Provide the Section 6103(f) Materials
71. On May 6, 2019, Secretary Mnuchin provided the Committee with Treasury’s
final decision. While offering the Committee only general information on the Presidential audit
program, Secretary Mnuchin wrote: “In reliance on the advice of the Department of Justice, I
have determined that the Committee’s request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose, and
pursuant to section 6103, the Department is therefore not authorized to disclose the requested
94
Id. at 5.
95
Id.
96
See Exhibit H, Letter from Comm’r Rettig to Chairman Neal (Apr. 23, 2019).
97
Id.
31
returns and return information.”98 Commissioner Rettig wrote to the Committee the same day to
“concur” with Treasury’s “conclusion.”99
g. The Committee Issues Subpoenas for the President’s Tax Materials
72. With Treasury and the IRS refusing to comply with the Committee’s Section
6103(f) request, and pursuant to the Committee’s authority under House Rule XI.2(m)(3)(A)(i)
and applicable Committee rules, Chairman Neal authorized, issued, and served subpoenas on
Secretary Mnuchin and Commissioner Rettig, directing each to produce return information
nearly identical to what the Committee had sought unsuccessfully under Section 6103(f).100 The
subpoenas included a return date of May 17, 2019.
73. In a public statement issued with the subpoenas, Chairman Neal explained that the
Committee was continuing its “investigation into the mandatory audit program at the IRS in an
effort to assess the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the federal tax laws against a
sitting President and to determine if those audits need to be codified into federal law.”101
Chairman Neal also reaffirmed the Committee’s legislative interest in the return materials as “a
necessary piece of the [C]ommittee’s work.”102
74. In a letter to Commissioner Rettig and Secretary Mnuchin accompanying the
subpoenas, Chairman Neal further detailed the Committee’s oversight investigation and
98
Exhibit I, Letter from Sec’y Mnuchin to Chairman Neal (May 6, 2019).
99
Exhibit J, Letter from Comm’r Rettig to Chairman Neal (May 6, 2019).
100
See Exhibit K, Subpoena from Committee to Sec’y Mnuchin, Dept. of Treasury (May
10, 2019); Exhibit L, Subpoena from Committee to Comm’r Rettig, IRS (May 10, 2019).
101
See Exhibit M, Press Release, Neal Issues Subpoenas to Treasury Sec’y and IRS
Comm’r (May 10, 2019).
102
Id.
32
responded to the Secretary’s prior letters.103 Chairman Neal focused, in particular, on the
Committee’s examination of whether to codify the IRS’s Presidential audit procedures: “Among
other considerations, the Committee wants to be sure that IRS employees who determine the
scope of the President’s audit, or who determine whether to continue previously-initiated audits,
are protected in the course of their work.”104 Addressing Secretary Mnuchin’s concerns that the
Committee’s investigation of the Presidential audit program was improperly limited to the
President’s returns, Chairman Neal explained that the “tax issues raised by the current President
are unique” because President Trump “has stated repeatedly that his returns are under routine
audit, and, in 2016, his tax attorneys reported that his returns have been under continuous
examination since 2002 and involve transactions and activities reported on returns in 2008 and
earlier.”105 Chairman Neal then specified at least three ways in which this President’s tax
auditing picture is “markedly different” from his predecessors whose returns were examined
under the IRS’s Presidential audit procedures: “[t]he continuous audit and activities from 2008
and before, the use by the President of a grantor trust controlling hundreds of businesses, and the
volume of his tax returns.”106
h. Treasury and the IRS Refuse to Comply with the Subpoenas
75. On May 17, 2019, Secretary Mnuchin and Commissioner Rettig separately
responded by letter notifying the Committee that neither Treasury nor the IRS would comply
103
See Exs. K; L.
104
Id. at 2.
105
Id. (footnotes omitted).
106
Id. (footnote omitted); see supra ¶ 49 (explaining returns of President Trump are
“inordinately large and complex”).
33
with the subpoenas.107
76. Without offering to negotiate an option for partial compliance with the subpoenas,
Secretary Mnuchin responded with the same absolutist position as he had to the Section 6103(f)
request: “In reliance on the advice of the Department of Justice, we have determined that the
Committee’s request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose, and pursuant to section 6103, the
Department is therefore not authorized to disclose the requested returns and return
information.”108
77. Commissioner Rettig similarly responded that the IRS was “precluded by law
from providing the requested returns and return information.”109 Commissioner Rettig’s letter
did, however, refer to some publicly available information on the Presidential audit program that
strongly underscored the Committee’s need for the requested documents. For example,
Commissioner Rettig highlighted the fact that the “scope and depth of the examination is
determined by the revenue agent [assigned to the audit], based on established risk protocols.”110
These “risk protocols,” in turn, provide that the extent of an audit should be determined based on
a mix of “experience, judgment, and objective analysis,” and that an audit may be closed mid-
stream if the IRS agent assigned to the matter finds it is “not in the government’s best interest to
continue.”111 In addition, according to Commissioner Rettig, the Presidential audit “can be
expanded to include related or prior year returns,” but only “where warranted.”112
107
See Exhibit N, Letter from Sec’y Mnuchin to Chairman Neal, at 1 (May 17, 2019);
Exhibit O, Letter from Comm’r Rettig to Chairman Neal (May 17, 2019).
108
Exhibit N.
109
Exhibit O at 1.
110
Id. at 1-2 (citing Risk Analysis, I.R.M. 4.10.3.2.).
111
Risk Analysis, I.R.M. 4.10.3.2. (Feb. 26, 2016).
112
Exhibit O at 2 (citing I.R.M.).
34
78. Rather than allay the Committee’s concerns about the scope and effectiveness of
the Presidential audit process or the capacity of that process to handle highly complex returns,
Commissioner Rettig’s statements indicated that the IRS’s Presidential audit program is subject
to a high degree of discretion (for example, the revenue agent can cut an audit short where the
agent finds it is “not in the government’s best interest to continue”), and may not be suited to the
singularly complicated audit issues presented by this President’s tax returns.
79. At the same time that Treasury and the IRS were refusing to respond to the
Section 6103(f) request and the subpoenas, the Committee—through various investigative
means—uncovered additional information indicating that the mandatory Presidential audit
program might not be functioning effectively, in part, because of the absence of safeguards to
protect IRS employees and the audit process itself from improper influence.
i. Treasury and the IRS Brief the Committee on the Presidential Audit
Program, Raising Additional Questions and Concerns
80. On June 10, 2019, a bipartisan group of Committee staff members met with
Treasury and IRS officials to discuss the Presidential audit program. None of the Treasury or
IRS officials at the meeting had ever been involved in an actual Presidential audit. The officials
declined to discuss any tax return information pertaining either to President Trump or to any of
the other Presidents dating back to 1977 whose returns Committee staff inquired about in an
effort to understand how the Presidential audit procedures are implemented by the IRS. Instead,
the officials gave Committee staff a basic overview of the applicable provisions in the Manual,
while bluntly admitting that these provisions were outdated and diverged in numerous respects
from current practice.
81. The limited information communicated raised more questions for the Committee
about the Presidential audit program and whether it should be codified into law in some
35
appropriate form. For example, Treasury and IRS officials stated that, generally, a single IRS
agent determines the scope, depth, and direction of each Presidential audit based on the agent’s
own personal discretion. Although the identity of that individual is largely secret within the IRS,
it is known to the President or the President’s representative—because the IRS agent is required
to meet with one or both at the start of the audit—heightening concerns as to whether the
individual IRS agent tasked with auditing the President is adequately shielded from undue
political interference and pressures. In addition, the briefing confirmed that there are no special
procedures in the Presidential audit program for handling highly complex returns or for a grantor
trust, even though President Trump has reportedly used a grantor trust to organize his businesses,
eschewing the blind trust arrangement explicitly provided for by the Manual as part of the
Presidential audit program.
j. Chairman Neal Notifies Treasury and the IRS of “Serious Concerns”
82. Following the June 10, 2019 briefing, and in response to a request from Treasury
during the briefing, Committee staff sent to Treasury and the IRS a list of nearly 300 questions
about the Presidential audit program, the vast majority of which had not been answered at the
briefing. On June 28, 2019, Chairman Neal notified Secretary Mnuchin and Commissioner
Rettig by letter that the briefing raised “serious concerns” for the Committee and “reinforced the
Committee’s need to review the actual return information as part of our oversight duties.”113
Reiterating the Committee’s examination of the “IRS’s administration of the mandatory
Presidential audit process and the application of that audit process to the tax returns of President
113
Exhibit P, Letter from Chairman Neal to Sec’y Mnuchin and Comm’r Rettig, at 2
(June 28, 2019).
36
Trump and certain related entities”114 as well as “the IRS’s review of particular provisions of the
[tax code] that testimony before the Oversight Subcommittee has indicated may be relevant to
President Trump’s returns,”115 Chairman Neal explained that review of the returns and audit-file
information was necessary for the Committee to “evaluate the accuracy of the President’s claims
about the audit system, assess the fairness and effectiveness of the audit program and the scope
of the audits being performed on the President’s returns,”116 and “understand how particular
provisions of the [tax code] are being enforced as part of the IRS’s review.”117 Chairman Neal
closed by reminding Secretary Mnuchin and Commissioner Rettig of their “legal obligation” to
provide the requested information to the Committee.118
D. OLC Issues an Opinion on the Committee’s Access to President Trump’s Tax

Return Information
83. Weeks after Secretary Mnuchin and Commissioner Rettig provided the
Committee their final refusal to comply with the Section 6103(f) request and the Committee’s
subpoenas, OLC published an opinion that attempts after the fact to provide the justification for
that earlier refusal.119
84. The OLC opinion recognized that “courts have expressed reluctance to probe
congressional motivations,”120 and that “the federal courts are not well equipped to second-guess
114
Id. at 2.
115
Id.
116
Id.
117
Id.
118
Id. at 3.
119
Congressional Committee’s Request for the President’s Tax Returns Under 26 U.S.C.
§ 6103(f), Op. O.L.C., 2019 WL 2563046 (June 13, 2019).
120
Id. at 23.
37
the action of the political branches by close scrutiny of their motivations.”121 Moreover, OLC
conceded that the Supreme Court has made clear that “[s]o long as Congress acts in pursuance of
its constitutional power, the Judiciary lacks authority to intervene on the basis of the motives
which spurred the exercise of that power.”122
85. Despite these concessions, OLC asserted that, unlike the Judiciary, the Executive
Branch has the authority to supervise Congress as it carries out investigations linked to
legislative purposes. Although OLC recognized that Section 6103(f) “does not require a tax
committee to provide any purpose” for seeking tax return information,123 it contended that
Treasury must scrutinize the underlying basis for the Congressional request to “confirm” for
itself whether that basis is legitimate, just as it supposedly must do with a subpoena.124
According to OLC, Treasury’s power to do so stems from the Executive’s claimed role in
“implement[ing]” Section 6103(f) and its constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws
“to protect the Executive against legislative encroachments.”125
86. Admitting, as Treasury had, that the Committee’s oversight interest in the
Presidential audit program was valid, OLC further opined that Secretary Mnuchin nonetheless
was “required” to withhold the information requested by the Committee under Section 6103(f)
because Treasury unilaterally determined the Committee’s “true aim” to be political in nature,126
121
Id. at 25.
122
Id. (emphasis and quotation marks omitted).
123
Id. at 16.
124
Id. at 3; accord id. at 20.
125
Id. at 21.
126
Id. at 3.
38
and because releasing the information could have incurred criminal liability.127
E. Injury to the Committee
87. The Committee has been injured, and will continue to be injured, by Defendants’
unlawful actions.
88. As the Supreme Court has confirmed numerous times, the Constitution vests the
House with a power of inquiry commensurate with its Article I legislative authority. In other
words, the House can inquire into and investigate any matter on which Congress could legislate.
The House, accordingly, is empowered to issue subpoenas to gather the information required for
its work.
89. Certain investigative and legislative powers have been assigned by House Rule
and statute to the Committee with respect to tax policy and oversight of Treasury and the IRS.
90. As explained above, the Committee requested tax return information pertaining to
President Trump and certain entities to determine, among other things, whether the IRS is fairly
and effectively administering its Presidential audit program; whether the IRS’s audit of President
Trump is being properly conducted and is fair and adequate in light of his unique situation; and if
legislation is required to strengthen the procedures protecting the integrity of the IRS’s
Presidential audits, to mandate transparency of Presidential tax returns, or to amend portions of
the tax code implicated by the President’s returns.
91. The Committee plainly cannot evaluate the fairness and effectiveness of the
Presidential audit program or engage in fully informed consideration of related legislative
proposals without seeing the actual returns that are being audited and considered for audit as well
as a record of the decisions made by the auditors in the course of the examinations. The
127
Id. at 22.
39
Committee is particularly disadvantaged in its present inquiry because President Trump is the
first President in modern times that has not made his returns public.
92. The Committee has been, and will continue to be, injured by Defendants’ refusal
to comply with the requests for information under Section 6103(f) and the Committee’s
subpoenas. Defendants’ refusal has impeded the Committee and, by necessary extension, the
House as a whole from understanding the effectiveness of the IRS’s Presidential audit program,
determining whether IRS (and Treasury) personnel have been appropriately shielded from
political pressure, and confirming whether legislation on the subject of Presidential tax audits,
tax return transparency, or other tax code provisions implicated by the President’s returns is
warranted. Defendants’ refusal to comply with the Section 6103(f) request and the subpoenas
therefore undermines the House’s unique role in the separation of powers structure that is
fundamental to our system of constitutional governance.
93. The injury to the Committee is grave. Defendants’ conduct interferes with the
House’s institutional prerogative to compel compliance with duly issued Congressional
subpoenas. Courts have recognized that the House’s power to obtain the production of papers
and testimony from witnesses through compulsory process is integral to its constitutional
mandate to legislate and to oversee the Executive. Permitting Defendants to impede the House’s
subpoena power would imperil the separation of powers essential to the Constitution’s structure
of lawful governance.
94. Defendants’ refusal to comply with the Section 6103(f) request likewise interferes
with the Committee’s statutorily mandated right of access to tax return information—a right that
is essential to its oversight of the IRS and Treasury and, accordingly, to its Article I functions.
40
95. This injury is irreparable because the House is not a continuing body, so the
Committee’s oversight investigation will necessarily end on January 3, 2021. Even assuming a
future Committee were to decide to continue the investigation, about which there is no guarantee,
it will have to reissue similar requests and subpoenas, thus resulting in unnecessary and harmful
delay to and interference with the Committee’s ability to pursue its inquiries. If this Court does
not redress Defendants’ noncompliance quickly, the Committee will be unable to fulfill its
essential role of overseeing the Executive Branch or to carry out its constitutional obligation to
legislate on issues of paramount national importance before the current Congress ends.
96. The need for Defendants’ compliance with the Committee’s Section 6103(f)
request and subpoenas is also urgent because much of the tax legislation under consideration
would govern the next Presidential election. Multiple pending bills, if enacted, would mandate
return disclosures by candidates for office during the fast-approaching 2020 election, and central
to the contemplated legislation regarding the Presidential audit procedures set forth in the IRS’s
Manual is the question of whether these procedures are sufficient to guarantee effective
enforcement of the tax laws on the Chief Executive. By stonewalling the Committee’s
information gathering, Defendants therefore are unlawfully impeding a legislative process that
must proceed now for it to have its full intended effect.
97. An order from this Court requiring Defendants to provide the requested tax return
information would cure the Committee’s injury.
98. Pursuant to House Rule II.8(b) and as confirmed by H. Res. 430, the Bipartisan
Legal Advisory Group voted to authorize the Committee on Ways and Means to initiate this
41
litigation.128 This House Leadership group “speaks for, and articulates the institutional position
of, the House in all litigation matters”129 and its vote “to authorize litigation and to articulate the
institutional position of the House in that litigation is the equivalent of a vote of the full House of
Representatives.”130
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
SUBPOENA ENFORCEMENT
99. The Committee incorporates by reference and re-alleges the preceding
paragraphs, as if set forth fully herein.
100. The Committee’s subpoenas were duly authorized, issued, and served.
101. The Committee’s subpoenas required, and still require, Defendants to produce the
documents set forth in Schedule A of the subpoenas.
102. The subpoenas were issued as part of the Committee’s investigation of matters
squarely within its legislative and oversight jurisdiction and pursuant to the Committee’s
legitimate legislative purpose.
103. The Committee has been, and will continue to be, injured as a result of
Defendants’ refusal to produce the documents.
104. Accordingly, Defendants are legally obligated to produce the subpoenaed
documents to the Committee.
128
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group comprises the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker
of the House, the Honorable Steny H. Hoyer, Majority Leader, the Honorable James Clyburn,
Majority Whip, the Honorable Kevin McCarthy, Republican Leader, and the Honorable Steve
Scalise, Republican Whip. See House Rule II.8(b). The Republican Leader and Republican
Whip dissent from this filing.
129
House Rule II.8(b).
130
H. Res. 430, 116th Cong. (2019).
42
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1)
106. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires this Court to “compel agency
action unlawfully withheld.”131
107. Defendants’ refusal to provide the tax return information requested under Section
6103(f) is final agency action, reviewable under the APA.
108. In Section 6103(f), Congress imposed a mandatory, non-discretionary duty on
Defendants to furnish the Committee with tax return and related information upon written
request.
109. Because Defendants have refused to provide the Committee with the requested
information, they are currently in contravention of that statutory duty and have therefore
unlawfully withheld agency action.
110. As a result of that refusal, the Committee has been, and will continue to be,
adversely affected and injured by Defendants’ action.
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
112. The APA requires this Court to “hold unlawful and set aside” agency action that
is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”132
131
5 U.S.C. § 706(1).
132
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
43
114. Defendants’ refusal to provide tax return and related information is arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law in violation of the
APA, in at least the following ways:
i. Defendants acted in direct contravention of the mandatory statutory duty in
Section 6103(f) by refusing to furnish the requested tax return information;
ii. Defendants relied on factors Congress did not intend to be considered in
refusing to furnish the requested tax return information;
iii. Defendants relied on an erroneous view of the law in refusing to furnish the
requested tax return materials; and
iv. Defendants’ explanation for their refusal to furnish the requested tax return
information runs counter to the evidence before them.
115. As a result, the Committee has been, and will continue to be, adversely affected
and injured by Defendants’ action.
COUNT IV
VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(B)
117. The APA requires this Court to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action,
findings, and conclusions found to be . . . contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or
immunity.”133
133
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B).
44
119. Defendants’ refusal to provide the tax return and related information requested
under Section 6103(f) is contrary to the Committee’s constitutional powers, in violation of the
APA because Defendants, among other things:
i. denied the Committee the information necessary for it to discharge its
constitutional obligations of overseeing the IRS’s operations and legislating
on matters of tax policy and administration; and
ii. infringed the Committee’s power of inquiry and investigation, by refusing to
comply with the Committee’s Section 6103(f) request, thereby diminishing
the House’s institutional legitimacy as a branch of government co-equal to the
Executive.
COUNT V
VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(C)
122. The APA requires this Court to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action,
findings, and conclusions found to be . . . in excess of statutory jurisdiction [or] authority.”134
134
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
45
124. Defendants’ refusal to provide the tax return and related information requested
under Section 6103(f) is ultra vires and in excess of statutory authority, in violation of the APA,
because Section 6103(f) commands that “[u]pon written request from the chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, . . . the Secretary shall furnish
such committee with any return or return information specified in such request.”135 The statute
does not authorize the Secretary to deny a duly filed and facially valid request from the
Committee’s chairman because of a purported insufficiency of the request’s legislative purpose,
an alleged ulterior motive, or on any other ground.
COUNT VI
MANDAMUS
127. Section 6103(f) establishes a non-discretionary duty on the part of Defendants to
the Committee, namely, to provide tax return and related information upon written request by the
Committee.
128. The Committee provided Defendants with such a written request for tax return
information, yet Defendants have refused to perform that duty to the Committee.
129. By failing to provide the Committee with the requested information, Defendants
have failed to carry out the non-discretionary requirement of Section 6103(f).
135
26 U.S.C. § 6103(f).
46
130. As a result, the Committee has been, and will continue to be, injured by
Defendants’ action.
COUNT VII
VIOLATION OF 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f)
Committee.
133. The Committee provided Defendants with such a written request for tax return
information, yet Defendants have refused to perform that duty to the Committee.
134. By failing to provide the Committee with the requested information, Defendants
have violated Section 6103(f).
COUNT VIII
NON-STATUTORY REVIEW OF ULTRA VIRES ACTION BY DEFENDANTS
137. The Committee has a non-statutory right of action to enjoin and declare unlawful
official action that is ultra vires.
Committee.
47
139. Defendants’ refusal to provide the requested information patently violates Section
6103(f).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Committee respectfully prays that this Court:
A. Enter declaratory and injunctive relief as follows:
(i) declare that Defendants are legally obligated to produce the documents
listed in Schedule A to the May 10, 2019 subpoenas;
(ii) declare that Defendants’ refusal to produce the documents requested under
Section 6103(f) violates the APA, 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f), is unlawful ultra
vires action, and warrants relief in the nature of mandamus;
(iii) order Defendants to produce the documents listed in Schedule A of the
subpoenas; and
(iv) order Defendants to produce the documents requested under Section
6103(f).
B. Retain jurisdiction to review any disputes that may arise regarding Defendants’
compliance with this Court’s orders.
C. Grant the Committee such other and further relief as may be just and proper under
the circumstances.
48
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Douglas N. Letter

Douglas N. Letter (D.C. Bar No. 253492),
General Counsel
Todd B. Tatelman (VA Bar No. 66008),
Deputy General Counsel
Megan Barbero (MA Bar No. 668854),
Associate General Counsel
Josephine Morse (D.C. Bar No. 1531317),
Associate General Counsel
Brooks M. Hanner (D.C. Bar No. 1005346),
Assistant General Counsel
Sarah E. Clouse (MA Bar No. 688187)
Attorney
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL*

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
219 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Telephone: (202) 225-9700
Douglas.Letter@mail.house.gov
Counsel for Plaintiff the Committee on Ways and

Means, U.S. House of Representatives
July 2, 2019
*
Attorneys for the Office of General Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives are
“entitled, for the purpose of performing the counsel’s functions, to enter an appearance in any
proceeding before any court of the United States or of any State or political subdivision thereof
without compliance with any requirements for admission to practice before such court.” 2 U.S.C.
§ 5571. The Office of General Counsel wishes to acknowledge the assistance of law clerks Lily
Hsu, a student at The George Washington University Law School, and Nate King, a student at The
Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, in preparing this complaint.
49
Case 1:19-cv-01974 Document 1-1 Filed 07/02/19 Page 1 of 3


Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

THE TREASURY,
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220, et al.,
Defendants.
Exhibit A
RICHARD E. NEAL,
MASSACHUSETIS.
CHAIRMAN
<!Congre9'9' of tbe 'mlniteb ~tate9' KEVIN BRADY,
TEXAS,
RAN KING MEM BER
J OHN LEWI S, GEORGIA

LLOYD DOGGETT, TEXAS
ii.~. l!}ouse of l\epresentatibes DEVIN N UNES. CALIFORNIA
VERN BUCHANAN, FLORIDA
MIKE THOMPSON, CALIFORNIA ADRIAN SMITH, NEBRASKA
J OHN B. LARSON, CONNECTICUT COMMITIEE ON WAYS AN D MEANS KENNY MARCHANT, TEXAS
EARL BLUMENAUER, OREGON TOM REED, NEW YORK
RON KIND, WISCONSIN 1102 L O N GWORTH H OUS E O FFICE B U ILDING MIKE KELLY, PEN N SYLVANIA
BILL PASCRELL JR .. N EW JERSEY GEORGE HOLDIN G, NORTH CAROLINA
DAN NY K. DAVIS, ILLINOIS
(202 ) 225-3625 JASON SMITH, MISSOURI
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, CA LIFORNIA TOM RICE. SOUTH CAROLINA
BRIAN HIGGINS, N EW YORK
TERRI A . SEWELL, ALABAM A
wmtasbington, i!l<IC 20515- 0348 DAVID SCHWEIKERT, ARIZONA
JACKI E WALORSKI, INDIANA
SUZAN DE LBENE, WASHIN GTO N DARIN LAHOOD. ILLINOIS
JUDY CHU, CALIFORNIA http://waysandm eans.ho use.gov BRAD R. WEN STRUP, OHIO
GWEN MOORE, WISCONSIN JODEY ARRINGTON , TEXAS
DAN KILDE E. M ICHIGAN DREW FERGU SON, GEORGIA
BREN DAN BOYLE, PENNSYLVANIA RON ESTES, KAN SAS
DON BEYER, VIRGINIA
DWIGHT EVANS. PEN NSYLVANIA
GARY AN DRES,
BRAD SCHNEIDER, ILLI NOIS MINORITY STA FF DIRECTOR
TOM SUOZZI, N EW YO RK
JIMMY PANETTA, CALIFORN IA
STEPHANIE MURPHY, FLORIDA
JIMMY GOMEZ, CALIFORNIA
STEVEN HORSFO RD, N EVADA
BRAN DON CASEY.

