Key facts
- Former IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, former Assistant Attorney General Kathryn Keneally, former National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, and former DOJ Tax Division chief Gilbert Rothenberg submitted an amicus brief.
- The brief argues that a settlement granting Trump, his family, and affiliates immunity from IRS claims on prior tax returns violates the Domestic Emoluments Clause.
- The Domestic Emoluments Clause states the president shall receive fixed compensation and cannot gain other financial benefits from the U.S. or any state.
- The settlement, announced May 18, followed Trump's dismissal of a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS for leaking his tax returns.
- A subsequent document signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche barred Trump and affiliates from tax return examinations for all claims prior to May 18, 2026.
- The former officials suggest the Immunity Order is an "unprecedented and breathtakingly improper attempt" to bestow broad immunity.
- They question if the settlement and order were "collusive" and used as a "fig leaf" for illegally achieved immunity.
- The officials argue Blanche lacked authority to grant immunity as circumstances were not referred to DOJ for potential prosecution.
- They state the order would "enshrine two separate tax codes, one for President Trump, his family, and his ‘affiliates,’ and another for every other American."
A group of four former officials from the IRS and Department of Justice (DOJ) have submitted an amicus brief urging a court to scrutinize a recent settlement that granted President Trump, his family, and business affiliates immunity from claims related to their prior tax returns. The former officials, including ex-IRS Commissioner John Koskinen and former Assistant Attorney General Kathryn Keneally, argue that the settlement violates the Domestic Emoluments Clause, a safeguard against the president receiving undue financial benefits.
The brief contends that the agreement, which followed Trump's dismissal of a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, effectively creates a "separate tax code" for the president and his associates, exempting them from scrutiny for all conduct occurring before May 18, 2026. The officials question the legality and collusive nature of the deal, suggesting it was an improper attempt to bestow broad civil and criminal immunity.
They further assert that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who signed the immunity order, lacked the authority to grant such broad protections, particularly since the circumstances were not referred to the DOJ for potential prosecution. The former officials warn that allowing the immunity order to stand would set a dangerous precedent, enabling current and future presidents to avoid tax scrutiny and absolve themselves and their affiliates of wrongdoing.