After Democrats released private taxpayer information against Republican objections, they moved to suppress full committee materials from the American public in violation of a full committee action that required the transcript of the closed session to be made public if any tax information was made public.

Democrats agreed to release the transcript at the hearing in the following exchange during the hearing opening.

Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman, if I may be recognized.

Chairman Neal. The ranking member is recognized.

Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent if any taxpayer information is public as a result of the markup today, the entirety of today’s executive transcript be made public as well. This transparency is a precedent, as we have discussed, in both 2014 and 2019.

Chairman Neal. I think we are in broad agreement with the gentleman’s request. Is there any objection? Hearing none, the question is on the ranking member’s request that the documents — not the documents, that the proceedings be made public at the appropriate time, proceedings, based upon availability. All in favor? Opposed? So ordered.

Ways and Means Republicans are now releasing their dissent in their Minority Views report and key transcript excerpts, so Americans may know which lawmakers in Congress support the power to target political enemies and which lawmakers side with long-standing taxpayer protections.

The full Minority Views report is here. Because Democrats have still yet to provide the transcript of the hearing, Ways and Means Republicans are publishing key excerpts from it below.

Key Highlights:

1. No legitimate legislative purpose:  Democrat staff (Oversight Subcommittee Staff Director) admitting that it is not necessary to publicly release the private tax information to change requirements on the presidential audit program.
2. Unprecedented: Democrat staff (Oversight Subcommittee Staff Director) admitting that Congress has never released the private tax information of an individual. (Brady and Smucker questioning)
3. No notification to the taxpayer of disclosure of private records: Democrat staff (Oversight Subcommittee Staff Director)  setting the precedent that there is no need to let a taxpayer know that Congress is about to make their returns public.
4. Democrats rushed JCT to provide cursory analysis instead of allowing JCT to conduct a meaningful investigation: The Joint Committee on Taxation had only 11 days to put forward a report. In 2002, the JCT investigation of another large multinational business (Enron) took 52 weeks, 364 days. (LaHood’s questioning gets down to the much more slapdash approach Democrats forced JCT to take in this examination.)
5. JCT wasn’t given appropriate investigative powers to examine the returns: JCT conducted dozens of interviews, spoke with IRS personnel, and spent 6 weeks writing the 2002 report on Enron, which comprised three volumes and 2,700 pages.  To produce their 39‑page report, JCT’s top official admitted they had no investigatory power and were only able to do 3.5 days’ writing.
6. Democrats were in such a rush that they didn’t redact the personal information of a minor child prior to voting to release: The name and Social Security number of a child who was just 9 years old on the 2015 tax returns.
7. Despite knowing that there was a discrepancy in the audit dates—IRS stated in December that audit selection for these tax years happened far earlier than previously thought—Democrats simply ran with the date most advantageous to their political messaging. The Joint Committee on Taxation was forced to rush a report without awareness of the answers to questions Chairman Neal requested on status of IRS audits.
8. Democrats’ dangerous precedent will lead the American public to demand other people’s tax returns to be released.

Key Excerpts:

1. No legitimate legislative purpose: Democrat staff (Oversight Subcommittee Staff Director) admitting that it is not necessary to publicly release the private tax information to change requirements on the presidential audit program.

Mr. Brady.  Ms. McAfee, thank you for your service to the committee.  Tom, good to see you again as always.

So, I had a little more time to review the documents than the mere 6 hours most members of this committee got.

Ms. McAfee, I did not see in your report the reason for public disclosure of these tax returns.  So, what does public disclosure have to do with IRS audit procedures?

Ms. McAfee. The discussion draft, which is the legislation in the end of the report, what it would do is it would release certain audit file information to the public and then the related returns that go with it.

The goal of that is just like attached to this report are the selection for examination forms, so that you know that the mandatory audit is underway.  So the point of the legislation would be to make those public in a public fashion.

Mr. Brady. Let me understand.  I don’t mean to interrupt, but the IRS audits are not complete, are they?

Ms. McAfee. They are not complete.

Mr. Brady. So how does making private information public contribute to completing those audits?  Doesn’t the IRS have those returns already?

