CPA Practice Advisor - 5

FEATURE

Who Really Won in the Supreme Court
Rulings on Trump's Tax Returns?
By Ken Berry

ON JULY 8, the U.S. Supreme Court, the top court in
the land, handed down its rulings in two muchanticipated and hotly-debated cases involving
disclosure of President Trump's tax returns.
But the outcomes were far from clear-cut
as various factions claimed "victory" or
assigned "defeat." It will take some time to
assess the fallout as the dust settles.
In any event, it's highly unlikely
that the public will be able to view the
president's tax returns anytime soon and
almost certainly not before the November
election.
As opposed to other recent
presidential candidates who volunteered
to disclose their returns, Trump has
steadfastly refused to do so, claiming
that the returns are under IRS audit and
off-limits.
This much is clear. In both cases, by a
7-2 majority, the Court rejected Trump's
argument that he was effectively "above
the law" in his position as president of the
United States, the POTUS.
In the first case, the prosecutor in
Manhattan, home to the stylish Trump
Tower on 5th Avenue, tried to obtain
financial records from Trump as part
of an investigation into the president's
finances. The second case focused on
the efforts of Congress to access similar
records relating to activities involving
financial regulations and election
interference.
The Court said in both cases that
Trump isn't granted immunity from such
investigations just because he occupies
the office of POTUS. Thus, at first glance,
the president "lost" this legal battle, but
the actual truth is more complex. The

main sticking
point is that he
doesn't have to
turn over the records
right away.
Regarding the investigation
by the Manhattan prosecutor, Trump
has the same opportunity to raise
objections that any other citizen could
rely on. For instance, he could claim
that the subpoena is too broad or vague
or burdensome or that it unfairly targets
him and is a form of harassment. He
may also object based on constitutional
arguments that this obstructs his
responsibilities as POTUS.
As to the Congressional investigation,
the president can't cite complete
immunity, but he can still argue that
the subpoenas are invalid. One such
theory is that the basic principle of
"separation of powers" is circumvented
by the subpoena. In particular, Trump
may claim that the subpoena is overly
broad, that it isn't supported by sufficient
evidence or that impedes his presidential
obligations.
Notably, the Court remanded both
cases back to the lower courts to resolve
these issues. And that could, and almost
certainly will, take lots of time.
For one thing, rest assured that the

president's attorneys will use every legal
maneuver in the playbook to stall or
prolong the proceedings. Then it will be
up to the lower court justices to render
their rulings with due deliberation.
Finally, the president can still appeal the
results, if they aren't to his satisfaction,
Given the significance of the two
cases, it won't be surprising if either one
makes it all the way back to the Supreme
Court. Due to the top court's snaillike
approach, we could be waiting until next
summer or even longer.
If the New York grand jury somehow
gets its hands on the president's tax
returns before then, grand jury evidence
is supposed to be secret, as is Congressional evidence. Therefore, it might be years
before the public can view Trump's tax
returns and they might even be sealed.
So who's the real winner in the two
U.S. Supreme Court cases against President Trump? You be the judge. ■

AUGUST 2020 ■

www.CPAPracticeAdvisor.com

http://www.CPAPracticeAdvisor.com

CPA Practice Advisor

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of CPA Practice Advisor