here's why trump didn't release his taxes

[del]

Donald J. Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/donald-trump?inline=nyt-per) proudly acknowledges he did not pay a dime (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html) in federal income taxes for years on end. He insists he merely exploited tax loopholes legally available to any billionaire — loopholes he says Hillary Clinton failed to close during her years in the United States Senate. “Why didn’t she ever try to change those laws so I couldn’t use them?” Mr. Trump asked during a campaign rally last month.

But newly obtained documents show that in the early 1990s, as he scrambled to stave off financial ruin, Mr. Trump avoided reporting hundreds of millions of dollars in taxable income by using a tax avoidance maneuver so legally dubious his own lawyers advised him that the Internal Revenue Service (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/internal_revenue_service/index.html?inline=nyt-org) would most likely declare it improper if he were audited.

Tax experts who reviewed the newly obtained documents for The New York Times said Mr. Trump’s tax avoidance maneuver, conjured from ambiguous provisions of highly technical tax court rulings, clearly pushed the edge of the envelope of what tax laws permitted at the time. “Whatever loophole existed was not ‘exploited’ here, but stretched beyond any recognition,” said Steven M. Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center who helped draft tax legislation in the early 1990s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[resister]

If he did anything illegal I imagine hillary would be all over it,did he?

[FindersKeepers]

Since Trump Industries has been under "perpetual audit" for decades, any tax maneuvers sought by Trump's accountants were obviously legit.

And that's what smart people do after all -- hire accountants to do their taxes. If those accountants are worth their merit, they'll take every deduction allowed by the IRS in order to benefit their client.

No one in their right mind pays the IRS a dime more than they have to.

[FindersKeepers]

If he did anything illegal I imagine hillary would be all over it,did he?

From del's link:


It is impossible to know for sure because Mr. Trump has declined to release his tax returns, or even a summary of his returns, breaking a practice followed by every Republican and Democratic presidential candidate for more than four decades.

Just more pointy-hat stuff.

[hanger4]

Lawdy

"exploited legally" Seriously ??

And this "Thanks to this one maneuver, which was later outlawed by Congress" Seriously ??

NYT's piss poor hit piece. You've be duped del.

Big shocking expose. NOT. The story is a business taking advantage of favorable tax codes just as countless others did.

[DGUtley]

The D's had unfettered control over Congress from 08 to 10. They could've changed this but elected not to. So..., he's being criticized for doing what the law allowed?

D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-I-O-N. a state of despair, typically one that results in rash or extreme behavior.

Let's see what they throw at him between now and Monday night.

[del]

The D's had unfettered control over Congress from 08 to 10. They could've changed this but elected not to. So..., he's being criticized for doing what the law allowed?

D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-I-O-N. a state of despair, typically one that results in rash or extreme behavior.

Let's see what they throw at him between now and Monday night.


the law was changed in 1993 according to the article

you're welcome

[DGUtley]

the law was changed in 1993 according to the article. you're welcome

Now you're being naïve. Trump doesn't make these decisions, he has a bank of accountants that do this. They had a reason for taking these actions (if what you say is true) otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

[del]

Now you're being naïve. Trump doesn't make these decisions, he has a bank of accountants that do this. They had a reason for taking these actions (if what you say is true) otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

how am i being naive by pointing out the law changed in 1993?

trump's actions were taken before the law was changed.


But newly obtained documents show that in the early 1990s, as he scrambled to stave off financial ruin, Mr. Trump avoided reporting hundreds of millions of dollars in taxable income by using a tax avoidance maneuver so legally dubious his own lawyers advised him that the Internal Revenue Service (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/internal_revenue_service/index.html?inline=nyt-org) would most likely declare it improper if he were audited.


protip: read, then comment

[DGUtley]

how am i being naive by pointing out the law changed in 1993? trump's actions were taken before the law was changed. protip: read, then comment

My mistake, I apologize. DGU.

[Docthehun]

Now you're being naïve. Trump doesn't make these decisions, he has a bank of accountants that do this. They had a reason for taking these actions (if what you say is true) otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

In the world of accounting and I assume the world of law as well, they're are those willing to test the limits and the good ones attract a certain clientele who's sole desire is to see where's the line in the sand. In the case of Trump, I suspect that his yearly audits are as much to do with his CPA firm as Trump himself. While it is true that high earners have a higher rate of audit frequency, some within that class warrant yearly review (if you know what I mean).

[Docthehun]

My mistake, I apologize. DGU.

Four Gold Stars Counselor. I make plenty of mistakes, I do a lot. I learned early on, fess up and move on. Too bad most politicians either didn't learn or have forgotten the wisdom of honesty.

[DGUtley]

In the world of accounting and I assume the world of law as well, they're are those willing to test the limits and the good ones attract a certain clientele who's sole desire is to see where's the line in the sand. In the case of Trump, I suspect that his yearly audits are as much to do with his CPA firm as Trump himself. While it is true that high earners have a higher rate of audit frequency, some within that class warrant yearly review (if you know what I mean).

I see it all the time. Clients that play fast and loose with OSHA rules and get sued b/c their employees get hurt / or contractors that play fast and loose with the consumer sales rules and consequently get sued as well as opposed to clients that really try to do the right thing and happen to get sued. Some look it as 'it's coming so why comply' and others take it personally and seriously.


Four Gold Stars Counselor. I make plenty of mistakes, I do a lot. I learned early on, fess up and move on. Too bad most politicians either didn't learn or have forgotten the wisdom of honesty.
I was wrong for not reading and just assuming. del has been straight with me and I owed him (or her) an apology, which he (or she) graciously accepted. No blood / no foul.

[Ethereal]

It's kind of hard for me to get upset at someone for not paying taxes when so many of those tax dollars end up in a black hole somewhere or financing a government program that is outrageously unethical.

[Ravens Fan]

how am i being naive by pointing out the law changed in 1993?

trump's actions were taken before the law was changed.




So... what's the problem?

[del]

I see it all the time. Clients that play fast and loose with OSHA rules and get sued b/c their employees get hurt / or contractors that play fast and loose with the consumer sales rules and consequently get sued as well as opposed to clients that really try to do the right thing and happen to get sued. Some look it as 'it's coming so why comply' and others take it personally and seriously.


I was wrong for not reading and just assuming. @del (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=770) has been straight with me and I owed him (or her) an apology, which he (or she) graciously accepted. No blood / no foul.


despite rumors to the contrary, i have always been, and plan to remain, a he.

[Docthehun]

It's kind of hard for me to get upset at someone for not paying taxes when so many of those tax dollars end up in a black hole somewhere or financing a government program that is outrageously unethical.

I concur wholeheartedly. But I'm as conservative as they gets when it comes to how I spend my dough. In my case, I shell out year end bonuses to adjust the numbers. I'd rather give it to my "kids", but recognize, even if they waste too much money, they still get a lot of important stuff done. Like the military, I'm all in for the grunts and that goes to all the grunts of other branches. I mostly find fault with the administrators and management.

[del]

So... what's the problem?

who said there was a problem?

[Ravens Fan]

who said there was a problem?

Your OP and title insinuated that he had done something wrong. Your title also said that was why he hasn't released his taxes...

[del]

Your OP and title insinuated that he had done something wrong. Your title also said that was why he hasn't released his taxes...

my op and title insinuated nothing.

my title says quite clearly that this is one reason why trump didn't release his taxes.

since there's nothing illegal about not releasing his taxes, there is no insinuation of wrongdoing

[Ravens Fan]

my op and title insinuated nothing.

my title says quite clearly that this is one reason why trump didn't release his taxes.

since there's nothing illegal about not releasing his taxes, there is no insinuation of wrongdoing

Your title did not say "Here's one reason why...", it said "here's why...". But go ahead and spin, maybe you should go work for MSNBC with skills like that. :rollseyes:

[del]

Your title did not say "Here's one reason why...", it said "here's why...". But go ahead and spin, maybe you should go work for MSNBC with skills like that. :rollseyes:

am i not entitled to my opinion without pre-clearance from you?

is there a submission process for thread titles with which i need to comply?

[Ravens Fan]

am i not entitled to my opinion without pre-clearance from you?

is there a submission process for thread titles with which i need to comply?

I never even suggested that. I asked a question, based on your OP and you misrepresented your title. NBD.

[del]

I never even suggested that. I asked a question, based on your OP and you misrepresented your title. NBD.

no, you misapprehended the title.

gfy

[Ravens Fan]

no, you misapprehended the title.

gfy

It's not my fault if you use a misleading title/premise and can't back it up. Out of practice with meaningful conversation?

[JDubya]

Too funny watching the criminal loving wing nut cons make excuses for their criminal candidate.

[JDubya]

It's kind of hard for me to get upset at someone for not paying taxes when so many of those tax dollars end up in a black hole somewhere or financing a government program that is outrageously unethical.

Not to mention the fact that you hate America and love criminals, Ethereal.

[Crepitus]

Legal or not I can see how it would create a bad impression to the public at large.

Reason enough for him not to want it out there.

