Aside from the barebones legality or compliance with tax law, a practiced and knowledgable eye sees nuances and subtleties that are woven and embedded deep within the layers of this financial canvas--this modern day work (of monetary art.)
Another brief excerpt from the New York Times:
quote
... the tax records show that Mr. Trump has once again done what he says he regrets, looking back on his early 1990s meltdown: personally guaranteed hundreds of millions of dollars in loans, a decision that led his lenders to threaten to force him into personal bankruptcy.
This time around, he is personally responsible for loans and other debts totaling $421 million, with most of it coming due within four years. Should he win re-election, his lenders could be placed in the unprecedented position of weighing whether to foreclose on a sitting president.
The brashness of the composition cannot be fully appreciated without understanding the details of how it's been created.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-28-2020).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: ... The brashness of the composition cannot be fully appreciated without understanding the nuances of how it's been created.
What I can appreciate is that it's all "spin".
quote
"... This time around, he is personally responsible for loans and other debts totaling $421 million, with most of it coming due within four years. Should he win re-election, his lenders could be placed in the unprecedented position of weighing whether to foreclose on a sitting president.
$421 million of personal debt? Due within four years? So how did the NYT arrive at that? Doesn't sound like something that would be written down in a tax return. (Do tax returns reflect the future, now?)
"Could be"? As far as THAT goes, we could be hit by an asteroid this afternoon. But doubtful.
• The Leftist media keeps blowing smoke up everyone’s butt but there’s never any fire and hasn’t been for 4 YEARS
• Again it's an anonymous source AND the New York Slimes won't produce the actual documents. We’ve seen this too many time now to fall for it again but, as we see right here in this thread, Lefties want to believe it and will.
• To make it all even more ridiculous, the NY Slimes actually claims that President Trump took advantage of a loophole written into law by Obama / Biden that allows him to get refund on taxes from the previous four years based on losses.
"The truth always eventually comes out and it is NEVER what the Leftist media originally told you."........randye
Some folks seem to be upset that DJT Enterprises (or whatever they are called) has managed to reduce their taxes. I can't speak for anyone else but, I consider it my right and duty to legally reduce my taxes to the lowest amount possible. I fully expect the IRS to let me know and in the case of the President, let us know if, he (or his accountants) broke any laws. That hasn't happened.
So, that brings up the point that some folks in this thread obviously have a political bias and are either just stirring the pot or simply enjoy seeing their name lit up. Attention seeking syndrome does signify other issues I'm told. I'm not qualified to make that judgement admittedly.
Using the NYT as a reliable source is also a reach. The rag is obviously a left leaning liberal rag that isn't worth the paper it's printed on if, you're wanting a neutral reporting source.
Those pot stirrers should come back with evidence of wrong doing/illegal activities in reference to this President.
I'm not all that confident President Trump will be re-elected. He's earned my vote. I still don't like or appreciate his personality, his tweeting and a few other things about him but, he's kept or tried to keep all of his pre-election promises and for that, he's earned my vote. YMMV
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-28-2020).]
Some folks seem to be upset that DJT Enterprises (or whatever they are called) has managed to reduce their taxes. Rams
Let me remind that there is absolutely ZERO independent, verifiable, evidence that any of what the New York Slimes is reporting about this is truthful.
No documentation presented.
and
"Anonymous sources" (This has now become the universal indicator for FAKE)
As familiar as most rational, reasonable, people are with this now well travelled road of media innuendo and lies, Leftists have been falling for this crap for 4 YEARS now.
"We finally got him now!"...."This is IT"....."The walls are closing in!"
Morons...and gullible Leftists.....abound.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-28-2020).]
And it doesn't matter whether he did anything, you know, illegal or not. They're still going to b!tch about it.
So why wouldn't Trump give up his tax returns?
"Because **** you! That's why!"
Nobody would know it from all the whining and crying from Leftists, but THERE IS NO FEDERAL LAW that requires candidates or office holders to disclose their tax returns.
Nor should there be.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-28-2020).]
Some folks seem to be upset that DJT Enterprises (or whatever they are called) has managed to reduce their taxes. I can't speak for anyone else but, I consider it my right and duty to legally reduce my taxes to the lowest amount possible. I fully expect the IRS to let me know and in the case of the President, let us know if, he (or his accountants) broke any laws. That hasn't happened.
So, that brings up the point that some folks in this thread obviously have a political bias and are either just stirring the pot or simply enjoy seeing their name lit up. Attention seeking syndrome does signify other issues I'm told. I'm not qualified to make that judgement admittedly.
Using the NYT as a reliable source is also a reach. The rag is obviously a left leaning liberal rag that isn't worth the paper it's printed on if, you're wanting a neutral reporting source.
Those pot stirrers should come back with evidence of wrong doing/illegal activities in reference to this President.
I'm not all that confident President Trump will be re-elected. He's earned my vote. I still don't like or appreciate his personality, his tweeting and a few other things about him but, he's kept or tried to keep all of his pre-election promises and for that, he's earned my vote. YMMV
Ah, the paragraph that I highlighted with MAROON. (The COLOR option can be "hacked" to circumvent the numerical codes for the different text colors with certain color names that the forum software recognizes; among them, "MAROON." It's a convenience. MAROON works well against the white background of the QUOTE format; here, not much good. I would use RED here, instead.)
That is a very ironic statement, coming from Mr "Rams". It's like a tire that's been inflated with too much air--overinflated.
