Decade in the Red: Trump Tax Info Shows Over $1 Billion in Business Losses 1985-1994. (Page 16/20)
randye SEP 30, 10:52 PM

quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon:


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).]

rinselberg OCT 01, 11:08 AM
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, aka "MBS"

quote
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).]

rinselberg OCT 01, 04:55 PM
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.
Hudini OCT 01, 05:16 PM
🐎💩
fierosound OCT 01, 05:25 PM
Trump wouldn't be the first "rich" person who's lost it all and subsequently built their wealth back up.

Meanwhile, the rest of us aren't smart enough to make ourselves rich once...

------------------
My World of Wheels Winners (Click on links below)

3.4L Supercharged 87 GT and Super Duty 4 Indy #163

blackrams OCT 01, 06:06 PM

quote
Originally posted by fierosound:

Trump wouldn't be the first "rich" person who's lost it all and subsequently built their wealth back up.

Meanwhile, the rest of us aren't smart enough to make ourselves rich once...




Hey!! I Resemble that statement. But, I'll have you know, I'm working on my third million dollar plan.

The first two didn't work out so well.

Rams
randye OCT 01, 07:10 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

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).]

blackrams OCT 01, 09:13 PM
For those still interested:

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.

Rams
blackrams OCT 01, 09:17 PM
And then, there's this:

October 1, 2020
New York Times caught naked in bed with Trump's tax strategy, and the New York Sun exposes them
By Monica Showalter
https://www.americanthinker..._strategy_nysun.html


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.

Tax dodges OK for me, but not for thee, see.

Rams
rinselberg OCT 02, 12:41 AM
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.