A - I don't think that's correct. Nixon released his taxes, but that wasn't the result of this process. It was voluntary.
Well... "voluntary" like getting teeth pulled. 
But you may remember that a number of people have pointed out that Nixon released his taxes even though he was under audit at the time (in response to Trump's wild assertion that he can't release them while he's under audit).
B - I'm well aware of the "stated goal" used to justify the request. I'm asking why you think they want them. Clearly they wouldn't need to see actual returns in order to get testimony from Treasury regarding their process.
the Courts have stated they will not second guess Congres
Whoa... that's not what the courts have said at all. In fact, the first ruling that he cites (Watkins v. US) very definitely second-guessed Congress. What the courts actually said is that they can't question Congress' motivations if they are acting in furtherance of their constitutional powers.
And that's the open question. It's useful to note that this very same question came up in court with regard to Trump's "Muslim ban". Clearly the law allows the president to make such moves in general. The courts, however, ruled that his campaign statements about banning all Muslims were what drove his decisions, not an actual review of threats to the country (etc.). Yes, SCOTUS eventually ruled the other way, but only after the original policy was replaced with a new one that followed a more appropriate process. It's also worth noting that most here disagreed with that ruling even after the change.
This is why the chairman's letter is so carefully worded. We won't know whether it will work until the courts weigh in.
'
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