[Dr. Who]

The D's had unfettered control over Congress from 08 to 10. They could've changed this but elected not to. So..., he's being criticized for doing what the law allowed?

D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-I-O-N. a state of despair, typically one that results in rash or extreme behavior.

Let's see what they throw at him between now and Monday night.
Per the article, loophole was closed in 2004:
"Just as Congress acted in 1993 to ban stock-for-debt swaps by corporations, it acted in 2004 to ban equity-for-debt swaps by partnerships." While that didn't close all of the tax loopholes, it closed a rather major one.

[HoneyBadger]

Not to mention the fact that you hate America and love criminals, @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870).

Says the Clinton supporter? :rollseyes:

[hanger4]

Too funny watching the criminal loving wing nut cons make excuses for their criminal candidate.

Too bad for you his accountants followed tax law or you'd really have something to whine about.

[JDubya]

Too bad for you his accountants followed tax law or you'd really have something to whine about.

Stretching a loophole "beyond recognition" as it was described in the OP, is not what most people would describe as following tax law.

Unless you're a shameless shill for whoever did the stretching.

[Ravens Fan]

Stretching a loophole "beyond recognition" as it was described in the OP, is not what most people would describe as following tax law.

Unless you're a shameless shill for whoever did the stretching.
Did the IRS call him out on it? They are the ones who interpret tax law, right?

[Dr. Who]

Your OP and title insinuated that he had done something wrong. Your title also said that was why he hasn't released his taxes...
Objectively, employing legal sleight of hand to thwart the tax code and allow an individual to claim tax deductions that are not even based on their own losses is a deceptive business practice and reflects on the individual who seeks to deceive for personal gain. While no one wants to pay taxes that they don't have to pay, the practice of hiring tax lawyers, whose only purpose is to manipulate the meaning and intent of the legislation to allow tax avoidance and even tax fraud where there was no such legislative objective, really reflects on the scruples of the one essentially abusing the system. Any suggestion by such an individual that the government allowed him to do it, is disingenuous. Such a person is fundamentally dishonest.

[Ravens Fan]

Objectively, employing legal sleight of hand to thwart the tax code and allow an individual to claim tax deductions that are not even based on their own losses is a deceptive business practice and reflects on the individual who seeks to deceive for personal gain. While no one wants to pay taxes that they don't have to pay, the practice of hiring tax lawyers, whose only purpose is to manipulate the meaning and intent of the legislation to allow tax avoidance and even tax fraud where there was no such legislative objective, really reflects on the scruples of the one essentially abusing the system. Any suggestion by such an individual that the government allowed him to do it, is disingenuous. Such a person is fundamentally dishonest.

I think we have already established that both Trump and Clinton are fundamentally dishonest, but did he break any laws in this case?

[hanger4]

Stretching a loophole "beyond recognition" as it was described in the OP, is not what most people would describe as following tax law.

Unless you're a shameless shill for whoever did the stretching.

You forgot the "exploited legally" and "the laws were changed later".

The only stretching going on is your and the NYT's contortions attempting the blame Trump for following the law.

[HoneyBadger]

Stretching a loophole "beyond recognition" as it was described in the OP, is not what most people would describe as following tax law.

Unless you're a shameless shill for whoever did the stretching.

The person who was quoted is a member of a left wing foundation that is opposed to all tax cuts.

Better luck next time.

[Dr. Who]

I think we have already established that both Trump and Clinton are fundamentally dishonest, but did he break any laws in this case?
Possibly. The fact that he wasn't reassessed in the first instance, does not mean that the IRS cannot revisit his 1990's returns. There is no statute of limitation on tax fraud.

[Crepitus]

Did the IRS call him out on it? They are the ones who interpret tax law, right?
Audit anyone?

[Bethere]

Audit anyone?
Yes,please.

[Ethereal]

Not to mention the fact that you hate America and love criminals, @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870).

Feel better?

[Crepitus]

Yes,please.

I bet that's the first time anyone ever said that.

[Ravens Fan]

Possibly. The fact that he wasn't reassessed in the first instance, does not mean that the IRS cannot revisit his 1990's returns. There is no statute of limitation on tax fraud.

And yet they haven't... in over 20 years... after auditing him every year since 2002. I think we can reasonably assume that the IRS found it to be legal, or at least it didn't throw any red flags.

[Ravens Fan]

Audit anyone?

He has been audited from 2002 on, this was in the 90's.

[hanger4]

He has been audited from 2002 on, this was in the 90's.

With that amount of money being declared as losses you know red flags were being passed around like candy, yet nothing.

