Democrats assign Trump to tax returns in the escalating battle with the White House

Democrats in the House issued Friday subpoenas for President Donald Trump's tax records, resulting in an escalation of a fight that may end up in court.

Ways and Means President Richard Neal (D-Mass.), Who's Leading the Action, has formally requested that documents be tabled by both Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and the Commissioner. from the IRS, Chuck Rettig.

History continues below

Neal gives them until 5 pm Friday to comply.

"Although I do not take this step lightly, I think this action gives us the best chance to succeed and obtain the requested documents," he said in a statement. "I sincerely hope that the Treasury Department will provide the material requested next week so that the committee can begin its work quickly."

This decision came as the government defied subpoenas from other Democrats investigating the executive, with lawmakers condemning Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for rejecting their request for an unedited version of the bill. Robert Mueller's report on Russia's interference in the country. Election of 2016.

If, as is generally expected, the administration also rejects Neal's summons, the next step for Democrats would likely be to prosecute Trump's confidential records in court.

Given the administration's resistance to other subpoenas, Neal had considered not issuing himself and going directly to court.

Taking the route of the summons will probably take longer, but it may help to support a trial. At a minimum, this would show a judge that the Democrats used other means to obtain the information from the administration before turning to the judicial system.

Neal's announcement comes after Mnuchin officially rejected Monday the Massachusetts Democrat's request to obtain tax documents under an obscure law allowing congressional tax committee officials to examine anyone's tax returns. Democrats could then vote in favor of publishing all or part of Trump's documents.

Mnuchin said the Democrats had no "legitimate" reason to demand the return.

A legal battle could put the balance of power between Congress and the White House to the test and eventually extend to next year or beyond the 2020 elections.

Many legal experts say it is difficult to predict how judges might decide such a case, in part because the issue is so new.

The law cited by Neal is generally used by legislators to inform the process of tax policy making. If Congress tries to ban a corporate tax shelter, for example, it could appeal to the law to review the statements of a company using this maneuver to better understand how it works. Courts have never ruled on the possibility of seizing the return of a president who, like Trump, had challenged a long tradition of voluntarily disclosing these statements.

Democrats appreciate their chances in a court battle, citing the clear text of the law, which says the Treasury Secretary "must" hand over statements on request. It does not impose any limitations or conditions.

Democrats have a long list of questions about Trump's finances and say they also need his tax history to check the IRS's policy of automatically auditing each president. Legal observers say that judges have often determined that legislators have broad powers of review.

But the Supreme Court also said that they were not unlimited. He ruled that legislators should have a legitimate legislative reason for their investigations, something related to their official duties.

Republicans say Democrats do not follow this standard, asking why, for example, they are seeking Trump's return from 2013, two years before he ran for president. They say that Democrats simply want to look for Trump's return of things they can use to embarrass him.

In a letter to Neal on Friday morning, Republican Ways and Means representative Kevin Brady (Texas) accused the Democrats of preparing a "coordinated attempt to manipulate the tax code and use the authority of legitimate control of Congress for political purposes. "

A court should determine whether the standard of legitimate motive applies here and, if so, whether the Democrats respect it. A judge could also consider other concerns, for example, if forcing the hand of the administration would have broader implications for the executive power, congressional control, or the taxpayer's right to privacy.

According to some experts, it would not be unusual for a judge to be reluctant to get involved in such a politically charged case and to make a compromise between the two parties.

"It puts them in a very difficult position," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. "They do not want to be in the middle to arbitrate both branches and therefore try to encourage the regulations."

"It's generally working well, but here it may be that the White House situation is unclear, it's hard to imagine Trump going back or compromising," he said.