Is there a law requiring the sharing of tax returns of Presidents of the US/POTUS or candidates for POTUS?

Probably zero...since they do not do there own. Only poor people and cheap dogs like me do our own taxes.

I do, but that's because I have to do mine! LOL

PO1 John Johnson - Given today’s politics I’m not taking that bet, even at 1000-1.

PO1 John Johnson - Sounds like Devin Nunes's investigation. So I'm going to be like republicans and say does it matter where it came from? What matters is what it says. This is what right wing radio said about Hillary's emails.

CPT Adam P. - I thought HRC emails were acquired from a lawsuit from Judicial Watch? That is legal.

SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint - I can't tell if your being sarastic or not, but to answer the question, no, Judical Watch did not get her emails. Russian hackers hacked into the DNC and stole the emails and then they released them through Wikileaks and some other server run by a Russian Intel Officer.

All of that is filled out on the forms a candidate files to get on the ballot. They have to sign under the penalty of perjury that all the information is correct. In Va, they have to be certified by the party as well. So someone from the party signs a form under penalty of perjury that the information submitted about the candidate is accurate. So yes all of that stuff is checked at different levels.

MSgt (Join to see) No, the house does have explicit legal authority to do so and there is a law that gives them that authority. You are right that there is no law that requires the POTUS to publicly release his tax returns but there is 100% a law where the House Ways and Means committee can look at any citizen's tax returns without needing to provide any justification. There is no explicit presidential exception so if the POTUS wants to try and exert some executive exemption that would likely end up being something for the courts to decide.

See section F parts 1 & 2.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103

SPC Kevin Ford - Thanks for the information. Learned something new. :)

CPT Adam P. - I apologize, my fault. I should have made my assumption clearer in my response. I took PFC Lint's comment "That is what I saw, but the news was saying that a new House Committee leader was going to require POTUS tax returns." as a piece of proposed legislation. House rules are not binding on the executive branch, unless they are pieces of passed legislation.
So any committee chairman who wants automatic public release of a candidates tax return is going to have to amend existing law that treats tax returns as privileged information not for release to the public. Amendments to law are subject to approval by both houses and presidential veto.

Capt Gregory Prickett - Boy, you guys are Hellbent on proving that Congress can release President Trump's Tax returns if they so desire. I don't believe that Art. I, § 6, cl.1 even requires committee authorization? Does it?

A Congressman or Senator could offer up the deepest darkest classified secrets of the nation from the floor of his/her house during debate, and the worst that would happen is expulsion from the House or Senate. So if they don't care and they do not mind letting that "Genie out of the bottle," all I ask is please let me get a 30 gallon bucket of cheese popcorn, a case of grape soda, the Lazy Boy in reclined position and the TV tuned in to C-Span to watch the "hammer and tong" of "The Mutually Assured Self Destruction show."

To directly answer everyone's "what ifs," (With apologies to Theodor Geisel)

Would you release them here or there?
Could you release them anywhere?
Would you release them from a house?
Could you release them with a mouse?
Would you release them by the box?
Could you release them near the docks?

YOU COULD! YOU COULD!
You could release them here or there, or anywhere, from a house, with a mouse, by the box, near the docks. You could. you could.

Would you release them here or there?
Could you release them anywhere?
Would you release them with tea?
Could you release them neath a tree?
Would you release them from the grass?
Could you release them in great mass?

YOU COULD! YOU COULD!
You could release them here or there, or anywhere, with some tea, neath a tree, from the grass, in great mass. You could. You could.

Would you release them here or there?
Could you release them anywhere?
Would you release them on your knee?
Could you release them at sea?
Would you release them next a goat?
Could you release them on a boat?

YOU COULD! YOU COULD!
You could release them here or there, or anywhere, on your knee, at sea, next a goat, on a boat. You could. You could.

Would you release them here or there?
Could you release them anywhere?
Would you release them in the park?
Could you release them in the dark?
Would you release them next a wench?
Could you release them on a bench?

YOU COULD! YOU COULD!
You could release them here or there, or anywhere, in the park, in the dark, next a wench on a bench. You could. You could.

