Sample Tax Return: Fill & Download for Free

Per NYT:While The Times did not obtain the president’s actual tax returns, it received the information contained in the returns from someone who had legal access to it. The Times was then able to find matching results in the I.R.S. information on top earners — a publicly available database that each year comprises a one-third sampling of those taxpayers, with identifying details removed. It also confirmed significant findings using other public documents, along with confidential Trump family tax and financial records from the newspaper’s 2018 investigationinto the origin of the president’s wealth.According to the NYT, the data it obtained was:printouts from Mr. Trump’s official Internal Revenue Service tax transcripts, with the figures from his federal tax form, the 1040, for the years 1985 to 1994Source: Decade in the Red: Trump Tax Figures Show Over $1 Billion in Business LossesI don’t know who the “someone who had legal access” to the tax transcripts was. I would not be astonished to learn that it was someone with the legal right to make this disclosure.

I don’t know whether to thank or curse you for the A2A, Neil. As a general rule, I don’t answer questions with more than 20 answers[1][1][1][1] , as by that point I assume that everything that can be said has been said. However, the 495 answers that the edit log says this question has received at the time of this writing are… Well, I’ll get to those; but, suffice to stay, they stopped me in my tracks[2][2][2][2] .The short of it is that the broad character and quality of the answers was distressing enough to keep me awake at night - so thanks for that.This answer will be far from my lengthier magna opera, but I’m going to take it in four parts. Part I will unpack the question. Part II the answers to date. Part III the core of my answer. Part IV some concluding thoughts.Part I: Unpacking the question.I’m going to be honest with you, Neil: the question as worded is confusing, and I reckon that confusion has contributed greatly to many of the dismissive answers you’ve received to-date (to be discussed in Part II). As we say in policy circles, if you get the question wrong, your solution will also be wrong[3][3][3][3] .Let’s look at the question.Given that nothing in the US Constitution gives citizens or the president a right to keep tax returns secret, shouldn’t Federalist Supreme Court justices agree that statutes requiring presidents or candidates to release their tax returns are valid?There are two problems. The first is that you’re leading with a fallacy (ie, that because the Constitution is silent on one thing, it is permissive of another), and the second is that you’re obscuring the main controversy (ie, statutes requiring presidents and presidential candidates to disclose their taxes) by making Supreme Court justices the subject of the question. This becomes apparent when you move the opening, dependent clause to the end of the question as such:Shouldn’t Federalist Supreme Court justices agree that statutes requiring presidents or candidates to release their tax returns are valid given that nothing in the US Constitution gives citizens or the president a right to keep tax returns secret?Which leaves as the basic, subject-verb-object simple sentence:Shouldn’t Supreme Court justices agree the statutes are valid?But then that reveals a second logical error, which is that you’ve assumed the validity of the statutes in the first place - which I’ll discuss in detail later. Between the two fallacies and the confusing phraseology, you’ve invited not just a great deal of hostility to how you’ve presented the question, but a plethora of answers which miss the mark simply because they missed the point of the question.For my purposes, the form of the question I will address in Part III will be:Would statutes requiring sitting presidents or presidential candidates to release their tax returns be valid under the Constitution?That strikes me as a fair interpretation of the intent of the question stripped of fallacies and convoluted structure.Part II: Unpacking the answersSo… I tried reading all of the answers to-date - really, because I’m going to be pretty harsh here. But I think I got about 200 deep before I got the gist of things and finally went to bed.Based on my sample, though, I confidently assert that the overwhelming majority of answers to this question are wrong.Now, just as an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite amount of time might ultimately produce Shakespeare, the sheer volume of answers has provided the contours of a single, correct answer, but they’re lost in the morass of derisiveness and, well, wrongness that otherwise pervades the feed.Without giving air time to the answers that are wrong by virtue of their curtness, hostility, or rambling, tangential screeds, here are the main themes that the substantive answers get wrong.Over-reliance on the Fourth AmendmentIn challenging the leading assertion that there is “nothing in the Constitution [that] gives citizens or the president a right to keep tax returns secret,” many, if not the bulk of answers, point you to the Fourth Amendment, which states:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Using the Fourth Amendment to debunk the assertion isn’t wrong (ie, there is, in fact, something in the Constitution), but where most of these answers went on to err was asserting that the implied right to privacy contained within the Fourth Amendment is absolute.It is not.The Fourth Amendment protects “the right . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and there may be (and are, as we’ll see) reasonable grounds to demand one’s “papers,” which so-far has been categorically unexplored by the answers.Over-reliance on the Ninth AmendmentEither in isolation or in combination with articulation of the Fourth Amendment, a number of answers have tried to challenge the core of your leading assertion by pointing out that the Constitution itself - through the Ninth Amendment - effectively says, “Don’t take my silence to be absolute.”