U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

89–006 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 116TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2019

116–186 

Union Calendar No. 144 

SUBMISSION TO THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MATERIALS RELATED TO THE EXAMINATION OF PRESIDENT NIXON’S TAX RETURNS BY 

THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL REVENUE 

TAXATION 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

AUGUST 16, 2019.—Ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(III)

LETTER OF SUBMITTAL 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

Washington, DC, August 13, 2019. 

Hon. NANCY PELOSI, 

Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM SPEAKER: On July 25, 2019, by a vote of 25 to 10, 

I was directed by the Committee on Ways and Means to submit 

herewith the Committee’s report of materials related to the examination of President Nixon’s tax returns to the U.S. House of Representatives. Dissenting views are included. 

Sincerely, 

RICHARD E. NEAL, 

Chairman. 

Union Calendar No. 144 

116TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 116–186 

SUBMISSION TO THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MATERIALS 

RELATED TO THE EXAMINATION OF PRESIDENT NIXON’S TAX RETURNS 

BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION 

AUGUST 16, 2019.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. NEAL, from the Committee on Ways and Means, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom were provided materials related to the examination of President Nixon’s tax returns 

by the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation (now the 

Joint Committee on Taxation), having considered the same, submits the following report of such materials to the U.S. House of 

Representatives. 

I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND 

A. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The Committee on Ways and Means (‘‘Committee’’) recently met 

in closed executive session to consider materials protected by 26 

U.S.C. § 6103 related to Senate Report 93–768, ‘‘Examination of 

President Nixon’s Tax Returns for 1969 through 1972,’’ prepared 

for the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation (now the 

Joint Committee on Taxation (‘‘JCT’’)) by its staff. By a vote of 25 

to 10, the Committee voted to submit those materials to the U.S. 

House of Representatives. 

B. BACKGROUND ON THE COMMITTEE’S WORK

The 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. 

2 

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 open tax years or underlying business activities required to be reported on the individual income tax return. 

Accordingly, on April 3, 2019, Chairman Neal requested relevant 

individual income tax returns and return information of the President and certain entities from the IRS. This request was made pursuant to the Chairman’s authority under section 6103(f)(1) of the 

Internal Revenue Code and required that documents be provided 

by April 10, 2019. On May 6, 2019, the Secretary of the Treasury, 

who stated that he was supervising the handling of this matter by 

the IRS, denied the Committee’s lawful request in reliance on advice from the U.S. Department of Justice. 

On May 10, 2019, Chairman Neal issued subpoenas to the Secretary of the Treasury and the IRS Commissioner for the tax returns and return information that had been requested on April 3. 

The subpoena required that documents be provided by May 17, 

2019. The Secretary and Commissioner refused to provide the subpoenaed documents, relying on the same advice from the U.S. Department of Justice. On July 2, 2019, the Committee filed a lawsuit 

in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to 

enforce the subpoenas and the document request made under section 6103. 

On multiple occasions, the Secretary did offer to provide the 

Committee a briefing on the Presidential audit process in lieu of 

producing the requested tax returns and return information. On 

June 10, 2019, eight officials from the IRS and U.S. Department 

of the Treasury (‘‘Treasury’’) briefed eight bipartisan Committee 

staff on the Presidential audit procedures outlined in the Internal 

Revenue Manual. In anticipation of the briefing, Committee staff 

prepared hundreds of questions for IRS and Treasury, including 

many questions about how the mandatory audit process has been 

applied to Presidents, both current and former. To facilitate a 

meaningful meeting, pursuant to the Chairman’s authority under 

section 6103(f)(4), the Chairman designated all Majority and Minority staff present at the briefing as his agents for purposes of receiving confidential taxpayer information. 

Despite the Chairman’s designation, which had been transmitted 

to the IRS and Treasury in advance, officials declined to answer all 

specific questions about actual audits. This included declining to 

answer basic questions about whether Presidential returns have 

ever been filed electronically, how long Presidential audits generally take, whether there ever have been any assessments of tax 

made to Presidential returns, or whether any President-taxpayers 

have ever gone to IRS Appeals from a mandatory audit. In fact, of 

the eight Treasury and IRS officials sent to the briefing, none had 

ever been involved in a mandatory Presidential audit, evidencing 

Treasury’s lack of intent to provide a meaningful briefing. 

3 

In the absence of historical information from Treasury and the 

IRS, the Committee has looked to other sources for information 

about past Presidential audits, as well as about Congress’ prior use 

of section 6103 to obtain tax returns and return information. To 

the Committee’s knowledge, there is only one President for whom 

information about the audit of returns is publicly available–President Richard Nixon. In the early 1970s, JCT conducted a comprehensive examination of President Nixon’s returns and released 

a report of its findings. Also, according to an IRS memorandum 

provided to Committee staff during the June 10 briefing, the IRS 

implemented procedures for the handling of Presidential returns 

because of issues that arose regarding President Nixon. Therefore, 

in furtherance of the Committee’s ongoing work concerning the 

Presidential audit process, the Chairman asked the Chief of Staff 

of JCT to review JCT files of its investigation of President Nixon’s 

returns to determine if, at that time, JCT staff sought and received, under its legal authority, confidential taxpayer information 

directly from the IRS. 

