Former IRS officials call for judge to scrutinize Trump's 'breathtakingly improper' immunity from audits
A group of former officials with the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice is asking a federal judge to scrutinize a controversial deal that granted President Donald Trump and his family sweeping immunity from past tax audits.
They alleged that the deal to resolve Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax documents in exchange for immunity from past audits was "unprecedented and breathtakingly improper."
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams reopened the case last month after a group of 35 former federal judges alleged that the settlement -- which included both the immunity and the DOJ's now-scuttled $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" -- was deceptive and a "fraud on the court."
In an amicus brief filed Monday, the former officials argued that the audit provision was unlawful and should be scrutinized.
"The President of the United States is obligated to pay taxes he owes, just like every other American. If the Immunity Order is allowed to stand, it will enshrine two separate tax codes, one for President Trump, his family, and his 'affiliates,' and another for every other American," the group of former officials wrote. "It opens the door for President Trump and future presidents to avoid scrutiny of their taxes while in office and absolve themselves and favored individuals of wrongdoing"
The group, which included a former IRS commissioner, a former chief of the DOJ's tax division, an ex-assistant attorney general, and a former national taxpayer advocate, alleged that the immunity agreement violates provisions of the tax code designed to prevent officials from interfering with audits, as well as the Domestic Emoluments Clause.
They also argued that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche -- the only official to sign on to the tax audit addendum -- lacked the authority to resolve the audits because the matters were never referred to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution.
"Acting AG Blanche settled a weak, time-barred unauthorized disclosure claim to give President Trump a vastly disproportionate gift of total immunity from tax and non-tax liability," the lawsuit argued.
While the Department of Justice walked back their plans to create the controversial fund -- which could have compensated Jan. 6 defendants who assaulted law enforcement officers at the Capitol -- the audit provision remained intact despite the political blowback. Last week, Blanche also refused to sign a declaration vowing to never pursue "Anti-Weaponization Fund."
The sweeping IRS immunity provision said the Department of Justice is "forever barred and precluded" from pursuing any claims "including tax returns" related to Trump, his family, or any "affiliated entities."
"This Immunity Order sends the regrettable and dangerous message that powerful people can wield their influence not only to avoid having their tax returns reviewed at all, but to place themselves above the laws that govern every other American," the group's amicus brief said.
In a filing earlier this month, attorneys for President and his two eldest sons argued that the court lacks authority to examine the settlement.
"Movants should be above making what is a transparently political filing intended to gin up press attention to a fully proper government settlement that they knowingly have no standing to challenge," the attorneys wrote.
Attorneys for the group of retired judges who prompted the case to be reopened argued that there is "clear and convincing" evidence that the court was deceived by Trump, who not only filed the case but also is in charge of the entities he sued.
"There is reason to believe the parties used this suit and subsequent settlement to give cover for a give-away to the lead Plaintiff, who also controls the Defendants. Plaintiffs now seek to complete that deeply concerning process by insisting that the Court can do nothing," they wrote.