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.But as with discussion of the Fourth Amendment, the answers generally fail to go on to address the implicit question: “Why do you assume that the Ninth Amendment affords an absolute protection?”Incorrect application of the Tenth AmendmentAs with the Ninth Amendment, several answers invoked the Tenth to challenge the assertion that absence of authority is permission of conduct. But just as many answers challenged you on whether you read the Constitution, I wondered whether any who invoked the Tenth had ever read it - even when they quoted it:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.While the Ninth Amendment concerns rights not articulated by the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment concerns powers; more specifically, it articulates that powers not given to the Federal government are retained by the States - or, if the States have not assumed such powers, then to the people.The Tenth Amendment is ultimately your best argument for defending your assertion: that is, if the States choose to legislate to mandate political candidates’ disclosure of tax returns, that may be a legitimate exercise of the States’ powers (it isn’t, as I’ll discuss in the next part, but it was your strongest argument).Asserting lack of jurisdiction and over-reliance on the Fifth AmendmentSome of the most popular answers to-date assert that your question fails because there either aren’t any such statutes in the first place; that the only relevant statutes are those which explicitly protect the privacy of a person’s tax returns, regardless of Constitutional provisions; or, no entity outside of the IRS has any scope to see a person’s tax returns, regardless of Constitutional provisions.The most popular answer to-date even contains this breathtaking assertion:States have no authority over federal taxes or returns therefore, in turn, they also have no authority to demand their release or examine them.I’m sure that would come as a shock to the many state prosecutors who have relied on persons’ federal tax returns to prove the commission of financial crimes under their state’s laws. Let the appeals begin! (cc: Andrew Weill)Of the 200-ish answers I scoped prior to writing mine, only two cited the statute governing Congress’ authority to demand and examine a person’s tax returns[4][4][4][4] (and one of them incompletely, thus incorrectly):(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on TaxationUpon 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.(2) Chief of Staff of Joint Committee on TaxationUpon written request by the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish him with any return or return information specified in such request. Such Chief of Staff may submit such return or return information to any committee described in paragraph (1), 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.(3) Other committeesPursuant to an action by, and upon written request by the chairman of, a committee of the Senate or the House of Representatives (other than a committee specified in paragraph (1)) specially authorized to inspect any return or return information by a resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives or, in the case of a joint committee (other than the joint committee specified in paragraph (1)) by concurrent resolution, the Secretary shall furnish such committee, or a duly authorized and designated subcommittee thereof, sitting in closed executive session, with any return or return information which such resolution authorizes the committee or subcommittee to inspect. Any resolution described in this paragraph shall specify the purpose for which the return or return information is to be furnished and that such information cannot reasonably be obtained from any other source.The use of shall in those paragraphs is key[5][5][5][5] . It isn’t that Congress has the authority to ask for permission to see a person’s tax returns, it has the express authority to demand and examine them, and they “shall” be provided for such purpose.A number of answers - almost all without citing the above statute - have gone on to challenge Congress’ authority to enter into such examinations without a “legitimate purpose.” The Supreme Court, however, has already ruled that Congress has broad investigatory powers that includes examination of a person’s financial details[6][6][6][6] [7][7][7][7] :We are of opinion that the power of inquiry -- with process to enforce it -- is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. It was so regarded and employed in American legislatures before the Constitution was framed and ratified. . . .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. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete, so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. All this was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. In that period, the power of inquiry, with enforcing process, was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate -- indeed, was treated as inhering in it. Thus, there is ample warrant for thinking, as we do, that the constitutional provisions which commit the legislative function to the two houses are intended to include this attribute to the end that the function may be effectively exercised.The contention is earnestly made on behalf of the witness that this power of inquiry, if sustained, may be abusively and oppressively exerted. If this be so, it affords no ground for denying the power. The same contention might be directed against the power to legislate, and, of course, would be unavailing. We must assume for present purposes that neither houses will be disposed to exert the power beyond its proper bounds, or without due regard to the rights of witnesses. But if, contrary to this assumption, controlling limitations or restrictions are disregarded . . . a witness rightfully may refuse to answer where the bounds of the power are exceeded or the questions are not pertinent to the matter under inquiry.Now, that latter statement sets up another of the most common assertions made in the answers to-date, which is reliance on the Fifth Amendment to shield someone from self-incrimination by way of illicit declarations on their tax returns.It is true that people are required to declare illicit sources of income on their taxes, and may claim protections in such returns[8][8][8][8] …If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making, he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all.