II. EXPLANATION OF THE SUBMITTED MATERIALS 

A. BACKGROUND ON THE SUBMITTED MATERIALS

In 1973, issues related to President Nixon’s tax compliance became a matter of public concern. President Nixon generally denied 

any impropriety and released a letter from the IRS noting that his 

returns were accepted as filed and complimenting him for the care 

taken in preparing his returns. However, as the controversy continued, President Nixon voluntarily made public his income tax returns for the years he served as President—1969, 1970, 1971, and 

1972—and requested that JCT (then called the Joint Committee on 

Internal Revenue Taxation) review the returns with respect to two 

issues. 

JCT decided to conduct a comprehensive examination of President Nixon’s income tax returns for the years 1969 through 1972, 

not limited to only the two issues identified by the President. In 

its investigative report from 1974, JCT staff noted that ‘‘so many 

questions have been raised about the tax returns of the President 

for these years that the committee believed the general public can 

only be satisfied by a thorough examination of the President’s 

taxes.’’ The report stated that, though public discussion had focused largely on two issues, ‘‘broader examination was necessary in 

part because various items on a tax return are often so interrelated 

that distortions result if a comprehensive review is not made.’’ Accordingly, JCT staff ‘‘conducted approximately 30 interviews with 

persons involved in different aspects of the President’s tax matters,’’ ‘‘made contact with numerous other possible sources of information,’’ ‘‘sent staff members to California to consider various tax 

issues,’’ ‘‘sent staff personnel to New York to carry out the examination,’’ ‘‘received numerous investigations made by [IRS] personnel,’’ and ‘‘employed experts to help it appraise the value of San 

Clemente property.’’ 

It had been assumed by many, including Members of the Committee, that JCT did not obtain confidential taxpayer information 

from the IRS and solely relied on taxpayer information voluntarily 

released by President Nixon. In fact, two Committee reports from 

4 

the 115th Congress (H. Rept. 115–73 and H. Rept. 115–309), related to resolutions of inquiry directing Treasury to provide certain 

returns of the President to the House of Representatives, stated the 

following: ‘‘Some Members have suggested there is a precedent for 

this—that tax-writing committees used the authority granted 

under Section 6103(f) to access and review President Nixon’s tax 

returns in 1973. However, such assertions are not supported by the 

facts. The facts are these: President Nixon voluntarily released his 

own tax returns[.]’’ 

The 1974 JCT report contains numerous statements indicating 

that JCT actually may have used its statutory authority to request 

and receive from the IRS tax returns and return information of 

President Nixon in connection with the audit. For example, the report states: ‘‘The staff has examined the President’s tax returns 

and/or accountant’s work papers for the years 1964 through 1968 

and has confirmed or is satisfied that maintenance expenses were 

taken as business deductions for each of these years.’’ These years 

predate the returns publicly released by President Nixon and also 

his term as President. Other statements in the report also indicate 

that JCT staff reviewed return information for tax years and taxpayers beyond that included in the material publicly released by 

President Nixon. 

Further, in a statement delivered on the House floor regarding 

the report, the Honorable Wilbur Mills, then-Vice Chairman of JCT 

and Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, stated: 

‘‘Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting to the House today, and 

Senator Long is transmitting to the Senate, for the Joint 

Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation the following 

staff report, which represents an analysis of the President’s tax returns for the years 1969–1972. 

There is a provision of law in the Internal Revenue Code 

which says that the committee cannot release information 

obtained with respect to a taxpayer’s return until a report 

has been filed with the Congress. We are proceeding to 

abide by that provision of law, by now filing the report 

with the House, so it can subsequently be released to the 

public. 

[W]e are here and concerned about a provision of the Internal Revenue Code. Anyone who should release any of 

this information prior to its submission to the House would 

be guilty of having committed a crime.’’ 

These statements strongly indicate that the JCT report contained 

confidential taxpayer information obtained directly from the IRS. 

B. DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBMITTED MATERIALS

As discussed above, the Chairman recently asked the Chief of 

Staff of JCT to review JCT files of its investigation of President 

Nixon’s returns. Specifically, the Chairman’s letter to the JCT 

Chief of Staff stated: ‘‘I request that you review available records 

and files of the Joint Committee related to the investigation and 

report whether you can state that the Joint Committee staff sought 

and received, under its legal authority, confidential information directly from the Internal Revenue Service.’’ 

5 

In researching the Chairman’s request, JCT staff confirmed that, 

in 1973 and 1974, the then-JCT Chief of Staff made various requests to the IRS for confidential taxpayer information of President 

Nixon and others. The current JCT Chief of Staff concluded that, 

based on his review of materials, ‘‘the Joint Committee staff sought 

and received, under its legal authority, confidential information directly from the Internal Revenue Service that was used in the analysis presented in the report.’’ While it is true that President Nixon 

voluntarily disclosed his returns for tax years 1969 through 1972, 

JCT additionally sought from the IRS: (1) President Nixon’s returns for prior tax years (1963 through 1968), (2) authenticated 

copies of the returns voluntarily disclosed (1969 through 1972), and 

(3) returns for additional taxpayers. Where records were available, 

the IRS complied with JCT’s requests without delay or objection, 

and as evidenced by the materials submitted, JCT received from 

the IRS copies of the President’s returns for tax years 1966 through 

1972. 