Ms. McAfee. It is not ‑‑ the legislation, the goal of the legislation is to make sure that the audits start on time and timely, close in time to when the President files the return.

Mr. Brady. So, Ms. McAfee, let me be very clear.  If the goal of this whole exercise was to make the IRS rules statutory, seek more resources and deal with that issue, this could have been done 4 years ago.  A simple discussion with House Republicans.  We share many of those goals.

2. Unprecedented: Democrat staff (Oversight Subcommittee Staff Director) admitting that Congress has never released the private tax information of an individual. (Brady and Smucker questioning)

Mr. Brady. So, let me ask you this:  Since releasing these publicly does nothing to contribute to the audits themselves, has Congress ever disclosed private tax information without the consent of the taxpayer?

Ms. McAfee. Congress did disclose tax information in 2014.

Mr. Brady. Excuse me.  The actual tax returns of a private individual, can you cite in history Congress ever doing this?

Ms. McAfee. I am not aware of that.

Mr. Brady. We haven’t.  And I think that is a crucial precedent to consider as we move forward.

So, let me ask you this, because these actions set precedent for another majority to address investigations like this:  Do you believe Americans have a right to know that Congress is about to publicize their private actual tax returns?

Ms. McAfee. I don’t know that my opinions matter here.  I was asked to do an investigation and to look and see what happened with the Mandatory Audit Program, and that is what my staff did.

Later in the hearing

Mr. Smucker. Ms. McAfee, 6103, obviously, is what this hearing is about.  And I understand it has to do with the mandatory audit of the President.  It also has taxpayer privacy provisions, correct?

Ms. McAfee. 6103 protects taxpayer information and requires it to be kept confidential.  That is correct.

Mr. Smucker. By everyone?  Kept confidential by everyone?

Ms. McAfee. Yes.  Unless there is an exception, correct.

Mr. Smucker. There are significant penalties for violating it?

Ms. McAfee. Unless there is an exception, that is correct.

Mr. Smucker. The taxpayer privacy aspects of 6103, are there special rules for Presidents or former Presidents?

Ms. McAfee. There are not special rules.  There are special exceptions for committees of Congress and others.

Mr. Smucker. So there are no special rules for a President or Vice President in regards to the privacy of their tax returns?

Ms. McAfee. They would be covered under the general rule of 6103(a), which is the protection of confidential tax information unless an exception applies.

Mr. Smucker. And so it equally applies to all taxpayers, including the President or former President is your answer?

Ms. McAfee. That is correct.  Unless an exception applies, correct.

Mr. Smucker. And has the Ways and Means Committee ever, in the past, made public ‑‑ and I understand that the debate here today and the discussion we should potentially have about the mandatory audit process, but we are going to have a vote at the end of this about making public the individual tax returns of an individual.

Has the individual tax returns, full tax returns of an individual ever been made public before by the Ways and Means Committee?

Ms. McAfee. I have only been with the committee since 2007, and no individual returns have been made public during that time.

Mr. Smucker. No individual, that has never happened since ‑‑

Ms. McAfee. Since 2007.

Mr. Smucker. It has never happened since 6103.

So, if we choose to do that at the end of this hearing, that would be the first time.  Would that not be a precedent?

Ms. McAfee. I am sure that it would be a precedent of some sort, yes.

Mr. Smucker. Mr. Gomez and others have made the argument earlier that it would not be a precedent.  I just want to be clear that it would be.

What would be our reason for doing that?

Ms. McAfee. Our reason, the report, as you see in front of you, contains all the supporting information for the committee to make a decision as to whether or not –

Mr. Smucker. Why would we be making individual taxpayer returns fully accessible and available to the public?

And whatever the reason is today, what would prevent a future Ways and Means Committee to establish another reason or come up with another reason to allow for the publication of an individual tax return?

Ms. McAfee. That is within the discretion of the committee, and that would be whatever the future committee decides.

Mr. Smucker. So, you do agree this is a precedent, and my argument is this is a dangerous precedent.  And it is one thing for members of the committee to see tax returns.  It is quite another to publish, against the intent of 6103, an individual’s tax returns.