First of all, when I started this thread, I marked it as "Politics" with the checkbox system. That lets some of the surplus "air" out of the statement already. "Rams" is complaining about Politics in a thread that is checkboxed as "Politics." That's the same as a "Karen" going to a liquor bar to protest that alcohol is being served.
As far as the remainder of that statement, "Attention seeking syndrome... bla bla bla." That's like "Trump Derangement Syndrome." A mostly fictional concoction that serves the same purpose as the more straightforward kinds of name calling "You're an idiot. You're a moron. Bla bla bla."
I don't know for sure, but I have an idea about what could have happened to another forum member who became too "generous" over the years with those kinds of statements and admonitions towards some other forum member.
Activity in this Off Topic section of Pennock's has fallen off, compared to how it used to be. There's more than one reason for it. I think it's actually revived to a certain extent since the recent Cliff Pennock declaration of New Forum Rules. But anyone who uses this Off Topic section on a daily basis for expressions that are not about strictly practical matters (like "How do I go about fixing this electrical problem in my garage?") is going to stand out against the background of the very large roster of forum members who, by an overwhelming majority, do not use this Off Topic section on a daily basis for expressions that are not about strictly practical matters.
I think that's a good place to stop.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-28-2020).]
Ah, the paragraph that I highlighted with MAROON. (The COLOR option can be "hacked" to circumvent the numerical codes for the different text colors with certain color names that the forum software recognizes; among them, "MAROON." It's a convenience. MAROON works well against the white background of the QUOTE format; here, not much good. I would use RED here, instead.)
That is a very ironic statement, coming from Mr "Rams". It's like a tire that's been inflated with too much air--overinflated.
First of all, when I started this thread, I marked it as "Politics" with the checkbox system. That lets some of the surplus "air" out of the statement already. "Rams" is complaining about Politics in a thread that is checkboxed as "Politics." That's the same as a "Karen" going to a liquor bar to protest that alcohol is being served.
As far as the remainder of that statement, "Attention seeking syndrome... bla bla bla." That's like "Trump Derangement Syndrome." A mostly fictional concoction that serves the same purpose as the more straightforward kinds of name calling "You're an idiot. You're a moron. Bla bla bla."
I don't know for sure, but I have an idea about what could have happened to another forum member who became too "generous" over the years with those kinds of statements and admonitions towards some other forum member.
Activity in this Off Topic section of Pennock's has fallen off, compared to how it used to be. There's more than one reason for it. I think it's actually revived to a certain extent since the recent Cliff Pennock declaration of New Forum Rules. But anyone who uses this Off Topic section on a daily basis for expressions that are not about strictly practical matters (like "How do I go about fixing this electrical problem in my garage?") is going to stand out against the background of the very large roster of forum members who, by an overwhelming majority, do not use this Off Topic section on a daily basis for expressions that are not about strictly practical matters.
I think that's a good place to stop.
Had I identified you, then you might have a point but, since you volunteered for the job, do with it as you see fit.
I believe you have the option to report this supposed violation to Cliff at your convenience. Be my guest.
I wouldn't categorize my post as complaining about it being political, I simply pointed out the bias in it.
Reference the Attention Seeking Syndrome, if the shoe fits, wear it.
quote
But anyone who uses this Off Topic section on a daily basis for expressions that are not about strictly practical matters (like "How do I go about fixing this electrical problem in my garage?") is going to stand out against the background of the very large roster of forum members who, by an overwhelming majority, do not use this Off Topic section on a daily basis for expressions that are not about strictly practical matters.
Feel free to enlighten me as to how this applies to the opening post......
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-28-2020).]
That's like "Trump Derangement Syndrome." A mostly fictional concoction that serves the same purpose as the more straightforward kinds of name calling "You're an idiot. You're a moron. Bla bla bla."
NO. It does not "serve the same purpose" and neither you or anyone else here, other than Cliff Pennock, has any authority to define for everyone else what is "name calling".
If you don't like a term in common use, especially in political discussion, then I suggest that you avoid those discussions.
Moreover, making veiled threats to other members of this forum by alluding to the fate of other (banned) members, like you just did to "blackrams", sure as hell seems like a reportable offence to me. ................................................................................
NEVER allow a Leftist to try to frame the argument.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-28-2020).]
But anyone who uses this Off Topic section on a daily basis for expressions that are not about strictly practical matters (like "How do I go about fixing this electrical problem in my garage?") is going to stand out against the background of the very large roster of forum members who, by an overwhelming majority, do not use this Off Topic section on a daily basis for expressions that are not about strictly practical matters.
Almost all matters are 'practical matters' unless one believes things like taxes, whomever is in any given political office, politics in general, constitutional rights (and violations of those rights) have no practical value. History has shown that all of those (and many more) do indeed have practical value and often, long lasting effects.
Some folks seem to be upset that DJT Enterprises (or whatever they are called) has managed to reduce their taxes. I can't speak for anyone else but, I consider it my right and duty to legally reduce my taxes to the lowest amount possible. I fully expect the IRS to let me know and in the case of the President, let us know if, he (or his accountants) broke any laws. That hasn't happened.
So, that brings up the point that some folks in this thread obviously have a political bias and are either just stirring the pot or simply enjoy seeing their name lit up. Attention seeking syndrome does signify other issues I'm told. I'm not qualified to make that judgement admittedly.
Using the NYT as a reliable source is also a reach. The rag is obviously a left leaning liberal rag that isn't worth the paper it's printed on if, you're wanting a neutral reporting source.
Those pot stirrers should come back with evidence of wrong doing/illegal activities in reference to this President.
I'm not all that confident President Trump will be re-elected. He's earned my vote. I still don't like or appreciate his personality, his tweeting and a few other things about him but, he's kept or tried to keep all of his pre-election promises and for that, he's earned my vote. YMMV.
Another MAROON check, here.
I'm not clear about whether "Those pot stirrers should come back with evidence..." is a reference to the New York Times, or a reference to me.
I think it's as certain as anything could be that the New York Times will be publishing more about this. If you put aside even larger scale events like "Watergate" or the "Vietnam War", the more or less singular (single) topic of President Trump and the history of his business and personal wealth, financial "stuff" and tax returns is (I believe) the largest investigative-style report in the long history of the New York Times, in terms of how many words about it have already been published.
I doubt that President Trump has actually debunked or refuted any of it. Any significant point that's been raised in this continuing series of reports that goes back to 2017 (I think) with one very long article in particular--the longest single article ever published in the Times.
I don't see that it is necessary for a thing (of whatever kind) to be literally illegal, for a newspaper to hold it up for public scrutiny in this way. Trump has worn out the excuse that he shouldn't release any of his more recent IRS and (or) New York state tax returns because they are "under audit." I don't think that should be held up as an excuse to stand in his way. He ought to have just said "No, I'm not going to do that, because I don't want to do that, and it's not legally required that I do that." If he had wanted to be truthful. He could publish his tax returns, whether they are still being audited or not. It wouldn't interfere with the ongoing process of audit.
I'm looking forward to the next episode in this now long running series from the New York Times, and also, how it will be reported by other newspapers and TV networks. The reporting from the Times, and the reporting about the reporting from the Times.
I haven't even fully digested THIS episode. It's almost an hour's worth of reading (~ Read-o-Meter) to go through it carefully from end to end. I haven't done that.
Can someone please define precisely what law has been broken? If, President Trump or his accountants/tax attorneys broke the law, then I would submit that they (whoever) should be prosecuted. If, the crime is reducing the tax burden to it's lowest possible level, then we're all guilty (again, that assumes it was done illegally). The NYT has consistently been all over Candidate and President Trump, obviously, they don't like him. Remind me again, who owns that rag?
If, the issue is that DJT Enterprises lost money year after year due to real estate issues, it's a tough thing to prove for the IRS. This was emailed to me from a professional CPA.
As a practicing CPA and having taught in a top rated undergraduate program for twenty years I can tell you quite a bit about the American tax system. Real estate investing is one of the most tax advantaged investments that can be made. Taxes due have very little to do with free cash flow from the investments. It is very easy to show tax losses with depreciation and other non-cash expenses that are reported. I have seen many real estate partnerships with billion dollar free cash flows that can still show a net investment loss for income tax purposes. What you haven't seen, and probably wouldn't believe anyway, is how these are more tax deferments that non-taxable transactions. When/if these properties are sold the tax tax bill will be Huge (in your words) in capital gains taxes. If they are never sold, the cash flow will become taxable on an ongoing basis as only the cost basis can be used to offset the income. Once that basis is written off the income becomes taxable. It is a win/win in the long run. Without the tax incentives, most businesspeople would not take the risk of billion dollar investments. If they are not built they would pay any taxes at all. Just ask AOC about who ended up writing that 5 billion dollar check that Amazon was going to pay over the next ten years for the complex that they didn't build in NYC.
If you are going to complain that this is an unfair advantage, make that complaint to congress as they are the ones who write the laws that these returns were filed under. Learn the system before you ***** about someone using it as it was written.
But, so far, no charges have actually been filed, only accusations and allegations of wrong doing by a very biased news source and the opposing party. Tell me this isn't about this election.. With today's biased media and so many sheep wiling to follow the leader right into the slaughter pen, I'll be greatly surprised if any proof is ever brought to the public view. The allegation is enough for some. Provide us with some evidence of guilt then prosecute.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-28-2020).]
Can someone please define precisely what law has been broken?
Rams
Sure.
IF anything that the New York Slimes has said is actually truthful and based on the President's actual tax returns, then someone at the IRS has criminally disclosed personal and confidential tax information.
IF that is what happened, I hope that the perpetrator is found, prosecuted and goes to federal prison for a long time. 26 U.S. Code § 7213 (a) Returns and return information (1) Federal employees and other persons
It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States or any person described in section 6103(n) (or an officer or employee of any such person), or any former officer or employee, willfully to disclose to any person, except as authorized in this title, any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)). Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable upon conviction by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution, and if such offense is committed by any officer or employee of the United States, he shall, in addition to any other punishment, be dismissed from office or discharged from employment upon conviction for such offense.
Is that precise enough?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-29-2020).]
The most "arresting" revelation from this reporting by the New York Times is the amount of debt--more than $400 million--that is on President Trump's balance sheet, and debt that he has signed on with personal responsibility. So it's not just business loans. It's business loans that Donald J. Trump has signed on the line to declare himself personally liable, if the Trump World Enterprises (or whatever the official nomenclature) cannot meet the repayment obligations of these loans.
Timothy ("Tim") O'Brien, the author of TrumpNation (The Art of Being the Donald), has ventured that Trump's loan repayment obligations are even much higher--more than $1 billion.
President Trump can dismiss this as "fake news" but that doesn't cut any ice with me. If President Trump wants to knock down these assertions about how much he is actually "leveraged"--the amount of debt that he has taken on--he could release the kind of documentation that would knock down these assertions. He could go public with more details about his debt--about what persons or entities he has borrowed from.