[Bethere]

He has been audited from 2002 on, this was in the 90's.

You simply don't know that to be true.

[Docthehun]

You simply don't know that to be true.

In addition, to my knowledge, it's not been made known whether the returns, after audit, were amended or accepted as originally filed.

[Ravens Fan]

You simply don't know that to be true.

Google is your friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bethere]

Google is your friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can google all night and day and you won't find any trump tax returns or proof of audits covering 20+ years.

Nor did you provide any links or documentation as required by this forum's rules, Mr. VIP.

[FindersKeepers]

You simply don't know that to be true.

Likewise, you don't know that it's not true.

We have a letter from the law firm that makes the claim -- and -- I suppose they could put their butts on the line...but, why?

Unless you have some evidence that they did, in fact, lie -- we'll have to assume that they're telling the truth.

[Bethere]

Likewise, you don't know that it's not true.

We have a letter from the law firm that makes the claim -- and -- I suppose they could put their butts on the line...but, why?

Unless you have some evidence that they did, in fact, lie -- we'll have to assume that they're telling the truth.

I didn't make any claims. The burden of proof belongs to Ravens Fan, not the Master.

[Ravens Fan]

You can google all night and day and you won't find any trump tax returns or proof of audits covering 20+ years.

Nor did you provide any links or documentation as required by this forum's rules, Mr. VIP.

I found a source that said he has been audited every year since 2002. I am no longer at home and don't have time to link it at the moment.

Please show me where I made a direct quote from that link?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FindersKeepers]

You can google all night and day and you won't find any trump tax returns or proof of audits covering 20+ years.

Nor did you provide any links or documentation as required by this forum's rules, Mr. VIP.


Where did you find a rule that a poster must submit links and documentation?

The only rule about links is the one that protects intellectual copyright and fair usage, which allows a poster to post a little bit of an article and then paste a link where others can read the rest.

There is no rule stating any poster has to document a claim.

[FindersKeepers]

I didn't make any claims. The burden of proof belongs to Ravens Fan, not the Master.

Ravens Fan is just relating what is commonly known to be, based on the letter from the law firm.

That's pretty good evidence there, my friend.

Since you have not disproved it -- I think we can safely say you're just spitting in the wind.

[Bethere]

I found a source that said he has been audited every year since 2002. I am no longer at home and don't have time to link it at the moment.

Please show me where I made a direct quote from that link?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It doesn't matter if you are home or not. There is no documentation available to support your claim.

[Bethere]

Ravens Fan is just relating what is commonly known to be, based on the letter from the law firm.

That's pretty good evidence there, my friend.

Since you have not disproved it -- I think we can safely say you're just spitting in the wind.

A law firm paid to represent the guy who has made no evidence available to support his claims.

Irving Kanarek, for example, was paid to carry water for his client, Charles Manson.

Having a lawyer doesn't make your claims true.

[Ravens Fan]

Likewise, you don't know that it's not true.

We have a letter from the law firm that makes the claim -- and -- I suppose they could put their butts on the line...but, why?

Unless you have some evidence that they did, in fact, lie -- we'll have to assume that they're telling the truth.

That is where I got my information. It's too hard on a phone while bouncing around in the work truck to go through linking it, but I will after work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ravens Fan]

It doesn't matter if you are home or not. There is no documentation available to support your claim.

Google is your friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FindersKeepers]

A law firm paid to represent the guy who has made no evidence available to support his claims.

Irving Kanarek, for example, was paid to carry water for his client, Charles Manson.

Having a lawyer doesn't make your claims true.


A letter from a law firm is 100% more evidence than what you have....

LOL

[Bethere]

A letter from a law firm is 100% more evidence than what you have....

LOL

I didn't make the claim. I need no evidence, Republican.

[hanger4]

That is where I got my information. It's too hard on a phone while bouncing around in the work truck to go through linking it, but I will after work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No need, Bethere knows and here it is again;

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/politics/donald-trump-tax-audit-letter/

[hanger4]

It doesn't matter if you are home or not. There is no documentation available to support your claim.

^^^^ Sure there is. ^^^^

[FindersKeepers]

I didn't make the claim. I need no evidence, Republican.

You did, however, say he couldn't know it was true, when the little evidence that is available, supports his position and not yours.

[Bethere]

You did, however, say he couldn't know it was true, when the little evidence that is available, supports his position and not yours.

Heresay.

Irving claimed Manson was innocent.

Lawyers are paid to do stuff like that.

[Bethere]

Hey ! Gotta go.

You guys were a lot of fun.

The Master is pleased.