It has nothing to do with Presidents voluntarily disclosing their returns.  That is up to them, but they are not required ‑‑ they are not required to do that.

3. No notification to the taxpayer of disclosure of private records: Democrat staff (Oversight Subcommittee Staff Director) setting the precedent that there is no need to let a taxpayer know that Congress is about to make their returns public.

Mr. Brady. So maybe I can be helpful here.  So, has the committee majority notified the taxpayer of what you intend to disclose?

Ms. McAfee. I have not.

Mr. Brady. Does the committee majority have a consent agreement in place with this taxpayer?

Ms. McAfee. Not that I am aware.

Mr. Brady. So, the precedent going forward in another majority is there is no need to let a taxpayer know that Congress is about to make their returns public, their actual private returns public as a precedent.

Ms. McAfee. I don’t know that that is a precedent.  I just know what is happening in this situation.

Mr. Brady. Yes, ma’am.  Unfortunately, it is.

4. Democrats rushed JCT to provide cursory analysis instead of allowing JCT to conduct a meaningful investigation: The Joint Committee on Taxation had only 11 days to put forward a report. In 2002, the JCT investigation of another large multinational business (Enron) took 52 weeks, 364 days.

Mr. LaHood. Mr. Barthold, I have a series of questions I would like to get on the record related to your report.  Obviously, we all know Congress has the authority to investigate and provide oversight, but on tax returns, we look to JCT for their comprehensive, expert, and detailed analysis.  And that has been the precedent, and I think that is important.

When we look at President Trump’s taxes and the Trump Organization, we look at a multi‑billion dollar enterprise involving several different businesses, multiple corporations, several pass‑through entities, carry‑forward provisions.

When you look at the IRS Code provisions, many international tax provisions in there, and I believe over 20 different States there was taxes filed.  Do you have any reason to dispute that comprehensiveness of the tax returns?

Mr. Barthold. I have no reason to dispute any statement you made, sir.

Mr. LaHood. So, how do we compare and contrast other JCT investigations that you have done, particularly under 6103.  And as we look back over the last 20 years, one that stands out is the Enron case in 2002, multi‑billion-dollar operation, several pass‑throughs, other corporations, businesses.

Are you familiar with that investigation from JCT in 2002?

Mr. Barthold. Yes, I am, sir.

Mr. LaHood. And just to set the record straight, that was the Senate Finance Committee that did that.

You stated earlier that you took 11 days to put forth this report here today.  In 2002, the Enron case took 52 weeks, 364 days.

So, a couple questions to get on the record.

In 2002, during the Enron case, 34 JCT staff and lawyers worked on the investigation.  Mr. Barthold, how many members of your staff were involved in the project before us today?

Mr. Barthold. If I could correct your statement about Enron.  In fact, it was 21 attorneys, accountants, and economists.  To get to 34, that counted the administrative and support staff.

Mr. LaHood. Let me get back to my question.

Mr. Barthold. To answer your direct question, four, including myself.

Mr. LaHood. JCT conducted 46 interviews in 2002.  How many interviews did JCT conduct here?

Mr. Barthold. We interviewed no IRS personnel as part of this review.

Mr. LaHood. Thank you.  Seven major document requests were made last time in 2002.  Over 100 banker’s boxes in material were given in response.

Were there any such requests or responses here?

Mr. Barthold. We made no such requests and had no such authority.

Mr. LaHood. Thank you.  Did JCT, in this case, interact with the IRS at all?

Mr. Barthold. Other than to be permitted into the offices and shown the materials, no.

5. JCT wasn’t given appropriate investigative powers to examine the returns: JCT conducted dozens of interviews, spoke with IRS personnel, and spent 6 weeks writing the 2002 report on Enron, which comprised three volumes and 2,700 pages. To produce their 39‑page report, JCT’s top official admitted they had no investigatory power and were only able to do 3.5 days’ writing.