He could--but I'm not holding my breath.
Or maybe it's all very anodyne ("nothing to see here, folks") and he plans to go public with the details and confirming documentation as an "October surprise."
That would really be a surprise to me.
I have to wonder about a serving President with these kinds of repayment obligations (which he has not yet debunked or contradicted) on his balance sheet. Obligations that come due during what would be his second term as President.
I want to wrap this up, so I am going to go with an analogy that could only come from someone who's in the habit of following the KMOX Radio broadcasts of the St Louis Cardinals, LLC. Major League Baseball's long standing (over 120 years) St Louis National League franchise.
Matt Carpenter is "The Count of 3 and 2" in the same way as (President) Donald J. Trump is "Conflict of Interest."
"Maryville University. Many connections. One you."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-29-2020).]
...this morning my feed is filled with people who don’t know **** about taxes retweeting the stupid opinions of other morons who also don’t know **** about taxes. This is just as annoying as last week when these same idiots all suddenly became Constitutional Scholars. Or the month before that when they were all experts on use of force laws and police tactics. Or the month before that when they suddenly got their epidemiology degrees from the University of Internet and turned into infectious disease experts.
Holy **** , you Dunning-Krugerands are annoying. Of course the comments are all about the “morality” of paying your “fair share”. Which isn’t how any of this works in real life. Just stop it with your vapid hot takes already. You clearly have a child-like grasp of a complex topic, and your words are making America dumber.
As a former accountant, please allow me to explain why all of today’s newly formed tax experts are ****ing morons, and we should metaphorically put a brick in a sock and beat them over the head with it until they shut up.
I’m going to keep this blog post simple. I’m not going to get into any of the specifics of the leaked Trump taxes. Why? Because:
We don’t know how full of **** the NYT is, and you don’t do taxes based on rumors and innuendo. You do taxes based upon financial statements and the company’s books. This **** is super complicated and my happy ass is retired and likes getting paid more money to write books instead of reading through thousands of pages of IRS regs. So big picture time…
First off, “morality” doesn’t have jack **** to do with taxation. You pay what you legally owe. Nobody willingly pays the government more than they legally owe.
This has always been this way since America has had income taxes. There is endless court precedent. You pay what you legally owe. That’s it. If you pay less than you legally owe, then the government will fine or imprison you. If you pay more than you legal owe, the government will laugh and laugh, because you are an idiot, and you deserve to be poor.
Every single person who barks about how somebody else should be paying more? They themselves are paying the minimum they can get away with. As they should. As should you.
I remember when I was taking my first tax class back in college. This class was all accounting majors by this point. At the beginning of the semester the professor (who’d had a long career as a tax guy) gave us an imaginary family as our clients and had us do their taxes. One kid didn’t take advantage of all the obvious deductions for his clients. When the professor asked why, the kid said some mushy thing about how he didn’t think it was FAIR to keep that money from the government… Holy **** . The professor ripped this kid a new ******* . HOW DARE YOU!?! IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S MONEY! IT IS YOUR CLIENT’S MONEY. YOU OWE THEM YOUR BEST! IT IS YOUR SACRED DUTY TO SAVE THEIR MONEY! YOU DISGUST ME AND YOU SHOULD NEVER BE A CPA!
That class was one of my favorites.
Basically, you pay what you owe, no more, and anyone who claims otherwise is full of **** .
Second, “loopholes” is a term most often used by people who don’t understand accounting or tax law, to complain about how somebody else used the existing laws created by congress to pay less than what that person thinks is “fair.” Regular people have heard the bullshit term loopholes tossed around so much that they start to believe that it is some magical easy button that rich guys can just push that makes it so they don’t have to pay taxes.
Nope. They’re just laws. These “loopholes” exist because at some point in time congress (both democrat and republican both!) decided that they wanted to promote some type of behavior or discourage some other behavior. So they basically put a reward into the law saying if you do this thing we like, you’ll pay less taxes! Or the opposite, congress wanted to discourage some behavior, so if you do that thing we don’t want, it will cost you more.
Both sides have done this forever, state and federal. We want you to drive electric cars so if you buy an electric car you get a tax break this year. YAY! Uh oh, we want you to stimulate the economy by buying this kind of machinery faster, so you have to depreciate your assets this other way or you’ll pay more! BOO! You get a discount for paying your employees health insurance, YAY! Oh, wait… Not that kind of health insurance. BOO!.
So on and so forth, up and down, these perks come and go, all based upon whatever behavior congress is trying to promote at that time (or what favors they are doing for their friends). Why was mortgage interest deductible? Because at one point congress said “we really want people to own houses!” Even regular people have things that are considered “loopholes” to somebody.
So when the blue check mark journalism major (who probably dropped out of PoliSci because “there’s too much math”) declares that it is immoral that some rich dude didn’t pay his fair share because he used loopholes, those are basically a bunch of meaningless buzz words strung together to prey on the feelings of the gullible.
Joe Biden has been making **** like this up for forty something years now. Congress meddles in business and your personal lives to try to steer outcomes. And as a result the tax law just keeps getting bigger and bigger, and more complicated and confusing, until it is the bloated leviathan we have today.
How big is the US tax code? NOBODY KNOWS! (and I’m only partially kidding with that answer, because there’s thousands of pages of actual laws, and I don’t think anybody can actually pin down how many thousands of pages there are of supporting documentation and IRS regs and findings that translate those broad laws into the nitty-gritty real world application accountants have to deal with).