April 3, 2019
MAJORITY STAFF DIRECTOR
The Honorable Charles P. Rettig

Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution A venue, NW
Dear Commissioner Rettig:
The Committee on Ways and Means ("Committee") has oversight and legislative authority
over our Federal tax laws. With this authority comes a responsibility to ensure that the Internal
Revenue Service ("IRS") is enforcing the laws in a fair and impartial manner.
Consistent with its authority, the Committee is considering legislative proposals and
conducting oversight related to our Federal tax laws, including, but not limited to, the extent to
which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President. Under the Internal
Revenue Manual, individual income tax returns of a President are subject to . mandatory
examination, but this practice is IRS policy and not codified in the Federal tax laws. It is necessary
for the Committee to determine the scope of any such examination and whether it includes a review
of underlying business activities required to be reported on the individual income tax return.
Pursuant to my authority under Internal Revenue Code section 6103(f), for each of the tax
years 2013 through 2018, I request the following return and return information:
1. The Federal individual income tax returns of Donald J. Trump.
2. For each Federal individual income tax return requested above, a statement specifying:
(a) whether such return is or was ever under any type of examination or audit; (b) the
length of such examination or audit; (c) the applicable statute of limitations on such
examination or audit; (d) the issue(s) under examination or audit; (e) the reason(s) the
return was selected for examination or audit; and (f) the present status of such
examination or audit (to include the date and description of the most recent return or
return information activity).
3. All administrative files (workpapers, affidavits, etc.) for each Federal individual
income tax return requested above.
Commissioner Rettig
April 3, 2019
Page 2
4. The Federal income tax returns of the following entities:
• The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust;

• DJT Holdings LLC;
• DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC;
• DTTM Operations LLC;
• DTTM Operations Managing Member Corp;
• LFB Acquisition Member Corp;
• LFB Acquisition LLC; and
• Lamington Farm Club, LLC d/b/a Trump National Golf Club-Bedminster.
5. For each Federal income tax return of each entity listed above, a statement specifying:
(a) whether such return is or was ever under any type of examination or audit; (b) the
length of such examination or audit; (c) the applicable statute of limitations on such
examination or audit; (d) the issue(s) under examination or audit; (e) the reason(s) the
return was selected for examination or audit; and (f) the present status of such
examination or audit (to include the date and description of the most recent return or
return information activity).
6. All administrative files (workpapers, affidavits, etc.) for each Federal income tax return
of each entity listed above.
7. If no return was filed for the tax year requested, a statement that the entity or individual
did not file a return for such tax year.
This document is a record of the Committee and is entrusted to the IRS only for use in
handling this matter. Additionally, any documents created by the IRS in connection with a
response to this Committee document, including (but not limited to) any replies to the Committee,
are records of the Committee and shall be segregated from agency records and remain subject to
the control of the Committee. Accordingly, the aforementioned documents are not "agency
records" for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act. Absent explicit Committee
authorization, access to this document and any responsive documents shall be limited to IRS
personnel who need such access for the purpose of providing information or assistance to the
Committee.
Please provide the requested return and return information by April 10, 2019. Thank you
for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,


Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

THE TREASURY,
Defendants.
Exhibit B
6/27/2019 Neal
Case Statement on Requesting
1:19-cv-01974 President Trump’s
Document 1-2 Tax Returns
Filed | Ways and Means
07/02/19 PageCommittee
2 of 3 - Democrats
(/)
 (http://twitter.com/WaysMeansCmte)  (http://www.facebook.com/waysandmeanscommitteedems)
 (http://www.youtube.com/user/waysandmeansdems)
NEAL STATEMENT ON REQUESTING PRESIDENT

TRUMP’S TAX RETURNS
Apr 3, 2019 | Press Release
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) issued the following
statement after sending a written request
(/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/ les/documents/Neal%20Letter%20to%20Rettig%20%28signed%29%20-
%202019.04.03.pdf) to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner Charles Rettig for six years of President
Donald J. Trump’s personal and business tax returns:
“It is critical to ensure the accountability of our government and elected of cials. To maintain trust in our
democracy, the American people must be assured that their government is operating properly, as laws intend.
“Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, has a duty to conduct oversight of departments and of cials.
The Ways and Means Committee in particular has a responsibility to conduct oversight of our voluntary Federal
tax system and determine how Americans – including those elected to our highest of ce – are complying with
those laws. It is also our duty to evaluate the operation of the Internal Revenue Service in its administration and
enforcement of the tax laws.
“The IRS has a policy of auditing the tax returns of all sitting presidents and vice-presidents, yet little is known
about the effectiveness of this program. On behalf of the American people, the Ways and Means Committee
must determine if that policy is being followed, and, if so, whether these audits are conducted fully and
appropriately. In order to fairly make that determination, we must obtain President Trump’s tax returns and
review whether the IRS is carrying out its responsibilities. The Committee has a duty to examine whether
Congressional action may be needed to require such audits, and to oversee that they are conducted properly.
“I today submitted to IRS Commissioner Rettig my request for six years of the president’s personal tax returns as
well as the returns for some of his business entities. We have completed the necessary groundwork for a request
of this magnitude and I am certain we are within our legitimate legislative, legal, and oversight rights.
“I take the authority to make this request very seriously, and I approach it with the utmost care and respect. This
request is about policy, not politics; my preparations were made on my own track and timeline, entirely
independent of other activities in Congress and the Administration. My actions re ect an abiding reverence for
our democracy and our institutions, and are in no way based on emotion of the moment or partisanship. I trust
that in this spirit, the IRS will comply with Federal law and furnish me with the requested documents in a timely
manner.”
###
Subcommittees:
Oversight (116th Congress) (/subcommittees/oversight-116th-congress)
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/neal-statement-requesting-president-trump-s-tax-returns 1/2
6/27/2019 Neal
Case Statement on Requesting
1:19-cv-01974 President Trump’s
Document 1-2 Tax Returns
Filed | Ways and Means
07/02/19 PageCommittee
3 of 3 - Democrats
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/neal-statement-requesting-president-trump-s-tax-returns 2/2


Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

THE TREASURY,
Defendants.
Exhibit C
3033 Wilson Boulevard

Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22201
703.243.9423
www.consovoymccarthy.com
April 5, 2019
Brent J. McIntosh
General Counsel
U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Dear Mr. McIntosh:
Two days ago, Chairman Richard Neal of the House Ways and Means Committee sent
Commissioner Charles Rettig of the Internal Revenue Service a letter, which asked for
confidential tax information about President Donald J. Trump, The Donald J. Trump
Revocable Trust, and seven related businesses. I represent President Trump and these entities
in connection with Chairman Neal’s request. Sheri Dillon and Will Nelson represent President
Trump and these entities in connection with the underlying IRS examinations referenced
below. Secretary Mnuchin has stated that he will consult with your office about any
congressional request for the President’s private tax information. I write to explain why
Chairman Neal cannot legally request—and the IRS cannot legally divulge—this information.
The Tax Code zealously guards taxpayer privacy. As Justice Ginsburg explained when
she served on the D.C. Circuit, taxpayer privacy is “fundamental to a tax system that relies on
self-reporting,” since it “guarantees that the sometimes sensitive or otherwise personal
information in a return will be guarded” from individuals outside the IRS. Nat’l Treasury
Employees Union v. FLRA, 791 F.2d 183, 184 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The “general rule,” accordingly,
is that tax returns and return information “are confidential and not to be disclosed.” Church of
Scientology of Calif. v. IRS, 484 U.S. 9, 15 (1987). Section 6103 of the Tax Code declares that tax
returns, audits, administrative files, and other related information “shall be confidential” and
prohibits federal officials from disclosing them. Though section 6103 contains some
exceptions, they are “limited” and “narrowly drawn.” EPIC v. IRS, 910 F.3d 1232, 1235 (D.C.
Cir. 2018). Federal officials who ignore these legal limitations are guilty of a crime and liable
for damages. 18 U.S.C. §1905; 26 U.S.C. §§7213(a)(1), 7431(a).
One exception to the general rule prohibiting disclosure of tax returns and return
information is the provision that Chairman Neal invokes, section 6103(f). While that section
allows Ways and Means to obtain tax returns and return information under certain conditions,
the committee’s authority is subject to important constraints. These constraints “extend to the
ordinary taxpayer and the President alike.” EPIC, 910 F.3d at 1235.
For starters, requests for tax returns and return information must have a legitimate
legislative purpose. All legislative investigations “must be related to, and in furtherance of, a
legitimate task of the Congress.” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957). And that
task must be squarely within the relevant committee’s jurisdiction. United States v. Patterson, 206
F.2d 433, 434 (D.C. Cir. 1953). The Constitution does not grant Congress a standalone
Page 2 of 4
“investigation” power; Congress can conduct investigations only to further some other
legislative power enumerated in the Constitution. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190
(1880). As the Supreme Court told the House Un-American Activities Committee decades
ago, “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure”—especially not the
“private affairs of individuals.” Watkins, 354 U.S. at 200, 187. And Congress cannot use
investigations to exercise “the functions of the executive” or to act like a “law enforcement or
trial agency.” Id. at 187.
Even when Ways and Means can identify some legitimate committee purpose, it
cannot request tax returns and return information to punish taxpayers for their speech or
politics. The “First Amendment freedoms” of “speech,” “political belief,” and “association”
apply to congressional investigations. Id. at 188. And the First Amendment prohibits the
government—including Congress—from harassing political opponents and retaliating against
disfavored speech. Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62, 75 (1990); Lozman v. City of Riviera
Beach, 138 S.Ct. 1945, 1949 (2018). The government commits illegal retaliation when the
target’s speech or politics motivated its actions “at least in part.” Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard, 918
F.3d 494, 497 (6th Cir. 2019). That is because, even when the government could legitimately
act “for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not
rely”—including “constitutionally protected speech or associations.” Perry v. Sindermann, 408
U.S. 593, 597 (1972).
Chairman Neal’s request flouts these fundamental constitutional constraints. Ways and
Means has no legitimate committee purpose for requesting the President’s tax returns or return
information. While the committee has jurisdiction over taxes, it has no power to conduct its
own examination of individual taxpayers. Enforcement of our nation’s tax laws is entrusted to
the IRS—an arm of the Executive Branch. Indeed, the IRS is already conducting its own
examination. Congressional inquiries made “while the decisionmaking process is ongoing”
impose the “greatest” intrusion on “the Executive Branch’s function of executing the law.”
5 Op. O.L.C. 27, 31 (1981).
Even if Ways and Means had a legitimate committee purpose for requesting the
President’s tax returns and return information, that purpose is not driving Chairman Neal’s
request. His request is a transparent effort by one political party to harass an official from the
other party because they dislike his politics and speech. Chairman Neal wants the President’s
tax returns and return information because his party recently gained control of the House, the
President is their political opponent, and they want to use the information to damage him
politically. It is no secret that a vocal wing of the Chairman’s party has been clamoring for the
President’s tax returns since before the 2016 election. And it is no coincidence that Chairman
Neal made his request just days after prominent Democratic constituencies began publicly
criticizing the House for its failure to go after the President.
While Chairman Neal now claims that he needs the President’s tax returns and return
information to assess how “the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a
President,” that explanation is obviously pretextual. If Chairman Neal genuinely wants to
review how the IRS audits Presidents, why is he seeking tax returns and return information
covering the four years before President Trump took office? Why is he not requesting
information about the audits of previous Presidents? And why can he not simply ask the IRS
to explain its policy? The answer, of course, is that Chairman Neal’s request is not about
Page 3 of 4
examining IRS policy. It is about scoring political points against President Trump. As
Chairman Neal explained to the partisan groups demanding the President’s tax returns: He
had to be “meticulous about [his] choice of words” because his request will “become the basis
of a long and arduous court case.” He stressed that Democrats had to “resist the emotion of
the moment,” not “step on [their] tongue[s],” and “approach this gingerly and make sure the
rhetoric that is used does not become a footnote to the court case.” Rep. Neal, In the News
(Jan. 23, 2019), bit.ly/2TPe1k0; Rep. Neal, In the News (Jan. 24, 2019), bit.ly/2UfiYaT. In short,
Chairman Neal promised to draft a request that concealed his party’s motive: unconstitutional
retaliation against the President.
If the IRS acquiesces to Chairman Neal’s request, it would set a dangerous precedent.
As Secretary Mnuchin recently told Congress, he is “not aware that there has ever been a
request for an elected official’s tax returns.” For good reason. It would be a gross abuse of
power for the majority party to use tax returns as a weapon to attack, harass, and intimidate
their political opponents. Once this Pandora’s box is opened, the ensuing tit-for-tat will do
lasting damage to our nation. Can the Chairman request the returns of his primary opponents?
His general-election opponents? Judges who are hearing his case? The potential abuses would
not be limited to Congress, as the President has even greater authority than Congress to obtain
individuals’ tax returns. 26 U.S.C. §6103(g). Congressional Democrats would surely balk if the
shoe was on the other foot and the President was requesting their tax returns. After all, nearly
90% of them have insisted on keeping their tax returns private, including Speaker Pelosi,
Senator Schumer, Representative Nadler, Representative Schiff, and Representative Neal him-
self. Members of Congress: Where Are Your Tax Returns?, Roll Call (June 26, 2017), bit.ly/
2VmhnN4.
Chairman Neal’s request is especially inappropriate because, as noted above, he is

asking for tax returns, administrative files, and other information regarding an ongoing IRS
examination. IRS examinations are trial-like adjudications, and basic principles of due process
require adjudications to be insulated from congressional interference. When a congressional
investigation focuses on a “pending” adjudication, it violates “the right of private litigants to
a fair trial and, equally important, with their right to the appearance of impartiality”—the “sine
qua non of American judicial justice.” Pillsbury Co. v. FTC, 354 F.2d 952, 964 (5th Cir. 1966).
Even the most scrupulous IRS officials could not help but be influenced by the fact that
Congressional partisans are scrutinizing their work in real time. Id.
Knowing this, Chairman Neal decided to make his request anyway. The IRS’s ability
to do its job fairly and impartially has already been undermined. But complying with the
request, and turning over the requested files, would make matters far worse. The executive
branch has long refused to “provide committees of Congress with access to, or copies of, open
law enforcement files.” 10 Op. O.L.C. 68, 76 (1986). Making Congress “a partner in the
investigation,” every administration since George Washington has recognized, would create
“a substantial danger that congressional pressures will influence the course of the
investigation.” 8 Op. O.L.C. 252, 263 (1984).
Finally, given the unprecedented nature of Chairman Neal’s request, the IRS should
refrain from divulging the requested information until it receives a formal legal opinion from
the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Caution and deliberation are essential to
ensure that the Treasury Department does not erode the constitutional separation of powers
Page 4 of 4
or the Tax Code’s “core purpose of protecting taxpayer privacy,” Tax Analysts v. IRS, 117 F.3d
607, 615 (D.C. Cir. 1997)—protections that safeguard not just the President, but all
Americans.
We would welcome an opportunity to meet and discuss these issues. We look forward
to your response.
Sincerely,
William S. Consovoy
cc: Steven T. Mnuchin

Charles P. Rettig
Sheri A. Dillon
William F. Nelson
,17+(81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857
)257+(',675,&72)&2/80%,$
&200,77((21:$<6$1'0($16
81,7('67$7(6+286(2)5(35(6(17$7,9(6
/RQJZRUWK+RXVH2IILFH%XLOGLQJ
:DVKLQJWRQ'&
Plaintiff
Y &DVH1R1:19-cv-1974
81,7('67$7(6'(3$570(172)
7+(75($685<
3HQQV\OYDQLD$YHQXH1:
:DVKLQJWRQ'&et al.
Defendants
([KLELW'
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

WASHINGTON , CI.C ,
S i:CR&:TAR Y OF T Hl:l ''l'R.E Ati'URY
April 10, 2019
The Honorable Richard E. Neal

Chainnan
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House ofRepresen1atives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Neal:
I write in response to the Committee,s Apr.il 3 letter to the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue requesting private tax return infonnation under 26 U.S.C. § 6103{f). The Committee
requests the materials by April 10, but the Treasury Department will not be able to complete its
review of your request by that date. 1
We begin with an awareness of Congressional concerns already raised regarding this

inquiry. In the last Congress, the Conunittee on Ways and Means issued a formal report
concerning a House resolution of inquiry seek· ng information substantially similar to the
infonnation you request. The Committee detennined that such a request would be an "abuse of
authoritf' and ~'set a dangerous precedent by targeting a single individual's confidential tax
returns and associated financial documents for·disclosure" for political. reasons. 2 The Committee
recognized that section 6103(f) may not be used '~for purposes of embarrassing or attacking
political figures of another party ..,3 Noting a similar concern in a recent floor speech, the
Chairman of the Senate Finance Conunittee--who shares the same section 6103(f) authority as
you-described the April 3 request as lacking the requisite ''legitimate legislative purpose ' and
as "Nixonian to the core.'...i
You too have acknowledged the unprecedented nature of this re-quest. As you stated ·n
October 2018 with respect to this long-planned inquiry, ~lt]his has never happened before, so
you want to be very meticulous.,'5 We share that caution, and we agree that this is not a routine
section 6103(f) request. The Committee's request raises serious issues c-0nceming the
1 Although the letter attempts to, instruct the Commissioner to strictly limit access to the letter to "IRS personnel"
only, the Committee prompdy released the letteroo Tw~tter and its website.
2 H. Comm. on. Ways & Means, H. Rept No. 115-309, at 2, 3 (20 l7),
https:/fwww.congress.gov/ 115/crpt/hrpt309/CRPT- 1.1Shrpt309.pelf.

) Id at 3.
4 165 Cong. Rec. S21S8-02 (Apr. 4, .2019)(statement ofSeo. Charles Grass]ey).
$ R. Rubin, Wall Street Journal (Oct. 3, 20 I 8)(qnoting then-Ranking Member Neal),
:https:flwww.wsj.com/articles/trumps-tax-retums-in-the-spotl ight-if:.democrats.capture-the-house-1 53 85 75880.

constitutional scope of Congressional investigative authority, the legitimacy of the asserted

legislative purpose, and the constitutional rights of American citizens. The legal implications of
this request could affect protections for all Americans against politically-motiva,ted disclosures
of personal tax infonnationt regardless of which party is in power. Given the seriousness of
these issues, which bear no connection to ordinary tax. administration, we have begun
consultations with the Department of Justice to ensure that our response is fuJly ,consistent with
the law and the Constitution. For the same reasons~ I intend to supervise the Department's
review of the Committee;s request to ensure that taxpayer protections and applicable laws are
scrupulously obsetved, consistent with my statutory responsibilities.6
The Department respects Congressional oversight, and we intend to review your request
carefully..
Sincerely,
Steven T. Mnuchin
cc: The Honorable Kevin Brady, Ranking Member, Committe-e on Ways and Means
6 Se(! 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f) (entrusting responsibility to "the Secretary"); see also 26 U.S.C. § 780 I(a){l) (''Except as
otherwise expressly provided by law. the administration and enforcement of this title, shall be ~rfonned by or and.er
the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury."); 31 •· .S.C. § 321 (c) ("Duties and powers of officers and
employees of the Department are vested in the Secretary... .'').


Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

THE TREASURY,
Defendants.
Exhibit E
RI CHARD E. NEAL,
MASSACHUSETIS,
CHAIRMAN
<!Congress of tbe ~ntteb $tates KEVIN BRADY,
TEXAS,
RANKING MEMBER
JOH N LEW IS, GEORGIA

11.~. J!,ouse of 11\epresentattbes DEVIN NUNES, CALIFORNIA
VERN BUCHANAN , FLORIDA
M IKE THOMPSON, CALIFORNIA ADRIAN SMITH, NEBRASKA
JOHN B. LARSON , CONNECTICUT COMMITIEE ON WAYS AND MEANS KENNY MARCHANT, TEXAS
EARL BLUMENAUER, OREGON TOM REED. NEW YORK
RON KIND, WISCONSIN 1102 L ONGWORTH H OU SE OFFICE BU ILDING MIKE KELLY, PENNSYLVANIA
BILL PASCRELL JR.. N EW JERSEY GEORGE HOLDING. NORTH CAROLINA
DANNY K. DAVIS , ILLINOIS
(202 ) 225- 3625 JASON SMITH, MISSOURI
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, CALIFORNIA TOM RICE, SOUTH CAROLINA
BRIAN HIGG INS, NEW YORK
TERRI A. SEWELL, ALABAMA
'almasbington, 1JBQC 20515-0348 DAVID SCHWEIKERT, ARIZONA
JACKIE WALORSKI, INDIANA
SUZAN DELBENE, WASHINGTON DARIN LAHOOD, ILLINOIS
JU DY CHU, CALI FORNIA http://waysandmeans.house.gov BRAD R. WENST RUP, OHIO
GWEN MOORE, W ISCONS IN JODEY ARRINGTON, TEXAS
DAN KILDEE , MICHIGAN DREW FERGU SON, GEORGIA
BRE N DAN BOYLE, PE NNSYLVANIA AON ESTES, KANSAS
DON BEYEA. VIRGINIA
DWIGHT EVANS, PENNSYLVANIA GARY ANDRES,
BRAD SCHNEIDER, ILLIN OIS
MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR
TOM SUOZZI, NEW YORK
JIMMY PANETTA, CALIFORNIA
JIMMY GOMEZ, CALIFORN IA
STEVEN HORSFORD, NEVADA
April 13, 2019
BRA N DON CASEY,
The Honorable Charles P. Rettig

Commissioner
1111 Constitution A venue, NW
Dear Commissioner Rettig:
On April 3, 2019, pursuant to my authority under section 6I03(f) of the Internal Revenue
Code ("IRC"), I requested that the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") furnish certain return and
return information by April 10, 2019. As I explained in my earlier letter, that request is in
furtherance of consideration by the Committee on Ways and Means (" Committee") of legislative
proposals and oversight related to our Federal tax laws, including, but not limited to, the extent to
which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President.
I am aware that concerns have been raised regarding my request and the authority of the
Committee. Those concerns lack merit. Moreover, judicial precedent commands that none of the
concerns raised can legitimately be used to deny the Committee' s request.
First , it bears noting that the statutory language of section 6103(f) is unambiguous and
raises no complicated legal issues that warrant supervision or review by the Department of the
Treasury ("Treasury") or the Department of Justice ("Justice"). Section 6103(f) commands that
"[u]pon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives . . . the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return
information specified in such request." 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f)(l) (emphasis added). It is a well-
established principle of statutory interpretation that words that are neither terms of ati nor
statutorily defined be given their ordinary meaning. Here, the statute' s use of the "mandatory
' shall ' ... creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion. " Lexecon, Inc. v. Mi/berg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998); see also, e.g. , EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, 572 U.S. 489,509 (20 14); Barnhartv. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 461-62 (2002)
(courts "must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what
it says there." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Second, there is no valid basis to question the legitimacy of the Committee' s legislati ve
purpose here. The Supreme Court has instructed that Congress' s power to investigate is "broad"
Co1mnissioner Rettig
April 13, 2019
Page 2
and "encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or
possibly needed statutes." Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957).
It is not the proper :function of the IRS, Treasury, or Justice to question or second guess the
motivations of the Committee or its reasonable determinations regarding its need for the requested
tax returns and return information. Indeed, the Supreme Court has consistently noted that the
motivations underlying Congressional action are not to be second guessed, even by the courts.
Eastland v. US. Servicemen 's Fund, 421 U.S . 491 , 509 (1975) ("The wisdom of congressional
approach or methodology is not open to judicial veto. "); Watkins, 354 U.S . at 200 ("But a solution
to our problem is not to be found in testing the motives of committee members for this purpose.
Such is not our :function."); Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 132 (1959) ("So long as
Congress acts in pursuance of its constitutional power, the Judiciary lacks authority to intervene
on the basis of the motives which spurred the exercise of that power.").
Comis have held that, where "a rational legislative purpose is present for investigating a
particular person, organization, or institution[,] [t]here is no requirement that every piece of
information gathered in such an investigation be justified before the judiciary." McSurely v.
McClellan, 521 F.2d 1024, 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1975); see also Townsend v. United States, 95 F.2d
352, 361 (D.C. Cir. 1938). "A legislative inquiry may be as broad, as searching, and as exhaustive
as is necessary to make effective the constitutional powers of Congress." Townsend, 95 F.2d at
361. Furthermore, the Supreme Comi has expressly recognized that "[t]o be a valid legislative
inquiry there need be no predictable end result." Eastland, 421 U.S. at 509.
Third, concerns about what the Committee may do with the tax returns and return
information are baseless. As my April 3rd letter noted, this request falls squarely within the
Committee' s oversight authority. It is well-established law in the D.C. Circuit that " [t]he
presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers and, in the absence of clear
evidence to the contrary, comis presume that they have properly discharged their official duties."
Sussman v. US. Marshals Serv., 494 F .3d 1106, 1117 (D .C. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted); Exxon
Corp. v. FTC, 589 F.2d 582, 589 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ("committees of Congress will exercise their
powers responsibly and with due regard for the rights of affected parties."). In other words, the
IRS, Treasury, and Justice must assume that the Committee Members, like all govermnent
officials, will act properly in the conduct of their official duties.
To date, the IRS has failed to provide the requested return and return information despite
an unambiguous legal obligation to do so under section 6103(f). I expect a reply from the IRS by
5 :00 p.m. on April 23, 2019. Please know that, if you fail to comply, your failure will be interpreted
as a denial of my request.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
The Honorable Richard E. Neal, Chairman



Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

THE TREASURY,
Defendants.
Exhibit F
3033 Wilson Boulevard

Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22201
703.243.9423
www.consovoymccarthy.com
April 15, 2019
Brent J. McIntosh
General Counsel
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Dear Mr. McIntosh:
I wrote you on April 5 to explain why Chairman Neal’s request for my clients’
confidential tax information is illegal. Since then, Chairman Neal has once again requested that
information. In his April 13 letter to Commissioner Rettig, Chairman Neal asserts that “none”
of the legal objections raised in my letter “can legitimately be used to deny the Committee’s
request.” The Chairman is wrong.
Chairman Neal begins with a red herring. He stresses the mandatory language of
section 6103(f): “Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means … the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information.”
26 U.S.C. §6103(f)(1) (emphasis added). But highlighting the word “shall” is a talking point,
not a serious legal argument. “It is a proposition too plain to be contested” that no statute—
not even one that uses mandatory language—can be used to violate the Constitution. Marbury
v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). After all, it is “the Constitution” that Chairman Neal and
his colleagues took an oath to “support and defend.” 5 U.S.C. §3331. That is why the
Congressional Research Service has acknowledged that, despite the “plain language of Section
6103(f),” requests for tax information “must further a ‘legislative purpose’ and not otherwise
breach relevant constitutional rights or privileges.” Congressional Access to the President’s Federal
Tax Returns, CRS (updated Apr. 4, 2019), bit.ly/2Z9ofj3. Chairman Neal’s request does not do
that, as my previous letter explains.
Chairman Neal weakly repeats his original explanation that the request is an effort to
determine “the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a
President.” But no one actually believes this. To quote Senator Kennedy, Chairman Neal’s
request “is not in good faith” and “nobody believes he’s in good faith.” And to quote Senator
Grassley, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee and has the same requesting authority as
Chairman Neal, this invented justification for requesting the President’s tax information
“doesn’t make sense when taken at face value because you can’t take it at face value.” Indeed,
Chairman Neal’s own committee has concluded that a request for the President’s personal and
business tax information would not further any legitimate legislative purpose, but instead
“would be the first time the Committee exercised its authority to wade into the confidential
tax information of an individual with no tie to any investigation within our jurisdiction.”
H. Rep. No. 115-309, at 3.
Page 2 of 3
Yet instead of reassuring the Treasury Department that his request is not pretextual,
Chairman Neal argues that his motives do not matter. The executive branch cannot “question
or second guess the motivations” of Congress, he insists, and Treasury must afford his actions
a “presumption of regularity.” Of course, the Chairman is not willing to reciprocate; the entire
premise of his request is that the executive branch cannot be trusted to faithfully apply the tax
laws to a sitting President. But hypocrisy aside, Chairman Neal is wrong about the law.
Congress’s motives do matter under the Constitution. Take the Constitution’s ban on
intentional racial discrimination, for example. What if, during the height of the civil-rights
movement, the Democrat-controlled House tried to intimidate African-American leaders by
requesting their tax returns? Surely no one would agree with Chairman Neal that the other
branches could not “question or second guess the motivations” of Congress. The same is true
for the First Amendment’s ban on political retaliation. Because this constitutional prohibition
is “motive-based,” it would be “unprecedented” to “immunize all officials whose conduct is
‘objectively valid,’ regardless of improper intent.” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 592-94
(1998). Outside of special contexts like immigration and foreign affairs, “the government’s
reason for [acting] is what counts” under the First Amendment. Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 136
S. Ct. 1412, 1418 (2016) (emphasis added). Tellingly, Chairman Neal does not cite a single case
where Congress was accused of using investigatory tools to unlawfully retaliate against a
political opponent—or even a case that was decided in the last forty years. That is because his
radical view of unchecked congressional power has no support in law.
Further, as explained by Chairman Neal’s own authorities, Congress must always “act[]
in pursuance of its constitutional power.” Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 132 (1959).
The “power to investigate, broad as it may be, is also subject to recognized limitations.” Quinn
v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 161 (1955). Most notably, “the power to investigate must not be
confused with any of the powers of law enforcement; those powers are assigned under our
Constitution to the Executive and the Judiciary.” Id. Congress has no constitutional authority
to act like a junior-varsity IRS, rerunning individual examinations or flyspecking the agency’s
calculations. Congress especially has no constitutional authority to interfere with an ongoing
examination, which would infringe “the Executive Branch’s function of executing the law.”
5 Op. O.L.C. 27, 31 (1981). Because the separation of powers restricts Congress no less than
any other branch of government, the nature of Chairman Neal’s request matters. That it is
limited to a single President, seeks tax information from before the President took office, asks
no questions about IRS policy, and does not even wait for the IRS to finish its ongoing
examinations (and any resulting appeals) reveals that Chairman Neal’s request is nothing more
than an attempt to exercise constitutional authority that Congress does not possess.
I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of these important issues and the Treasury
Department’s prudent decision to consult “with the Department of Justice to ensure that [its]
response is fully consistent with the law and the Constitution” given “the unprecedented
nature of this request.” As Secretary Mnuchin explained, “these are complicated legal issues”
and it is “important to the American taxpayers that we get this right” because “this is a decision
that has enormous precedence in terms of potentially weaponizing the IRS.”
Page 3 of 3
Sincerely,
William S. Consovoy
cc: Steven T. Mnuchin

Charles P. Rettig
Sheri A. Dillon
William F. Nelson


Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

THE TREASURY,
Defendants.
Exhibit G

WASHINGTON, O.C.
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
April 23, 2019

Chairman
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Chairman Neal:
I write in response to your April 13 letter to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue concerning your
April 3 request to obtain the confidential tax returns (and other return information) of President Trump
and related business entities for 2013 through 2018. As explained in my April 10 letter, the
Department of the Treasury shares your view that the Committee's request is unprecedented. 1
Accordingly, the Department cannot act upon your request unless and until it is determined to be
consistent with law.
Due to the serious constitutional questions raised by this request and the serious consequences that a
resolution of those questions could have for taxpayer privacy, the Department is consulting with the
Department of Justice. Although federal law establishes no deadline for a response to your request, we
expect to provide the Committee with a final decision by May 6, after receiving the Justice
Department's legal conclusions. 2
As you know, the overwhelming majority of requests for tax return information from the
Congressional tax committees seek statistical data to inform the drafting of tax legislation. That is
wholly appropriate, and we remain committed to promptly providing information to assist the
committees in their legislative work. Your April 3 request is categorically different. It seeks the
returns of a single individual taxpayer for an asserted purpose that is at odds with what you and many
others have repeatedly said is the request's intent: to publicly release the President's tax returns. The
Supreme Court has made clear that exposure for the sake of exposure is never a permissible purpose of
Congressional inquiries,3 and this principle is all the more important when private and legally
protected tax information is at stake.
1See Richard Rubin, Trump's Tax Returns in the Spotlight if Democrats Capture the House, Wall St. J., Oct. 3, 2018
("'This has never happened before, so you want to be very meticulous,' Mr. Neal said.").
2 Unlike other provisions in section 6103, subsection (t) imposes no deadline for action on the Committee's request.
Compare 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f) with, e.g., id. at (g)(5). In the absence ofa statutory deadline, agencies are entitled to a
reasonable time to evaluate a requested action. While the Committee's April 3 letter was received three months after the
beginning of the current Congress, we expect to provide the Committee with a final decision in substantially less time.
3 See Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 200 (1957).
History demonstrates that private tax return information is susceptible to abuse for partisan purposes-
regardless of which party is in power. Unless carefully restrained by law, this risk threatens the
privacy of all taxpayers. Millions of Americans are required to entrust their personal financial
information to the IRS every year, and they rightly expect that their information will be used only for
legitimate governmental purposes. The Department takes this public trust seriously. IRS employees
are forbidden from accessing return information unless the information is necessary to perform their
bona fide job responsibilities. Accessing private tax returns for any other purpose is prohibited, and
intentionally disclosing tax return information for political purposes would be an egregious violation of
the trust that American taxpayers place in the IRS. Any IRS employee who does so could face
criminal penalties, in addition to termination.
Your request presents the question whether there are any legal limits on the ability of a Congressional
tax-writing committee to obtain an individual's private tax returns from the IRS and disclose them
publicly. Your April 13 letter indicates that the Committee believes there is only one: the Committee
need simply recite a legislative purpose, after which the Department must ignore all evidence in the
public record, however overwhelming, that the asserted purpose is pretext for a constitutionally suspect
one. We have concerns about that view of the law because it appears to neglect our respective
constitutional duties. The Committee's request presents the legal question especially starkly because
the public record surrounding the request indicates an impermissible purpose that is impossible to
ignore. The resolution of this issue could set a precedent that will reverberate for years to come-
again, regardless of which party is in power.
Out ofrespect for the Committee on Ways and Means, this letter explains some of the legal concerns
that have prompted the Department to consult the Department of Justice.
The Constitutional Limits
Our concerns begin with common ground. Based on your April 13 letter, the Committee appears to
agree that a request under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f)-like any government action- must comply with the
Constitution. The Committee's authority under section 6103(f) cannot, of course, exceed Congress's
powers under Article I. Consequently, parsing the language of section 6103(f) alone cannot resolve
the legal issues raised by your request.
It is also common ground that Congress's investigative power is not unlimited. Article I grants
Congress no express power to investigate. The Supreme Court has explained that Congress's
investigative power exists as an "auxiliary to the legislative function," and so "the only legitimate
object" of this power is "to aid [Congress] in legislating."4 As the authorities cited in your letter
establish, Congressional committee requests for information must be pertinent to an investigation
within the jurisdiction of the committee and must reasonably serve a legitimate legislative purpose.
4
McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174, 178 (1927).
2
The Supreme Court has made clear that "[n]o inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in
furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress." 5 The Court has also made clear what is illegitimate,
expressing "no doubt that there is no congressional power ... to expose for the sake of exposure. " 6
The Committee's Asserted Purpose
The Committee's April 3 letter requests President Trump's tax returns ostensibly to conduct
"oversight" of "the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a
President." But an honest assessment of the Committee's purpose must start with a recognition that
the Committee's letter is not the beginning of the story.
The Committee's April 3 request is the culmination of a long-running, well-documented effort to

expose the President's tax returns for the sake of exposure. This effort arose from the presidential
election campaign of 2016. After the President took office, this effort continued throughout the
previous Congress with what you and Representative Pascrell described in a committee report as the
Committee Democrats' "steadfast ... pursuit" to use section 6103(f) "to have [President Trump's]
individual tax returns disclosed to the public." 7 Then-Leader Pelosi and senior Ways and Means
Committee members repeatedly acknowledged that the purpose of requesting the President's tax
returns was to "make those tax returns public." 8 Indeed, the chief architects of the April 3 request also
served as original cosponsors of a House resolution of inquiry that sought to force the immediate
public release of the President's tax retums.9
Although those efforts failed in the last Congress, Leader Pelosi made clear that exposing the
President's tax returns would remain a top priority in the current Congress, describing it as "one of the
first things we'd do--that's the easiest thing in the world." 10 With the new majority in place, the
Committee took up Speaker Pelosi's charge and, in your own words, "constructed" a "case" to obtain
the President's tax returns. 11 The public record demonstrates that the animating purpose of this effort
5
Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187.
6
Id. at 200.
7
H.R. Rep. No. 115-73, Dissenting Views, at 8 (Mar. 30, 2017), https:l/www.congress.gov/l 15/crpt/hrpt73/CRPT-
l 15hrpt73.pdf("Committee Democrats remain steadfast in our pursuit to have [President Trump's] individual tax returns
disclosed to the public,").
8
Transcript, House Democratic Leadership Press Conference at 2017 Issues Conference (Feb. 8, 2017),
https:l/www.speaker.gov/newsroom/282017/ (hereinafter Issues Conference).
9
H. Res. 186, 115th Cong. (Mar. 9, 2017)..
10
John Wildermuth, Pelosi: Trump's tax returns are fair game ifDemocrats win House, S.F. Chron., Oct. 11, 2018,
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politicslartic le/Pelosi-Trump-s-tax-retums-are-fair-game-i f-13 297954.php (quoting Leader
Pelosi).
11
Sunlen Serfaty, et al., Republicans Warn Trump Tax Request 'Sets A Dangerous Standard' and Accuse Dems Of
Weaponizing IRS, CNN, Apr. 5, 2019, https:l/www.cnn.com/2019/04/04/politicsltrump-tax-retums-request-republicans-
congress/index.html ("[W]e wanted to make sure that the case that we constructed was in fact one that would stand up
under the critical scrutiny of the federal courts.").
3
was and remains exposure of a political opponent's private tax information. A chronology of this
public record is attached to this letter as Appendix A. 12
No doubt aware of the public record showing that the Committee's constructed case is a pretext for
exposure, the Committee has urged the Department to "not ... question or second guess" the motives
behind the legislative purpose the Committee now invokes. But it is not questioning or second-
guessing the Committee to credit its Chairman's and Members' own public statements as to the
purpose of their request, or to credit similar statements by the Speaker of the House.
Even if those public statements could be ignored, the Committee's stated interest in "the extent to
which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President" is difficult to accept on its
face. As an objective matter, the terms of the Committee's request do not fit the Committee's asserted
purpose in several respects. To start, the Committee does not inquire about the IRS's procedures for
presidential audits. Although the IRS has conducted mandatory examinations of Presidents' tax
returns since 1976, the Committee does not request additional information about those policies or ask
whether those policies and procedures have changed over time. 13 Nor does the Committee ask for any
information about the extensive protections that ensure such audits are conducted with extreme
confidentiality and without improper interference.
In addition, the request seeks tax information related only to the current President. The Committee's
exclusive focus on a single taxpayer cannot be explained by the public availability of past Presidents'
tax returns; to the best of our knowledge, much of the tax information that the Committee requests for
President Trump, including all IRS audit files, has never been publicly released with respect to any
past President.
Further, any genuine assessment of the effectiveness of a specific taxpayer audit requires reviewing the
outcome of the audit- revisions in liability, settlements, and other resolutions. But rather than request
completed audit files on past Presidents, the Committee seeks the returns of the only President for
whom the audit process necessarily remains ongoing, as sitting Presidents are subject to mandatory
examinations under IRS rules. 14
On the other hand, the Committee's request is perfectly tailored to the other purpose that you have
repeatedly and publicly stated: to obtain and expose the President's tax returns. See App. A.
The Department's Concerns
The Committee has not denied that the stated purpose of its April 3 letter is a constructed pretext.
Instead, it has maintained that the veracity of its stated purpose is irrelevant as a matter of law. As
noted, the Committee's April 13 letter asserts that "the motivations underlying Congressional action
12
Appendix B, also attached to this letter, catalogues additional statements concerning the Committee's purpose and the
efforts culminating in the Committee's April 3 request.
13
See IRM § 3.28.3.1; see also Joint Committee on Taxation, Background Regarding the Confidentiality and Disclosure of
Federal Tax Returns (JCX-3-19) (Feb. 4,2019), https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func- startdown&id=5 l59.
14
See IRM § 3.28.3.4.3 ("Individual income tax returns for the President and Vice President are subject to mandatory
examinations.").
4
are not to be second guessed." It is not clear to us that the Executive Branch must always accept a
pretextual legislative justification as constitutionally adequate, in the face of widespread,
contemporaneous acknowledgment by the Committee Chairman and other key Members that the actual
objective is to use the IRS as a means to expose the tax returns of a political opponent. Nor do we
share your confidence that there is no limit to the willingness of the courts to accept obviously
pretextual legislative justifications for information demands-particularly when private tax
information is at risk.
We emphasize that the Department's concerns with the legality of the Committee's request extend far
beyond its particulars. Taxpayer confidentiality is the linchpin of our tax system of self-assessment
and voluntary compliance. The IRS promises to "administer the disclosure provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code ... according to the spirit and intent of these laws, ever mindful of the public trust." 15
This trust would be eroded if government officials could obtain the tax returns of any person they
dislike solely for the sake of exposure, to achieve partisan political aims, or for other impermissible
purposes- merely by constructing a pretextual case and demanding all other government actors blindly
defer to that pretext. If that were so, nothing could stop a committee chairman from obtaining the tax
returns of any politically disfavored individual- whether it be the head of a civil rights organization,
an executive of a major corporation, a political donor, or a local activist. In all of these cases, a
committee chairman would need only assert, as here, that he wants the returns of a particular individual
in order to review the adequacy of the IRS's process of auditing that individual.
The Department recognizes that the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch have an obligation to
work together to accommodate their respective legitimate needs and interests. To the extent the
Committee wishes to understand, for genuine oversight purposes, how the IRS audits and enforces the
Federal tax laws against a President, we would be happy to accommodate that interest by providing
additional information on the mandatory audit process. I would encourage the Committee to defer its
unprecedented request and revisit this issue after it has the opportunity to work together with the
Department to meets its stated legislative needs.
Although the Committee has asserted that any response from the Department other than production of
the requested materials will be "interpreted as a denial," that would be a misinterpretation. The
Committee's request has not been denied or granted at this time. The Department expects to take final
action on the Committee's request by May 6, after receiving the Justice Department's legal
conclusions.
Sincerely,
5-r~T. f1A N ~
Steven T. Mnuchin
15
IRS Pub. 1075, Tax lnfonnation Security Guidelines for Federal, State and Local Agencies, at 1,
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs·pdf/p I 075.pdf.
5
------
APPENDIX A
Chronology
The 2016 Election
The effort to expose President Trump's tax returns began during the 2016 election. The
Democratic candidate for President urged then-candidate Trump to release his returns. When he
declined to do so, the Democratic candidate sought to generate political pressure to force their
release, repeatedly criticizing his decision and expressing her belief that public exposure of the
returns would be politically damaging to her opponent. 1
Representative Neal's Advocacy for Exposure
When President Trump took office after the election, the House Minority Leader and senior
Democratic members of the Committee on Ways and Means (including Ranking Member Neal)
took up their party's election season demands in Congress. Their chosen tool was
section 6103(0. The stated rationales have shifted over time, but the objective remained
constant: Use section 6103(0 to obtain the tax returns and make them public.
As Ranking Member of the Committee, Representative Neal immediately began urging the
Committee to obtain President Trump's tax returns for the purpose of releasing them. In
February 2017, he explained his desire for a public opportunity to "see the tax forms" and for
"the media to sift and sort" them. 2 In March 2017, Ranking Member Neal and other Members
urged Chairman Kevin Brady to submit a section 6103(0 request "for copies of the President's
federal tax returns for the last ten years." 3 They explained that the Committee should "then vote
... to submit the President's federal tax returns to the House of Representatives and Senate-
thereby, if successful, making them available to the public."4 In April 2017, Ranking Member
1
See, e.g., Tire Lead with Jake Tapper (CNN television broadcast May 11, 2016) ("[W]hy doesn't he want to release
them? Yes, well, we're going to find out."), ht1p://www.cnn.comffRANSCRIPTS/1605/l l/cg.01.html; New Day
(CNN television broadcast Aug. 2, 2016) ("We would like to sec those tax returns, wouldn't we?"),
http://www.cnn.com!fRANSCRlPTS/1608/02/nday.03.html; The Situation Room (CNN television broadcast Aug,
12, 2016) ("He refuses to do what every other presidential candidate in decades has done and release his tax
returns."), http://www.cnn.comffRANSCRIPTS/1608/12/silroom.O I.html; Erin Burnett Out Front (CNN television
broadcast Sept. 6, 2016) ("He said that the American people don't care about his tax returns, and in fact, he's also
said that it's none of our business. I just think he's dead wrong."),
http:l/www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1609/06/ebo.Ol.html; The Situation Room (CNN lelevision broadcast Sept. 7,
2016) ("He clearly has something to hide."), http://www.cnn.com!fRANSCRIPTS/1609/07/sitroom.02.html;
Newsroom (CNN television broadcast Sept. 27, 2016) ("Maybe he doesn't want the American people, all of you
watching tonight, lo know that he's paid nothing in Federal taxes ...."),
htlp://www .cnn.com/TRAN SCRIPTS/ 1609/27/cnr.03.html.
2Press Conference, Rep. Richard Neal, C-SPAN Video, at 19:10-20:19 (Feb. 14, 2017), https://www.c-
span.org/video/?424013-1 /house-de mocrals-call-i nvcstigation-wake-michael-n yn ns-resi gn ati on.
3
Leucr from Hon. Bill Pascrell, Jr., et al., to Hon. Orrin Hatch, Chairman, S. Comm. on Finance, & Hon. Kevin
Brady, Chairman, H. Comm. on Ways & Means (Mar. 2, 2017).
4 Jd.
Neal recalled the 2016 election and asserted that President Trump was "supposed to" have made
these returns available to the-public as a candidate.5
Ranking Member Neal also served as an original cosponsor of a resolution of inquiry, H. Res.
186, providing that "the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to furnish to the House of
Representatives, not later than l O days after the adoption of this resolution, the full tax returns of
Donald J. Trump for tax years 2006 through 2015."6 Ranking Member Neal explained that the
resolution was designed to force the immediate public exposure of those returns. 7
On March 30, 2017, the Committee voted down H. Res. 186 and issued a report condemning the
resolution as an "abuse of authority." 8 In dissenting views included in the committee report,
Ranking Member Neal reiterated his "steadfast" objective of exposing the President's tax returns
to the public:
Committee Republicans continue to block our requests for this Committee to

exercise its authority under Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code to obtain,
examine, and make available to the public President Trump's federal tax
returns .... Committee Democrats remain steadfast in our pursuit to have
[President Trump's] individual tax retums disclosed to the public.9
Ranking Member Neal's dissenting views made no mention of any interest in understanding how
the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President, as the Committee's April 3
letter now asserts.
Other Senior House Democrats' Advocacy for Exposure
Leader Pelosi and other senior Ways and Means Committee members also repeatedly stated that
the purpose of requesting President Trump's tax returns was to "make those tax returns public." 10
Leader Pelosi explained that requesting the returns would satisfy the public's "right to know" 11
and complained that Republicans "won't join us in the release of the President's tax returns." 12
s "This is not about the law, this is about custom and practice. It's a seuled tradition ... candidates reach the level
of expectation that they're supposed to release their tax forms." Press Conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,
Demanding a Vote Requiring President Trump lo Release Tax Returns (Apr. 5, 2017),
hups://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/4517/ (remarks of Ranking Member Richard Neal).
6 H. Res. 186, 115th Cong. (Mar. 9, 2017).
7
See id.; H.R. Rep. No. 115-73, Dissenting Views, al 8 (Mar. 30, 2017),
https://www.congrcss.gov/115/crpl/hrpt73/CRPT-l l 5hrpl73.pdf (hereinafter Ways & Means Reporl).
8
Ways & Means Report, al 3.
9
Ways & Means Report, Dissenting Views, al 7-8 (emphasis added).
10Transcript, House Democratic Leadership Press Conference at 2017 Issues Conference (Feb. 8, 2017),
hups://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/282017/ (hereinafter Issues Conference).
11
163 Cong. Rec. H2498 (daily ed. Mar. 28, 2017) (statement of Rep. Pelosi),
https://www.congress.gov/l I 5/crec/2017/03/28/CREC-2017-03-28-house.pdf.
12
Press Conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (July 13, 2017), https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/7 I 3 I 7-8/.
2
Exposure for the sake of exposure was the one constant purpose that drove the requests that
Ranking Member Neal and other senior Committee members advocated throughout the previous
Congress. In addition, Congressional leaders offered a wide variety of evolving rationales and
speculation about what, if anything, might be found in the tax returns upon their exposure.
Before the conclusion of the Special Counsel's investigation, a common theory was that the
President's tax returns would show "the President's relationship with Russia," "disruption of our
[2016] election," and "any personal embarrassment to the President." 13 Leader Pelosi
speculated: "We think [the returns] will show us some connection that will be useful in the
investigation of what do the Russians have on Donald Trump ...." 14
Another theory offered by the lead sponsor of H. Res. 186, Representative Pascrell, was that
exposure of the President's tax returns would help "make sure the President and his family are
not hiding financial ties that could cause conflicts in decision making." 15 Representative Pascrell
also thought it was "imperative for the public to know" the President's "self-reported net
worth," 16 and Ranking Member Neal thought they should know "just how extensive [his]
overseas investments have been," based on the tax returns 17
In yet another theory, Ranking Member Neal's dissent in support of H. Res. 186 explained that
the President's tax returns would give the "clearest picture" of the President's "financial health"
and inform the consideration of tax reform legislation (which was enacted in December 2017). 18
Other theories included speculation that the tax returns would expose the President's
"emoluments"· 19 would show his "charitable donations" or "tax loopholes"· 20 would reveal
' '
whether he had a "Chinese connection"; 21 or would "maybe ... be a path to some other
13 Issues Conference, supra note 10; Press Conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Mar. 8, 2017),
https://www.speakcr.gov/ncwsroom/382017-2/.
14 Press Conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Apr. 6, 2017), https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/4617-4/.
15 Press Conference, House Democrats (Feb. 14, 2017) (statement of Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr.),
http://www.cq.com/doc/ne wsmakertranscripts-514 2259 ?O&search=IDV xTm49.
16
Letter from Hon. Bill Pascrell, Jr., to Hon. Kevin Brady, Chairman, H. Comm. on Ways & Means (Feb. I, 2017),
hups://pascrel I.house.gov/ ne ws/docu men tsi ngle .aspx ?Docume ntlD=2195.
17Press Conference, Rep. Richard Neal, C-SPAN Video, at 19:46 (Feb. 14, 2017), h1tps://www.c-
span.org/video/?4240 13-1 /house-democrats-cal I-investigation-wake-michae1-flynns-resi gnation.
18
Ways & Means Report, Dissenting Views, at 7.
19
Letter from Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Oversight.& Gov't Reform, el al., lo Hon.
Paul Ryan, Speaker, U.S. House of Reps., at 2,6 (Jan. 12, 2017),
hups ://oversight. house .gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house .gov/files/doc ume nts/2017-0 1-
l 2 .Ranking %20Members %20to%20Speakcr%20Ryan%20Re .Trump_. pdf; see also Amendment offered by Rep.
Doggeu to the Authorization and Oversight Plan of the H. Comm. on Ways & Means (Feb. 14, 2017), https://gop-
waysandmeans.housc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/20170214-Doggeu-Amendment.pdf.
20 See, e.g., 163 Cong. Rec. H4212 (May 16, 2017) (stalemenl of Rep. Pascrcll),
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017 /05/ I6/house-section/aniclc/H4212- I.
21
Press Conference, Minorily Leader Nancy Pelosi, Demanding a Vote Requiring President Trump to Release Tax
Relurns (Apr. 5, 2017), hnps://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/4517/.
3
questions." 22 At other times, Leader Pelosi simply explained that exposure of the President's tax
returns would "fulfill" a campaign "promise," or would "honor tradition." 23
Although the efforts to force the public release of President Trump's tax returns in the previous
Congress failed (despite numerous letters, committee amendments, resolutions, and other
attempts), 24 Leader Pelosi made clear that the effort would continue if Democrats took the House
in 2018. The San Francisco Chronicle reported in October 2018 that Leader Pelosi "told the
[paper's] editorial board" that "demanding the president's tax returns 'is one of the first things
we'd do-that's the easiest thing in the world."' 25
The Committee's Construction of a Pretextual Purpose
With a new Democratic majority in the House, the Committee pressed ahead in the effort to
obtain and release the President's tax returns. Chairman Neal had recognized the unprecedented
nature of the Committee's planned request: ''This has never happened before, so you want to be
very meticulous." 26
In January 2019, the Committee spokesperson explained the plan to "force"·the disclosure of the
President's returns: '"[Chairman Neal] wants to lay out a case about why presidents should be
disclosing their tax returns before he formally forces [the President] to do it. '"27
Because Congress may only conduct investigations to further a legitimate legislative purpose,
Congressional investigations ordinarily begin with a legislative purpose, and that purpose defines
the scope of the documents that are pertinent to the Committee's investigation. 28 But here, by
the Committee's own admission, the Committee's investigation began in the opposite direction.
The Committee started with the documents it planned to obtain and release (the President's tax
returns), and then it sought- in Chairman Neal's words- to "construct[]" a "case" for seeking
the documents that would appear to be in furtherance of a legitimate legislative purpose. 29
22 Press Conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (June 2, 2017), hllps://www.spcakcr.gov/ncwsroom/62 l 7-4/.
23
Blog Post, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Where arc President Trump's Tax Returns?, (June 20, 2017),
hUps://www.spcakcr.gov/ncwsroom/where-arc-presidcnl·trumps· lax-rcturns/.
24
See Rep. Bill Pascrcll, President Trump's Tax Returns, hups://pascrcll.housc.gov/issues/prcsidcnt-trumps-1ax-
rcturns/ (last visited Apr. 23, 2019).
2
s John Wildermuth, Pelosi: Tmmp's tax returns are fair game if Democrats win House, S.F. Chron., Oct. 11, 2018
(quoting Leader Pelosi), hllps://www.sfchroniclc.com/politics/articlc/Pclosi·Trurnp-s-lax-relurns-are-fair-game-if-
l 3297954.php.
26
Richard Rubin, Trump's Tax Retttms in tlie Spotliglit if Democrats Capture the House, Wall St. J., Oct. 3, 2018.
27 Brian Faler, /11coming Democratic Tax Chairman Won't Make Quick Grab For Tmmp 's Returns, Politico, Jan. 2,
2019 (quoting Comrnince Spokesperson), hups://www.politico.com/story/2019/0 l/02/congrcss-lrump-tax-returns-
richard-neal-1056839.
28
See 163 Cong. Rec. S2260 (daily ed. Apr. 4, 2019) (statement of Sen. Grassley),
https://www.congress.gov/l I 6/crec/2019/04/04/CREC-2019-04-04-senate.pdf.
2
Serfaty, et al., Republicans Warn Trump Tax Request 'Sets A Dangerous Standard' and Accuse Dems Of
~ Sunlen
Weaponizitlg IRS, CNN, Apr. 5, 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/04/politics/trump-tax-returns-request-
4
The Committee knew that exposure for the sake of exposure would not be a legitimate purpose,
and so the Committee could no longer rely upon prior statements to that effect. At the same
time, the Committee lacked jurisdiction to rely upon other frequently cited public justifications
for the request-such as interest in "the Russian connection"30 and the President's alleged
financial conflicts of interest. Other House committees might have tried to make 6103(f)
requests based upon such justifications, but no other House committee would have the authority
to publicly release the tax returns after obtaining them. As the Committee was advised by the
former Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, there is "one key for purposes of
disclosing the information to the public" and the statute "gave that key to the tax committees." 31
To use this key, the Committee on Ways and Means had to make the request, and the other
justifications that might have been offered by other committees had to be discarded.
Thus, the Committee with the key to publicly disclose the tax returns, in Chairman Neal's words,
"constructed" a "case" to justify its request. 32 The result was the Committee's letter of April 3,
asserting a single legislative interest in "the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the
Federal tax laws against a President," and requesting the tax returns and related documents of
just one of them-President Trump. 33
republicans-congress/index.html ("[WJe wanted to make sure that the case that we constructed was in fact one that
would stand up under the critical scrutiny of the federal courts,").
30
Press Conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Demanding a Vote Requiring President Trump to Release Tax
Returns (Apr. 5, 2017), hllps://www.spcaker.gov/ncwsroom/45 I 7/.
31
Transcript, legislative Proposals and Tax law Related to Presidential and Vice-Preside11tial Tax Returns:
Hearing before Subcomm. 011 Oirersight, H. Comm. 011 Ways & Means, I 16th Cong. (Feb. 7, 2019) (statement of
Joseph K. Yin, Professor, Univ. of Virginia Law School),
https!//waysandmcans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/fi\es/documents/Transcript%20-
%20Final.pd f.
n Serfaty, supra note 30 (quoting Chairman Neal).
3
>Lener from Hon. Richard E. Neal, Chairman, H. Comm. on Ways & Means, to Hon. Charles P. Rettig, Comm'r,
IRS (Apr. 3, 2019),
https://waysandmeans.housc.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.housc.gov/liles/documcnts/Neal%20Leuer%20to%
20Rettig%20%28signed%29%20-%202019 .04.03.pdf.
5
APPENDIXB
Additional Statements
Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton (May 11, 2016)
When you run for president, especially when you become the nominee, that is kind of
expected. My husband and I have released 33 years of tax returns. We have got eight
years on our Web site right now. So you have got to ask yourself, why doesn't he want to
release them? Yes, well, we're going to find out.
The Lead with Jake Tapper (CNN television broadcast May 11, 2016),
http://www.cnn.com/fRANSCRIPTS/1605/l l/cg.Ol .html.
Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton (Aug. 2, 2016)
We would like to see those tax returns, wouldn't we?
CNN New Day (CNN television broadcast Aug. 2, 2016),

