That face you make

Facts don't care about your feelings

Facts like Eastland V United States Servicemen's Fund and Watkins vs US along with US Code 6103 say I'm right.

LOL...now that we have established you cannot read at a high enough level to understand legal opinions, perhaps you will stop posting cases whose opinions do not support your claim.

"insure that the legislative function may be performed independently without fear of outside interference. Id. To preserve legislative independence, the Court has concluded that "legislators engaged 'in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity,' Tenney v. Brandhove, [341 U.S. 367, 376 (1951)], should be protected not only from the consequences of litigation's results but also from the burden of defending themselves."

There is no legislative activity behind the request for the President's tax returns, and no case law in history supports Congress receiving tax returns of private citizens. Trump is President, but they are requesting tax returns prior to his presidency

Also, which section of IRS code 6103, which is what you're calling "US Code 6103", are you claiming that provides Congress the power to receive the Presidents tax returns?

I've just read the code, and I can see no applicable section.

https://www.irs.gov/government-entities/federal-state-local-governments/disclosure-laws

Further, the President will likely prevail in court as there is no law requiring a Presidential Candidate to surrender his tax returns.

I think you missed the part where it says "(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon 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."

you missed the part where it says "shall furnish". Not "shall furnish if approved" or "feels like there's a good reason." Shall. Furnish.

Now, funny story. This law was written to specifically give Congress the power to see a President's tax returns to make sure they weren't profiting from their position. You can thank Harding and the Tea Pot Dome scandal for that one.

Eastland V United States Servicemen's Fund. When the Unamerican activities committed subpoenaed the Servicemen's fund's tax information, the Fund argued that it was a violation of their 1st Amendment Rights. The Supreme Court said No. The intent of Congress did not modify their authority to subpoena documents.

Now, Watkins V US says that Congress does not have the right to expose other parties private information to the public it DOES have the right to see it in their oversight capacity.

In the Eastland case, there was "legitimate legislative action", namely the Internal Security act. Congress does not appear to have "a legitimate legislative action" behind the request.

As for IRS code 1603, that section does not appear on my link. Do you have a source?

Secondly, as Trump has only been President for 3 years, this may be grounds for dismissing the claim, and forcing Democrats to refile, as they requested returns that pre-date Trump being in office. Which again shows this is not legislative, but punitive in nature. You can't claim "we are doing this to insure Trump is not profiting from office" while requesting information from before he was in office.

The point of the decision of Eastland is that they have to have legislative reasoning- we want to see it because of X. Even if you think that reason is bogus, as long as they still present that reason, Congress has the authority to look at the returns.

The chairman has provided that reason. Trump has claimed that he's under audit every year. This should not be happening. They want to see his tax returns to make sure that's either 1) legitimate is auditing him prior to him being President or 2) that the IRS is properly performing its duties and not targeting a specific individualunfairly.

the US code (not the IRS code) is 26 U.S. Code § 6103
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103.

"The point of the decision of Eastland is that they have to have legislative reasoning- we want to see it because of X. Even if you think that reason is bogus, as long as they still present that reason, Congress has the authority to look at the returns.

That is not the standard...the language from the case is clear, in that it must LEGITIMATE LEGISLATIVE ACTION...what you go on to describe later I don't believe would be qualify as LEGITIMATE.

It doesn't matter what you believe. The law says the chairman gets the tax info if they send a written request. The law has been tested in the courts. So long as they provide a reason, they get the information.

They provided a written request. They provided a reason. They get the information.

The committee also subpoenaed the New York State filings as well. That office has said they will be turning that information over before the deadline.

Whatever secrets Trump wants to keep in those tax documents, they're going to come out. Very soon.

"The law says the chairman gets the tax info if they send a written request"

False. The law requires a LEGITIMATE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE