RICHARD E. NEAL, MASSACHUSETTS, CHAIRMAN JOHN LEWIS, GEORGIA LLOYD DOGGETT, TEXAS MIKE THOMPSON, CALIFORNIA JOHN B. LARSON, CONNECTICUT EARL BLUMENAUER, OREGON RON KIND, WISCONSIN BILL PASCRELL JR.. NEW JERSEY DANNY K. DAVIS, ILLINOIS LINDA T. SANCHEZ, CALIFORNIA BRIAN HIGGINS. NEW YORK TERRI A. SEWELL, ALABAMA SUZAN DELBENE, WASHINGTON JUDY CHU, CALIFORNIA GWEN MOORE, WISCONSIN DAN KILDEE. MICHIGAN BRENDAN BOYLE. DON BEYER, VIRGINIA DWIGHT EVANS, BRAD SCHNEIDER. ILLINOIS TOM SUOZZI, NEW YORK JIMMY PANETTA, CALIFORNIA STEPHANIE MURPHY. FLORIDA JIMMY GOMEZ, CALIFORNIA STEVEN HORSFORD, NEVADA BRANDON CASEY. MAJORITY STAFF DIRECTOR Congress of the ?lim?teh gamma 713$). llamas/e of Representatives COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 1102 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING (202) 225?3625 Washington, 23612 20515?0348 April 13, 2019 KEVIN BRADY, TEXAS. RANKING MEMBER DEVIN NUNES. CALIFORNIA VERN BUCHANAN, FLORIDA ADRIAN SMITH, NEBRASKA KENNY MARCHANT, TEXAS TOM REED, NEW YORK MIKE KELLY, GEORGE HOLDING, NORTH CAROLINA JASON SMITH, MISSOURI TOM RICE, SOUTH CAROLINA DAVID SCHWEIKERT, ARIZONA JACKIE WALORSKI, INDIANA DARIN LAHOOD, ILLINOIS BRAD R. WENSTRUP. OHIO JODEY ARRINGTON, TEXAS DREW FERGUSON, GEORGIA RON ESTES. KANSAS GARY ANDRES. MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR The Honorable Charles P. Rettig Commissioner Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC. 20224 Dear Commissioner Rettig: On April 3, 2019, pursuant to my authority under section 6103(f) of the Internal Revenue Code I requested that the Internal Revenue Service furnish certain return and return information by April 10, 2019. As I explained in my earlier letter, that request is in furtherance of consideration by the Committee on Ways and Means (?Committee?) of legislative proposals and 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. I am aware that concerns have been raised regarding my request and the authority of the Committee. Those concerns lack merit. Moreover, judicial precedent commands that none of the concerns raised can legitimately be used to deny the Committee?s request. First, it bears noting that the statutory language of section 6103(t) is unambiguous and raises no complicated legal issues that warrant supervision or review by the Department of the Treasury (?Treasury?) or the Department of Justice (?Justice?). Section 6103(t) commands that ?[u]pon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives . . . the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information speci?ed in such request.? 26 U.S.C. 6103(f)(l) (emphasis added). It is a well- established principle of statutory interpretation that words that are neither terms of at nor statutorily de?ned be given their ordinary meaning. Here, the statute?s use of the ?mandatory ?shall? . . . creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion.? Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes Lerach, 523 US. 26, 35 (1998); see also, e. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 572 US. 489, 509 (2014); Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 US. 438, 461-62 (2002) (courts ?must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.? (internal quotation marks omitted)). Second, there is no valid basis to question the legitimacy of the Committee?s legislative purpose here. The Supreme Couit has instructed that Congress?s power to investigate is ?broad? Commissioner Rettig April 13, 2019 Page 2 and ?encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes.? Watkins v. United States, 354 US. 178, 187 (1957). It is not the proper function of the IRS, Treasury, or Justice to question or second guess the motivations of the Committee or its reasonable determinations regarding its need for the requested tax returns and return information. Indeed, the Supreme Court has consistently noted that the motivations underlying Congressional action are not to be second guessed, even by the courts. Eastland v. US. Servicemen ?s Fund, 421 US. 491, 509 (1975) (?The wisdom of congressional approach or methodology is not open to judicial veto?); Watkins, 354 US. at 200 (?But a solution to our problem is not to be found in testing the motives of committee members for this purpose. Such is not our function?); Barenblatt v. United States, 360 US. 109, 132 (1959) (?So long as Congress acts in pursuance of its constitutional power, the Judiciary lacks authority to intervene on the basis of the motives which spurred the exercise of that Courts have held that, where ?a rational legislative purpose is present for investigating a particular person, organization, or institution[,] [t]here is no requirement that every piece of information gathered in such an investigation be justi?ed before the judiciary.? McSurely v. McClellan, 521 F.2d 1024, 1041 (DC. Cir. 1975); see also Townsend v. United States, 95 F.2d 352, 361 (DC. Cir. 1938). legislative inquiry may be as broad, as searching, and as exhaustive as is necessary to make effective the constitutional powers of Congress.? Townsend, 95 F.2d at 361. Fulthermore, the Supreme Couit has expressly recognized that be a valid legislative inquiry there need be no predictable end result.? Eastland, 421 US. at 509. Third, concerns about what the Committee may do with the tax returns and return information are baseless. As my April, 3rd letter noted, this request falls squarely within the Committee?s oversight authority. It is well?established law in the DC. Circuit that ?[t]he presumption of regularity supports the of?cial acts of public of?cers and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their of?cial duties.? Sussman v. US. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1117 (DC. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted); Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 589 .2d 582, 589 (DC. Cir. 1978) (?committees of Congress will exercise their powers responsibly and with due regard for the rights of affected parties?). In other words, the IRS, Treasury, and Justice must assume that the Committee Members, like all government of?cials, will act properly in the conduct of their of?cial duties. To date, the IRS has failed to provide the requested return and return information despite an unambiguous legal obligation to do so under section 6103(f). I expect a reply from the IRS by 5 :00 pm. on April 23, 2019. Please know that, if you fail to comply, your failure will be interpreted as a denial of my request. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, The Honorable Richard E. Neal, Crhairman