http://www.cnn.comffRANSCRIPTS/ 1608/02/nday.03.html.
Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton (Aug. 12, 2016)
He refuses to do what every other presidential candidate in decades has done and release
his tax returns.
The Situation Room (CNN television broadcast Aug. 12, 2016),

http://www.cnn.com/fRANSCRIPTS/1608/12/sitroom.01.html.
Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton (Sept. 6, 2016)
He said that the American people don't care about his tax returns, and in fact, he's also
said that it's none of our business. I just think he's dead wrong. He clearly has something
to hide.
The scams, the frauds and the questionable relationships, the business activities that have
stiffed workers, refused to pay small businesses, so, clearly, his tax returns tell a story
that the American people deserve and need to know.
Erin Burnett Outfront (CNN television broadcast Sept. 6, 2016),

http://www.cnn.comfl'RANSCRIPTS/ 1609/06/ebo.O I .html.
Page I of 42
Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vice Presidential Candidate Tim Kaine
(Sept. 7, 2016)
Clinton: He clearly has something to hide. We don't know exactly what it is, but we're
getting better guesses.
** *
Clinton: Clearly, his tax returns tell a story that the American people deserve and need to
know.
***
Kaine: Maybe he doesn't want people to see that he's got some connections.
The Situation Room (CNN television broadcast Sept. 7, 2016),

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ 1609/07/sitroom.02.html.
Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton (Sept. 27, 2016)
Maybe he doesn't want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that
he's paid nothing in Federal taxes.
CNN Newsroom (CNN television broadcast Sept. 27, 2016),

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ 1609/27/cnr.03.html.
Ranking Member Richard Neal (Jan. 12, 2017)
We request that you join us in fulfilling our sworn constitutional duty by seeking and
obtaining copies of the following documents: President-Elect Trump's personal and
corporate tax returns, domestic and foreign, for the past five years, regardless of whether
they are still under audit ... and all other documents necessary to help protect against
violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution and conflicts of interest,
including with foreign adversaries such as Russia.
Letter from Hon. Richard E. Neal, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Ways & Means, et al., to
Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker, U.S. House of Reps. (Jan. 12, 2017),
https://oversight. house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight. house.gov/files/documen ts/2017-01-
l 2. Ranking%20Members %20to% 20S peaker%20Ryan % 20Re. Trump_. pdf.
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ} (Feb. l, 2017)
President Trump has chosen to keep an ownership stake in his businesses, the scope of
which we have no knowledge of as he has refused to disclose his tax returns. We believe
that it is imperative for the public to know and understand his 564 financial positions in
domestic and foreign companies and his self-reported net worth of more than $10 billion.
Page 2 of 42
We know that state-owned enterprises in China and the United Arab Emirates are
involved in his businesses, and that his business ties stretch to India, Turkey, the
Philippines, and beyond. Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan may also have ties to his
businesses, these foreign entities are paying rents, licensing agreement payments, and
issuing permits for developments -- effectively giving them a tool to influence our new
President.
***
If the President does not either release his returns or consent to examination of such
returns by this Committee, I urge you, as Chairman of the Committee and pursuant to
Section 6103(t)(l) of the Internal Revenue Code, to submit a written request to the
Secretary of the Treasury for copies of the President's federal tax returns by February 15,
2017. These returns and all accompanying return information should then be made
available for examination by all Committee Members in a closed executive session. I
further request that the Committee then vote in this closed session to submit the
President's federal tax returns to the House of Representatives-thereby, if successful,
making them available to the public.
***
I believe the powerful Ways and Means Committee has the responsibility to use that
power to ensure proper oversight of the executive branch by requesting a review of
President Trump's tax returns and moving towards a formal release of these documents to
the public.
Letter from Hon. Bill Pascrell, Jr. to Hon. Kevin Brady, Chairman, H. Comm. on Ways & Means
(Feb. 1, 2017), https://pascrell.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Document1D=2 l 95.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 5, 2017)
I want to know what the Russians have on Donald Trump. I think we have to have an
investigation by the FBI into his financial, personal and political connections to Russia,
and we want to see his tax returns, so we can have truth in the relationship between Putin,
whom he admires, and Donald Trump.
Meet the Press (NBC television broadcast Feb. 5, 2017), at 3:56,

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-pelosi-interview-trump-white-house-using-
diversionary-tactics-870511683900.
As you know, I've been questioning the President's relationship with Russia. It's
extremely alarming, and it could undermine our national security. What on earth do the
Russians have on Donald Trump? That he could flirt with the idea of lifting sanctions on
Russia despite their aggressive military behavior? That he could lift the sanctions already
Page 3 of 42
on the successor to the KGB a group that we know hacked into our systems, disrupting
our election? That he is saying things about a person, that qualifies as a war criminal and
giving some equivalence to the United States of America? This is the President of the
United States. The President of the United States.
So I'm just saying, at least show us your tax returns. Is the audit over? Is this the audit
for eternity? And of course that's never been a justification for not releasing your tax
returns. The President continues to hide his tax returns which could provide vital insight
into what financial influence Russia has on him, whether it's personal, political or
financial. We call upon the FBI to do that investigation, it is in our national security
interest. Chairman Brady is Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and Chairman
of the Joint Committee of Taxation, is empowered to demand Trump's tax returns from
the Secretary of the Treasury. All he has to do is ask, and hold a committee vote to make
those tax returns public.
Mr. President what do the Russians have on you personally, politically or financially?
The process is - the privilege only goes to the Chairman to make the request. But then
the committee can vote to make the tax returns public. This is as you may recall, you
wouldn't recall, but in your history books you may read what happened with President
Nixon a long time ago. So we're calling on Chairman Brady to bring out those tax
returns.
Press Conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leadership Press
Conference at 2017 Issues Conference (Feb. 8, 2017),
https://www .speaker.gov/newsroom/282017/.
The reports of the Trump-Russia dossier gain credence with each passing day. As long as
Republicans refuse to compel the release of President Trump's tax returns, they are
complicit in covering up Russia's financial, personal and political hold on the
Administration.
Press Release, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Pelosi: Fire General Flynn (Feb. 13, 2017),
https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/2 l3 l 7/.
And again Mr. Neal, whose importance in this meeting is that we need to see the truth of
President Trump's investments. His committee has the authority, the chairman of the
committee in the House or the chairman of the committee in the Senate, Chairman Brady
or Chairman Hatch and in addition to the Finance Committee, and Ways and Means
Committee - the Joint Committee on Taxation, the chairman on that committee, Mr.
Brady, again, have the authority to ask the Secretary of the Treasury for the tax returns of
anyone in our country if there's reason to know that.
Page 4 of 42
They can ask for the president's tax returns, and then by a vote in their committee, they
can decide where they should be released to the public, so there's another stonewalling
because they said they can't be caught up in rummaging. This isn't rummaging, this is
truth and consequences. The American people have a right to know the truth. We see the
consequences which can be dangerous to our national security.
So the question is, why is the FBI not fully investigating the political, personal, and
financial ties of Donald Trump to the Russians? Show us your tax reforms -- return so we
can see what some of that connection might be, and stop flirting with lifting sanctions and
condemning the ST ART Treaty and the rest of that, which have -- because you' re flirting
with Russia, which has a direct impact on the safety of the American people.
Press Conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Reacting to Resignation of National Security
Advisor Michael Flynn (Feb. 14, 2017), https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/2142017/.
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) (Feb. 14, 2017)
The president and the Congressional Republicans have been very vocal about their desire
to enact comprehensive tax reform for this congress. We believe it is imperative for the
public to know and understand how such tax reform will benefit the president.
***
This is not willy-nilly, this is a serious attempt to get the truth to the American people,
and you will decide Mr. Chairman, using the power of this committee to make them
public.
H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Full Committee Markup, at 32:45, 40:45 (Feb. 14, 2017)
(Statement of Rep. Pascrell), https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/event/ways-means-hold-
meeting/.
Ranking Member Neal (Feb. 14, 2017)
The President has indicated during the course of the campaign that only he knows how to
fix the tax system and as we proceed to tax reform, which is a very complex issue and
matter, as we all know, and how difficult it is to do. There is an opportunity here for all of
us to cooperate and for the president to lead the way. So I am in support of Mr. Doggett's
amendment and Mr. Pascrell's letter.
H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Full Committee Markup, at 33:23 (Feb. 14, 2017) (statement of
Ranking Member Neal), https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/event/ways-means-hold-meeting/.
Page 5 of 42
Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) (Feb. 14, 2017)
The only way you will bury the doubts is by letting the public see the information.
H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Full Committee Markup, at 36:51 (Feb. 14, 2017) (statement of
Rep. Levin), https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/event/ways-means-hold-meeting/.
Amendment Offered by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) (Feb. 14, 2017)
Amend the Ways and Means Committee oversight plan by adding the following under
matters under the Committee's Tax Jurisdiction:
Pursuant to Section 6103(t)( 1) of the Internal Revenue Code, the Chairman of the
Committee will submit a written request to the Secretary of the Treasury by March I,
2017, for copies of the President's federal tax returns for the last ten years. These returns
and all accompanying return information should then be made available for examination
by bipartisan Committee staff, and additionally, in executive session, by all committee
members. The Committee will review potential conflicts and violations of the
emoluments clause, and potential entanglements with foreign governments and foreign
state owned enterprises.
Amendment offered by Rep. Doggett to the Authorization and Oversight Plan of the H. Comm.
on Ways & Means (Feb. 14, 2017), https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-
conten t/u ploads/20l7/02/20170214-Doggett-Amendment. pdf.
Ranking Member Richard Neal (Feb. 14, 2017)
The last seven American presidents have released to the American people their tax forms.
And they've done it as a standard operating procedure through the course of the campaign
and then subsequently during their time as president.
It was an annual event, and there was sufficient opportunity then for members of
Congress, members of the administration and the media to sift and sort what those tax
forms told us. So in this instance, I think there is, again, an opportunity for all of us to
review the president's tax forms to find out just how extensive the overseas investments
have been.
And it'll then give the American people the chance to see it. He indicated that once the
audit was done, that he would release the tax forms, and then pointed out just a few
weeks ago through a spokesperson that the American people didn't care about those tax
forms.
Well I believe that ABC News has indicated that 75 percent of the American people
would like to see the tax forms, consistent with what the last seven American presidents
have done....
Page 6 of 42
Press Conference, Statement by Rep. Richard Neal, C-Span Video, 19:00 (Feb. 14, 2017),
https ://www.c-span.org/video/?424013-1 /house-democrats-call-in vestigation-wake-michael-
fl ynns-resignation.
Rep. Bill Pascrell {D-NJ) (Feb. 14, 2017)
Since February, we've held nine votes on the floor of the House of Representatives. And
in -- March 1st, I offered a resolution of inquiry that was debated in the Ways and Means
Committee. At each turn, the Republicans in Congress blocked our efforts.
Why are they hiding and being complicit, to use the speaker's -- the leader's word, in
keeping Trump's conflicts secret and hidden? Why? Why is that? Why won't Republican
members of Congress use their authority in the law to provide oversight and make sure
the president and his family are not hiding financial ties that could cause conflicts in the
decision-making?
We have no way of knowing whether Mr. Trump or his firms have received Russian
income or loans or entered into Russian-linked partnerships. We have a right to know
that.
The legislative branch has the responsibility and the authority to check the executive
branch, under Section 6103 of the tax code, which allows for an examination of his
returns, the authority put in place specifically so Congress could examine conflicts of
interest in the executive, following that great scandal in the early 1920s.
Today, I'll be introducing a new resolution of inquiry to give the Ways and Means
Committee another chance to get it. And -- and by the way, in conclusion, it's not enough
for Republican congressmen to go to town meetings and say, "Yes, the president should
give us his tax returns," and then not -- come back to Washington and not have the
courage to stand up for their convictions and say, "This is the direction we should be
going."
And that's not good enough. So there's been over 20 people on the other side that have
said he should release his tax returns, but will not vote to do it. Congress can, and must,
use its authority to address President Trump's tax returns and give the American people
the transparency they deserve.
Press Conference, Statement by Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) (Feb. 14, 2017),
http://www.cg.com/doc/newsmakertranscri pts-514 2259.
What do the Russians have on Donald Trump that he would flirt with lifting our sanctions
against Russia because of their aggression in eastern Europe? That he would undermine
the START Treaty? Praise Putin and stonewall any investigation to bring the truth to
light - including releasing his tax returns?
Page 7 of 42
Press Conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Prebuttal to President Trump's Speech to Joint
Session of Congress (Feb. 27, 2017), https://www .speaker.gov/newsroom/22717-2/.
Resolution Offered by Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) (Feb. 27, 2017)
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President shall immediately
disclose his tax return information to Congress and the American people.
***
Whereas, disclosure of the President's tax returns could help those investigating Russian
influence in the 2016 election understand the President's financial ties to the Russian
Federation and Russian citizens, including debts owed and whether he shares any
partnership interests, equity interests, joint ventures or licensing agreements with Russia
or Russians;
***
Whereas, the American people have the right to know whether or not their President is
operating under conflicts of interest related to international affairs, tax reform,
government contracts, or otherwise:
Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of Representatives shall, one, immediately
request the tax return information of Donald J. Trump for tax years 2006 through 2015
for review in closed executive session by the Committee on Ways and Means, as
provided under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, and vote to report the
information therein to the full House of Representatives; two, support transparency in
government and the longstanding tradition of Presidents and Presidential candidates
disclosing their tax returns.
163 Cong. Rec. Hl337 (daily ed. Feb. 27, 2017) (statement of Rep. Pascrell),
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/02/27/house-section/article/H 1337-2.
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) (Feb. 27, 2017)
To restore the dignity of the House, we must use our authority to request President
Trump's tax returns and give the American people the transparency they deserve.
***
Let's shine a bright light on the President's conflicts together, together, as we, as a
Congress, and the broader American public can judge whether his decisions are being
made for himself, his business interests, or for the greater good of the American people.
163 Cong. Rec. H 1337 (daily ed. Feb. 27, 2017) (statement of Rep. Pascrell),
https ://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/02/2 7/house-section/article/H 133 7-2.
Page 8 of 42
Tonight, House Republicans made themselves accomplices to hiding President Trump's

tax returns from the American people.
Our security and our democracy have been endangered by Russia's clear influence on the
Trump Administration. The American people deserve the truth about Russia's personal,
political and financial grip on President Trump. If there's nothing there, then what are
Republicans afraid of?
The President's refusal to release his tax returns is yet another example of his contempt
for the promises he made in his campaign. While Republicans stonewall an independent
investigation, Democrats will continue to demand the truth for the American people.
Press Release, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Statement on Republican Vote to Keep Trump's
Tax Returns Secret (Feb. 28, 2017), https://www .speaker.gov/newsroom/2272017-2/.
What we are calling for is an independent outside commission, take it away from
Congress, take it away from politics, an independent outside commission to look into the
political, personal and financial ties of the Trump organization -- him personally, his
businesses, his campaign -- to the Russians.
***
The American people want to know the truth. He could begin by releasing his tax returns.
Why should every president since Gerald Ford in modern history have released his tax
returns, but this president says I'm above not only the law but the traditions of the office
that I hold?
Andrea Mitchell Reports (MSNBC television broadcast Feb. 28, 2017),

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/3202 l 7/.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Mar. 2, 2017)
Well, in all of this all roads lead to the Republicans in the Congress. What are they afraid
of? They have been afraid of the truth every step of the way. They don't want to see the
President's tax returns, when every President since Gerald Ford, every President in
modern times has released his tax returns, and candidates release their tax returns.
So what is it? That would be a key indicator of their interest in the truth. So the question
is to them, what are they afraid of in the tax returns? What are they afraid of in the
investigation of the Russian involvement to undermine our democracy, to repeat that in
other countries, to come back here and do that again?
Page 9 of 42
Press Conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Mar. 2, 2017),

https://www .speaker.gov/newsroom/322017-3/.
What do the Russian have on Donald Trump that he would do that? And I don't know
who knew what in all of this, but it's important for us to find out and we must have that
investigation.
***
What are -- what are the Republicans in Congress afraid of? They don't want to see the
president's tax returns, the first time since Gerald Ford, who was -- since Gerald Ford, all
presidents have put it out. They don't want to investigate in a wholesome way the hack --
the disruption of our system? What are the Republicans afraid of? This goes right to the
Republicans in Congress -- to their doorstep. And when the public sentiment, as Lincoln
said, is everything.
As they hear from their constituents, perhaps maybe they'll be more inclined to seek the
truth.
Statement of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Politico Playbook Interview (Mar. 3, 2017),
http://www.cq.com/doc/newsmakertranscri pts-505 3910.
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), et al. (Mar. 3, 2017)
We write you to request that you use your authority to request the tax returns of President
Donald Trump for review by the Senate Committee on Finance and House Committee on
Ways and Means.
***
If the President does not either release his returns or consent to examination of such
returns by this Committee, we urge you, as Chairman of the Committee and pursuant to
Section 6103(f)( 1) of the Internal Revenue Code, to submit a written request to the
Secretary of the Treasury by March 15, 2017, for copies of the President's federal tax
returns for the last ten years. These returns and all accompanying return information
should then be made available for examination by all Committee Members in a closed
executive session. We further request that the Committee then vote in this closed session
to submit the President's federal tax returns to the House of Representatives and Senate
-thereby, if successful, making them available to the public.
We believe the powerful and respected Committees on Finance and Ways and Means
have the responsibility to ensure oversight of the executive branch by requesting a review
of President Trump's tax returns and moving toward a formal release of these documents
to the public.
Page 10 of 42
Letter from Hon. Bill Pascrell, Jr., et al., to Hon. Orrin Hatch, Chairman, S. Comm. on Finance,
& Hon. Kevin Brady, Chairman, H. Comm. on Ways & Means (Mar. 2, 2017),
https://pascrell.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID= l 898.
Resolution Offered by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) (Mar. 7, 2017)
***
or Russians;
***
government contracts, or otherwise: Now, therefore, be it:
Resolved. That the House of Representatives shall--
I. Immediately request the tax return information of Donald J. Trump for tax years 2006
through 2015 for review in closed executive session by the Committee on Ways and
Means, as provided under Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, and vote to report
the information therein to the full House of Representatives.
2. Support transparency in government and the longstanding tradition of Presidents and

Presidential candidates disclosing their tax returns.
163 Cong. Rec. H 1571 ( daily ed. Mar. 7, 2017) (statement of Rep. Eshoo ),
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/03/07 /house-section/article/H 1571-6.
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) (Mar. 8, 2017)
And we can't get the President's tax returns. Not yet. It's going to be embarrassing
when those tax returns come out. They're coming out sooner or later. They're coming
out sooner or later. I may have nothing at all to do with how they get out, but they're
going to get out sooner or later.
H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Markup of GOP Health Care Repeal Bill, 115th Cong., at 2:41 :20
(Mar. 8, 2017), https://youtu.be/3RMbUKK9ETs.
Page 11 of 42
Well it's a question of the American people wanting to know the truth. Why is it that
President Trump should be the exception to every candidate or cabinet nominee for
president since Gerald Ford - that the public has been able to see the President's tax
returns. What does the President have to hide? What do the Russians have on Donald
Trump, personally, politically and financially, that he is keeping a secret? Why are the
Republicans in Congress accomplices to that secrecy? Why are the Republicans in
Congress voting to say "no, we don't think he should release his tax returns?" It's a very
bad vote for them. That's a very bad vote for them, that's a very bad vote for them.
So our members - Mr. Pascrell as you know, acts with great spontaneity, yesterday
Congresswoman Eshoo, others Members of Congress want to say, "we want the facts, we
want the truth." The tax returns many believe are part of the Russian connection, the
disruption of our election, the money pouring into the Trump organization, any personal
embarrassment to the President - we want to know the truth, and we can start by seeing
his tax returns. Which is not an extraordinary request - unless you're Donald Trump and
think you're above custom, tradition and maybe even the law. Thank you!

https://www .speaker.gov/newsroom/382017-2/.
They don't want the American people to see the facts. They're always afraid of the facts.
It's just a remarkable thing. They're afraid of the facts of the President's tax returns.
And we will continue to ask for those tax returns because we want to know about the
Russian connection.
What do the Russians have on Donald Trump politically, financially, and personally?
What is that connection? What would the tax returns tell us about that? And we need a
bipartisan, independent, nonpartisan outside investigation to get to the bottom of that.