You may release them, so you say.
So you say "Release them!" you may.
Release them! Release them any day
Release them! So you can feel okay.

Release them on a bench, next a wench, in the dark, in the park.
Release them on a boat, next a goat, at sea, on your knee.
Release them in great mass, from the grass, neath a tree, with tea.
Release them near the docks, by the box, with a mouse, from a house.

You may release them, so you say.
So you say "Release them!" You may.
Release them! Release them any day
Release them! So you can feel okay.
Release them! So you can feel okay.

Capt Gregory Prickett - Since you did not answer my question, I'll do it for you. Your statement:

"actually, that's incorrect. If the committee authorizes the release to the floor, it can be released publicly by any Congress critter, so long as he or she does it on the floor of the House. See Art. I, § 6, cl.1 ("and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.").

The entire paragraph:
"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

As you can see there is no "If the committee authorizes the release to the floor..." Nothing in the Constitution grants "the committee" authority to release privileged information on the floor for political purpose. The Constitution allows an individual member of the house to do so. Thus removing any cloak of respectability and exposing the partisanship.

The releasing member's party, if in the majority, must then decide to acquiesce and sanction the member, or to suffer the wrath of voters who recognize a cheap political ploy when they see it. It is a risk versus reward analysis. As with Justice Kavanaugh, the Democrats figure their allies from the media can afford them cover and concealment. The problem is the precedent. Every Democrat, and shortly thereafter, every Republican wil l suffer the most outrageous slander from the floor. Unfortunately, the Democrats are so lustful for power that they are completely blind to the law of unintended consequences. The Russians and the Chinese are laughing their asses off.

This is what we get when emotion rather than intellect justifies anything.

Capt Gregory Prickett - Then why did you add the untrue phrase "If the committee authorizes the release to the floor,..."

MSG Stan Hutchison - Where is the bright shiny line? Where can a candidate say "the camel's nose stops here."? I am by no means a birther, but it is a Constitutional requirement that a candidate prove his citizenship, yet candidate/President Obama refused to release his long form birth certificate until April 2011. President Obama claimed to be an academic superstar, yet never released his academic records. And President Obama refused to give his location during the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, or an explanation why he never came to the "war room" during the incident. All of those are legitimate questions I should have answers to when determining for whom I will vote. (All those are rhetorical and admittedly absurd questions.)

Where is the bright shiny line? Should all Federally elected officials be required to publicly release their Tax returns? State and local candidates? Political appointees? SES pay grade government employees. GS grade government employees? Military officers? Enlisted service members? Retiree? Government contractors? Immediate and extended family of all of the above? Any American citizen? (All those are rhetorical and admittedly absurd questions.)

Why does Federal law exclude Tax returns from FOIA requests legally making it "protected information?" Why are you more deserving of privacy than President Trump? Those are NOT a rhetorical questions. You and every other voter are free to draw what conclusions you would from a candidates refusal, give those conclusions the weight you think appropriately and vote accordingly. It appears to me that those who voted for candidate Trump, given the alternative, didn't care, or care enough to vote for their other choices.

Maj John Bell - I believe the line should be when a person is running for a public office in which that person can make decisions that could possibly affect his own personal income.

MSG Stan Hutchison - And how is that reflected one way or another in tax returns prior to ever assuming office?

And you never answered the "not rhetorical" questions:
_Why does Federal law exclude Tax returns from FOIA requests legally making it "protected information?"
_Why are you more deserving of privacy than President Trump?

OK,, to your questions, which have the same answer, as I posed above:
I believe the line should be when a person is running for a public office in which that person can make decisions that could possibly affect his own personal income.

I believe when a person steps into the public, political field, that person is claiming he/she is an honest, reliable person that wants what is best for the nation, not for financial gain for themselves.

Tax returns can show something of that person's ethics and goals. It can also show who that person has dealings with.

Hypothetical: If Donald Trump borrowed large sums of money from a foreign source, I think it is important that the American public are made aware of it. Tax returns may show information such as that.