What did the IRS and DOJ conclude about Trump's tax audits and payments from 2016–2024?
Executive summary
The IRS’s mandatory presidential-audit program largely failed to run on schedule during Trump’s presidency: the agency only began auditing Trump’s 2016 return on April 3, 2019, and reviewers describe the audit program as “dormant, at best” [1] [2] [3]. Separately, reporting and an IRS audit suggest Trump may face a six- or seven‑figure — possibly $100 million‑plus — adjustment tied to Chicago skyscraper losses, though final liability and DOJ conclusions about criminal culpability are not specified in the available sources [4] [5].
1. How the IRS handled the “presidential audit” requirement
Congressional reviews and reporting show the IRS did not consistently perform the kind of full presidential audits its internal rules contemplated: during Trump’s term only the 2016 tax year was designated for the mandatory presidential audit and other years received limited reviews or delayed scrutiny, prompting the House Ways and Means majority to call the process “dormant, at best” [1] [3]. Multiple news outlets and analyses—AP, PBS and the Tax Policy Center—reach similar conclusions about delay and limited scope [1] [2] [3].
2. Timing matters: when audits actually began
The IRS had examined earlier Trump returns before he became president, but it did not select returns filed during his presidency for full review until April 3, 2019, more than two years into his term; congressional investigators flagged that timing and the thin staffing on the matter as notable problems [3] [2]. That lapse undercuts Trump’s repeated public claim that ongoing audits prevented him from releasing his returns, because the formal presidential-audit work was not consistently underway (available sources do not mention a definitive DOJ finding that contradicts this timing).
3. The Chicago skyscraper dispute and potential large bill
Investigative reporting by The New York Times and ProPublica, and subsequent summaries in AP, indicate an IRS audit flagged aggressive use of deductions tied to Trump’s Chicago tower — notably a transfer that produced a reported $168 million loss on which the government contends he “double‑dipped” — and that losing that audit could produce an IRS bill in excess of $100 million including penalties [4] [5]. That reporting describes the audit’s findings and possible exposure but does not report a final, legally binding tax assessment or a court resolution in the sources provided [4].
4. What the DOJ concluded (and what sources do not say)
The supplied reporting documents criminal prosecutions in related matters (for example, the IRS contractor who leaked return data pleaded guilty and was sentenced) but does not contain a DOJ conclusion that Trump criminally evaded taxes or a statement that DOJ declined to pursue criminal charges against him on these specific audit issues [5]. Available sources do not mention a DOJ determination of criminal liability tied to the Chicago tower audit or to the delayed presidential-audit process (not found in current reporting).
5. Political context and competing narratives
House Democrats used the delays to criticize the IRS and to challenge Trump’s public explanations for not releasing returns, while Republican congressional messaging later portrayed the IRS and DOJ as politicized and defended actions like executive orders and staffing changes [1] [6]. Independent analysts and the Tax Policy Center emphasize procedural failure and under-resourcing at the IRS, not direct evidence that Trump intervened to stop audits [3] [2]. These are competing framings present in the sources.
6. Limits of the public record and open questions
The sources document delayed audits, a significant IRS challenge to Trump’s Chicago‑tower losses, and leak prosecutions; they do not document a final IRS assessment that has been litigated to conclusion nor do they record a DOJ verdict establishing tax crimes by Trump on these audit issues [4] [5]. Key unresolved items in the supplied reporting include whether the IRS has finalized assessments, whether any tax court litigation has concluded, and whether DOJ has reached prosecutorial decisions tied to the audit findings (available sources do not mention final assessments or DOJ prosecutorial decisions).
7. Why this matters going forward
The combination of delayed presidential audits and the prospect of a large IRS adjustment underscores two practical points in the sources: gaps in IRS procedures for auditing presidents create transparency and accountability problems [1] [3]; and substantial audit exposure — like the Chicago case — can translate into very large civil tax bills and potential penalties even absent a criminal prosecution [4]. Policymakers and voters should weigh both procedural failures and the substance of audit findings as separate but connected issues [1] [4].
Summary: the available reporting establishes that presidential-audit rules were not fully executed during Trump’s term, that an IRS audit raised the prospect of a $100 million‑plus tax bill over Chicago‑tower deductions, and that the public record in the provided sources does not include a final IRS assessment or a DOJ determination of criminal liability on those items [1] [4] [5].