The following materials were reviewed by the Committee in 

closed executive session on July 25, 2019: 

I. Letter dated July 23, 2019 from Chairman Richard E. Neal to 

JCT’s Chief of Staff, Mr. Thomas A. Barthold, requesting that JCT 

review available records and files and report whether JCT staff 

sought and received, under its legal authority, confidential information directly from the IRS related to its investigation of President 

Nixon’s returns. 

II. Letter dated July 23, 2019 from JCT’s Chief of Staff, Mr. 

Thomas A. Barthold, to Chairman Richard E. Neal, concluding that 

JCT staff sought and received, under its legal authority, confidential information directly from the IRS and enclosing two sets of 

documents to substantiate such conclusion. The enclosed documents include: 

A. Selected pages from the JCT staff report on President 

Nixon that highlighted pertinent statements indicating that 

the staff reviewed return information for tax years and taxpayers beyond that included in the publicly released report. 

B. JCT Correspondence 

1. Letter dated December 13, 1973 from JCT’s Chief of 

Staff, Dr. Laurence N. Woodworth, to the IRS Commissioner, the Honorable Donald C. Alexander, requesting authenticated copies of President Nixon’s returns for tax 

years 1968 through 1972. 

2. Letter dated December 13, 1973 from the IRS Commissioner, the Honorable Donald C. Alexander, to JCT’s 

Chief of Staff, Dr. Laurence N. Woodworth, accompanying 

the transmittal of copies of President Nixon’s returns for 

tax years 1968 through 1972 (without attachments provided by the Commissioner). 

3. Letter dated January 31, 1974 from JCT’s Chief of 

Staff, Dr. Laurence N. Woodworth, to the IRS Commissioner, the Honorable Donald C. Alexander, requesting 

copies of President Nixon’s returns for tax years 1963 

through 1967 and copies of returns of certain other taxpayers. 

4. Letter dated February 11, 1974 from the IRS Commissioner, the Honorable Donald C. Alexander, to JCT’s Chief 

6 

of Staff, Dr. Laurence N. Woodworth, accompanying the 

transmittal of copies of President Nixon’s returns for tax 

years 1966 and 1967 and explaining that copies of President Nixon’s returns for years earlier than 1966 had been 

destroyed in accordance with the IRS’s regular procedures 

(without enclosures provided by the Commissioner). 

5. Letter dated March 30, 1974 from JCT’s Chief of 

Staff, Dr. Laurence N. Woodworth, to Senator Carl T. Curtis, a JCT Member, providing confidential material that 

was taken from a taxpayer’s return and noting that unauthorized disclosure would be subject to penalties of law 

(without attachments provided by Dr. Woodworth). 

The Committee did not receive any tax returns from JCT as part 

of this effort. By a vote of 25 to 10, the Committee voted on July 

25, 2019 to submit these materials to the U.S. House of Representatives. 

III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE 

The following statement is made concerning the votes of the 

Committee on Ways and Means during the consideration of the materials reviewed in closed executive session on July 25, 2019. 

A motion, pursuant to clause 2(g)(1) of House Rule 11, that the 

Committee proceed to executive session offered by Mr. Neal was 

agreed to by a roll call vote of 22 yeas and 17 nays. The vote was 

as follows: 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Neal .................................... X ......... ............. Mr. Brady ................................. ......... X .............

Mr. Lewis .................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Nunes ................................. ......... X .............

Mr. Doggett ............................... ......... X ............. Mr. Buchanan .......................... ......... X .............

Mr. Thompson ........................... X ......... ............. Mr. Smith ................................. ......... X .............

Mr. Larson ................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Marchant ........................... ......... X .............

Mr. Blumenauer ........................ X ......... ............. Mr. Reed ................................... ......... X .............

Mr. Kind .................................... X ......... ............. Mr. Kelly ................................... ......... X .............

Mr. Pascrell ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Holding .............................. ......... X .............

Mr. Davis .................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Smith ................................. ......... X .............

Ms. Sa ́nchez .............................. X ......... ............. Mr. Rice .................................... ......... X .............

Mr. Higgins ............................... ......... ......... ............. Mr. Schweikert ......................... ......... X .............

Ms. Sewell ................................. ......... ......... ............. Ms. Walorski ............................. ......... X .............

Ms. DelBene .............................. X ......... ............. Mr. LaHood (IL) ........................ ......... X .............

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................ X ......... ............. Mr. Wenstrup ............................ ......... X .............

Ms. Moore ................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Arrington ............................ ......... X .............

Mr. Kildee .................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Ferguson ............................ ......... X .............

Mr. Boyle ................................... X ......... ............. Mr. Estes .................................. ......... X .............

Mr. Beyer ................................... X 

Mr. Evans .................................. X 

Mr. Schneider ............................ X 

Mr. Suozzi ................................. X 

Mr. Panetta ............................... X 

Ms. Murphy ............................... X 

Mr. Gomez ................................. X 

Mr. Horsford .............................. X 

A motion offered by Mr. Thompson to table Mr. Brady’s motion 

to postpone to a date certain was agreed to by 23 yeas and 17 nays. 

The vote was as follows: 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Neal .................................... X ......... ............. Mr. Brady ................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Lewis .................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Nunes ................................. X ......... .............

7 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Doggett ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Buchanan .......................... X ......... .............

Mr. Thompson ........................... X ......... ............. Mr. Smith ................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Larson ................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Marchant ........................... X ......... .............

Mr. Blumenauer ........................ X ......... ............. Mr. Reed ................................... X ......... .............

Mr. Kind .................................... X ......... ............. Mr. Kelly ................................... X ......... .............

Mr. Pascrell ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Holding .............................. X ......... .............

Mr. Davis .................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Smith ................................. X ......... .............

Ms. Sa ́nchez .............................. X ......... ............. Mr. Rice .................................... X ......... .............

Mr. Higgins ............................... ......... ......... ............. Mr. Schweikert ......................... X ......... .............

Ms. Sewell ................................. ......... ......... ............. Ms. Walorski ............................. X ......... .............

Ms. DelBene .............................. X ......... ............. Mr. LaHood (IL) ........................ X ......... .............

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................ X ......... ............. Mr. Wenstrup ............................ X ......... .............

Ms. Moore ................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Arrington ............................ X ......... .............

Mr. Kildee .................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Ferguson ............................ X ......... .............

Mr. Boyle ................................... X ......... ............. Mr. Estes .................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Beyer ................................... X ......... .............

Mr. Evans .................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Schneider ............................ X ......... .............

Mr. Suozzi ................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Panetta ............................... X ......... .............

Ms. Murphy ............................... X ......... .............

Mr. Gomez ................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Horsford .............................. X ......... .............

A motion was made by Mr. Neal to move the previous question. 

The motion was agreed to by a roll call vote of 25 yeas and 10 nays. 

The vote was as follows: 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Neal .................................... X ......... ............. Mr. Brady ................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Lewis .................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Nunes ................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Doggett ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Buchanan .......................... ......... ......... .............

Mr. Thompson ........................... X ......... ............. Mr. Smith ................................. ......... ......... .............

Mr. Larson ................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Marchant ........................... ......... ......... .............

Mr. Blumenauer ........................ X ......... ............. Mr. Reed ................................... X ......... .............

Mr. Kind .................................... X ......... ............. Mr. Kelly ................................... X ......... .............

Mr. Pascrell ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Holding .............................. ......... ......... .............

Mr. Davis .................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Smith ................................. ......... ......... .............

Ms. Sa ́nchez .............................. X ......... ............. Mr. Rice .................................... ......... ......... .............

Mr. Higgins ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Schweikert ......................... X ......... .............

Ms. Sewell ................................. X ......... ............. Ms. Walorski ............................. X ......... .............

Ms. DelBene .............................. X ......... ............. Mr. LaHood (IL) ........................ X ......... .............

Ms. Chu (CA) ............................ X ......... ............. Mr. Wenstrup ............................ ......... ......... .............

Ms. Moore ................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Arrington ............................ X ......... .............

Mr. Kildee .................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Ferguson ............................ X ......... .............

Mr. Boyle ................................... X ......... ............. Mr. Estes .................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Beyer ................................... X ......... .............

Mr. Evans .................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Schneider ............................ X ......... .............

Mr. Suozzi ................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Panetta ............................... X ......... .............

Ms. Murphy ............................... X ......... .............

Mr. Gomez ................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Horsford .............................. X ......... .............

A motion by Ms. Sa ́nchez that the Committee submit to the 

House of Representatives the letter from the Joint Committee on 

Taxation and attachments was agreed to by a roll call vote of 25 

yeas to 10 nays. The vote was as follows: 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Neal .................................... X ......... ............. Mr. Brady ................................. ......... X .............

Mr. Lewis .................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Nunes ................................. ......... X .............

Mr. Doggett ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Buchanan .......................... ......... ......... .............

8 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Thompson ........................... X ......... ............. Mr. Smith (NE) ......................... ......... ......... .............

Mr. Larson ................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Marchant ........................... ......... ......... .............

Mr. Blumenauer ........................ X ......... ............. Mr. Reed ................................... ......... X .............

Mr. Kind .................................... X ......... ............. Mr. Kelly ................................... ......... X .............

Mr. Pascrell ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Holding .............................. ......... ......... .............

Mr. Davis .................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Smith (MO) ........................ ......... ......... .............

Ms. Sa ́nchez .............................. X ......... ............. Mr. Rice .................................... ......... ......... .............

Mr. Higgins ............................... X ......... ............. Mr. Schweikert ......................... ......... X .............

Ms. Sewell ................................. X ......... ............. Ms. Walorski ............................. ......... X .............

Ms. DelBene .............................. X ......... ............. Mr. LaHood ............................... ......... X .............

Ms. Chu .................................... X ......... ............. Mr. Wenstrup ............................ ......... ......... .............

Ms. Moore ................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Arrington ............................ ......... X .............

Mr. Kildee .................................. X ......... ............. Mr. Ferguson ............................ ......... X .............

Mr. Boyle ................................... X ......... ............. Mr. Estes .................................. ......... X .............