It is this complexity that makes it hard to figure out what anyone actually owes. The more complicated your affairs, the more of these laws you run into, the more “loopholes” you may be able to take advantage of.
We’ve already determined, nobody willingly pays more than they owe. The real problem is determining what you actually legally owe. And this is where it gets sticky. Because the laws are very complex, the more complicated your finances, the more likely you are to have confusion over your taxes.
Let me give you an example. I can’t remember the exact details because this was over 20 years ago, but when I was getting my accounting degree we learned about this challenge someone did, where they got something like a hundred different tax preparers, ranging from Big 5 (back then)firms, medium size firms, small firms, individual CPAs, TurboTax, H&R Block, the works… to do the taxes of the same hypothetical family of five. This family had a small business, some investments, some rental property, so on and so forth, but nothing super complicated. Then they had the hundred different preparers do their taxes… And they got a hundred different answers of what they owed that year. And each of those answers could be argued as being correct… And yet each of those answers could also be determined as wrong by an IRS auditor.
Sometimes there is confusion about what can or cannot be deducted. Some things are clear. Others are questionable. Some things the IRS has clearly stated are good to go, others you make your best guess, and then hope the auditor doesn’t disagree. There is an old tax preparer saying, pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
Which brings us to today, with people freaking out about how Trump allegedly didn’t pay taxes for 10 out of 15 years and how that’s UNFAIR. Assuming that the anonymous tip isn’t total bullshit—and this is the New York Times we’re talking about and they love to just make **** up—and that the information is accurate (which means that whoever leaked it committed a felony, but that’s a whole different discussion)… my answer is so?
Is it plausible that a billionaire paid no taxes for a period of several years? Yep. Totally. See all that stuff I wrote above about the complicated tax code and how it is an accountant’s sacred duty to take advantage of all the stupid laws congress has passed to save their client’s money? Pretty much that. It has happened many times before, and it will happen many times again.
One thing that’s really unfair about our tax system is that it is rigged in favor of people who have more resources. Government meddling makes it more costly to conduct business. The more complicated the regulatory burden, the more smaller companies can’t compete. Make the laws complicated enough and the only companies that stay in business are the ones who can afford to pay for twenty guys like me. (my last regular accounting job paid extremely well, and nearly everything I did was jump through government mandated hoops, filling out government mandated paperwork which nobody in the government would probably ever read)
Trump has those resources. I bet he’s got a room full of accountants, and their leader is probably a grizzled old CPA with an eye patch and a raven who sits on his shoulder. The raven also has an eye patch and an accounting degree. This man has wrestled bears, and he’s going to take advantage of every tax break in the US Code for his client, and do so gleefully, knowing that many of those laws were signed by Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.
On the other side, you know damned good and well that the IRS has sent their most fearsome auditor against him. This man sold his soul to the devil, and then fined the devil for failing to list that soul as a depreciable asset. When he shows up to audit your company, he appears a flash of fire and brimstone, as a Finnish death metal band plays his theme song. He is an auditor bereft of mercy, compassion, or pity, and beneath his leathery wings serve a legion of IRS goblins, who will crawl into every nook and cranny of the Trump Corporation’s P&L looking for errors, and if a mouse so much as shits a turd large enough to unbalance that ledger, there will be hell to pay.
Is it unfair that rich guys can employ Gandalf level CPAs and take advantage of more complicated tax laws, while regular people use TurboTax? Yep. But in the meantime, as long as those tax laws are there, the rich guys would be utter fools not to take advantage of them.
I recall a similar freak out several years ago when it came out that some giant mega-corp (I think it was GE, but I don’t remember) didn’t pay any taxes due to some Obama green energy tax breaks. Only that time the freak out was coming from the right (who hate Obama) and the Bernie Bros (who hate all business). It’s the same kind of thing though. If the laws are on the books, of course companies (and individuals) are going to take advantage of those laws. THAT IS WHY CONGRESS PUT THEM THERE.
Now, it is perfectly okay to get mad at congress for writing stupid laws and needlessly complicating everything with their endless meddling. But it’s stupid to get mad at the people for obeying the laws that are in place.
If it comes out that Trump broke the law, then it goes back to that soulless abomination from the IRS (which again, I say with all due respect, Mr. Auditor Sir, please don’t hurt me) to hook his ebony talons into the Trump Corp’s meaty flank, to pull it down and feast upon the carcass.
Why yes… During the course of my accounting career I did go through several audits with various government agencies. Why do you ask? 😀 (that said, the IRS auditing the various corporations I worked for was always way nicer than being audited by the DCAA. What a ****ing nightmare cluster**** that organization is. I’ve been through ATF audits and they were way better than the DCAA. Though for pure incompetent malfeasance, the SBA still takes the cake.)
That’s how it works. On one side CPAs, and the other, hellspawn audit demons, and they’ll argue, and battle, and go to court over what is and is not owed to the government, and then the client will pay what is legally owed plus any applicable fines and penalties (and not a dime more). Both sides of this titanic eternal struggle are far smarter than anyone at the New York Times and they have access to the actual financial data, unlike all the blue check mark idiots on Twitter who are whinging on today about their feelings. Barf.
Your feelings don’t mean **** . Same as the rest of us, Trump owes what he owes. And the IRS will determine if that number is accurate or not.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 09-29-2020).]