…however, that is not an absolute defence to having tax returns introduced as evidence in criminal prosecutions[9][9][9][9] .In combination with Congress’ declared, broad authority to make investigations in order to ascertain the adequacy of existing tax laws or, say, evidence of bribery or Emoluments Clause violations that may require impeachment and removal of Federal officials, the notion that Congress has no jurisdiction is patently false.And in combination, the government’s legitimate interests in ensuring citizens’ compliance with tax law absolutely generates reasonable grounds to demand and examine a person’s tax returns, scuttling the Fourth Amendment argument put forward in so many answers.However, that alone isn’t sufficient to answer the question.Part III: My answerOf the answers I scanned, only two came close to the Constitutional provision which actually holds over the question:No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.The Supreme Court has previously ruled that states cannot add qualifications to office beyond what’s in the Constitution[10][10][10][10] . While the existing ruling concerned candidates for Congressional office, there’s little question that the principles would apply to presidential candidates:[T]he power to add qualifications is not part of the original powers of sovereignty that the Tenth Amendment reserved to the States. Petitioners' Tenth Amendment argument misconceives the nature of the right at issue because that Amendment could only "reserve" that which existed before. As Justice Story recognized, "the states can exercise no powers whatsoever, which exclusively spring out of the existence of the national government, which the constitution does not delegate to them .... No state can say, that it has reserved, what it never possessed."Likewise, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that Congress also has no scope to add qualifications beyond the Constitution[11][11][11][11] :[A]nalysis of the "textual commitment" under Art. I, § 5 has demonstrated that, in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution.Therefore, any statute that would require a president or presidential candidate to release their tax returns as a condition of candidacy or qualification to receive electoral votes would be patently unconstitutional.Moreover, while I dismissed the broad assertions of the Fourth Amendment’s applicability earlier, I also said that it wasn’t necessarily incorrect to cite it. Indeed, the Fourth Amendment, on its own and in combination with others, has been said to create “a zone of privacy” that cannot be violated without due process[12][12][12][12] .While Congress has the power to demand a person’s tax returns as an exercise of its legitimate investigatory powers, the same could not be said of the states requiring disclosures for the sake of record-keeping, nor to the public for the sake of transparency. Even in Congress’ power to examine a person’s tax returns, they must do so in closed session unless given express permission of the individual under scrutiny.And so even if the mandate were made separate from any condition of running for office, coercing someone to violate their privacy - even if given some guarantee of immunity or security in secrecy - would almost certainly be ruled to be an unconstitutional violation.Part IV: Concluding thoughtsThe most frustrating thing about this question and the answers it had so-far received was that there are engaging points to be made, but the hostility the question provoked - between its fallacious wording and, let’s be obvious now, the direct challenge to President Trump fiercely resisting any examination of his taxes[13][13][13][13] [14][14][14][14] - took priority over serious examination of those issues.More to the point: the most upvoted and distributed answers to this question are patently wrong, but they served a reinforcing tribal purpose, and succeeded solely on that merit. And yet, had they taken a pause and made serious examination of the issues, they still could have made a defence of President Trump on the facts.That was really what kept this question and the answers floating in my mind overnight.As well aware as I am of my reputation for liberally footnoting my answers[15][15][15][15] , I do it for a reason: So that people can, if they’re inclined, check my work and debate me on the facts.However, I could count the number of sources the hundreds of authors to-date used to answer this question on two hands, and yet they largely presumed to be authoritative without even offering the weakest of evidence.Moreover, given the tedious repetition of the arguments in the answers, it was plain that few, if any, had bothered to see if their case had already been made and could be buttressed rather than repeated, and so decided to shout for the sake of opining.But what distresses me isn’t that people are wrong, or even that people might disagree with me - it was the confidence of the wrongness, no different than the fallacies within the question as presented, and the fact that people who should know better went along with it because it served a tribal purpose.I’ve been on Quora and engaged in politics long enough that I should be neither surprised nor bothered by that - and, indeed, I generally don’t care about people holding biases[16][16][16][16] - but seeing literally hundreds of answers that were such a gross, obvious display of tribalism over reasoning (when, again, reasoned answers could have served the same purpose) gave me a disquieting pause.Also, Neil, now that you have almost closed in on 500 answers to the question, I would strongly encourage you to stop asking for additional answers. It’s not that I believe that I’ve provided such a commanding response that no other could have merit, but you’re now well beyond the point of diminishing returns.Footnotes[1] Carter Moore's answer to Before posting your own answer to a question on Quora, do you read what everybody else has written? Why or why not?[1] Carter Moore's answer to Before posting your own answer to a question on Quora, do you read what everybody else has written? Why or why not?[1] Carter Moore's answer to Before posting your own answer to a question on Quora, do you read what everybody else has written? Why or why not?[1] Carter Moore's answer to Before posting your own answer to a question on Quora, do you read what everybody else has written? Why or why not?[2] Carter Moore's answer to How do you write your Quora answers? How do you decide what questions you will answer? How long does it typically take for you to answer a question? Do you plan out your answers?[2] Carter Moore's answer to How do you write your Quora answers? How do you decide what questions you will answer? How long does it typically take for you to answer a question? Do you plan out your answers?