Mr. Beyer ................................... X ......... .............

Mr. Evans .................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Schneider ............................ X ......... .............

Mr. Suozzi ................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Panetta ............................... X ......... .............

Ms. Murphy ............................... X ......... .............

Mr. Gomez ................................. X ......... .............

Mr. Horsford .............................. X ......... .............

9 


Insert graphic folio 14 here HR186.001
10 


Insert graphic folio 15 here HR186.002
11 


Insert graphic folio 16 here HR186.003
12 


Insert graphic folio 17 here HR186.004
13 


Insert graphic folio 18 here HR186.005
14 


Insert graphic folio 19 here HR186.006
15 


Insert graphic folio 20 here HR186.007
16 


Insert graphic folio 21 here HR186.008
17 


Insert graphic folio 22 here HR186.009
18 


Insert graphic folio 23 here HR186.010
19 


Insert graphic folio 24 here HR186.011
20 


Insert graphic folio 25 here HR186.012
21 


Insert graphic folio 26 here HR186.013
22 


Insert graphic folio 27 here HR186.014
23 


Insert graphic folio 28 here HR186.015
24 


Insert graphic folio 29 here HR186.016
25 


Insert graphic folio 30 here HR186.017
26 


Insert graphic folio 31 here HR186.018
27 


Insert graphic folio 32 here HR186.019
28 


Insert graphic folio 33 here HR186.020
(29) 

1 26 U.S.C. § 6103 (2019). 

2 Brian Faler, Even Members Seem in the Dark about Hush-Hush Ways and Means Huddle, 

PoliticoPro (July 24, 2019, 5:28 PM) (citing Democrat Members of Congress describing the executive session as an opportunity to update Members on their legal fight for the President’s tax 

returns); Kaustuv Basu and Colin Wilhelm, House Dems May Boost Trump Tax Return Argument in Closed Session, Bloomberg Tax (July 24, 2019, 4:57 PM) (citing a House aide stating 

that the documents could help with legal arguments in support of the accessing the President’s 

tax returns); Bernie Becker, Getting Historical, Politico Morning Tax (July 25, 2019, 10:00 AM) 

(quoting the Chairman as describing the proceedings as ‘‘good’’ and newsworthy’’). 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

Committee Republicans vehemently oppose the Committee’s action of holding a secretive executive session meeting on July 25, 

2019, and voting to release documents that were previously protected as confidential under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue 

Code.1 Committee Republicans oppose both the secretive process 

leading up to the meeting and the substance of the meeting itself. 

The Chairman announced the meeting on July 23, 2019, to be 

held on July 25, 2019, but only provided a cryptic description indicating that the purpose of the meeting would be to consider ‘‘Historical documents protected under Internal Revenue Code section 

6103.’’ No additional information was provided in advance. Committee Members on both sides of the aisle had no idea what historical documents they would be reviewing during the meeting. Committee Members were not given the opportunity to review the materials prior to the meeting, as has been Committee practice during 

previous executive session meetings. 

For example, during the last executive session by the Committee, 

held on April 9, 2014, then Chairman Dave Camp (R–MI) gave 

members twenty-four hours prior to the meeting to review the materials they would be voting on which related to the Lois Lerner 

criminal referral. Additionally, both Republican and Democrat 

Members and staff participated in the more than 10–month long 

investigation which included more than 60 transcribed interviews 

and review of 660,000 pages of documents. This transparency 

helped Members digest the information, which allowed time for 

thoughtful analysis prior to the executive session. Sadly, none of 

these steps were taken leading up to or during last week’s executive session meeting where the Committee Democrats voted to 

make public documents related to an audit by the Joint Committee 

on Taxation (JTC) of President Nixon’s tax returns (the Nixon Materials). As a result, the press published a variety of wild assertions 

and speculation about the true purpose and subject of the executive 

session.2

Once the Chairman began the executive session portion of the 

meeting, he announced that Members would receive only fifteen 

minutes to review the Nixon Materials. While the Chairman characterized the materials for review as only a few paragraphs, Members were actually presented with a packet of twenty pages of documents. After Committee Democrats voted down a motion to extend 

30 

3 26 U.S.C. § 7213(a) (2019). 

the review time from fifteen minutes to two hours, Committee Republicans secured an agreement from the Chairman to allow one 

hour for review. Although an improvement from fifteen minutes, 

this amount of time was insufficient for a thorough review and 

analysis of the materials. 

Not providing Members a chance to review the materials prior to 

the executive session meeting or providing sufficient time during 

the meeting itself presented significant problems and led to a chaotic meeting. At the outset, Members were asked to accept the 

agency of the Chairman and told that once they accepted § 6103 information, they would be subject to substantial liability if they 

were to disclose any aspect of the protected materials. The willful, 

unauthorized disclosure of a tax return or tax return information 

is a felony, punishable under Internal Revenue Code section 7213 

by up to five years imprisonment, a fine of not exceeding $5,000, 

or both, together with the costs of prosecution.3 Some Members 

were understandably uncomfortable accepting the Chairman’s 

agency and the potential criminal liability risk without any indication as to the purpose of the meeting or the nature of the materials. As a result, some Members left without participating. 