Some people seem to be overlooking the fact that if The President of the United States personally owes a foreign country millions in debt, that puts this country in a very compromising position. So much so, that you cannot even become President bringing that kind personal foreign debt with you.
And that's why he's been hiding his returns all this time. He's a lair, a cheat, and a scam artist. His only skill is mesmerizing the stupid.
Actually, i'm pulling for another 4 years! I'm really interested on just how far morons will chase a dollar-on-a-string...and the look on their face when it finally dawns on them. And it will, eventually.
Besides, how many chances in a lifetime do you get to witness the The Fall of Rome/The Civil War/The Death of Democracy? It's all up to us.
Some people seem to be overlooking the fact that if The President of the United States personally owes a foreign country millions in debt, that puts this country in a very compromising position. So much so, that you cannot even become President bringing that kind personal foreign debt with you.
And that's why he's been hiding his returns all this time. He's a lair, a cheat, and a scam artist. His only skill is mesmerizing the stupid.
Actually, i'm pulling for another 4 years! I'm really interested on just how far morons will chase a dollar-on-a-string...and the look on their face when it finally dawns on them. And it will, eventually.
Besides, how many chances in a lifetime do you get to witness the The Fall of Rome/The Civil War/The Death of Democracy? It's all up to us.
Come on Boonie, don't hide yer feelings about this, it's good to let it our once in a while.........
In 2018 ... Mr. Trump announced in his [required Presidential financial] disclosure that he had made at least $434.9 million. The tax records deliver a very different portrait of his bottom line: $47.4 million in losses.
Did someone simply forget about the Trump Tower Moscow pre-construction depreciation allowance? The DNC emails server hacking alternative minimum tax? The sanctioned foreign oligarch early withdrawal penalty?
There has to be an innocent explanation.
"Long-concealed records show Trump's chronic losses and years of tax avoidance" Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig and Mike McIntire for the New York Times; September 27, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/int...ight&pgtype=Homepage
Read-o-Meter: 10,200 words and 51 minutes of reading.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-30-2020).]
The NYT article shows just how much everyone understands about taxes and real estate. Another big nothing burger. The funniest part is Pelosi complaining Trump used the tax code to avoid or lessen his owed taxes when he used parts of the code passed by the Democrats when they controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency. Simply comedy gold.
Then the real estate experts on here trying to say owing money to a foreign bank for your real estate makes you their puppet. The absolute lack of understanding how real estate and investing works is deafening.
The absolute lack of understanding how real estate and investing works is deafening.
Not really. The deafness know-it-alls tend to experience on a regular basis is due to the scientific fact that sound doesn't travel well through the meaty flesh surrounding the repository one chooses to keep their head in.
Originally posted by Boondawg: Not really. The deafness know-it-alls tend to experience on a regular basis is due to the scientific fact that sound doesn't travel well through the meaty flesh surrounding the repository one chooses to keep their head in.
The New York Times has decided not to publish any images of the documents (tax returns) in order to protect the anonymity of their source, who was in legal possession of the documents. Possession, but I wonder if it was also legal for that person to share the documents with NYT reporters?
According to what was said on air, on TV. Maybe it's right there in the NYT report, but I got that from TV coverage.
I hope that can be changed. I want to see some images of the documents. Something really tangible to back up the NYT reporting.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-30-2020).]
The New York Times has decided not to publish any images of the documents (tax returns) in order to protect the anonymity of their source, who was in legal possession of the documents. Possession, but I wonder if it was also legal for that person to share the documents with NYT reporters?
According to what was said on air, on TV. Maybe it's right there in the NYT report, but I got that from TV coverage.
I hope that can be changed. I want to see some images of the documents. Something really tangible to back up the NYT reporting.
So would the rest of this country.
The NYT has been on President Trump's back since the beginning. I believe they were also the first to publish the Russian Hoax. They simply have no credibility. I might believe their weather forecast if, they got it from an outside source, maybe.
If, the IRS's IG figures out that someone actually did provide those documents to the NYTs, someone is going to jail.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-30-2020).]
The New York Times has decided not to publish any images of the documents (tax returns) in order to protect the anonymity of their source, who was in legal possession of the documents. Possession, but I wonder if it was also legal for that person to share the documents with NYT reporters?
According to what was said on air, on TV. Maybe it's right there in the NYT report, but I got that from TV coverage.
I hope that can be changed. I want to see some images of the documents. Something really tangible to back up the NYT reporting.
After 4 LONG YEARS of sucking up and repeating almost every imaginable fraud, lie, innuendo, fakery, fairytale and pile of absolute steaming horse crap from the New York Slimes and every other Leftist media sewer, NOW is an odd time to suddenly be wanting ACTUAL EVIDENCE and verifiable corroboration.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-30-2020).]
Some people seem to be overlooking the fact that if The President of the United States personally owes a foreign country millions in debt, that puts this country in a very compromising position. So much so, that you cannot even become President bringing that kind personal foreign debt with you.
And that's why he's been hiding his returns all this time. He's a lair, a cheat, and a scam artist. His only skill is mesmerizing the stupid.
Actually, i'm pulling for another 4 years! I'm really interested on just how far morons will chase a dollar-on-a-string...and the look on their face when it finally dawns on them. And it will, eventually.
Besides, how many chances in a lifetime do you get to witness the The Fall of Rome/The Civil War/The Death of Democracy? It's all up to us.
If you have ever had a loan or currently have a loan you could own money to a foreign bank. Loans get sold all the time.