Mr. LaHood. So, in terms of your investigative power here, I want to cite in your report on page 1 that I will read for the committee here at the second paragraph:  “We did not have any investigative powers, such as the ability to issue information document requests, or to interview the IRS Revenue agents assigned to the audits.  That would have provided us with more insight into the accuracy of the returns and the rationale for the scope of the audits.”   

Can you give us the reason or the justification why you weren’t given that ability?  And it is okay if you don’t have an answer.

Mr. Barthold. Well, I would say that the questions we were asked were to raise questions and again, not to undertake an audit and unravel the entirety of Mr. Trump’s income and business organizations.

Mr. LaHood. So, Mr. Barthold, just to clarify, in 2002, JCT was given investigative powers to do exactly what you did, correct?

Mr. Barthold. We also had the consent of the taxpayer.  But yes, sir.

Mr. LaHood. Okay.  And I understand JCT spent 6 weeks writing the 2002 report.  How many days or weeks did JCT have to produce this 39‑page report?

Mr. Barthold. We did write as we collected information, but for an approximate breakdown, 3‑1/2 days’ writing.

Mr. LaHood. Three and a half days.

And the JCT 2002 report comprised 2,700 pages in three volumes.  As we have seen here today, this report is 39 pages today.

Mr. Barthold, did the majority here today give JCT a deadline for this report?

Mr. Barthold. No, other ‑‑ I mean, we knew roughly that the committee hopes to meet this week, so we wanted to be finished last week.

Mr. LaHood. JCT can do better than this.  This committee can do better than this.  This is inadequate.  It lacks the detail.  And I think it is clear by the Enron comparison.  Thank you.

6. Democrats were in such a rush that they didn’t redact the personal information of a minor child prior to voting to release: The name and Social Security number of a child who was just 9 years old on the 2015 tax returns.

Mrs. Miller.  I am worried about the precedent that we are setting here today.  It is dangerous in so many different ways.  To me, it is a ticking time bomb.  I am not really sure that you all grasp what you are doing here.   

One big worry that I have is that you are about to broadcast personal information about a minor child.  Should I repeat that?  Personal information about a minor child.  That is despicable.  Here is what you are sharing with the world:  The name and Social Security number of a child who was just 9 years old on the 2015 tax returns.  And the world is full of people right now who are stealing people’s identities.

I wonder if there is just so much hatred people are eaten up with that we have lost our moral code on to what we are actually doing here.  Why are we doing this?  Have we removed the child’s personal information?

Can you tell me why you haven’t conformed to your own draft legislation, which protects personal information of children and adults?  In the discussion draft on page 12, line 8, it states that the IRS shall not include the Social Security number of any person or the name of any individual under the age of 18.  Tax returns released by President Obama have removed the Social Security numbers, including the social numbers of their children.

Can you please explain why this legislation has protection for personal information and yet today’s reckless disclosure does not?

Ms. McAfee. I am happy to answer that question.  Today’s legislation and the tax returns that you saw came from the IRS that way.  We did ask for the IRS to do the redactions, and the IRS told us they were unable to do that.

So, at the end of the chairman’s script today, you will hear that we are planning to do redactions should the motion pass.  And it would be, following along with the discussion draft, we would be redacting Social Security numbers.  We would be redacting information about minors.  And it is the intent to conform any tax returns that the committee votes to release to the legislation.  We also would be redacting things like the PIN, which is the taxpayer Protection ID Number that is on the return.  We would be redacting bank account information.

So there is a plan to redact should the information be submitted to the House, but when we asked the IRS if they could do that, they told us, no, they couldn’t redact it, and two, you are Members of Congress and you have 6103 authority to see the returns in full.  And that is the way that they provided it to us so that we could provide it to you for review in advance.

Mrs. Miller.  I think it is ludicrous that the IRS could not redact it before giving it to you.

Ms. McAfee. They said they didn’t have the manpower to do that, as they only have a few individuals who are authorized to touch the returns for the President and the Vice President.

Mrs. Miller.  That is unacceptable. I yield back my time.