Another concern with the process was with the lack of participation by JCT, which typically provides Members nonpartisan technical advice and expertise on various tax issues. No members of 

JCT staff appeared at the meeting, nor were they available for 

questioning. JCT staff compiled and provided the materials to the 

Chairman and, therefore, were in the best position to speak to 

them. This was particularly surprising because JCT’s presence is 

standard practice for Committee business meetings when tax information with which JCT is familiar is considered. JCT usually answers technical questions so that Members can better understand 

the materials prior to voting. 

Finally, the executive session meeting was scheduled on the last 

day prior to a six-week House recess and on an already incredibly 

busy day for the Committee. Squeezed in between a full committee 

hearing on Social Security, a Rural and Underserved Communities 

Health Task Force meeting, and House Floor votes, the executive 

session meeting was extremely rushed. Members were simply not 

given the enough time to thoughtfully consider the materials and 

come to a reasoned decision on how best to proceed. Indeed, after 

taking an hour to review the Nixon Materials, many Republican 

Members were still wrestling with the context and purpose of the 

documents. Given the rushed time frame, however, Democrat Members repeatedly interrupted Republican Member deliberations and 

the Chairman appeared ready to continue the proceeding without 

any Republican Members participating. Even after the proceeding 

concluded, most Members had no idea what information could and 

could not be shared. No guidance was provided. 

In all, the executive session meeting was a failure in planning 

and execution. Members were ultimately asked to vote to publicly 

release information without sufficient time to review, analyze, digest, and discuss whether public disclosure was appropriate and 

desirable. Several Republican Members declined to participate in 

31 

4 Joint Comm. on Internal Revenue Taxation, Examination of President Nixon’s Tax Returns 

for 1969 through 1972, JCS 9–74 (93rd Cong. 1974). 5 26 U.S.C. § 6103 (d)(1) (1974). 

this unfair and secretive process due in large part to a lack of 

transparency and advanced notice of the materials to be evaluated. 

The Members that did participate were left no choice but to vote 

no on public disclosure given the lack of time for review and their 

inability to ask questions of JCT staff. The chaotic nature of the 

meeting represented the worst of the House of the Representatives. 

As Committee Republicans noted, the process for carrying out the 

executive session was below the dignity of the Ways and Means 

Committee and should not be replicated or repeated. 

NO JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION STAFF WERE AVAILABLE FOR

QUESTIONING

The executive session meeting and the Nixon Materials that have 

now been publicly released place JCT at the center of the matter. 

The materials show that JCT staff provided the documents to the 

Chairman and the documents relate to JCT work done in the 

1970s. As discussed above, no members of JCT staff attended the 

executive session meeting. Given JCT’s central role in relation to 

the documents at issue, and the number of questions Committee 

Republicans have for JCT, it was disappointing that JCT was not 

made available during the executive session meeting. Following the 

meeting, Ranking Member Kevin Brady (R–TX) sent a letter to 

JCT on July 26, 2019, with an initial set of questions Committee 

Republicans would have asked if they had been given the opportunity; a copy of that letter is attached as Attachment A. JCT’s response letter is attached as Attachment B. 

THE NIXON MATERIALS LIKELY SHOW CONSENT NOT COMPULSION

In 1973, President Nixon voluntarily asked that JCT examine his 

tax returns. Committee Democrats argue that certain related documents establish some precedent for their politically motivated attempt to weaponize the tax code and publicize President Trump’s 

tax returns. This is not so. The two matters are entirely distinguishable and attempts to connect them are misleading. 

President Nixon initiated the JCT examination of his tax returns 

voluntarily and without any legislative purpose. Instead, the purpose of President Nixon’s action was to answer specific questions 

that had been raised in the press and ‘‘to dispel public doubts.’’ 4

To date, there is no evidence that the audit work by JCT required the use of its authority under § 6103 or any other statute.5

President Nixon asked the committee to conduct an examination 

and the committee agreed to undertake that work. Although Mr. 

Barthold stated in his July 23 letter to Chairman Neal that JCT 

‘‘sought and received, under its legal authority, confidential information directly from the Internal Revenue Service,’’ in his July 29 

letter to Ranking Member Brady, Mr. Barthold indicated that he 

did not have access to all records necessary to confirm that consent 

to the disclosure of tax returns was not provided by President 

32 

6Letter from Thomas Barthold, Chief of Staff, Joint Comm. on Taxation, to the Hon. Kevin 

Brady, Ranking Member, Comm. on Ways and Means (July 29, 2019). 7 Id.; see also, Joint Comm. on Internal Revenue Taxation, Examination of President Nixon’s 

Tax Returns for 1969 through 1972, JCS 9–74 at 118 n. 13 (93rd Cong. 1974). 8 Joint Comm. on Internal Revenue Taxation, Examination of President Nixon’s Tax Returns 

for 1969 through 1972, JCS 9–74 (93rd Cong. 1974). 9 Internal Revenue Manual, 4.10.5.4, Related and Spin-Off Returns. 