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/3917 /.
Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) (Mar. 28, 2017)

I think you are wrong about 90%. Even if it were only 10%, let the public see it. Let the
public see it.
***
This committee should use its authority to better understand the connections between the
President, and his family, and Russia.
Page 12 of 42
The President now says he wants to lead the effort on tax reform. His past returns are
directly relevant to our forthcoming discussions about tax reform. It is important to
understand how such tax reform would benefit the President, his 564 positions in
domestic and foreign companies, and his self-reported net worth of more than $10 billion.
***
We are asking for the disclosure because it is relevant to the discussion about the Russian
connection, and now you all and we all say that we want to take up tax reform. The
President says he wants to lead the effort. With hidden tax reform, tax returns, that is
totally incredible.
H. Comm. on Ways & Means. Markup of H. Res. 186. I 15th Cong., at 21 :30 (Mar. 28, 2017),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeRfw_m9bMw&feature=youtu.be.
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) (Mar. 28, 2017)

Our constituents are demanding transparency.... We have the authority. We have the
cause. With all of the conflicts we know about, and all that we don't, we must gather all
of the possible information we can. The IRS is best equipped to conduct financial
investigations into possible crimes dealing with money. The President's tax returns will
provide us with the clues.
H. Comm. on Ways & Means. Markup of H. Res. 186, I 15th Cong., at 28:52 (Mar. 28, 2017),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeRfw_m9bM w&feature=youtu.be.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) (Mar. 28, 2017)

The House investigation has been totally discredited within the last week. Whether it
was discredited or not, this committee has a role to play with reference to tax returns.
And when you have the President's son in law talking with former KGB official running
a bank in Russia, and you have an indication from the President's son a few years back
that the Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot of our assets,
and that's a direct quote, there is reason to want to know whether there is anything in his
tax returns showing payments to Russians, or payments from Russians. It may be that
not every bit of the information we are seeking is not contained within the form on
individual taxes that President Trump may have filed. But there may well be an
indication in those returns of information that will lead to that information, and that I why
I believe the President went back on his promise to the American people, and refused to
disclose the very information he said he would disclose in the future when these audits
were concluded. I want to know whether he has, as his son said, continued to have a
pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot of their assets with the Russians.
***
Page 13 of 42
I want to emphasize that the Chairman and the members of this committee are
misconstruing section 6103, narrowly construing it to justify this cover-up of the Trump
tax returns. and that this committee has a significant interest in these returns as it relates
to the administration of our business. Both with reference to our trade agenda, from
which we heard about earlier today, given the large number of trademarks that President
Trump was able to magically get approved from the Chinese earlier this year, and with
reference to our tax responsibilities.
***
Without those tax returns to know what conflicts may exist for him, what kind of self-
dealing may exist for him, we will never know. Section 6103 deals with more than tax
administration, it deals with the assessment, collection, enforcement. publication, and
statistical gathering function under the laws and statutes. There is every reason why in
terms of its work in tax and the fact that we are considering major tax legislation. that we
would want to know whether he will benefit personally, and that is why he is advancing
these various legislative changes.
H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Markup of H. Res. 186, I 15th Cong., at 40: 10 (Mar. 28, 2017),
Rep. Ryan Higgins (D-NY) (Mar. 28, 2017)
Ryan Higgins (D-NY) (54:06): The American people have a right to know if the
President would personally gain from proposals he will ask this committee to consider.
The American people have a right to know if the President's tax returns offers clarity
about business ties he may have to Russia, to Germany, to Saudi Arabia, or any other
foreign interest that may benefit them and or him.
H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Markup of H. Res. 186, 115th Cong., at 54:06 (Mar. 28, 2017),
House Resolution 186 (Mar. 9, 2017)
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 9, 2017
Mr. Pascrell (for himself, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Sewell of
Alabama, Mr. Neal, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. De1Bene, Mr.
Thompson of California, and Mr. Blumenauer) submitted the following resolution;
which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
Of inquiry directing the Secretary of the Treasury to provide to the House of

Representatives the tax returns and other specified financial information of President
Donald J. Trump.
Page 14 of 42
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to furnish to the House of
Representatives, not later than 10 days after the adoption of this resolution, the full tax
returns of Donald J. Trump for tax years 2006 through 2015, as well as financial
documentation and any information in possession of the Secretary that specify-
( l) Mr. Trump's debts held by foreign governments and foreign companies;
(2) Mr. Trump's investments in foreign countries and foreign enterprises; and
(3) Mr. Trump's use of any tax shelters, corporate structures, tax avoidance
maneuvers, abatements, or other loopholes to reduce or eliminate tax liability.
H.R. Res. 186, 115th Cong. (2017), https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-

resolution/186.
Ranking Member Richard Neal and Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) (Mar. 30, 2017)
.
Committee Democrats strongly oppose the Committee's action of unfavorably reporting
H. Res. 186, Resolution of inquiry directing the Secretary of the Treasury to provide to
the House of Representatives the tax returns and other specified financial information of
President Donald J. Trump. Committee Republicans continue to block our requests for
this Committee to exercise its authority under Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code
to obtain, examine, and make available to the public President Trump's federal tax
returns.
This Committee has broad jurisdiction over a variety of laws that affect the lives of
millions of Americans, including the federal tax law. The President and Congressional
Republicans have been very vocal regarding their desire to enact comprehensive tax
reform this Congress. Committee Democrats believe that it is imperative for the public to
know and understand how such tax reform will benefit the President, his 564 financial
positions in domestic and foreign companies, and his self-reported net worth of more than
$10 billion.
***
Tax returns provide the clearest picture of a president's financial health, including how
much he earns, how much tax he pays, his sources of income (e.g., capital gains, dividend
income, and certain business income), the size of his deductions, whether he makes
charitable contributions, and whether he uses tax shelters, loopholes, or other special-
interest provisions to his advantage. All of these items are critical in order for the public
to gain a more complete understanding of how tax reform will benefit President Trump
and his vast business empire.
If ever there was a president with respect to which this Committee should exercise its
Section 6103 statutory authority to obtain individual tax returns, President Trump is the
one. A president with a vast domestic and international business empire. A president who
has rebuked over 40 years of tradition and refused to release his individual tax returns to
Page 15 of 42
the public. A president who will negotiate and ultimately may sign comprehensive tax
reform into law. A president who is not the average American--he has assets, business
interests, and foreign entanglements that far surpass the average taxpayer. . . . Hence,
Committee Democrats remain steadfast in our pursuit to have his individual tax returns
disclosed to the public.
***
Starting in February, Committee Democrats began pressing Committee Republicans to
use the authority under Section 6103 to obtain President Trump's tax returns and make
them available to the public. Committee Democrats have sent letters urging, and offered
amendments to force, the Chairman to obtain President Trump's tax returns for review by
the Committee.
** *
Procedurally, upon submission to the House, the tax return and return information would
become available to the public.
H.R. Rep. No. 115-73 (Mar. 30, 2017), Resolution of Inquiry Directing the Secretary of the
Treasury to Provide to the House of Representatives the Tax Returns and other Specified
Financial Information of President Donald J. Trump, Adverse Report together with Dissenting
Views, https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/ 115th-congress/house-report/73; see also
H.R. Rep. No. 115-309 (Sept. 14, 2017), Resolution of Inquiry Directing the Secretary of the
Treasury to Provide to the House of Representatives the Tax Return Information of President
Donald J. Trump as Well as the Tax Returns of Each Business Entity Disclosed by Donald J.
Trump on His Office of Government Ethics Form 278e, Adverse Report with Dissenting Views,
https ://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/ 11 Sth-congress/house-report/309/ l, https ://gop-
wa ysandmeans .house.gov/event/markup-h-res-479/.
Resolution Offered by Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) (Mar. 15, 2017)
***
or Russians;
** *
Page 16 of 42
Resolved. That the House of Representatives shall--
the information therein to the full House of Representatives.

Presidential candidates disclosing their tax returns."
163 Cong. Rec. H2068 ( daily ed. Mar. 15, 2017) (statement of Rep. Crowley),
https://www .congress.gov/congressional-record/20 I 7/03/ 15/house-section/article/H2068-l.
The Deflector-in-Chiefs desperation demands answer to our original question, the one I
ask almost every day: What is Russia's political, personal, and financial grip on the
Trump Administration? What do the Russians have on President Trump? They have
stonewalled over I 00 letters from House Democrats requesting disclosure and
transparency on his ties to Russia, his conflicts of interest, and other Administration
actions.
You have heard me say before: this has an impact on our national security. What do the
Russians have on him that he should flirt with the idea of weakening sanctions on Russia,
undermining NATO and Europe? Secondly, undermining and questioning the value of
the New ST ART Treaty. Also, praising Putin at the expense of the greatness of America.
What is it that they have on him? Show us your tax credits - your tax deduction -
a
returns. Every - they did do something the other day, which was curious, to do transom
report. Who knows where that came from. What we want to see are the President's tax
returns in the same manner that every President and candidate for President - nominee of
the party for President has done since Nixon, but, of course, that was demanded, but then
followed through with wonderful President Gerald Ford. So, if the President wants to
strengthen our security, he should come clean with the American people.

https://www .speaker.gov/newsroorn/31617 /.
Resolution Offered by Rep. Jared Polis {D-CO) (Mar. 21, 2017)
Whereas, tax returns provide an important baseline disclosure because they contain
highly instructive information including whether the candidate can be influenced by
foreign entities and reveal any conflicts of interest;
Page 17 of 42
***
Whereas, disclosure of the President's tax returns is important towards investigating
Russian influence in the 2016 election, understanding the President's financial ties to the
Russian Federation and Russian citizens, including debts owed and whether he shares any
partnership interests, equity interests, joint ventures, or licensing agreements with Russia
or Russian nationals, formally or informally associated with Vladmir Putin;
***
government contracts, or otherwise:
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the House of Representatives shall:
One, immediately request the tax return information of Donald J. Trump for tax years
2006 through 2015 for review in closed executive session by the Committee on Ways and
Means, as provided under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, and vote to report
the information therein to the full House of Representatives;
Two, support transparency in government and the longstanding tradition of Presidents

and Presidential candidates disclosing their tax returns.
163 Cong. Rec. H2308 (daily ed. Mar. 21, 2017) (statement of Rep. Polis),
https://www .congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/03/22/house-section/article/H2308-1.
Since Gerald Ford was President, every candidate for President, every nominee of a
major party, every candidate for President of the United States, Democrat and
Republican, has released their income tax returns out of respect for the American people-
-out of respect for the American people. Week in and week out--in fact, sometimes day in
and day out--in committee as well as on the floor, the Republicans have kept the
President's income tax returns private when the public has a right to know that, that the
public has always known that about every President since Gerald Ford--in fact, since
Richard Nixon; although, in his case, it wasn't voluntary.
163 Cong. Rec. H2498 (daily ed. Mar. 28, 2017) (statement of Rep. Pelosi),
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/3/28/house-section/article/H2489- l.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Apr. 5, 2017)
What is President Trump hiding that he refuses to release his taxes to the American
people - even as an overwhelming 74 percent demand he release them? The disturbing
Page 18 of 42
confl.icts of interests, revelations of shady dealings, and Trump's deep ties to Putin's
Russia must be the reason.
***
But week after week, Republicans have repeatedly voted to help President Trump
stonewall the American people - complicit in keeping President Trump's taxes and
finances hidden.
That is why House Democrats, led by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, filed a discharge
petition today to #DemandAVote to require President Donald Trump to disclose his tax
returns, so the American people can see for themselves the extent of his financial
interests, and whether they are influencing his policy decisions toward Russia, on tax
reform and other issues.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Blog Post, #DemandAVote: House Democrats Launch Discharge
Petition to Release President Donald Trump's Tax Returns (Apr. 5, 2017),
https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/demandavote-house-democrats-launch-discharge-petition-
to-release-president-donald-trumps-tax-returns/.
As you know, every President since Gerald Ford - actually, every nominee on both sides
of the aisle since then has released their tax returns. So the history of it is important to
American people. It isn't as if the tax returns tell the whole story but they are a key that
opens the door to so much information.
We're especially concerned about any information that might show any connection -
Russian connection, Chinese connection, in terms of business interests of the Trump
organization to any of these countries. It's really a very important thing.
At a time when they are saying, we don't want to see the President's tax return ... they
now say, 'we have to protect the President's privacy.'
It's not a right to privacy that the President has. He's the President of the United States
there is a question about a Russia connection politically, personally, financially to the
President, there's concerns about recent actions by the Chinese government, in relation to
the Trump Organization. There are plenty of reasons why we need this key to open the
door to the information we need to connect the dots and if they have nothing to fear, then
what are they afraid of.
Press Conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Demanding a Vote Requiring President Trump
to Release Tax Returns (Apr. 5, 2017), https://www .speaker.gov/newsroom/4517/.
Page 19 of 42
Ranking Member Richard Neal (Apr. 5, 2017)
This is not about the law, this is about custom and practice. It's a settled tradition and as
I noted by using the word earlier, about begrudges - candidates reach the level of
expectation that they're supposed to release their tax forms. rm not aware of any of the
Presidents that have been cited who ever publicly suggested that they thought it was an
invasion of privacy.
Press Conference, Statement by Ranking Member Richard Neal (Apr. 5, 2017),

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/4517/.
Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) (Apr. 5, 2017)
And this is a very simple idea in that the President's ability to lead this country is directly
undermined by the questions which continue to rise about his potential conflicts of
interest, and whether or not he's making decisions in the best interest of the American
people, or in his own personal or financial best interest. One way to get at that question
is a simple release of his tax returns, a tradition which has been a tradition of every
president in recent history. His refusal to do that, and sadly the Republicans' refusal so
far to be part of this effort is disappointing, but we're not going to stop. This is
something the American people are demanding so that they can have a sense of what
those conflicts might be, and we're going to use every avenue we can to continue to press
until we're successful in persuading or requiring the President to share those with the
American people.
Press Conference, Statement by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) (Apr. 5, 2017),

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/4517/.
Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) (Apr. 5, 2017)
I just want to thank my colleagues and Anna for their efforts on this issue, which is going
to be continuous. We're not going to let up. When you talk to people out in the country
- as everybody here has said- there is real anxiety on the part of Americans about
whether the President may have some divided loyalty - whether when he goes to make a
decision that is supposed to be on behalf of the public. There are some other concerns of
interests he has competing with that.
This is the highest office in the land. The public trust is placed in this office. That is the
expectation of 330 million Americans - that you will carry out that office, recognizing
the public trust that is placed in it.
And Americans just want to know that when the President is making important decisions
on domestic policy and on foreign policy, that he doesn't have divided loyalties. This is
nagging away at people. And he can come clean if he provides his tax returns, which is
the first important baseline step in being transparent. That will do a lot to put that anxiety
Page 20 of 42
to rest. But, the fact that he won't release the tax returns, I think, is making a lot of
Americans nervous.
Press Conference, Statement by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) (Apr. 5, 2017),

Republicans will sell your most private information, your most private information, but
they refuse to reveal the President's tax returns, something every President since Gerald
Ford has done, and indeed every nominee of the other party has done.
And there is a vital interest in the President's tax returns. Republicans are desperate,
again, to keep them secret. What is it that they are afraid of? Why don't they have that
key that 74 percent of the American people want us to unlock that door to see where it
leads?
If it's all okay, they have nothing to be afraid of. But we think that it will show us some
connection that will be useful in the investigation of what do the Russians have on
Donald Trump politically, personally, and financially.
Press Conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Apr. 6, 2017),

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/4617-4/.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) (Apr. 7, 2017)
Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees things differently. As we approach tax day, it's
important to remember that every President since Gerald Ford, Democrats and
Republicans, have released their tax returns to the American people. Before the election,
Donald Trump repeatedly promised to release his tax returns, just like Jimmy Carter,
Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama
before him. But as President, Donald Trump has broken this promise.
Is he hiding something from the American people? I certainly hope not. Here's what I
do know. The American people deserve an answer to that question. The tax return issue
is about fairness. It's about being straight with the American people. It's about playing
by the rules.
There is a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the White House when it comes to our
President. He came to Washington on a promise to drain the swamp. But instead, by
failing to keep his word and release his tax returns, Donald Trump is a living, breathing
conflict of interest.
***
Page 21 of 42
This is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. This is an American issue. Our
Democracy was attacked. The release of the President's tax returns will help the
American people better understand the extent of Trump's financial ties to Putin's Russia.
The American people have a right to know whether financial conflicts of interest exist
between the President of the United States and a hostile foreign power.
The American people have a right to know whether the decisions being made by
President Trump are in the best interest of America, or are benefiting other countries and
corporations with whom he has a business relationship. The American people have a
right to know whose side the President is on. His tax returns will help provide the
information necessary to figure that out.
Press Conference, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries Delivers Weekly Democratic Address (Apr. 7,
2017), https ://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/congressman-hakeem-jeffries-del ivers-weekl y-
democratic-address/.
What are President Trump and the Republican Congress hiding? Every President since
Gerald Ford, Democrat and Republican, has released his tax returns to the public.
Despite the history, despite his own promises, President Trump and Republicans in
Congress are desperate to keep the American people in the dark.
Who does President Trump owe? America needs to know. All roads lead back to the
President's tax returns - and the light they can shine on his actions and the Trump-Russia
connection. Releasing the President's tax returns is vital for our national security and our
democracy.
Press Release, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Statement on Tax Day (Apr. 17, 2017),
Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) (Apr. 21, 2017)
The President has done everything possible to distract and mislead the American people
about his connection to Russia and his truly unprecedented web of conflicts.
He has refused to divest his business ties or release his tax returns to the American people
so they can understand his conflicts of interest and get to the truth.
Press Conference, Congressman Ben Ray Lujan Delivers Weekly Democratic Address (Apr. 21,
2017), https ://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/congressman-ben-ray-1 uj an-delivers-weekly-
democratic-address/.
Page 22 of 42
The infrastructure bill is one of the biggest secrets in Washington, D.C., second only to
the president not showing us his tax returns.
We need to see those so we can see how his tax policy will affect his own tax situation.
We need to see them so we can see what is the hold that the Russians have on him
politically, financially, and personally.
Meet the Press (NBC television broadcast Apr. 23, 2017), https://www .nbcnews.com/meet-the-
press/meet-press-april-23-20 l 7-n749866, http://www.cq.com/doc/newsmakertranscripts-
5087573, https://www .speaker.gov/newsroom/42317/.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) (Apr. 26, 2017)
Without an end to the Republican cover-up of Trump's tax returns, we cannot determine
whether this is mostly just more self-enrichment for the Trump family. Trump talks like a
populist but governs like a plutocrat. Like the near trillion dollar tax cut in the failed
health care bill that he endorsed, Trump's tax plan fills the coffers of giant corporations
and lines the pockets of the superrich.
Press Release, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Neal, Doggett Statements on President Trump's Tax
Proposal (Apr. 26, 2017), https://waysandmeans.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/neal-
doggett-statements-president-trump-s-tax-proposal.
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) (Apr. 26, 2017)
This afternoon, the Administration released its principles for tax reform. I must express
my concern about beginning tax reform when the public has no idea how the proposal
will personally benefit the First Family.
On April 15th, thousands of Americans took to the streets and demanded transparency,
truth, and accountability. They know that there is no provision in the Internal Revenue
Code that prevents him from releasing his tax returns. Failure to meet this standard
presents a dangerous and slippery slope for policy makers. The American people expect
and deserve better.
Press Release, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Ranking Member Lewis Opening Statement at
Oversight Subcommittee Hearing on 2017 Tax Filing Season (Apr. 26, 2017),
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/ranking-member-lewis-opening-
statement-oversight-subcommittee-hearing-5.
Page 23 of 42
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (May 15, 2017)
One of the concerns that we have is that Russia is an adversary to the United States. And
yet, when the president became president-elect, he was putting Putin on a pedestal and he
was questioning whether we should even have sanctions against Russia for their
aggression in Ukraine and Crimea, et cetera, and questioning the -- undermining the
relationship we have with NATO, which is our transatlantic friendship for security. And
it was like, why on Earth is he undermining our allies and praising Putin?
And so that's one of the things that we want to see about the investigation, because it
relates to if there have -- as I said, financial. What is the financial connection? Political.
They did- it's an absolute fact -- disrupt our election by hacking and leaking. The
question is, was there collusion? And, third, personally. What is it that is making him do
all these special things for the Russians?
You only know that if you're basing it on fact and not just rumor and hearsay if you have
the investigation. And that's why we're saying, let's just find out the truth. Let the chips
fall where they may. And if he has nothing to hide, he shouldn't be opposing, nor should
my Republican colleagues in Congress, be opposing the release of his tax returns, any of
the investigation into other aspects of the Trump-Russia connection. And that's why
when something like this comes up, it's like predictable, almost, sadly.
CNN Town Hall (CNN television broadcast May 15, 2017),

http://transcripts.cnn.comffRANSCRIPTS/ 1705/ l 5/se.O I .html.
The question is what is the connection? And that requires investigation to get the facts
that proves the case, or not. What are the Republicans and the president afraid of? The
truth.
So, when it comes to our national security, here he is putting Putin on a pedestal,
undermining NATO, questioning whether we should even have sanctions vis-a-vis Russia
in terms of their aggression in Europe. And that is not in our national security interest.
That is undermining our Trans-Atlantic pillar of strength for us. But casual about it and
putting -- so what do the Russians have on him politically, personally, financially?
Go to the next step. We have a chance to see his tax returns. Show us your tax returns so
we can see what the connection is between you and Russia. And, by the way, the
connection between yourself and (inaudible) and the cost to the average person in our
country.
So, this is about our economy as well. And then of course as I mentioned about the
security of our democracy. So, this is intrinsic. It's fundamental. It's systemic. It's very
important that we get to the bottom of it.
And there is so much evidence....
Page 24 of 42
Transcript, House Minority Leader Pelosi, Remarks at Center for American Progress Forum
(May 16, 2017), http://www.cq.com/doc/newsmakertranscripts-5 l 02881,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoMAnFNyV94.
Resolution Offered by Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) (May 16, 2017)
***
Whereas, tax returns provide an important baseline disclosure because they contain
highly instructive information including whether the candidate paid taxes, what they own,
what they have borrowed and from whom, whether they have made any charitable
donations, and whether they have taken advantage of tax loopholes;
or Russians;
***
Whereas, the President's tax returns would show us whether he has foreign bank accounts
and how much profit he receives from his ownership in myriad partnerships;
***
Whereas, the Chairmen of the Ways and Means Committee, Joint Committee on
Taxation, and Senate Finance Committee have the authority to request the President's tax
returns under Section 6103 of the tax code;
***
Resolved, That the House of Representatives shall--
I. ImmediateIy request the tax return information of Donald J. Trump for tax years 2006
the information therein to the full House of Representatives
Page 25 of 42

163 Cong. Rec. H4212-13 (daily ed. May 16, 2017) (statement of Rep. Pascrell),
https://www .congress.gov/congressional-record/20 I 7/05/ 16/house-section/article/H4212-l.
But this is something that has foreign intrigue, it has issues that relate to undermining our
democracy by interference in our election. It's about, "Show us your tax returns so we
can see what public policy is regarding that, and do you have a Russian connection, Mr.
President, in your dealings?" And it's very serious.
So in order for us to move forward in a way where we're moving forward with the
American people, it's very important that we do it based on the facts. There is reason to
believe that the President was engaged in some very inappropriate, for the moment,
activity. But until you have the facts that you can present to the public in the public
domain so the American people are moving with you at the same time, I don't think that
our democracy is well served.
Press Conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (May 18, 2017),

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/5 l 8 l 7-5/.
Resolution Offered by Rep. Linda Sanchez {D-CA) (May 24, 2017)
***
Whereas, tax returns provide an important baseline of reasonable information including
whether the President paid taxes, ownership interests, charitable donations made, and
whether tax deductions have been exploited;
or Russians;
***
***
Page 26 of 42
***

163 Cong. Rec. H4523-25 (daily ed. May 24, 2017) (statement of Rep. Sanchez),
https://www .congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/5/24/house-section/article/h4523-l.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (June 2, 2017)
And speaking of taxes, I think that the decision the President made on the Paris accord, I
think that the budget that he has put forth, again, really speaks further to the fact that he
should show us his tax returns. It's very important that we see his tax returns. It relates
to Russia. What do the Russians have on Donald Trump, politically, personally, and
financially? And he won't show us his tax returns, to give us some [,] maybe that would
clear up the issue or maybe it will be a path to some other questions. So show us your tax
returns.
We talk about lifting the debt ceiling. We talk about tax returns. We do know that what
he proposed, what he was talking about before would have given him a tax break of $30
million on the year that he has revealed his tax return. A tax break of $30 million. Show
us your tax returns.
Press Conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (June 2, 2017),

I think we have to remove all doubt as the impact of Russians in our life. And I think it's
important the American people to know what did Russians have on Donald Trump
politically, financially, and personally, that he is standing in the way of this legitimate
Page 27 of 42
investigation as to the Russian impact on our election and to prevent them from doing it
again.
***
[T]he American people have a right to know the truth. And why would the Republicans
stand in the way of the truth? Why can't we see his tax returns?
New Day (CNN television broadcast June 6, 2017),

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ 1706/06/nday.03 .html.
Resolution Offered by Rep. Michael Capuano (D·MA) (June 7, 2017)
***
Whereas, tax returns provide an important baseline of reasonable information including
whether the President paid taxes, ownership interests, charitable donations made, and
whether tax deductions have been exploited;
or Russians;
***
* **
***
Page 28 of 42
1. Immediately request the tax return information of Donald J. Trump for tax years 2006

163 Cong. Rec. H4684 (daily ed. June 7, 2017), https://www.congress.gov/congressional-

record/2017 /06/07/house-section/article/H4684-1.
Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) (June 7, 2017)
The investigations are ongoing. At some point, it is unquestioned that the President's tax
returns will become relevant to what the FBI is doing. It is only a matter of time.
For the integrity of the House, for the dignity of the House, I believe firmly that we
should exercise the law that the Congress put in place itself to do our own due diligent
investigation and not just simply sit on our hands while others do our work for us.
These documents will become public, and when they do, regardless of what they show, I
believe firmly it will reflect negatively on this House for not having done our duty, for
having shirked our responsibilities. That is why I believe this is a privilege of the House.
That is why I believe this House should take this action.
***
There aren't any Americans that don't believe they have a right to know that their
President has not been subject to undue influence. That is all this does. It draws no
conclusion from it, and it allows the majority party to call on it to make the
determination; not me, but the majority party; the chair of the Ways and Means
Committee.
That is why I offered this resolution. That is why I think this resolution is going to
continue to be offered, and, at some point, the House is going to do it. I don't know why
Members of the House want to drag this out and pretend that somehow you are going to
be able to avoid it. You are not. It is going to happen.
163 Cong. Rec. H4684-86 (daily ed. June 7, 2017) (statement of Rep. Capuano),
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/06/07/house-section/article/H4684-l.
Well, I think he abused power. I think there is no question he abused power. Whether he
obstructed justice remains for the facts to come forward, and that is what we want: the
Page 29 of 42
facts. And I hope that our Republican colleagues will not continue to stand in the way of
our getting the facts.
Also, we'd like to see his tax returns, because that will, again, help connect the dots here.
And, again, maybe it will all be exculpatory, but let's find that out. Right now we have to
remove all doubt about the integrity of our government.
Press Conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (June 9, 2017),

