Mittens keeps saying he has released his 2010 returns. But Josh Marshall notes the returns are missing his FBARs — Form TD F 90-22.1, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts.

Back in 2009, the IRS instituted a major tax amnesty program for folks who had previously secreted money in Swiss and other offshore banks. The amnesty stemmed from a settlement the US government had reached with UBS that year. Those who came forward voluntarily in the prescribed period of time could pay their back taxes, pay their fines but avoid any criminal penalties.

So, did Romney or anyone acting on his behalf or for some entity he controlled take advantage of the 2009 UBS amnesty program? You’ll note the reporter’s question flagged above asked if all FBARs were filed “in a timely fashion.” Malt didn’t address that part of the question. He just said all had been filed. So in addition to the question of the amnesty, were FBARs retroactively filed?

Given the radioactive-ness of the whole Swiss bank account issue I’m a little surprised that this whole thing hasn’t gotten more attention. And I’m also surprised since to the best of my knowledge — hard to prove a negative — Romney or his representatives have never been asked whether he took advantage of the amnesty program.

There are other possibilities — read Josh Marshall’s post for details.

It’s what she said:

Ann Romney dismissed concerns about her husband’s tax returns Thursday, contending that the two of them have “given all you people need to know.”

“You know, you should really look at where Mitt has led his life, and where he’s been financially,” the potential first lady said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “He’s a very generous person. We give 10 percent of our income to our church every year. Do you think that is the kind of person who is trying to hide things, or do things? No. He is so good about it. Then, when he was governor of Massachusetts, didn’t take a salary for four years.”

“We’ve given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and how we live our life,” she added later.

Charles Pierce:

Excuse me?

“You people”?

(Let us pause now to speculate on the megatonnage of faux-outrage that would be unleashed if Michelle Obama referred to the rest of us as “you people.” Fifteen more milligrams, and Rush’d be on the moon.)

Tell me again that this whole political mess isn’t about the fact that Willard doesn’t think conventional rules apply to him, that he never has thought conventional rules applied to him, and that he doesn’t go to bed every night cursing the Founders for not making the presidency a legacy position.

The Politico article linked at the top of the post says that Mormons are required to give ten percent of their income to the Church. Is there any indication that the Romneys support any other nonprofit or charity? Not that I’ve seen.

And I think Charles Pierce is right that Romney doesn’t think the rules apply to him. In all the speculating about what Mittens might be hiding in his tax returns, I want to add one more possibility — that he isn’t hiding anything that we already don’t know or suspect. He just doesn’t think his money is anybody else’s business. A Huffington Post report by Ryan Grim and Abby Hunstman seems to support that conclusion.

Mitt Romney has been determined to resist releasing his tax returns at least since his bid for Massachusetts governor in 2002 and has been confident that he will never be forced to do so, several current and former Bain executives tell The Huffington Post. Had he thought otherwise, say the sources based on their longtime understanding of Romney, he never would have gone forward with his run for president.

Bain executives say they’ve been instructed to keep company and Romney-specific information completely confidential, tightening the lockdown on an already closed company.

Marty Kaplan says it’s not the tax returns; it’s the arrogance.

Romney reeks of entitlement. He thinks it’s up to him to decide whether his financial life should be transparent. It doesn’t even occur to him that he owes this to voters — that it’s an obligation, not an option.

Mr. and Mrs. Mittens seem to think they are entitled to live in the White House just because, and they don’t have to explain why we should trust them. Mittens doesn’t even think he has to present a coherent plan that explains how he intends to govern. We’re just suppose to be able to tell that he’s the superior candidate, somehow.

Mittens gives me the willies.