[2] Carter Moore's answer to How do you write your Quora answers? How do you decide what questions you will answer? How long does it typically take for you to answer a question? Do you plan out your answers?[2] Carter Moore's answer to How do you write your Quora answers? How do you decide what questions you will answer? How long does it typically take for you to answer a question? Do you plan out your answers?[3] Carter Moore's answer to What is analytical writing?[3] Carter Moore's answer to What is analytical writing?[3] Carter Moore's answer to What is analytical writing?[3] Carter Moore's answer to What is analytical writing?[4] 26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information[4] 26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information[4] 26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information[4] 26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information[5] Carter Moore's answer to How has Donald Trump successfully blocked Congress from obtaining a copy of his tax returns?[5] Carter Moore's answer to How has Donald Trump successfully blocked Congress from obtaining a copy of his tax returns?[5] Carter Moore's answer to How has Donald Trump successfully blocked Congress from obtaining a copy of his tax returns?[5] Carter Moore's answer to How has Donald Trump successfully blocked Congress from obtaining a copy of his tax returns?[6] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927)[6] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927)[6] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927)[6] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927)[7] In Teapot Dome Case, Supreme Court Cemented Congressional Power to Investigate[7] In Teapot Dome Case, Supreme Court Cemented Congressional Power to Investigate[7] In Teapot Dome Case, Supreme Court Cemented Congressional Power to Investigate[7] In Teapot Dome Case, Supreme Court Cemented Congressional Power to Investigate[8] United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927)[8] United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927)[8] United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927)[8] United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927)[9] Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976)[9] Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976)[9] Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976)[9] Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976)[10] U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)[10] U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)[10] U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)[10] U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)[11] Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)[11] Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)[11] Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)[11] Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)[12] Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)[12] Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)[12] Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)[12] Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)[13] The many times Donald Trump promised he was going to release his tax returns [13] The many times Donald Trump promised he was going to release his tax returns [13] The many times Donald Trump promised he was going to release his tax returns [13] The many times Donald Trump promised he was going to release his tax returns [14] President Trump asks Supreme Court to block access to his tax returns, setting up separation of powers battle[14] President Trump asks Supreme Court to block access to his tax returns, setting up separation of powers battle[14] President Trump asks Supreme Court to block access to his tax returns, setting up separation of powers battle[14] President Trump asks Supreme Court to block access to his tax returns, setting up separation of powers battle[15] https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-fit-in-on-Quora/answer/Tom-Robinson-110/comment/120715406[15] https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-fit-in-on-Quora/answer/Tom-Robinson-110/comment/120715406[15] https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-fit-in-on-Quora/answer/Tom-Robinson-110/comment/120715406[15] https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-fit-in-on-Quora/answer/Tom-Robinson-110/comment/120715406[16] Carter Moore's answer to What's wrong with being "politically biased"?[16] Carter Moore's answer to What's wrong with being "politically biased"?[16] Carter Moore's answer to What's wrong with being "politically biased"?[16] Carter Moore's answer to What's wrong with being "politically biased"?

The Times isn’t saying much.They don’t have Trump’s actual tax returns, but transcripts of them, meaning extracted data. Here’s what they said:While The Times did not obtain the president’s actual [1985–1994] tax returns, it received the information contained in the returns from someone who had legal access to it. The Times was then able to find matching results in the I.R.S. information on top earners — a publicly available database that each year comprises a one-third sampling of those taxpayers, with identifying details removed. It also confirmed significant findings using other public documents, along with confidential Trump family tax and financial records from the newspaper’s 2018 investigation into the origin of the president’s wealth.I consider the Times’ ability to de-identify those top-earner samples a big procedural screw up by the IRS.In the 2018 investigation, the Times obtained tax returns from Trump’s father, again from an unknown source. Likewise two pages of Trump tax returns from 2005 were anonymously leaked.I have a friend who is an attorney who works for the IRS, and she said that the IRS tracks everyone who looks at a record, and someone attempting to browse into things they shouldn’t sets off a flag, so I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that it was an IRS employee who provided the information. I think that’s unlikely. A better candidate is someone from a prosecutor’s office either with the State of New York or the Department of Justice. Those are the kinds of folks that would have legal access to and work from transcripts rather than returns.One hint is the fact that the returns are from as far back as 25 years. They might have come from some investigative file closed long ago. Perhaps it was from an accountant working from the transcripts provided by the IRS. In any case, it’s clear that not everyone is Donald Trump’s friend.