Rep. Lloyd Doggett {D-TX) (June 13, 2017)
Today, Congressman Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Ranking Member of the Ways & means
Tax Policy Subcommittee, is offering a "privileged resolution" that would require the
House of Representatives to immediately request the President's tax returns and those of
his businesses. His resolution, which must be considered within two legislative days,
would also postpone consideration of any tax reform legislation until the President's tax
returns are obtained.
The House Ways and Means Committee has the authority to obtain the President's tax
returns under section 6103 of the Tax Code. If this "privileged resolution" were
approved, it would launch the process of reviewing those tax returns in an Executive
Session of the Ways and Means Committee, which could vote to release the returns to the
public.
Rep. Doggett has filed three separate amendments in the Ways and Means Committee to
obtain President Trump's tax returns - on February 14, March 8, and March 28. The
Committee voted all three times along party lines to continue to cover-up the President's
tax returns, and the House has refused nine times to act on President Trump's tax returns.
***
RESOLUTION
disclose his tax return information to the House of Representatives and the American
people.
***
influence in the 2016 election better understand the President's financial ties to the
Russian Federation, Russian businesses, and Russian individuals;
Whereas, after breaking his pledge to make his tax returns available, President Trump
instead presented a one page letter from a law firm giving him a clean bill of health on
any business dealings with Russians, but failed to note that the very same law firm
Page 30 of 42
boasted of the "prestigious honor" of being named "Russia Law Firm of the Year" for
2016;
***
Now, therefore, be it:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives shall-
1. Immediately request the tax return and return information of Donald J. Trump for
tax years 2006 through 2015, as provided under section 6103 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as well as the tax return (and return information with
respect to the President's businesses) of each business entity disclosed by Donald
J. Trump on his Office of Government Ethics Form 278e, specifically each
corporation and each partnership (within the meaning of subchapter K of chapter
1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) where he is listed as an officer, director,
or equivalent, or exercises working control; and
2. Postpone consideration of tax reform legislation until the elected Representatives

of the .American people in this House have obtained President Trump's tax returns
and return information to ascertain how any changes to the tax code might
financially benefit the President.
Press Release, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Privileged Resolution Would Require Trump Tax
Returns Before Tax Reform Consideration (June 13, 2017), https://doggett.house.gov/media-
center/press-releases/privileged-resolution-would-require-trump-tax-returns-tax-reform;
privileged resolution available at https://www.congress.gov/congressional-
record/2017/06/ l 3/house-section/article/H4898-1, https://www .congress.gov/congressional-
record/2017/6/21/house-section/article/h5013-1.
As Speaker Ryan moves to the question and answer portion of his 'major' tax reform
speech, we have some questions: Where are President Trump's tax returns? What
happened to 'At some point I' 11 release it'?
By blatantly refusing to reveal his tax returns, the President fails to fulfill his promise to
the American people, honor tradition, and be transparent about his financial history -
despite the fact that 74 percent of Americans want Presidents to disclose their tax returns.
House Republicans have voted 9 times to keep President Trump's tax returns secret.
If Speaker Ryan and House Republicans respect the oath they took to support and defend
the U.S. Constitution, they must stop the pointless distractions and demand transparency
and truth from the White House. American taxpayers deserve to know that the President
of the United States is playing by the rules and putting the people's business before the
Trump family business.
Page 31 of 42
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Blog Post, Where are President Trump's Tax Retums? (June 20,
2017), https://www .speaker.gov/newsroom/where-are-president-trumps-tax-returns/.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (July 13, 2017)
Republicans ... won't join us in the release of the President's tax returns, which could be
very instructive in terms of any connection to Russia. Why should this President of all
Presidents and all candidates for President in the two major parties, since Gerald Ford,
not release his returns so the American people can know?
Press Conference, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (July 13, 2017),

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) (July 14, 2017)
On February the 1st, I wrote a letter to the chairman of the committee which I participate
in, and that is the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady. In that letter, I
asked him to use his existing authority to obtain President Trump's tax returns for review
by our committee.
And I would say, from the get-go here, that a lot of the questions that are being asked
today and have been asked in the past could have been avoided if the president of the
United States had followed the ethics commission and -- to divest himself of all of his
holdings and assets. President chose -- chose not to do that.
And the more we get into 2017, the more we understand how the tax returns are critical.
He could have avoided all this by divesting himself, but the deals that have been made
just at the -- during the time that he's been the president is a reflection.
Every president -- and this has nothing to do with party affiliation, which I said to Kevin
Brady in February of this year -- every president must have a clean when he goes into
that office and raises his hand to be sworn, so that he can be objective in his decisions.
We have no assurances of that right now, and we are not going to simply sit back and
reflect on the good of his word. I'm not. I don't think many Americans are.
And members of Congress, specifically the tax-writing committees, currently have

authority in the tax code to get the president's tax returns, to examine his conflicts of
interest.
Press Conference, Statement by Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) (July 14, 2017),
http://www.cq.com/doc/newsmakertranscripts-5142259.
Page 32 of 42
Resolution Offered by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) (July 18, 2017)
** *
Whereas, the chairmen of the Committee on Ways and Means, Joint Committee on
Taxation, and the Committee on Finance have the authority to request the President's tax
returns under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
***
Whereas, without access to the President's tax returns, the American people cannot
determine how much he will personally benefit from proposed changes to the Tax Code
or from policy decisions he makes, nor can the American people fully understand the
financial interests and motivations of the President;
***
Whereas, disclosure of the President's tax returns would help those investigating Russian
interference in the 2016 election and assist them in better understanding the President's
financial ties to the Russian Federation, Russian businesses, and Russian individuals;
** *
I. Immediately request the tax return and return information of Donald J. Trump for tax
years 2006 through 2015, as provided under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as well as the tax return, and return information with respect to the President's
businesses, of each business entity disclosed by Donald J. Trump on his Office of
Government Ethics Form 278e, specifically each corporation and each partnership, within
the meaning of subchapter K of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, where
he is listed as an officer, director, or equivalent, or exercises working control; and
2. Postpone consideration of tax reform legislation until the elected Representatives of

the American people in this House have obtained President Trump's tax returns and
return information to ascertain how any changes to the Tax Code might financially
benefit the President.
163 Cong. Rec. H5941-42 (daily ed. July 18, 2017) (statement of Rep. Cicilline),
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/7 / 18/house-section/article/h5941-1.
Page 33 of 42
House Resolution 479 (July 27, 2017)
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 27, 2017
Mr. Pascrell (for himself and Mr. Crowley) submitted the following resolution; which
was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
Of inquiry directing the Secretary of the Treasury to provide to the House of

Representatives the tax return information of President Donald J. Trump as well as the
tax returns of each business entity disclosed by Donald J. Trump on his Office of
Government Ethics Form 278e.
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to furnish to the House of
Representatives, not later than 14 days after the adoption of this resolution, the full tax
returns of Donald J. Trump for tax years 2006 through 2016, if available, as well as the
tax returns for such taxable years of each business entity disclosed by Donald J. Trump
on his Office of Government Ethics Form 278e, specifically each business entity
specified in section 2 of this resolution; and any supplemental information in the
possession of the President relating to-
( 1) the amount of taxes paid by Mr. Trump and each such business entity with respect to
such taxable years;
(2) the debts of Mr. Trump and such business entities which are held by foreign
governments or foreign companies;
(3) the investments of Mr. Trump and such business entities which are in foreign
countries or foreign enterprises;
(4) Mr. Trump's personal and business profits received from foreign enterprises;
(5) the amount of charitable giving claimed by Mr. Trump with respect to such taxable
years; and
(6) any use of tax shelters or other loopholes to reduce the amount of taxes owed.
***
H.R. Res. 4 79, 155th Cong. (2017), https://www .congress.gov/bill/ l l Sth-congress/house-
resolution/479.
Ranking Member Richard Neal (Sept. 7, 2017)
Mr. Pascrell's resolution would direct the Treasury Secretary to provide the House with
the personal and business tax returns and other financial information of President Trump.
Page 34 of 42
Let me refresh everyone's memories on the facts here. Until recently, every President
since Gerald Ford released their tax returns to the American public. President Gerald
Ford released_a summary of his tax returns. President Jimmy Carter. President Ronald
Reagan. President George H.W. Bush. President Bill Clinton. President George W. Bush.
President Barack Obama.
Republican and Democratic Presidents. They all released their tax returns to the
American people.
This is not a partisan issue. The reason for releasing this information is to avoid conflicts
of interest. Tax returns include important information about income and charitable giving
and business interests, among other things. And this information is important for the
American people to have so they know that their President is always acting in their best
interest.
Therefore, I support my friend Mr. Pascrell's resolution. I believe it's in our country's
best interest for our Presidents to release their tax returns.
H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Markup of H. Res. 479, 115th Cong., Opening Statement of
Ranking Member Neal (Sept. 7, 2017), https://waysandmeans.house.gov/media-center/press-
releases/ranking-member-neal-opening-statement-markup-hres-479.
Rep. Bill Pascrell {D-NJ) (Sept. 7, 2017)
What we need to explore are the possibilities of conflicts of interest. This is not
something we made up, this is provided by the law. It is a fishing expedition. Why?
Because we don't have the conclusion. You don't get to the conclusion until you
investigate, and we have that authority under the law. If you looked at the word, "under
IRS audit" I want you to prove to me that he is still under audit.
H. Comm. on Ways & Means., Markup of H. Res. 479, 115th Cong., at 47:51 (Sept. 7, 2017)
(Statement of Rep. Pascrell), https://youtu.be/F2AyBERrEIY.
While Americans file their taxes, Tax Day also serves as a bitter reminder that President
Trump still refuses to show the public his tax returns. Hard-working families deserve to
know how their president has padded his own pockets with a tax scam that inflicts such
damage on the deficit and the future of Social Security and Medicare. As Republicans in
Congress refuse to demand this basic measure of transparency and accountability from
President Trump, we must ask: what does President Trump have to hide?
Press Release, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Statement on Tax Day (Apr. 17, 2018),
Page 35 of 42
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) (Sept. 13, 2018)
We of course cannot know whether the benefit for Trump will be bigly or just huge until
we lift this cover up of the Trump tax returns. As the smoke continues to build with one
revelation after another, there's greater need than ever to see what Trump may be hiding
in those returns, the working papers to explain them, and those for the 500 business
entities which stretch from Manhattan to Azerbaijan. Trump's tax returns relate directly
to what is before us today.
H. Comm. on Ways & Means, Full Committee Markup for Tax Reform 2.0, 115th Cong., at
1:29:00 (Sept. 13, 2018) (Statement of Rep. Doggett), https://youtu.be/SmtV7Jnx6PY.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) (Sept. 13, 2018)
The stench of corruption permeates this Administration, and it comes right from the top.
This amendment is designed to end the Republican coveru-p of Trump's tax returns.
While this amendment seeks to achieve the same result that I have sought with 5 prior
attempts in this committee, it includes extensive new findings from some of the notable
developments of recent months that make clear we are not only dealing with the self-
described ''King of Debt," but someone who continues to act as if he were just King.
Trump's tax returns relate directly to what is before us today. There is no issue this
Committee could consider more important than the integrity of our tax code, and the faith
that the American people have in our democracy. Trump has surrounded himself with
convicted tax evaders - rich friends who have decided they are above the law, and that
working people who can't afford fancy tax lawyers should have to pick up the slack.
Even Richard Nixon invited the Joint Committee on Taxation to review his tax returns,
explaining that "people have got to know whether or not their President is a crook."
While this Committee has refused to do its job- white in this Congress instead of
oversight, we have been overlooking Administration misconduct-the President's tax
returns have in fact already been reviewed. That was a review that, amazingly, President
Trump presented as his 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval 'to assure America he had
no business dealings with the Russians.' It was a review of his tax returns by his personal
law firm, which, of course, gave him a clean bill of health on any Russian connection-
only months after it boasted of the 'prestigious honor' of being named 'Russia Law Firm'
of the year. I am only asking that this Committee do for the American people what the
'Russia Law Firm of the Year' has done for Mr. Trump.
Before this Committee considers a dime of more tax breaks, we must obtain and review
the President's tax returns. Any tax bill released should be accompanied by a line-by-line
report of how much Trump, his family, and his companies will benefit from each one.
His tax returns can help tell us whether he is putting America First, or Trump first, his
family second, and Russian third.
Page 36 of 42
Press Release, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Rep. Doggett Offers Amendment to Secure Trump
Tax Returns, Meet the Nixon Standard (Sept. 13, 2018), https://doggett.house.gov/media-
center/press-releases/rep-doggett-offers-amendment-secure-trump-tax-returns-meet-nixon,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UuAmtMzs8E&feature=youtu.be.
Press Account Quoting Ranking Member Richard Neal (Oct. 3, 2018)

"This has never happened before, so you want to be very meticulous."
Richard Rubin, Trump's Tax Rewms in the Spotlight if Democrats Capture the House, Wall St.
J., Oct. 3, 2018, https ://www.wsj.com/articles/tru mps-tax-returns-in-the-spotlight-i f-democrats-
capture-the-house-15 3 8575880.
Press Account Quoting Ranking Member Richard Neal (Oct. 12, 2018)
"I think we would all be comfortable if this was done on a voluntary basis," Neal said.
"If they would resist the overture then I think you could probably see a Jong and grinding
court case," he added.
***
"It is not cut and dry," Neal said, noting that there was still plenty of discussion ahead for
how and when to request the returns officially.
***
"Anticipate a long court case in the end," Neal said.
Lauren Fox, Leading Democrat on House Ways and Means would ask for Trump's tax returns,
CNN, Oct. 12, 2018, https://www .cnn.com/2018/ 10/ 12/politics/house-ways-mean-tax-returns-
richard-neal/index.html.
Press Account Quoting Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Oct. 10, 2018)
Expect Democrats to immediately try to force President Trump to release his tax returns
if they take back the House in November, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said
Wednesday.
Demanding the president's tax returns "is one of the first things we'd do - that's the
easiest thing in the world. That's nothing," Pelosi told The Chronicle's editorial board in
an hour-long interview.
John Wildermuth, Pelosi: Trump's tax returns are fair game if Democrats win House, S.F.
Chron., Oct. 11, 2018, https://www .sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Pelosi-Trump-s-tax-returns-
are-fair-game-if-13297954.php.
Page 37 of 42
Press Account Quoting Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Dec. 13, 2018)
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she expects a House
committee to "take the first steps" toward obtaining President Trump's tax returns after
Democrats take control of the chamber next month, but she cautioned that securing them
is "a little more challenging than you might think."
"There is popular demand for the Congress to request the president's tax returns," said
Pelosi, who is likely to become House speaker. 'Tm sure the White House will resist, so
the question is, 'Where do we go from there?"
John Wagner, Pelosi says she expects a House committee will 'take the first steps' toward
obtaining Trump's tax retums, Wash. Post, Dec. 13, 2018,
https ://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/pelosi-says-she-ex pects-a-house-commi ttee-will-
take-the-first-steps-toward-obtaining-trumps-tax-returns/2018/ l 2/ l 3/fbc02660-feec-1 l e8-862a-
b6a6f3ce8 l 99_story. html ?utm_term=.ebb 1d6c 1325c.
Press Account Quoting Spokesperson for Ranking Member Richard Neal (Jan. 2, 2019)
Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), who will be the new Ways and Means Committee
chairman, wants to take some time to try to build a case with the public about why Trump
ought to voluntarily release his tax filings, before tapping an obscure Jaw that allows the
heads of Congress' tax committees to examine anyone's returns.
"He wants to lay out a case about why presidents should be disclosing their tax returns
before he formally forces him to do it," said Dan Rubin, a Neal spokesperson. Pulling the
legal trigger may not come until February at the earliest.
***
"He is a very policy-driven person, and I think he sees that if we break the glass and pull
that alarm, you won't get anything done after that," said Rubin.
Brian Faler, lucoming Democratic tax clzairman won't make quick grab for Trump's returns,
Politico, Jan. 2, 2019, https://www .politico.com/story/2019/01/02/congress-trump-tax-returns-
richard-neal- l 056839, https://neal.house.gov/in-the-news/incoming-democratic-tax-chairman-
wont-make-quick-grab-trumps-returns.
Press Account Quoting Chairman Richard Neal (Jan. 23, 2019)
The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, U.S. Rep. Richard Neal, D-
Springfield, said Wednesday he plans to request President Trump's tax returns, but
expects a drawn-out legal battle to result, and thus is choosing his words carefully on the
matter.
Page 38 of 42
- - - - - - - - -----------
"I plan to do it," Mr. Neal said in a visit to the Telegram & Gazette offices. "We are now
in the midst of putting together the case. It will be a long and grinding legal case."
***
Mr. Neal added: "I hope the president will voluntarily release his tax documents. I don't
think that, given the conversation so far, there is any indication he intends to do that. I
also think the public has reasonably come to expect that presidential candidates and
aspirants release those documents. It's likely to end up in a court case."
"We need to approach this gingerly and make sure the rhetoric that is used does not
become a footnote to the court case."
He said: "I've been meticulous about my choice of words, for good reason."
Mark Sullivan, Powerful Ways and Means chainnan Neal to pursue Trump's tax returns,
Telegram & Gazette, Jan. 23, 2019, https://www.telegram.com/news/20190123/powerful-ways•
and-means-chairman-neal-to-pursue-trumps-tax-returns, https://neal.house.gov/in-the-
news/powerful-ways-and-means-chairman-neal-pursue-trump-s-tax-returns.
Press Account Quoting Chairman Richard Neal (Jan. 24, 2019)
House Ways and Means Chairman Richard E. Neal said Thursday he plans to approach
the tricky topic of obtaining President Donald Trump's tax returns "methodically and
judiciously."
Neal said he started to have "preliminary conversations" about the issue after he was
named chairman-designate on Dec. 20, before he formally assumed the position after the
116th Congress began earlier this month.
"One of the things you have to be mindful of is that this has to be a part of a carefully
prepared and documented legal case," said Neal, D-Mass. "And it's not subject to just
whim and the emotion of the moment."
Added Neal: "This has to be prepared in accordance with staff, House counsel and an
understanding that this is likely to become the basis of a long and arduous court case."
***
"We're in this precarious period of time when the American people aren't quite sure of
what to believe about many, many issues," Neal continued. "So again, methodically and
judiciously we'll proceed."
Doug Sword, Neal: "Long and Arduous" Process to Get Trump's Tax Retums, CQ, Jan. 24,
2019, http://www.cq.com/doc/news-5449807.
Page 39 of 42
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 7, 2019)
I think, overwhelmingly, the public wants to see the President's tax returns. And so, they
want to know the truth. They want to know the facts. And he has nothing to hide.
I'll just tell you this and go on from there, because we have important work to do, and we
have important judgments to make, and we need information to make those judgments.
***
You have to be very, very careful if you go forward.
As I said, we are in our first month. The committees have been appointed. They have
organized. They are prioritizing their work and, in terms of the tax issue, it's not a
question of just sending a letter. You have to do it in very careful way. And the
chairman of the committee will be doing that.
So, I know there's this impatience because people want to know, that answers the
question, but we have to do it in a very careful way.
Press Conference, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 7, 2019),

https ://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/2 719-2/.
Rep. Dan Kildee {0-MI) (Feb. 7, 2019)
Well, the committee has a right to the returns. The law was written because it expected
that a moment may occur where there's a public interest in having a tax return gained by
the committee in order to evaluate it, or acquired by the committee for this kind of
evaluation.
What we need to do, and what the speaker said, and what Chairman Neal is absolutely
doing is lay the record, lay the groundwork, make the justification to use this rarely used
authority in order to make sure that we have a solid legal basis. So, today's hearing was
very much focused on laying a legal foundation to explore what the law allows us to do,
to understand that completely, to make sure that we're doing this in a methodical way.
This is unchartered territory. It's clear that the president does not want some information
that is included in his tax return to be revealed, otherwise he would not have broken with
50 years of norms that Democrats and Republicans have adhered to releasing tax returns.
There's a reason he doesn't want them there.
So he will fight this, and he probably fight it as far as he can, because we expect that and
for the reasons that I already stated, this is unchartered territory. It's very important that
we're methodical and we lay the foundation for the public purpose to acquire access to
these returns and that's the process that we're going through now.
***
Page 40 of 42
------
The public has a right to know whether or not their elected officials are benefiting from
the decisions that they make using the public responsibilities that the public has vested in
them.
So whether it's his personal entanglements, debt or the decisions that he's making on
policy going forward, this is the reason disclosure is so important, this is the reason that
past candidates and presidents have released their returns, so the public will know
whether or not the individual has entanglements that could impact their public decision
making, and that's really the purpose behind this entire area of inquiry for us.
All In with Chris Hayes (MS NBC television broadcast Feb. 7, 2019),
https://topnewsshow.com/all-in-with-chris-hayes-2-7-19-msnbc/,
http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/all-in/2019-02-07.
Press Account Quoting Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) (Feb. 26, 2019)
"Evidence that Trump has abused our tax laws is plentiful," Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ),
who has been making the case for pursuing Trump's tax returns under Section 6103
essentially since Trump was inaugurated, said in an emailed statement to Vox. He cited a
New York Times investigation into Trump and his family's tax practices that suggested
the family for years engaged in a number of schemes to avoid taxes, and leaked pages
from Trump's 1995 and 2005 tax returns; the 1995 ones show a nearly $1 billion loss.
"Americans have a right to know if their president has paid his taxes, if he has followed
the law, and if he is free from financial conflicts of interest," Pascrell continued. "The
law is clear. Under 6103, the Ways and Means Committee chairman is entitled to request
Trump's tax returns - and the Treasury secretary is obligated to deliver them. That's all
there is to it."
Emily Stewart, Democrats' coming battle to get Trump's tax returns, explained, Vox, Feb. 26,
2019, https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2019/2/26/18223760/democrats-
trump-tax-returns-richard-neal.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Apr. 4, 2019)
No president in the modem era has worked so diligently to keep their tax returns out of
the public eye. What is President Trump hiding?
@SpeakerPelosi, Twitter (Apr. 4, 2019),

https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/l l 13886412649189376.
Press Account Quoting Chairman Richard Neal (Apr. 5, 2019)
Neal told reporters on Thursday that he took roughly three months to build the case for
requesting the returns, which he argued was reasonable given the gravity of the request.
Page 41 of 42
"This was a very reasoned approach. Our position from day one was that this would be
measured," Neal said. "This is likely to wind its way through the federal court system and
we wanted to make sure that the case that we constructed was in fact one that would
stand up under the critical scrutiny of the federal courts."
Sunlen Serfaty et al., Republicans warn Trump tax request 'sets a dangerous standard' and
accuse Dems of weaponizing IRS, CNN, Apr. 5, 2019,
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/04/politics/trump-tax-retums-request-republicans-
congress/index.html.
Page 42 of 42


Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

THE TREASURY,
Defendants.
Exhibit H

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224
COMMISSIONER
April 23, 2019

Chairman
Dear Chairman Neal:
We are in receipt of your letters dated April 3, 2019 and April 13, 2019, requesting returns and
return information pursuant to section 6103(f) of the Internal Revenue Code ("the Code").
As set forth in a letter sent to you on April 23, 2019, we understand that the Treasury
Department has referred your request to the U.S. Department of Justice for consideration and
analysis of issues that are beyond the scope of the internal revenue laws. Accordingly, we have
not made a final determination on how to respond to your request and are awaiting further
guidance and direction on legal issues external to the internal revenue laws before doing so.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me, or a member of your staff can contact
Leonard Oursler, Director, Legislative Affairs, at 202-317-6985.


Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

THE TREASURY,
Defendants.
Exhibit I

WASHINGTON, D,C,
May 6, 2019

Chairman
Dear Chairman Neal:
I write in further response to your letter of April 3, 2019, requesting the confidential tax returns
(and other return information) of President Trump and related business entities for 2013 through
2018, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6103(±).
As you have recognized, the Committee's request is unprecedented, and it presents serious
constitutional questions, the resolution of which may have lasting consequences for all taxpayers.
Accordingly, the Department of the Treasury has consulted with the Department of Justice
concerning the lawfulness of your request. As explained in my April 23 letter, the Committee's
statutory authority under section 6103(f) is bounded by Congress's authority under the
Constitution, and the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution requires that Congressional
information demands must reasonably serve a legitimate legislative purpose.
In reliance on the advice of the Department of Justice, I have determined that the Committee's
request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose, and pursuant to section 6103, the Department is
therefore not authorized to disclose the requested returns and return information.
The Department of Justice has informed us that it intends to memorialize its advice in a
published legal opinion as soon as practicable. Out of respect for the deadlines previously set by
the Committee, and consistent with our commitment to a prompt response, I am informing you
now that the Department may not lawfully fulfill the Committee's request.
Although the Department is unable to provide you with the requested confidential tax returns and
return information, we renew our previous offer to provide information concerning the
Committee's stated interest in how the IRS conducts mandatory examinations of Presidents, as
provided by the Internal Revenue Manual. If the Committee is interested, we remain committed
to providing such an accommodation.
Sincerely,
'>+-�" /'fµ��
Steven T. Mnuchin
cc: The Honorable Kevin Brady, Ranking Member



Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

THE TREASURY,
Defendants.
Exhibit J

COMMISSIONER
May 6, 2019

Chairman
Dear Chairman Neal:
In further response to your letter dated April 3, 2019, I concur with the letter sent to you
today by Secretary Mnuchin and the conclusion reached in that letter.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me, or a member of your staff can
contact Leonard Oursler, Director, Legislative Affairs, at 202-317-6985.


Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

THE TREASURY,
Defendants.
Exhibit K
RICHARD E. NEAL.
MASSACHUSETIS,
CHAIRMAN
<!Congregg of tbe ij;}nfteb ~tateg KEVIN BRADY,
TEXAS,
RANKING MEMBER
J OHN LEWIS, GEORGIA

ll.~. 1!,ouse of l\epresentatibes DEVIN N UNES. CALIFORNIA
MIKE THOMPSON. CALIFORNIA ADRIAN SMITH, NEBRASKA
JOHN B. LARSON, CONNECTICUT COM MITIEE ON WAYS AN D MEANS KENNY MARCHANT, TEXAS
EARL BLUMENAUER, OREGON TOM REEO, NEW YORK
RON KIND, WISCONSIN 1 102 L ONGWORTH HOUSE O FFICE B U ILDING MIKE KELLY, PENNSYLVAN IA
BILL PASCRELL JR .. NEW JERSEY GEORGE HOLDING, NORTH CAROLINA
DANNY K. DAVIS, ILLINOIS
(202) 225-362 5 JASON SMITH, MISSOURI
BRIAN HIGGINS, NEW YORK
TERRI A. SEWELL, ALABAMA
wmtnsbington, Jlll( 20515-0348 DAVID SCHWEIKERT, ARIZONA
JACKIE WALORSKI, INDIANA
SUZAN DELBEN E, WASHIN GTON DAR IN LAHODD, ILLINOIS
JUDY CHU, CALIFORNIA http://waysandm eans.hou se.gov BRAD R. WENSTR UP, OHIO
GWEN MOORE, WISCONSIN JDDEY ARRINGTON, TEXAS
DAN KILDEE. M ICHIGAN DREW FERGUSON, GEORGIA
BRENDAN BOYLE, PENNSYLVANIA RON ESTE S, KANSAS
DON BEYER, VIRGINIA
DWIGHT EVANS, PEN NSYLVANIA
GARY ANDRES,
BRAD SCHNEIDER. ILLINOIS
M INORITY STAFF DIRECTOR
TOM SUOZZI. NEW YORK
JIMMY PANETTA, CALI FO RNIA
STE PHANIE MURPHY, FLORIDA
JIMMY GOMEZ, CALIFORN IA
STEVEN HORSFORD. NEVADA
May 10, 2019
BRANDON CASEY.
The Honorable Charles P. Rettig The Honorable Steven T. Mnuchin

Commissioner Secretary
Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20224 Washington, D.C. 20220
Dear Commissioner Rettig and Secretary Mnuchin,
To date, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") has failed to provide the return and return
information requested by my April 3, 2019 letter, despite an unambiguous legal obligation to do
so. Such information originally was due by April 10, 2019. In a letter dated April 23 , 2019, I was
notified that the Department of the Treasury ("Treasury") was consulting with the Department of
Justice ("Justice") in connection with this request. The letter advised that Treasury, and not the
IRS, expected to provide the Committee on Ways and Means ("Committee") a final decision by
May 6, 2019, after it had received Justice's legal guidance. On May 6, relying on advice from
Justice, Treasury notified me by letter of its determination that it is not authorized to disclose the
requested tax returns and return information because the Committee' s request "lacks a legitimate
legislative purpose."
As stated in my prior correspondence, the IRS is under a mandatory obligation to provide

the information requested under section 6103(f)( 1) of the Internal Revenue Code, which states that
" [u]pon 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" (emphasis added). Section 6103 has long been regarded as
clear and unambiguous. Compliance is not discretionary under any circumstance, even if the
taxpayer is under audit. The Committee never has been denied a request made under section
6103(±). Although the Committee is not required to provide a reason for requests under section
6103(f), I am responding to your letters out of respect for the IRS, Treasury, and their responsibility
to fairly and impartially administer the Federal tax laws.
The Committee Has a Legitimate Legislative Purpose
The April 23 letter alleges that the Committee's asserted purpose is a pretext, but this claim
is false. As stated in my April 3 letter, the Committee requested the return and return inforn1ation
Commissioner Rettig
Secretary Mnuchin
May 10, 2019
Page 2
because it is considering legislative proposals and conducting oversight related to our Federal tax
laws, including, but not limited to, the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax
laws against a President. Earlier this Congress, compliance and disclosure related to the Federal
tax returns of the President and Vice President were included in the scope of a Committee hearing.
As you know, the mandatory exan1ination of the President and Vice President is set forth in the
Internal Revenue Manual ("IRM") but is not codified. Legislation may therefore be necessary. It
cannot be denied that legislation related to IRS examination and enforcement is within the
Committee' s jurisdiction, and the Committee has a responsibility to inform itself in the course of
legislating.
The President is the most powerful public official in this country. No other single
American has the power to sign bills into law and direct an entire branch of government. The
Committee believes this fact calls for concordant scrutiny into the President' s ability to influence,
even indirectly, the administration of the Federal tax laws. The purpose underlying inclusion of
the mandatory audit in the IRM was so that no IRS employee would have to make the decision to
audit a sitting President. 1 However, there is more to an audit than just the decision to initiate it.
Among other considerations, the Committee wants to be sure that IRS employees who determine
the scope of the President' s audit, or who determine whether to continue previously-initiated
audits, are protected in the course of their work.
As the Supreme Court has stated: "A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively
in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect
or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information- which
not infrequently is true- recourse must be had to others who do possess it." 2 With respect to the
Committee' s consideration of legislative proposals concerning mandatory examination, the
President' s tax returns and return information are necessary to guide that legislative action.
Treasury takes issue with the fact that the Committee seeks tax information related to only
the current President. This concern is misplaced and ignores the fact that the tax issues raised by
the current President are unique. The President has stated repeatedly that his returns are under
routine audit,3 and, in 2016, his tax attorneys reported that his reh1rns have been under continuous
earlier. 4 The continuous audit and activities from 2008 and before, the use by the President of a
grantor trust controlling hw1dreds of businesses, and the volume of his tax returns5 make this
President markedly different from previous Presidents or Vice Presidents examined under the
IRS ' s mandatory audit procedures.
1
JCX-3-19, Background Regarding the Confidentiality and Disclosure of Federal Tax Returns (Feb. 4, 20 19), at 2 1
(quoting IRS spokesperson).
2 McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 175 (I 927).
3
See, e.g., Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (May 11 , 20 16, I :51 PM),
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/730500562022760448.
4
Letter from Sheri A. Dillon and Wi lliam F. Nelson to Mr. Donald J. Trump, Re: Status of U. S. federal income tax
returns (Mar. 7, 2016).
5
See, e.g. , Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Oct. 15, 2015, 10: 13 AM),
https://twitter.com/real DonaldTrump/status/65470663 5663 773696.
Commissioner Rettig
Secretary Mnuchin
May 10, 2019
Page 3
Case Law Supports the Committee
The April 23 letter relies heavily on a single quotation from Watkins v. United States about
exposure "for the sake of exposure."6 In Watkins, the facts at hand and the nature of the
investigation were wholly different from the Committee's current oversight efforts. The
Committee's efforts to understand the IRS 's mandatory audit of the President, the head of the
Executive Branch, bear no similarity to the House Un-American Activities Committee's efforts to
uncover members of the Communist Party. Moreover, the Court's objection in Watkins was that
the witness was not informed adequately of the scope of the Committee's investigation, a defect
that certainly cannot be claimed here. In this instance, the Committee clearly has defined the scope
of its investigation, and your letters evidence that you are fully aware of and have spent much time
pondering the Committee' s legislative purpose.
Furthermore, selectively quoting from Watkins does not erase the remainder of the Court's
opinion. Importantly, the Court lays out the IRS' s obligation here: " It is unquestionably the duty
of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent
legislative action. It is their unremitting obligation ... to respect the dignity of the Congress and
its committees." 7 Watkins also undermines Treasury' s efforts to second-guess why the Committee
requested certain tax returns instead of others: "The legislature is free to determine the kinds of
data that should be collected."8 Clearly, the Supreme Court agrees that Congress is in the best
position to determine what information it requires to perform its own legislative work.
In closing, I appreciate Treasury' s offer for a briefing. A briefing, however, is not a

substitute for the requested tax returns and return information. In total, the IRS has had more than
four weeks to comply with the Committee's straightforward request. Therefore, please see the
enclosed subpoena. The return date is May 17, 2019. Thank you for your prompt attention to this
matter.
Sincerely,
The Honorable Richard E. Ntal, Chairm

Enclosure
6
354 U.S. 178, 200 ( 1957).
7
Id. at 187.
8
Id. at 2 15.
SUBPOENA
BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The Honorable Steven Mnuchin, Secretary
To United States Department of the Treasury
You are hereby commanded to be and appear before the

of the House of Representatives of the United States at the place, date, and time specified below.
0 to produce the things identified on the attached schedule touching matters of inquiry committed to said
committee or subcommittee; and you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee . .
Place of production: 1102 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515
Date: May 17, 2019 Time: 5:00 p.m.
D to testify at a deposition touching matters of inquiry committed to said committee or subcommittee;

and you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.
Place of testimony:
Date: Time:
I ----------
D to testify at a hearing touching matters of inquiry committed to said committee or subcommittee; and
you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.
Place of testimony:
Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Time:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
To examiners or agents designated by Chairman Richard Neal
to serve and make return.
Witness my hand and the seal of the House of Representatives of the U~ States, at
the city of Washington, D.C. this 10th of

_.........,-........_....,.....,r----,
/ ''
Chairman or Authorized Member

Schedule A
In accordance with the attached instructions, you are required to produce, for each of the
tax years 2013 through 2018, the following return and return information:
2. All administrative files (workpapers, affidavits, etc.) for each requested Federal
individual income tax return of Donald J. Trump.

• Lamington Farm Club, LLC d/b/a Trump National Golf Club-Bedminster.
income tax return of each entity listed above.
Schedule B (Instructions)
1. In complying with this subpoena, you are required to produce all responsive documents
that are in your possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or
present agents, employees, and representatives acting on your behalf.
2. Subpoenaed documents, and all documents reasonably related to the subpoenaed

documents, should not be destroyed, altered, removed, transferred, or otherwise made
inaccessible to the Committee on Ways and Means ("Committee").
3. In the event that any entity, organization, or individual denoted in this subpoena is or has
been known by any name other than that herein denoted, the subpoena shall be read also
to include that alternative identification.
4. All documents shall be Bates-stamped sequentially and produced sequentially.
5. Documents produced in electronic format should be organized, identified, and indexed

electronically. The Committee's preference is to receive any electronic documents in
Portable Document Format (PDF).
6. Documents produced in response to this subpoena should include an index describing the
contents of the production. To the extent more than one CD, hard drive, memory stick,
thumb drive, zip file, box, or folder is produced, each should contain an index describing
its contents.
7. Documents produced in response to this subpoena shall be produced together with copies
of file labels, dividers, or identifying markers with which they were associated when the
subpoena was served.
8. When you produce documents, you should identify the paragraph(s) in the subpoena
schedule to which the documents respond.
9. The pendency of or potential for litigation shall not be a basis to withhold any
information.
10. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(d), the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") and any
statutory exemptions to FOIA shall not be a basis for withholding any information.
11 . Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b )(9), the Privacy Act shall not be a basis for withholding
information.
12. If compliance with the subpoena cannot be made in full by the specified due date,
compliance shall be made to the extent possible by that date. An explanation of why full
compliance is not possible shall be provided along with any partial production.
13. In the event that a document is withheld in full or in part on a claim of privilege, provide
a privilege log containing the following information concerning any such document: (a)
every privilege asserted; (b) the type of document; (c) the general subject matter; (d) the
date, author, addressee, and any other recipient(s); (e) the relationship of the author and
addressee to each other; and (f) the basis for the privilege(s) asserted. If a claimed
privilege applies to only a portion of any document, that portion only should be withheld
and the remainder of the document should be produced. As used herein, "claim of
privilege" includes, but is not limited to, any claim that a document either may or must be
withheld from production pursuant to any statute, rule, or regulation.
14. In complying with the subpoena, be apprised that (unless otherwise determined by the
Committee) the Committee does not recognize: any purported non-disclosure privileges
associated with the common law including, but not limited to, the deliberative-process
privilege, the attorney-client privilege, and attorney work product protections; any
purported privileges or protections from disclosure under FOIA or the Privacy Act; or
any purported contractual privileges, such as non-disclosure agreements.
15. Any assertion by a subpoena recipient of any such non-constitutional legal bases for
withholding documents or other materials shall be of no legal force and effect and shall
not provide a justification for such withholding or refusal, unless and only to the extent
that the Committee (or the chair of the Committee, if authorized) has consented to
recognize the assertion as valid.
16. If any document responsive to this subpoena was, but no longer is, in your possession,
custody, or control, identify the document (by date, author, subject, and recipients), and
explain the circumstances under which the document ceased to be in your possession,
custody, or control.
17. If a date or other descriptive detail set forth in this subpoena referring to a document is
inaccurate, but the actual date or other descriptive detail is known to you or is otherwise
apparent from the context of the subpoena, produce all documents that would be
responsive as if the date or other descriptive detail were correct.
18. This subpoena is continuing in nature and applies to any new information. Any record,
document, compilation of data, or information not produced because it has not been
located or discovered by the due date shall be produced immediately upon subsequent
location or discovery.
19. Upon completion of the production, submit a written certification, signed by you or your
counsel, stating that: (1) a diligent search has been completed of all documents in your
possession, custody, or control that reasonably could contain responsive documents; and
(2) all documents located during the search that are responsive have been produced to the
Committee.
Schedule C (Definitions)
1. The term "return" shall have the meaning given to it in 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(l).
2. The term "return information" shall have the meaning given to it in 26 U.S.C.
§ 6103(b)(2).
3. The term "individual income tax return" shall have the meaning given to it in 26 U.S.C .
§ 601 l(e)(3)(C).


Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

THE TREASURY,
Defendants.
Exhibit L
RI CHARD E. NEAL,
MASSACHUSETIS,
CHAIRMAN
Qeongregg of tbe Wniteb ~tateg KEVIN BRADY,
TEXAS,
RANKING MEMBER
JOHN LEWIS, GEORGIA

m.~. J!,ouse of l\epresentatibes DEVIN NUNES, CALIFORNIA
MIKE THOMPSON, CALIFORN IA ADRIAN SM ITH, NEBRASKA
JOHN 8. LARSON, CONN ECTICUT COMMITIEE ON WAYS AND MEANS KENNY MARCHANT, TEXAS
EARL BLUMEN AUER. OREGON TOM REED, NEW YORK
RON KIND, WISCONSIN 1102 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING M IKE KELLY, PENNSYLVANIA
BILL PASCRELL JR., NEW JERSEY GEORGE HOLDING, NORTH CAROLINA
DANN Y K. DAVIS, ILLIN OIS
(202) 225-3625 JASON SMITH, MISSOURI
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, CALIFORN IA TOM RICE, SOUTH CAROLINA
BRIAN HIGGINS, NEW YORK
TERR I A. SEWELL, ALABAMA
wmtn.sbington, 11)(( 20515-0348 DAVID SCHWEIKERT, A RIZONA
JACKIE WALORSKI, IN DIANA
SUZAN DE LBENE, WASHINGTON DARIN LAHOOD, ILLINOIS
JUDY CHU, CALIFORNIA http://waysandmeans.house.g ov BRAD R. WENSTRUP, OHIO
GWEN MOORE, WISCONSIN JODEY ARRINGTON, TEXAS
DAN KI LDE E, MICHIGA N DREW FERGUSON, GEORGIA
BREN DAN BOYLE , PENNSYLVAN IA RON ESTES. KANSAS
DON BEYEA, VIRGINIA
DWIGHT EVANS. PEN NSYLVANIA
GARY ANDRES,
BRAD SCHNEIDER, ILLINOIS
JIMMY PANETTA , CALIFORNIA
JIMMY GOMEZ, CALIFORNIA
STEVEN HOR SFORD, NEVADA
May 10, 2019
BRAN DON CASEY,
The Honorable Charles P. Rettig The Honorable Steven T. Mnuchin

Commissioner Secretary
Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW 1500 Pennsylvania A venue, NW
Dear Commissioner Rettig and Secretary Mnuchin,
To date, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") has failed to provide the return and return
information requested by my April 3, 2019 letter, despite an unambiguous legal obligation to do
so. Such information originally was due by April 10, 2019. In a letter dated April 23, 2019, I was
notified that the Department of the Treasury ("Treasury") was consulting with the Department of
Justice ("Justice") in connection with this request. The letter advised that Treasury, and not the
IRS, expected to provide the Committee on Ways and Means (" Committee") a final decision by
May 6, 2019, after it had received Justice' s legal guidance. On May 6, relying on advice from
Justice, Treasury notified me by letter of its determination that it is not authorized to disclose the
requested tax returns and return information because the Committee' s request "lacks a legitimate
legislative purpose."
As stated in my prior correspondence, the IRS is under a mandatory obligation to provide

the information requested under section 6103(f)(l) of the Internal Revenue Code, which states that
"[u]pon 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" (emphasis added). Section 6103 has long been regarded as
clear and unambiguous. Compliance is not discretionary under any circumstance, even if the
taxpayer is under audit. The Conu11ittee never has been denied a request made under section
6103(f). Although the Committee is not required to provide a reason for requests under section
6103(f), I am responding to your letters out of respect for the IRS, Treasury, and their responsibility
to fairly and impartially administer the Federal tax laws.
The Committee Has a Legitimate Legislative Purpose
The April 23 letter alleges that the Committee' s asserted purpose is a pretext, but this claim
is false. As stated in my April 3 letter, the Committee requested the return and return information
Commissioner Rettig
Secretary Mnuchin
May JO, 2019
Page 2
because it is considering legislative proposals and conducting oversight related to our Federal tax
laws, including, but not limited to, the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax
laws against a President. Earlier this Congress, compliance and disclosure related to the Federal
tax returns of the President and Vice President were included in the scope of a Committee hearing.
As you know, the mandatory examination of the President and Vice President is set forth in the
Internal Revenue Manual (" IRM") but is not codified. Legislation may therefore be necessary. It
cannot be denied that legislation related to IRS examination and enforcement is within the
Committee's jurisdiction, and the Committee has a responsibility to inform itself in the course of
legislating.
The President is the most powerful public official in this country. No other single
American has the power to sign bills into law and direct an entire branch of government. The
Committee believes this fact calls for concordant scrutiny into the President's ability to influence,
even indirectly, the administration of the Federal tax laws. The purpose underlying inclusion of
the mandatory audit in the IRM was so that no IRS employee would have to make the decision to
audit a sitting President. 1 However, there is more to an audit than just the decision to initiate it.
Among other considerations, the Committee wants to be sure that IRS employees who determine
the scope of the President's audit, or who determine whether to continue previously-initiated
audits, are protected in the course of their work.
As the Supreme Court has stated: "A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively
in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect
or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information-which
not infrequently is true-recourse must be had to others who do possess it." 2 With respect to the
Committee' s consideration of legislative proposals concerning mandatory examination, the
President's tax returns and return information are necessary to guide that legislative action.
Treasury takes issue with the fact that the Committee seeks tax inforn1ation related to only
the current President. This concern is misplaced and ignores the fact that the tax issues raised by
the current President are unique. The President has stated repeatedly that his returns are under
routine audit,3 and, in 2016, his tax attorneys reported that his returns have been under continuous
earlier. 4 The continuous audit and activities from 2008 and before, the use by the President of a
granter trust controlling hundreds of businesses, and the volume of his tax returns5 make this
President markedly different from previous Presidents or Vice Presidents examined under the
IRS's mandatory audit procedures.
1
JCX-3-19, Background Regarding the Confidentiality and Disclosure of Federal Tax Returns (Feb. 4, 2019), at 21
(quoting IRS spokesperson).
2 McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 175 ( 1927).
3
See, e. g., Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (May 11 , 2016, 1:51 PM),
https://twitter.com/real DonaldTrump/status/730500562022760448 .
4
Letter from Sheri A. Dillon and William F. Nelson to Mr. Donald J. Trump, Re: Status of U.S. federal income tax
returns (Mar. 7, 2016).
5 See, e.g. , Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Oct. 15, 2015, 10:13 AM),
https://twitter.com/ realDonaldTrump/status/654706635663773696.
Commissioner Rettig
Secretary Mnuchin
May 10,2019
Page 3
Case Law Supports the Committee
The April 23 letter relies heavily on a single quotation from Watkins v. United States about
exposure "for the sake of exposure."6 In Watkins, the facts at hand and the nature of the
investigation were wholly different from the Committee' s current oversight efforts. The
Committee' s eff01is to understand the IRS ' s mandatory audit of the President, the head of the
Executive Branch, bear no similarity to the House Un-American Activities Committee's efforts to
uncover members of the Communist Party. Moreover, the Court' s objection in Watkins was that
the witness was not informed adequately of the scope of the Committee's investigation, a defect
that certainly cannot be claimed here. In this instance, the Committee clearly has defined the scope
of its investigation, and your letters evidence that you are fully aware of and have spent much time
pondering the Committee's legislative purpose.
Furthermore, selectively quoting from Watkins does not erase the remainder of the Court's
opinion. Importantly, the Court lays out the IRS ' s obligation here: " It is unquestionably the duty
of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent
legislative action. It is their unremitting obligation ... to respect the dignity of the Congress and
its committees." 7 Watkins also undermines Treasury' s efforts to second-guess why the Committee
requested certain tax returns instead of others: "The legislature is free to determine the kinds of
data that should be collected." 8 Clearly, the Supreme Court agrees that Congress is in the best
position to determine what information it requires to perform its own legislative work.
In closing, I appreciate Treasury' s offer for a briefing. A briefing, however, is not a

substitute for the requested tax returns and return information. In total, the IRS has had more than
four weeks to comply with the Committee's straightforward request. Therefore, please see the
enclosed subpoena. The return date is May 17, 2019. Thank you for your prompt attention to this
matter.
Sincerely,
The Honorable Richard E. N€al, Chairm

Enclosure
6
354 U.S. 178, 200 (1957).
7
/d.atl87.
8
Id. at 215.
SUBPOENA
BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The Honorable Charles Rettig, Commissioner
To Internal Revenue Service
You are hereby commanded to be and appear before the

of the House of Representatives of the United States at the place, date, and time specified below.
0 to produce the things identified on the attached schedule touching matters of inquiry committed to said
committee or subcommittee; and you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.
Place of production: 1102 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515
Date: May 17, 2019 Time: 5:00 p.m.
D to testify at a deposition touching matters of inquiry committed to said committee or subcommittee;

and you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.
Place of testimony:
Date: Time:
I ----------
D to testify at a hearing touching matters of inquiry committed to said committee or subcommittee; and
you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.
Place of testimony:
Date:
--------- Time:
----------
To examiners or agents designated by Chairman Richard Neal
to serve and make return.
Witness my hand and the seal of the House of Representatives of the United'States, at
the city of Washington, D.C. this 1~ , ttt--;f;!

~ Chairman or Authorized Member
Schedule A
In accordance with the attached instructions, you are required to produce, for each of the
tax years 2013 through 2018, the following return and return information:
individual income tax return of Donald J. Trump.

• Lamington Farm Club, LLC d/b/a Trump National Golf Club- Bedminster.
income tax return of each entity listed above.
Schedule B (Instructions)
1. In complying with this subpoena, you are required to produce all responsive documents
that are in your possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or
present agents, employees, and representatives acting on your behalf.
2. Subpoenaed documents, and all documents reasonably related to the subpoenaed

documents, should not be destroyed, altered, removed, transferred, or otherwise made
inaccessible to the Committee on Ways and Means ("Committee").
3. In the event that any entity, organization, or individual denoted in this subpoena is or has
been known by any name other than that herein denoted, the subpoena shall be read also
to include that alternative identification.
4. All documents shall be Bates-stamped sequentially and produced sequentially.
5. Documents produced in electronic format should be organized, identified, and indexed

electronically. The Committee's preference is to receive any electronic documents in
Portable Document Format (PDF).
6. Documents produced in response to this subpoena should include an index describing the
contents of the production. To the extent more than one CD, hard drive, memory stick,
thumb drive, zip file, box, or folder is produced, each should contain an index describing
its contents.
7. Documents produced in response to this subpoena shall be produced together with copies
of file labels, dividers, or identifying markers with which they were associated when the
subpoena was served.
8. When you produce documents, you should identify the paragraph(s) in the subpoena
schedule to which the documents respond.
9. The pendency of or potential for litigation shall not be a basis to withhold any
information.
10. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(d), the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") and any
statutory exemptions to FOIA shall not be a basis for withholding any infonnation.
11. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(9), the Privacy Act shall not be a basis for withholding
information.
12. If compliance with the subpoena cannot be made in full by the specified due date,
compliance shall be made to the extent possible by that date. An explanation of why full
compliance is not possible shall be provided along with any partial production.
13. In the event that a document is withheld in full or in part on a claim of privilege, provide
a privilege log containing the following information concerning any such document: (a)
every privilege asserted; (b) the type of document; (c) the general subject matter; (d) the
date, author, addressee, and any other recipient(s); (e) the relationship of the author and
addressee to each other; and (f) the basis for the privilege(s) asserted. If a claimed
privilege applies to only a portion of any document, that portion only should be withheld
and the remainder of the document should be produced. As used herein, "claim of
privilege" includes, but is not limited to, any claim that a document either may or must be
withheld from production pursuant to any statute, rule, or regulation.
14. In complying with the subpoena, be apprised that (unless otherwise determined by the
Committee) the Committee does not recognize: any purported non-disclosure privileges
associated with the common law including, but not limited to, the deliberative-process
privilege, the attorney-client privilege, and attorney work product protections; any
purported privileges or protections from disclosure under FOIA or the Privacy Act; or
any purported contractual privileges, such as non-disclosure agreements.
15. Any assertion by a subpoena recipient of any such non-constitutional legal bases for
withholding documents or other materials shall be of no legal force and effect and shall
not provide a justification for such withholding or refusal, unless and only to the extent
that the Committee (or the chair of the Committee, if authorized) has consented to
recognize the assertion as valid.
16. If any document responsive to this subpoena was, but no longer is, in your possession,
custody, or control, identify the document (by date, author, subject, and recipients), and
explain the circumstances under which the document ceased to be in your possession,
custody, or control.
17. If a date or other descriptive detail set forth in this subpoena referring to a document is
inaccurate, but the actual date or other descriptive detail is known to you or is otherwise
apparent from the context of the subpoena, produce all documents that would be
responsive as if the date or other descriptive detail were correct.
18. This subpoena is continuing in nature and applies to any new information. Any record,
document, compilation of data, or information not produced because it has not been
located or discovered by the due date shall be produced i1mnediately upon subsequent
location or discovery.
19. Upon completion of the production, submit a written certification, signed by you or your
counsel, stating that: ( 1) a diligent search has been completed of all documents in your
possession, custody, or control that reasonably could contain responsive documents; and
(2) all documents located during the search that are responsive have been produced to the
Committee.
Schedule C (Definitions)
1. The term "return" shall have the meaning given to it in 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(l).
2. The term "return information" shall have the meaning given to it in 26 U.S.C.
§ 6103(b)(2).
3. The term "individual income tax return" shall have the meaning given to it in 26 U.S.C.
§ 60I l(e)(3)(C).


Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

THE TREASURY,
Defendants.
Exhibit M
5/30/2019 Neal Issues
Case Subpoenas to Treasury
1:19-cv-01974 Secretary and
Document 1-13IRS Commissioner | Ways andPage
Filed 07/02/19 Means 2
Committee
of 2 - Democrats
(/)
 (http://twitter.com/WaysMeansCmte) 
(http://www.facebook.com/waysandmeanscommitteedems) 
(http://www.youtube.com/user/waysandmeansdems)
NEAL ISSUES SUBPOENAS TO TREASURY

SECRETARY AND IRS COMMISSIONER
May 10, 2019 | Press Release
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Ways & Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA) released
the following statement after issuing subpoenas to Department of Treasury Secretary Steven
Mnuchin
(/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/ les/documents/WM%20Letter%20Mnuchin%205.10.19.pdf)
and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner Charles Rettig
(/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/ les/documents/WM%20Letter%20Rettig%205.10.19.pdf)
for six years of the President’s personal and business tax returns:

“Last month, the Ways and Means Committee began an investigation into the mandatory audit
program at the IRS in an effort to assess the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the federal
tax laws against a sitting President and to determine if those audits need to be codi ed into federal
law. As part of that inquiry, on April 3, I requested six years of the President’s personal and business
tax returns, pursuant to my authority under section 6103(f) of the IRS Code. I believed then, as I do
now, that reviewing the requested documents is a necessary piece of the committee’s work.

