Judge Puts Donald Trump’s IRS Immunity Deal Under a Harsh Spotlight
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Judge Puts Donald Trump’s IRS Immunity Deal Under a Harsh Spotlight

Donald Trump’s $1.8bn tax shield just hit a major roadblock in court. A federal judge voided the president’s IRS immunity deal and referred his attorney for potential disciplinary action.

Donald Trump’s tax-audit shield faces new scrutiny after Kathleen Williams’ order

BBC reports that US District Judge Kathleen Williams voided a legal agreement between President Donald Trump and federal agencies. The deal had granted him immunity from tax audits. It also allowed his administration to create a $1.8bn “anti-weaponization” fund. Williams ruled that Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS served an improper purpose.

The fund aimed to compensate individuals claiming unfair government targeting. Trump unveiled it in May after dropping his personal $10bn lawsuit against the IRS. Williams described the settlement as an effort to “provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law.”

The judge also referred Trump attorney Alejandro Brito to the Florida bar for potential disciplinary action. A second lawyer, Daniel Epstein, now cannot join cases in the Southern District of Florida for a year. Williams wrote the lawsuit “was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute” between Trump and the IRS.

The decision also prevents those involved from citing the settlement in future legal proceedings. This could allow the IRS to move forward with future audits into Trump’s tax claims. A spokesman for Trump’s legal team stated the IRS “wrongly allowed a rogue, politically-motivated employee to leak private and confidential information” to the media.

Tax Law Center Policy Director Brandon DeBot called the agreement a “sweetheart deal” for Trump. He added that the court’s decision “does not remove the need for congressional action to nullify the entire deal.” Plans for the proposed fund had already faced bipartisan criticism before their abandonment in early June.

Originally reported by Vritti Johar on Mandatory.com.

TRENDING
X