Nixon (or his attorneys).6 The July 29 letter further indicates that 

there is evidence that certain additional private tax information 

was provided voluntarily by President Nixon’s accountant.7 This 

makes sense given that President Nixon stated that the JCT would 

have ‘‘full access to all relevant documents pertaining to these matters and will have the full cooperation of my office.’’ 8

President Nixon’s statement providing full access to all relevant 

documents makes clear that he expected that the JCT may need 

additional information to complete the examination, such as tax returns and tax return information prior to 1969 and accountant 

work papers. The 1973 and 1974 letters between JCT and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which the Committee voted to publicly release during the executive session meeting on July 25, 2019, 

substantiate JCT carrying out this agreement. Given the voluntary 

nature of President Nixon’s request to JCT, it is highly likely that 

President Nixon’s representatives were involved in conversations 

with JCT to make accommodations to allow JCT to gather the information it needed. In addition, IRS procedures specify that reviewing related returns is part of its normal audit process and 

would be expected from JCT, as the transactions in question may 

have been related to line items from returns prior to 1969.9 Reviewing limited line items on returns prior to 1969 would have allowed JCT to check for consistency across the returns, which is a 

standard IRS auditing practice. 

As the above example indicates, the Chairman’s current request 

for President Trump’s tax returns differs markedly from the circumstances surrounding President Nixon’s returns. President 

Nixon consented to releasing his returns, President Trump has not. 

JCT had approval from President Nixon to seek additional tax-related information, if necessary, as part of their review. The publicly 

released letters between JCT and IRS in 1973 and 1974 do not set 

a precedent for Chairman Neal’s request for President Trump’s tax 

returns. The two situations make for nothing but an apples and oranges comparison. 

Chairman Neal’s request continues to a be an effort to weaponize 

the tax code and publicly release President Trump’s tax returns for 

political purposes. President Trump has not consented to the release of his private tax return information and the Committee has 

no legitimate legislative purpose to justify its request under § 6103. 

THE NIXON MATERIALS DO NOT ESTABLISH A § 6103 PRECEDENT

Committee Democrats’ attempt to find a precedent for their illegitimate request for President Trump’s tax returns fails for two additional reasons. First, neither JCT nor the IRS referenced § 6103 

in any of the Nixon materials publicly released on July 25, 2019. 

And second, Congress made significant changes to § 6103 in 1976. 

The Nixon Materials, specifically the 1973 and 1974 letters provided by JCT, do not cite to any statutory authority at all in conVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:52 Aug 22, 2019 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR186.XXX HR186
33 

10Letter from Thomas Barthold, Chief of Staff, Joint Comm. on Taxation, to the Hon. Kevin 

Brady, Ranking Member, Comm. on Ways and Means (July 29, 2019). 11Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94–455, 90 Stat. 520 (1976). 12 Compare 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a) (‘‘Returns made with respect to taxes imposed by chapters 1, 

2, 3, and 6 upon which the tax has been determined by the Secretary or his delegate shall constitute public records.’’) (1970), with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a) (‘‘Returns and return information shall 

be confidential, and except as authorized by this title . . . .’’) (1976). 

junction with the requests to the Internal Revenue Service. It is 

unclear what, if any, statutory authority JCT relied on when making the requests or on what authority IRS relied on in fulfilling 

them. Given that President Nixon requested the inquiry and stated 

that JCT would have all relevant materials, it appears much more 

likely that the JCT requests relied on the consent of the taxpayer 

as the basis for obtaining the requested information. Although Mr. 

Barthold acknowledged in his July 29 letter to Ranking Member 

Brady that JCT did not have any records indicating there was a 

consent document, he made clear that the best source for such a 

document would be IRS records.10 The unique context surrounding 

the Nixon Materials and President Nixon’s voluntary submission to 

a JCT examination make that situation simply inapplicable to the 

Ways and Means Committee’s modern-day request for President 

Trump’s tax returns. 

The Democrats’ search for a precedent fails to consider the fact 

that Congress amended 26 U.S.C. § 6103 substantially via the Tax 

Reform Act of 1976.11 Prior to 1976 and during the time JCT was 

examining President Nixon’s tax returns at his request, tax returns 

and tax return information were considered public records. The Tax 

Reform Act of 1976 fundamentally changed the treatment of tax returns and return information and established the structure of 

§ 6103 as it generally exists today. Significantly, the Act changed 

the default rule of § 6103(a) to establish that tax returns and tax 

return information are presumed confidential subject only to specific statutory exceptions.12 These amendments to § 6103 marked a 

significant change in the legal approach to the privacy of taxpayer 

information. For the first time in modern history, taxpayers had 

the security of knowing their tax returns and tax information 

would be kept confidential. Any statutory analysis taking place in 

2019 and beyond must be informed by the 1976 amendments that 

changed the nature of taxpayer privacy protections. 

The legislative history surrounding the Tax Reform Act of 1976 

demonstrates the significance of the changes it made to the tax 

code. Protecting taxpayer privacy was central to the debate and 

Congress intended that the law would prevent misuse of taxpayer 

information for political purposes. While numerous members of 

Congress addressed these issues, Senator Bob Dole (R–KS) clearly 

articulated the importance of the issues Congress was debating at 

the time: 

I cannot stress enough the importance of preserving the 

confidentiality of individual tax returns . . . . I speak of 

a more basic, procedural unfairness in the tax laws which 

presently permits supposedly confidential individual income tax returns to come into the hands of literally thousands of bureaucrats outside the Internal Revenue Service, 

and which leaves open the possibility that mischievous political operatives will again attempt to gain access to such 

34 

13 122 Cong. Rec. 24012–13 (1976) (statement of Senator Bob Dole). 14 H.R. Rep. No. 115–309, at 8 (2017) (dissenting views); H.R. Rep. No. 115–73, at 8 (2017) 

(dissenting views). 15Mark Sullivan, Powerful Ways and Means chairman Neal to pursue Trump’s tax returns, 

Telegram & Gazette (Jan. 23, 2019, 5:41 PM) https://www.telegram.com/news/20190123/ powerful-ways-and-means-chairman-neal-to-pursue-trumps-tax-returns. Chairman Neal also stated: 

‘‘We are now in the midst of putting together the case.’’ Id. 16MSNBC, All In with Chris Hayes (transcript of television broadcast Feb. 7, 2019), http:// 

www.msnbc.com/transcripts/all-in/2019-02-07 (statement of Rep. Dan Kildee). 

returns for partisan political purposes. The tax privacy 

sections of H.R. 10612 will assure every American that his 

or her tax return will remain confidential and immune 

from political misuse.13

Protecting taxpayer information from partisan political misuse 

was central to the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1976. Congress 

intended to prevent what Chairman Neal and Committee Democrats are seeking through their request for President Trump’s tax 

returns. 

THE PUBLICATION OF PRIVATE TAX RETURN INFORMATION DOES NOT

CREATE A LEGITIMATE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE

Chairman Neal’s effort to obtain President Trump’s tax returns 

continues to be political in nature, lacking a legitimate legislative 

purpose. From the beginning, Committee Democrats have sought to 

weaponize the tax code in an effort to damage their political opponent, President Trump, through the publication of his tax returns. 

Chairman Neal and other Committee Democrats have made numerous statements demonstrating their true purpose in requesting 

the President’s tax returns. The following is but a small, representative sample of those comments: 

• During the 115th Congress, then Ranking Member Neal 

stated that ‘‘Committee Democrats remain steadfast in [their] 

pursuit to have [President Trump’s] individual tax returns disclosed to the public.’’ 14

• Chairman Neal stated earlier this year that ‘‘the public 

has reasonably come to expect that presidential candidates and 

aspirants release those documents.’’ He also said that ‘‘[w]e 

need to approach this gingerly and make sure the rhetoric that 

is used does not become a footnote to the court case.’’ 15

• Another Committee Democrat noted on television that the 

Committee’s Oversight Subcommittee hearing was intended to 

‘‘lay the foundation for the public purpose to acquire access to 

these returns.’’ 16

In contrast, President Nixon voluntarily submitted information 

to JCT and asked for an examination of his tax returns for reasons 

completely unrelated to legislation. That voluntary approach did 

not require a legislative purpose analysis, whereas Chairman 

Neal’s § 6103 request for President Trump’s tax returns must be 

based on a legitimate legislative purpose. Recent efforts by Democrats to create a legislative purpose is contrary to their prior public 

statements and serves as a mere pretext for obtaining and publicizing the President’s tax returns for purely political reasons. 

In conclusion, the process for making the Nixon Materials public 

was unnecessarily rushed, chaotic, and shrouded in secrecy. The 

materials themselves have no bearing on a legislative purpose and 

35 

because they were likely provided by consent, set no precedent for 

Chairman Neal’s illegitimate request. 

KEVIN BRADY, 

Republican Leader, Committee on Ways and 

Means. 

36 


Insert offset folio 40 here HR186.021
37 


Insert offset folio 41 here HR186.022
38 


Insert offset folio 42 here HR186.023
39 


Insert offset folio 43 here HR186.024
40 


Insert offset folio 44 here HR186.025
41 


Insert offset folio 45 here HR186.026
42 


Insert offset folio 46 here HR186.027
43 


Insert offset folio 47 here HR186.028
44 


Insert offset folio 48 here HR186.029
45 


Insert offset folio 49 here HR186.030
46 


Insert offset folio 50 here HR186.031
47 


Insert offset folio 51 here HR186.032
48 


Insert offset folio 52 here HR186.033
49 


Insert offset folio 53 here HR186.034
50 


Insert offset folio 54 here HR186.035
51 


Insert offset folio 55 here HR186.036
52 


Insert offset folio 56 here HR186.037
53 


Insert offset folio 57 here HR186.038
54 


Insert offset folio 58 here HR186.039
55 


Insert offset folio 59 here HR186.040
56 


Insert offset folio 60 here HR186.041
57 


Insert offset folio 61 here HR186.042
58 


Insert offset folio 62 here HR186.043
59 


Insert offset folio 63 here HR186.044
60 


Insert offset folio 64 here HR186.045
61 


Insert offset folio 65 here HR186.046
62 


Insert offset folio 66 here HR186.047
63 


Insert offset folio 67 here HR186.048
64 


Insert offset folio 68 here HR186.049
65 


Insert offset folio 69 here HR186.050
66 


Insert offset folio 70 here HR186.051