“Unfortunately, the Treasury Department and the IRS have denied my reasonable request. Despite
the agency’s denial, we on the Ways and Means Committee are still moving forward with our
inquiry. After reviewing the options available to me, and upon the advice of counsel, I
issued subpoenas today to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of the IRS for six
years of personal and business returns. While I do not take this step lightly, I believe this action
gives us the best opportunity to succeed and obtain the requested material. I sincerely hope that
the Treasury Department will furnish the requested material in the next week so the committee
can quickly begin its work.”
###
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/neal-issues-subpoenas-treasury-secretary-and-irs-commissioner 1/1


Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

THE TREASURY,
Defendants.
Exhibit N

WASHINGTON, D.C.
May 17, 2019

Chairman
Dear Chairman Neal:
I write in response to your letter of May 10, 2019, in which you reiterate your request for the
confidential tax returns (and other return information) of President Trump and related business
entities, and in which you include a subpoena for the documents you have requested.
As I explained in my May 6 letter to the Committee, the Department of the Treasury (the
Department) has consulted with the Department of Justice concerning the lawfulness of the
Committee's unprecedented request. In reliance on the advice of the Department of Justice, we
have determined that the Committee's request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose, and
pursuant to section 6103, the Department is therefore not authorized to disclose the requested
returns and return information. For the same reasons, we are unable to provide the requested
information in response to the Committee's subpoena. As I explained in my May 6 letter, the
Department of Justice has informed us that it intends to memorialize its advice in a published
legal opinion as soon as practicable.
In my April 23 letter to the Committee, I offered to work with the Committee to accommodate its
stated interest in understanding how the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a
President by providing the Committee with additional information on the mandatory audit
process. I renewed that offer in my May 6 letter. While the Committee's latest letter appears to
decline these offers because they are "not a substitute" for the President's tax returns, the
Department's offer would provide information that directly bears upon what the Committee has
stated to be its legislative interest in this subject. Consistent with the Executive Branch's
constitutional commitment to accommodation, the Department remains committed to providing
such an accommodation.
Sincerely,
yf~T lttvt1e-~
Steven T. Mnuchin


Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

THE TREASURY,
Defendants.
Exhibit O

COMMISSIONER
May 17, 2019

Chairman
Dear Chairman Neal:
I write in response to your letter dated May 10, 2019, transmitting a subpoena for
returns and return information of specific individual and business taxpayers. Based on
advice received from the Department of Justice, as explained in the Secretary's letter
sent to you earlier today, we are precluded by law from providing the requested returns
and return information.
Although we cannot provide the documents requested by the subpoena, we have

offered to provide additional information to accommodate the Committee's stated
interest in understanding how the IRS audits and enforces the tax laws against a
President, and we remain committed to providing such information if the Committee
requests it.
Your letter expresses a concern that IRS employees could be subject to undue
influence when conducting mandatory audits of a President's tax returns. More
specifically, your letter references a concern that "employees who determine the scope
of the President's audit, or who determine whether to continue previously-initiated
audits, are protected in the course of their work." That concern is unfounded for the
reasons described below.
The IRS strives to treat all taxpayers with the highest degree of impartiality. Procedures
implemented by the IRS in 1977 strongly protect the integrity of the mandatory audit
process set forth in Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 3.28.3 and 4.2.1.11. These
procedures were implemented, and have been maintained in largely the same form for
over 40 years in order to insulate the IRS's examination process from any bias or
appearance of bias. Under the procedures, within 10 days of receiving a copy of a
President or Vice President's return, a manager in one of the IRS's operating divisions
assigns the examination to a revenue agent who is instructed to follow the IRM's
general audit procedure guidelines. IRM 4.2.1.11 (5) and IRM 4.2.1.11 (3)(d). Under
those guidelines, the scope and depth of the examination is determined by the revenue
agent, based on established risk protocols. IRM 4.10.3.2. In accordance with normal
examination procedures, where warranted, the mandatory examination of a President or
Vice President's return can be expanded to include related or prior year returns. IRM
4.2.1.11 (6).
From start to finish, all aspects of the processing and examination of a President or Vice
President's returns are conducted by experienced, career IRS employees. As with any
examination, if any IRS or Treasury official other than the career employees responsible
for the examination attempts to influence its outcome or direction, procedures are in
place to notify the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. These procedures
play a critical role in ensuring the integrity and impartiality of the examination process.
No political appointee has to our knowledge had any involvement in any examination of
a President or Vice President's tax returns at any time since the mandatory procedures
were put in place in 1977.
If you would like additional information regarding the IRS's mandatory examination
procedures, please contact me directly, or a member of your staff may contact
Leonard Oursler, Director, Legislative Affairs, at (202) 317-6985.
~ !§·. ·
Charles P. R~


Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

THE TREASURY,
Defendants.
Exhibit P
RICHARD E. NEAL,
MASSACHUSETIS,
CHAIRMAN
((ongress of tbe llntteb ~tates KEVIN BRADY,
TEXAS,
RANKING MEMBER
JOHN LEWIS, GEORGIA

'ml.~. j!}ouse of l\epresentatibes DEVIN NUNES, CALIFORNIA
MIKE THOMPSON, CALIFORNIA ADRIAN SMITH , NEBRASKA
JOHN B. LARSON, CONNECTICUT COMM ITIEE ON WAYS AN D MEANS KENNY MARCHANT, TEXAS
EAR L BLUMENAUER, OREGON TOM REED, NEW YORK
AON KIN D. WISCO NSIN 1102 LON GWO RT H H OUSE O FFICE BU ILDING MIKE KELLY, PE NNSYLVANIA
BILL PASCAELL JR., NEW JERSEY GEORGE HOLDING, NORTH CAROLINA
DANNY K. DAVIS, ILLINOIS
(202) 225-3625 J ASON SM ITH, MISSOURI
BRIAN HIGGINS, N EW YORK
TERRI A. SEWE LL, ALABAM A
[lfflm)bington, ll<lt 20515-0348 DAVID SCHWEIKERT, ARIZONA
J ACKIE WALORSKI. IN DIANA
SUZAN DELBENE, WASHINGTON DARIN LAHOOD, ILLINOIS
JUDY CHU, CALIFORNIA http://waysandmeans.house.gov BRAD A. WEN STAUP, OHIO
GWEN MOORE, WISCON SIN JOOEY A RRINGTON. TEXAS
DA N KILDEE, M ICHIGAN DREW FERGU SON, GEORGIA
BRENDAN BOYLE. PENN SYLVAN IA AON ESTES, KANSAS
DON BEYER, VIRGINIA
DW IGHT EVANS, PEN NSYLVANIA
GARY ANDRES,
BRAD SCHNEIDER, ILLINOIS
JIMMY PAN ETTA, CALIFORNIA
JI MMY GOMEZ, CALIFORNIA
STEVEN HORSFORD. NEVADA
June 28, 2019
BRANDON CASEY,
The Honorable Steven T. Mnuchin The Honorable Charles P. Rettig

Secretary Commissioner
Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 1111 Constitution A venue, NW
Dear Secretary Mnuchin and Commissioner Rettig,
The Committee on Ways and Means ("Committee") has oversight and legislative
authority over the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") and the Federal tax laws. Consistent
with this authority and the Committee' s longstanding practice under section 6103(-f) of the
Internal Revenue Code ("Code"), I requested six years of President Trump' s individual tax
returns and certain related returns and return infonnation. Upon the denial of that section
6103(f) request, I issued subpoenas for the information. To date, you have not complied
with those subpoenas.
As you are aware, on June 10, 2019- in response to your offers to provide the
Committee with additional information on the mandatory Presidential audit
process outlined in the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM)-a briefing was provided by
officials from the IRS and the Department of the Treasury ("Treasury"). It included a
walk-through of the applicable IRM provisions and a high-level description of some ways
in which current audit practices diverge from the IRM because, as Treasury and IRS
officials noted, the provisions are four decades old and are now "outdated" in numerous
respects.
Regrettably, of the eight Treasury and IRS officials sent to the briefing, none had
ever been involved in a mandatory Presidential audit. Further, despite letters I sent
specifically authorizing Majority and Minority Committee staff to receive return and return
information in connection with the briefing, the IRS and Treasury declined to answer any
questions asked by Committee staff related to the actual audits of multiple prior Presidents
Secretary Mnuchin
Commissioner Rettig
Page 2
across both political parties, including basic questions about whether Presidential returns
have ever been filed electronically, how long Presidential audits generally take, whether
there ever have been any assessments made to Presidential returns, or whether any
President-taxpayers have ever gone to IRS Appeals from a mandatory audit. In total,
Majority and Minority Committee staff raised a few hundred questions, most of which
Treasury and IRS declined to answer.
The June 10 briefing only reinforced the Committee's need to review the actual
return information as part of our oversight duties. For example, the briefing highlighted
the substantial discretion a single IRS revenue agent possesses in conducting an audit of a
President's tax returns, raising serious concerns about the absence of safeguards protecting
both the individual auditor as well as the entire audit process from improper influence. The
briefing also raised concerns uniquely and directly relevant to the thoroughness of the
Presidential audit process as applied to this President, including how related-entity returns
and returns previously under audit have been considered and how highly complex returns
are examined. The officials at the briefing reported that there are no specific mandatory
audit procedures for a President's grantor trusts. This Committee is charged with
conducting oversight of precisely these types of questions, and the answers can only be
determined by reviewing the returns and audit file information that the IRS and Treasury
have thus far refused to provide.
The limited information conveyed at the briefing is not a replacement for the actual
return and return information that the Committee requested under section 6103(f) and now
has subpoenaed. As I have explained in our prior correspondence, the Committee is
conducting oversight of the IRS' s handling of Presidential tax returns and enforcement of
tax laws involving the President. As part of that investigation, the Committee is examining
the IRS's administration of the mandatory Presidential audit process and the application of
that audit process to the tax returns of President Trump and certain related entities. Indeed,
the President himself repeatedly has called into question the integrity of the IRS's audit
system, including by criticizing the mandatory audit process as "extremely unfair." The
Committee is also considering the adequacy of the IRS' s review of particular provisions of
the Code that testimony before the Oversight Subcommittee has indicated may be relevant
to President Trump's returns.
Without studying the returns and the documentation of the agent's decisions that
were requested, the Committee cannot evaluate the accuracy of the President's claims
about the audit system, assess the fairness and effectiveness of the audit program and the
scope of the audits being performed on the President's returns, or understand how
particular provisions of the Code are being enforced as part of the IRS' s review. Each of
these will inform the Committee's legislative judgment of whether and how to amend the
Code to respond to issues concerning the audit process or that are otherwise implicated by
the President's returns.
Secretary Mnuchin
Commissioner Rettig
Page 3
The subpoenas issued to the IRS and Treasury on May 10 remain pending, and you
remain under a legal obligation to provide this information to the Committee. Thank you
for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
onorable Richard E. Neal, Chairman

CIVIL COVER SHEET
JS-44 (Rev. 6/17 DC)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. Department of the Treasury; Internal Revenue Service; Steven T. Mnuchin, in his official capacity
United States House of Representatives as Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury; and Charles P. Rettig, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.
District of Columbia
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT _____________________
(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF _____________________
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED
(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER) ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
Douglas N. Letter
Office of General Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX FOR
(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT) FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY!
PTF DFT PTF DFT
o 1 U.S. Government o 3 Federal Question
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of this State o1 o1 Incorporated or Principal Place o4 o4
of Business in This State
o 2 U.S. Government o 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State o2 o2 Incorporated and Principal Place o5 o5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of
of Business in Another State
Parties in item III) Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
o3 o3 Foreign Nation o6 o6
IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT
(Place an X in one category, A-N, that best represents your Cause of Action and one in a corresponding Nature of Suit)
o A. Antitrust o B. Personal Injury/ o C. Administrative Agency o D. Temporary Restraining
Malpractice Review Order/Preliminary
410 Antitrust Injunction
310 Airplane 151 Medicare Act
315 Airplane Product Liability Any nature of suit from any category
320 Assault, Libel & Slander Social Security
may be selected for this category of
861 HIA (1395ff)
330 Federal Employers Liability case assignment.
862 Black Lung (923)
340 Marine
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) *(If Antitrust, then A governs)*
345 Marine Product Liability
864 SSID Title XVI
350 Motor Vehicle
865 RSI (405(g))
355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Other Statutes
360 Other Personal Injury
891 Agricultural Acts
362 Medical Malpractice
893 Environmental Matters
365 Product Liability
890 Other Statutory Actions (If
367 Health Care/Pharmaceutical
Administrative Agency is
Personal Injury Product Liability
Involved)
368 Asbestos Product Liability
o E. General Civil (Other) OR o F. Pro Se General Civil

Real Property Bankruptcy Federal Tax Suits 462 Naturalization
210 Land Condemnation 422 Appeal 27 USC 158 870 Taxes (US plaintiff or Application
220 Foreclosure 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 defendant) 465 Other Immigration
230 Rent, Lease & Ejectment 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC Actions
240 Torts to Land Prisoner Petitions 7609 470 Racketeer Influenced
245 Tort Product Liability 535 Death Penalty
& Corrupt Organization
540 Mandamus & Other Forfeiture/Penalty
290 All Other Real Property 480 Consumer Credit
550 Civil Rights 625 Drug Related Seizure of
Property 21 USC 881 490 Cable/Satellite TV
Personal Property 555 Prison Conditions
690 Other 850 Securities/Commodities/
370 Other Fraud 560 Civil Detainee – Conditions
Exchange
371 Truth in Lending of Confinement
Other Statutes 896 Arbitration
380 Other Personal Property
375 False Claims Act 899 Administrative Procedure
Damage Property Rights
820 Copyrights 376 Qui Tam (31 USC Act/Review or Appeal of
385 Property Damage
830 Patent 3729(a)) Agency Decision
Product Liability
835 Patent – Abbreviated New 400 State Reapportionment 950 Constitutionality of State
Drug Application 430 Banks & Banking Statutes
840 Trademark 450 Commerce/ICC 890 Other Statutory Actions
Rates/etc. (if not administrative agency
460 Deportation review or Privacy Act)
o G. Habeas Corpus/ o H. Employment o I. FOIA/Privacy Act o J. Student Loan
2255 Discrimination
530 Habeas Corpus – General 442 Civil Rights – Employment 895 Freedom of Information Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted
510 Motion/Vacate Sentence (criteria: race, gender/sex, 890 Other Statutory Actions Student Loan
463 Habeas Corpus – Alien national origin, (if Privacy Act) (excluding veterans)
Detainee discrimination, disability, age,
religion, retaliation)
*(If pro se, select this deck)* *(If pro se, select this deck)*
o K. Labor/ERISA o L. Other Civil Rights o M. Contract o N. Three-Judge

(non-employment) (non-employment) Court
110 Insurance
710 Fair Labor Standards Act 441 Voting (if not Voting Rights 120 Marine 441 Civil Rights – Voting
720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations Act) 130 Miller Act (if Voting Rights Act)
740 Labor Railway Act 443 Housing/Accommodations 140 Negotiable Instrument
751 Family and Medical 440 Other Civil Rights 150 Recovery of Overpayment
Leave Act 445 Americans w/Disabilities – & Enforcement of
790 Other Labor Litigation Employment Judgment
791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act 446 Americans w/Disabilities – 153 Recovery of Overpayment
Other of Veteran’s Benefits
448 Education 160 Stockholder’s Suits
190 Other Contracts
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
V. ORIGIN
o 1 Original o 2 Removed o 3 Remanded o 4 Reinstated o 5 Transferred o 6 Multi-district o 7 Appeal to o 8 Multi-district
Proceeding from State from Appellate or Reopened from another Litigation District Judge Litigation –
Court Court district (specify) from Mag. Direct File
Judge
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE.)
Executive Branch violation of U.S. Const., Art. 1; 5 U.S.C. § 706 et seq.; 26 U.S.C. § 6103; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361, 2201, 2202; ultra vires
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS DEMAND $ Check YES only if demanded in complaint
COMPLAINT ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
JURY DEMAND: YES NO ✘
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
(See instruction)
YES NO ✘ If yes, please complete related case form
July 2, 2019 /s/ Douglas N. Letter

DATE: _________________________ SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD _________________________________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44

Authority for Civil Cover Sheet
The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and services of pleadings or other papers as required
by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the
Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed.
Listed below are tips for completing the civil cover sheet. These tips coincide with the Roman Numerals on the cover sheet.
I. COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT (b) County of residence: Use 11001 to indicate plaintiff if resident
of Washington, DC, 88888 if plaintiff is resident of United States but not Washington, DC, and 99999 if plaintiff is outside the United States.
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES: This section is completed only if diversity of citizenship was selected as the Basis of Jurisdiction
under Section II.
IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT: The assignment of a judge to your case will depend on the category you select that best
represents the primary cause of action found in your complaint. You may select only one category. You must also select one corresponding
nature of suit found under the category of the case.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION: Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of the primary cause.
VIII. RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY: If you indicated that there is a related case, you must complete a related case form, which may be obtained from
the Clerk’s Office.
Because of the need for accurate and complete information, you should ensure the accuracy of the information provided prior to signing the form.
$25HY'&6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ
81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857
IRUWKH
BBBBBBBBBB'LVWULFWRIBBBBBBBBBB
Committee on Ways and Means,

United States House of Representatives

3ODLQWLIIV

Y &LYLO$FWLRQ1R 1:19-cv-1974

United States Department of the Treasury, et al.

'HIHQGDQWV
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
7R'HIHQGDQW¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV U.S. Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
$ODZVXLWKDVEHHQILOHGDJDLQVW\RX
:LWKLQGD\VDIWHUVHUYLFHRIWKLVVXPPRQVRQ\RXQRWFRXQWLQJWKHGD\\RXUHFHLYHGLW²RUGD\VLI\RX

DUHWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRUD8QLWHG6WDWHVDJHQF\RUDQRIILFHURUHPSOR\HHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVGHVFULEHGLQ)HG5&LY
3DRU²\RXPXVWVHUYHRQWKHSODLQWLIIDQDQVZHUWRWKHDWWDFKHGFRPSODLQWRUDPRWLRQXQGHU5XOHRI
WKH)HGHUDO5XOHVRI&LYLO3URFHGXUH7KHDQVZHURUPRWLRQPXVWEHVHUYHGRQWKHSODLQWLIIRUSODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\
ZKRVHQDPHDQGDGGUHVVDUH Douglas N. Letter
General Counsel
,I\RXIDLOWRUHVSRQGMXGJPHQWE\GHIDXOWZLOOEHHQWHUHGDJDLQVW\RXIRUWKHUHOLHIGHPDQGHGLQWKHFRPSODLQW
<RXDOVRPXVWILOH\RXUDQVZHURUPRWLRQZLWKWKHFRXUW
$1*(/$'&$(6$5&/(5.2)&2857
'DWH
6LJQDWXUHRI&OHUNRU'HSXW\&OHUN
$25HY6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ3DJH
&LYLO$FWLRQ1R 1:19-cv-1974
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
7KLVVXPPRQVIRUQDPHRILQGLYLGXDODQGWLWOHLIDQ\
ZDVUHFHLYHGE\PHRQGDWH
u ,SHUVRQDOO\VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQWKHLQGLYLGXDODWSODFH
RQGDWH RU
u ,OHIWWKHVXPPRQVDWWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VUHVLGHQFHRUXVXDOSODFHRIDERGHZLWKQDPH
DSHUVRQRIVXLWDEOHDJHDQGGLVFUHWLRQZKRUHVLGHVWKHUH
RQGDWH DQGPDLOHGDFRS\WRWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VODVWNQRZQDGGUHVVRU
u ,VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQQDPHRILQGLYLGXDO ZKRLV

GHVLJQDWHGE\ODZWRDFFHSWVHUYLFHRISURFHVVRQEHKDOIRIQDPHRIRUJDQL]DWLRQ
RQGDWH RU
u ,UHWXUQHGWKHVXPPRQVXQH[HFXWHGEHFDXVH RU
u 2WKHUVSHFLI\

0\IHHVDUH IRUWUDYHODQG IRUVHUYLFHVIRUDWRWDORI 0.00
,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVWUXH
'DWH
6HUYHU¶VVLJQDWXUH
3ULQWHGQDPHDQGWLWOH
6HUYHU¶VDGGUHVV
$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJDWWHPSWHGVHUYLFHHWF
81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857
IRUWKH


3ODLQWLIIV



'HIHQGDQWV
7R'HIHQGDQW¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV Internal Revenue Service


General Counsel
$1*(/$'&$(6$5&/(5.2)&2857
'DWH
PROOF OF SERVICE
RQGDWH RU

RQGDWH RU
u 2WKHUVSHFLI\

'DWH
6HUYHU¶VVLJQDWXUH
3ULQWHGQDPHDQGWLWOH
6HUYHU¶VDGGUHVV
81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857
IRUWKH


3ODLQWLIIV



'HIHQGDQWV
7R'HIHQGDQW¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV Steven T. Mnuchin

Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury

General Counsel
$1*(/$'&$(6$5&/(5.2)&2857
'DWH
PROOF OF SERVICE
RQGDWH RU

RQGDWH RU
u 2WKHUVSHFLI\

'DWH
6HUYHU¶VVLJQDWXUH
3ULQWHGQDPHDQGWLWOH
6HUYHU¶VDGGUHVV
81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857
IRUWKH


3ODLQWLIIV



'HIHQGDQWV
7R'HIHQGDQW¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV Charles P. Rettig

Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service

General Counsel
$1*(/$'&$(6$5&/(5.2)&2857
'DWH
PROOF OF SERVICE
RQGDWH RU

RQGDWH RU
u 2WKHUVSHFLI\

'DWH
6HUYHU¶VVLJQDWXUH
3ULQWHGQDPHDQGWLWOH
6HUYHU¶VDGGUHVV
81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857
IRUWKH


3ODLQWLIIV



'HIHQGDQWV
7R'HIHQGDQW¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV William Barr

Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice

General Counsel
$1*(/$'&$(6$5&/(5.2)&2857
'DWH
PROOF OF SERVICE
RQGDWH RU

RQGDWH RU
u 2WKHUVSHFLI\

'DWH
6HUYHU¶VVLJQDWXUH
3ULQWHGQDPHDQGWLWOH
6HUYHU¶VDGGUHVV
81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857
IRUWKH


3ODLQWLIIV



'HIHQGDQWV
7R'HIHQGDQW¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV Jessie K. Liu

United States Attorney for the District of Columbia
United States Attorney's Office
555 4th St., N.W.

General Counsel
$1*(/$'&$(6$5&/(5.2)&2857
'DWH
PROOF OF SERVICE
RQGDWH RU

RQGDWH RU
u 2WKHUVSHFLI\

'DWH
6HUYHU¶VVLJQDWXUH
3ULQWHGQDPHDQGWLWOH
6HUYHU¶VDGGUHVV

House Ways and Means Complaint

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

House Ways and Means Complaint

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 1:19-cv-01974 Document 1 Filed 07/02/19 Page 1 of 49

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Case No. 1:19-cv-1974

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1. The Committee on Ways and Means of the United States House of

Donald J. Trump in response to the Committee’s valid oversight requests.

2. Section 6103(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f), requires in

information. Enacted in 1924, in the wake of Congressional attempts to investigate agency

met its duty to comply with those requests.

extraordinary attack on the authority of Congress to obtain information needed to conduct

participate in the Nation’s voluntary tax system.

4. Nothing in Section 6103(f) requires the Committee to explain to Treasury its

5. These complaints by President Trump underscore the appropriateness of the

judgment to determine whether changes to the code may be warranted.

Committee’s power to conduct oversight and investigations is firmly rooted in Congress’s

9. Defendants’ continued refusal to produce the requested materials—in violation of

Act—is depriving the Committee of information necessary to complete its time-limited

subpoenas by producing the requested information immediately.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. Defendant United States Department of the Treasury is a federal agency

headquartered in Washington, D.C. It is the Executive Branch agency responsible for

14. Defendant Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Treasury Department

including, where appropriate, by auditing returns.

16. Defendant Charles P. Rettig is sued in his official capacity as Commissioner of

A. The Committee’s Constitutional Authority to Investigate Tax-Related Matters

regarding most federal income tax-related legislation.3

exempt foundations and charitable trusts,” and “National social security.”7

Committee for its consideration.11

B. The IRS’s Nearly Century-Old Mandatory Duty to Provide Tax Return

23. To facilitate the Committee’s legislative, investigative, and oversight

Committee on Finance, and the Joint Committee on Taxation.15

27. Congress has also broadly defined “return information” to encompass “a

Revenue Service regarding a person’s tax liability.”19

29. Section 6103(f) contains no exception to Treasury’s obligation to furnish return or

legislative purpose for its request.

Executive Branch wrongdoing.

a request that President Coolidge initially resisted.22

businesses during Mellon’s tenure at Treasury.23

33. Congress recognized that, in addition to facilitating these oversight inquiries,

corporation income tax law.”24

34. Responding to these concerns, Congress, in 1924, enacted a statute—the

36. In Section 6103(f), Congress specifically retained the mandatory disclosure

C. The Committee’s Long History of Oversight on Tax-Related Matters in Pursuit

administered and to identify legislative improvements.31

the Committee in its oversight of IRS operations and tax-related matters.

tax return information of:

administration came to the Committee’s attention;

IRS’s use of private debt collectors to collect unpaid federal tax;32

Committee was reviewing the IRS’s failure to implement procedures to seize

 nonprofit organizations whose applications for tax-exempt status were subject to

heightened scrutiny allegedly based on their political affiliations, during the

Committee’s investigation of the processing of these applications by the IRS;34

 foreign-owned distributors within the U.S. of automobiles, motorcycles, and

electronics equipment, where the Committee was investigating the IRS’s

international enforcement program and international tax-avoidance schemes;35

the salaries of their top executives;

 individuals who made cash payments of more than $10,000 to purchase

returns connected to business transacted in cash;36

 companies, including banks and automotive manufacturers, that received funds

investigating unpaid federal income or employment taxes of program recipients;

IRS procedures to detect and prevent such fraud;

procedures to seize bank accounts of such businesses believed to be structuring