7. Despite knowing that there was a discrepancy in the audit dates—IRS stated in December that audit selection for these tax years happened far earlier than previously thought—Democrats simply ran with the date most advantageous to their political messaging. The Joint Committee on Taxation was forced to rush a report without awareness of the answers to questions Chairman Neal requested on status of IRS audits.

Mr. Ferguson.  Mr. Barthold, as you well know, in June of 2021, Chairman Neal wrote a letter to the IRS with a series of detailed questions.  It seems that this letter was magically found on December the 16th.  It seems like everybody forgot about this, but the response back from the IRS was found.

My question is:  How did JCT complete the entire analysis of this audit process without the IRS’ December 15 letter?

Mr. Barthold. My colleagues and I prepared a report on the 15th which predates the knowledge of the existence of this letter.  So our report was based on the material that we had before us prior to that time.  We first looked at materials made available on December 30 ‑‑

Mr. Ferguson.  So, Mr. Barthold, excuse me one second.

Mr. Barthold. Sure.

Mr. Ferguson.  When did you actually receive the letter?

Mr. Barthold. I have heard of the letter to which you refer, Dr. Ferguson.  I have not seen that letter.

Mr. Ferguson.  So, Ms. McAfee, if he has not seen the letter but a letter is there, why wouldn’t JCT be given an opportunity to update the report after the December 15 letter was found?  And the reason ‑‑

Mr. Barthold. Well, Mr. Ferguson, I think I can answer.  I mean, I on the 15th gave the report to the chairman.

Mr. Ferguson.  But wouldn’t it ‑‑ in being thorough, the IRS responded.  That information would have been relevant to you.  It seems like it would be complete because, look, on page 35 you say you base your evidence of the IRS audit.  It does not appear that any of the 2020 Federal income tax returns have been risk or selected for examination by the IRS.

The December 15 letter, it says this return is not yet under examination.  It indicates that the 2020 return will be subject to examination as it makes its way through IRS processing.

8. Democrats’dangerous precedent will lead the American public to demand other people’s tax returns to be released.

Mr. Smith of Missouri.  Two weeks, two weeks from today, you all will be sitting on this side and we will be sitting on that side.  Two weeks.  We will have a new chairman.  One of the three that will be up here will be the new chairman.  You are closing a new chapter here.  You are writing it.  And this is what you are going to be remembered by.  That is unfortunate.  That is extremely, extremely disappointing.

I have been told since the first day that I got on this committee, this committee is a bipartisan working committee that doesn’t attack people politically.  We do great things on policies, like working on taxes and healthcare and trade, Social Security.  We may not always all agree, and we don’t, but sometimes we do, and that is where we come together.

It is so unfortunate that what you all may do today is going to have consequences for a long, long time.  Voting to release any citizen’s complete tax returns, that will be the first time this committee has ever done that, the very first time.  Why would you all want to do that?

But if that happens, the American public will demand other people’s tax returns to be released.  They will.  So think clearly and think hard in your hearts that the decision that you all make today, if you vote to release a private citizen’s tax returns, it will have consequences for the precedent of how this new majority in 2 weeks will be governing.

It is your call.  It is your actions.  And I want to make sure that there is no one on this committee that does not understand that.  When I travel across this country, I went to 42 States this election cycle, and I had countless people tell me of things that they were concerned with President Biden’s family dealings and how they believed that him and his family is enriched because of his political power.  And they are begging for oversight and accountability on that.  And the Treasury has received over 150 red flags from banks concerning the Biden family bank accounts.  Do we need to go down all that?  Is that what you all are wishing to do?

Be smart, think about what you are doing and the vote that you will make today, because it will make a precedent and it could forevermore change this committee.  Like I said, I have heard it from you all time and time again on both sides of the aisle, of current chairmen, past chairmen, this is a bipartisan committee where we all work together.  Let’s not make this a committee that targets our political enemies.

If we truly care about mandatory audits, let’s look at the mandatory audit programs under Obama, under Bush, under Clinton, under Carter, and under Biden.  You don’t need to release the tax returns of President Trump to do that.  You only release the tax returns of President Trump if you truly want to target a political opponent.  We are better than that.  This committee is better than that.  And I ask you all to reflect on that.

I yield back.