If you have ever had a loan or currently have a loan you could own money to a foreign bank. Loans get sold all the time.
Before I paid off my home mortgage last December, (20 years early), the note was owned by Deutsche Bank of Germany.
Prior to it being sold to Deutsche Bank it was owned by UBS AG, Switzerland.
Prior to it being sold to UBS AG it was owned by RBS, Scotland
Knowledge of how real estate backed securities are traded goes right along with the average person being totally ignorant of business tax matters. They just make their monthly payment to the mortgage servicer, (which most people think is "the bank"), and that's the limit of their knowledge and concern.
Unfortunately, many Americans have the idealized and wrong notion that things are still like the old movie "It's a Wonderful Life" where the local Savings and Loan holds the note on their house.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-01-2020).]
My sources tell me that President Trump is on the hook for $137 million to Bank of America.
American, friend of Jared Kushner
quote
Your sources are well placed.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, aka "MBS"
quote
What if $137 million were to be transferred today to an account for one of President Trump's innumerable shell corporations? Let's say for "consulting services."
American, friend of Jared Kushner
quote
That would be most convenient, your excellency.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, aka "MBS"
quote
Then so it shall be. By the way, there's another one of those pesky journalists that needs to be kidnapped and cut up into little pieces with a bone saw for the good of the Kingdom. I don't think the U.S. State Department will have any problem with that. Do you?
American, friend of Jared Kushner
quote
Not at all. Secretary Pompeo and President Trump are as close as peas in a pod when it comes to doing right by the Kingdom.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, aka "MBS"
quote
Inshallah.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-01-2020).]
That (conversation between "MBS" and American, friend of Jared Kushner) is an allegory.
It's about the possibilities that monetary indebtedness creates, regardless of which particular bank or other entity or person(s) owns the debt.
It's about an overridingly transactional or Quid Pro Quo personality, understanding that in reality, the Quid Pro Quo would likely be more subtle and circuitous than the fictional example of this allegory.
More subtle and circuitous--but not something I would want to see from a President of the United States.
That (conversation between "MBS" and American, friend of Jared Kushner) is an allegory.
It's about the possibilities that monetary indebtedness creates, regardless of which particular bank or other entity or person(s) owns the debt.
It's about an overridingly transactional or Quid Pro Quo personality, understanding that in reality, the Quid Pro Quo would likely be more subtle and circuitous than the fictional example of this allegory.
More subtle and circuitous--but not something I would want to see from a President of the United States.
In the complete absence of any evidence, corroboration, supporting documentation or any connection to objective reality, you now write:
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-01-2020).]
Dick Morris: Trump Did Not Avoid Taxes, He Prepaid Them
Contrary to the false impression in the New York Times story, Donald Trump did not avoid taxes. He prepaid them.
In 2016 and 2017, he requested and got an extension to file his returns. As required, he made an estimated tax payment of $1 million in 2016 and $4.2 million in 2017.
Then, it turned out that he did not owe that much in taxes, but rather than demand the money back, he let the IRS keep it and apply it to any future tax he owed.
So when he only paid $750 in taxes for the first two years of his presidency, it was because he had already overpaid during the two previous years and just reduced his payment by that amount.
Over the longer term, Trump overpaid his taxes by $72 million. Because some of that overpayment was more than two years earlier, he was not allowed to offset it against current taxes.
But Obama changed the law to allow taxpayers to go further back and he offset his tax liability in future years by citing his overpayment.
So Donald Trump did not avoid paying taxes; he prepaid them.
So what is wrong with that?
Many taxpayers overpay or have more withheld from their paychecks than they end up owing in taxes. They look forward to a deserved refund each year. Some even use the process as a way of saving money.
All that Trump did differently was to leave the money at the IRS and take the refund over several years. A government strapped for cash should reward such conduct, not vilify it.
And since no good deed goes unpunished in politics, he is also being skewered for taking a charitable tax deduction of $119 million for agreeing not to build homes on a 200-acre plot in Westchester, New York, and a similar one in Los Angeles.
In each case, Trump bought the property planning to build a golf course and homes on them. Both times, the local zoning board refused to allow the development.
So Trump donated the right to develop this land to charity and took a deduction of $119 million, called a charitable easement.
So now the beautiful land in each location will be preserved forever wild as a place of refuge for people, birds and animals.
Beyond these points, several facts emerge:
1. Trump never used any illegal means to reduce his tax liability. He always followed the law.
2. He never used his power as president to get the IRS to pull its punches even though he appoints the director who serves at his pleasure.
3. He took advantage of every way to cut his tax burden. Do you know any taxpayer who doesn’t?
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Now, here's some old-school shoe-leather investigative reporting the New York Times probably didn't anticipate after it published its stolen-documents exposé about President Trump's bad, bad tax returns, coming from the green-eyeshade mavens at its tiny rival, the New York Sun.
In Ira Stoll's report, headlined "Guess How the Times Knows So Much About Tax Losses Trump Uses," the Times is exposed for doing the exact same things that President Trump did on his taxes, in a report that leaves its piety in smoking ruins. Hypocrite much?
The brilliant piece begins with this:
The New York Times' investigation of President Trump says the president used big tax losses in some years to avoid paying taxes in others, that he invested some of his profits into money-losing businesses, and that Mr. Trump paid his daughter as "a way to transfer assets to his children."
In addition, it says that Mr. Trump's businesses are propped up by foreign revenue and that Mr. Trump "has written off as business expenses costs — including fuel and meals — associated with his aircraft, used to shuttle him among his various homes and properties."
The Times ought to know — because the New York Times Company and the Ochs-Sulzberger family that control it have done the same things.
What follows is a brutal takedown of classic Grade-A media hypocrisy, in what was obviously some research done for years, a careful reading of the tiny line items of the Times' tax returns showing that they were doing the exact same things Trump does. It's a heck of a damning report.
It was done by someone who knows hell-all about tax returns and writes so crisply and clearly that even a layman can understand it. Stoll is a brilliant writer and extremely well versed in economics, but if we had to guess, the Sun's founder and editor-in-chief, Seth Lipsky, probably had a research hand in it, too. Lipsky is an ex–Wall Street Journal ace who knows how to ask questions and has been doing that for decades. Here's just the front of it:
The New York Times Company had a loss of about $58 million in 2008, and its 2009 annual report disclosed a net income tax "benefit" of nearly $6 million that year. The annual report says, "State tax operating loss carryforwards ('loss carryforwards') totaled $13.5 million as of December 27, 2009 and $9.5 million as of December 28, 2008. Such loss carryforwards expire in accordance with provisions of applicable tax laws and have remaining lives generally ranging from 4 to 20 years."
Similarly, in 2006, the New York Times Company was in trouble. Its stock price had tumbled to a low of $21.58 in that year from a high of $40.80 in 2005. The company reported an annual loss for 2006 of $543 million. The Times 2006 annual report says the company's "effective income tax rate was 3.0% because the majority of the non-cash impairment charge of $814.4 million at the New England Media Group is non-deductible for tax purposes."
Speaking of the New England Media Group, it is to the Ochs-Sulzberger family what loss-producing golf courses are to the Trump family. The Times Company bought the Boston Globe for $1.1 billion in 1993, added the Worcester Telegram & Gazette for $295 million in 1999, and sold them both to Boston Red Sox owner John Henry for $70 million in 2013.
Like Mr. Trump, the Times Company has even dabbled in the golf sector: The Times Company bought Golf Digest magazine in 1969 for between $3 and $4 million, then sold it in 2001.
The Times makes a big investigative scandal about President Trump's businesses paying his sons and his daughter Ivanka, describing it as a way around the gift tax. Less than a week before the Times published its investigative report, it issued a press release: "the New York Times Company today announced that Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., 69, will retire as chairman and a member of its Board of Directors on Dec. 31, 2020 and will be succeeded as chairman by A.G. Sulzberger, 40, Times publisher since 2018. Mr. Sulzberger Jr. will assume the title chairman emeritus."
Then it gets into even more minute and venal details, with example after example around the world, all mirroring the actions they piously charge President Trump with questionably doing. There's all kinds of wild stuff about Singapore subsidiaries, and China partners, and "forgotten" to mention stock transfers that the Times would have raked Trump over the coals for had he somehow forgotten instead. The report makes the Times look downright shady in its tax dealings even as the Times points the finger at Trump, who, like the paper, had done only what the law allowed — and whose returns were illegally leaked.
This business with the NYT (New York Times) is not a courtroom proceeding against Donald J. Trump or "DJT Enterprises."
NYT reports that there are large discrepancies... well, here:
quote
In 2018 ... Mr. Trump announced in his [required Presidential financial] disclosure that he had made at least $434.9 million. The tax records deliver a very different portrait of his bottom line: $47.4 million in losses.
From the same NYT article:
quote
... the tax records show that Mr. Trump has once again done what he says he regrets, looking back on his early 1990s meltdown: personally guaranteed hundreds of millions of dollars in loans, a decision that led his lenders to threaten to force him into personal bankruptcy.
This time around, he is personally responsible for loans and other debts totaling $421 million, with most of it coming due within four years. Should he win re-election, his lenders could be placed in the unprecedented position of weighing whether to foreclose on a sitting president.
The article paints a picture of a man at the head of a family controlled business empire, from which he has never seriously divested himself to avoid the inevitable Conflicts of Interest as President, and a business empire which is very highly "leveraged", in terms of the loan debts on its balance sheets, vs revenue and assets. Loans that the President has personally guaranteed. Loans that come due during what would be his second term as President.
Has President Trump ever done anything to dispel this narrative? Anything since he was elected President in 2016? Anything more recently? Is he doing anything now to dispel this narrative? Has he put out some more complete and credible financial disclosures that I just happen to be unaware of because my eyes and ears are in the wrong place, in terms of the "media"..? Tell me about it. I've seen some clips on MSNBC of the familiar FOX News commentators (Sean Hannity, Judge Janine, ...) gassing off about what a "great performance" from President Trump at Tuesday night's debate. Not a dollars-worth of documentation to be had there, about Trump and his personal and business-related debts and assets.
President Trump has highlighted the Constitutional or statute law arguments that the President of the United States is not subject to any of the Conflict of Interest restrictions that are in effect (or should be in effect) for almost all other federal employees.
That's not a sensible argument to vote him a second term, for the Conflict Of Interest-wary voters among us.
I really have to laugh at the shallowness of the "dissing" of the New York Times reporting on this, from the Pennock's forum's "usual suspects."
I hope that "cvxjet" (remember him?) is hanging out here as a "lurker" to see this. Him and a few others, in particular.
With today's biased media and so many sheep wiling to follow the leader right into the slaughter pen, I'll be greatly surprised if any proof is ever brought to the public view. The allegation is enough for some. 
