Donald's Fiscal Mischiefs

[Abdülmecid I]

There are already quite a few topics about Trump, but the recent controversy about his tax returns warrants its own, separate discussion, in my opinion. To give a bit of context, in 2016, Trump became the first major, presidential candidate to refuse to release his tax returns to the media, since Richard Nixon was forced to reveal his own, after an employee of the much-feared Internan Revenue Service leaked a couple of potentially embarrassing documents. The irony is that Trump, in the past, had repeatedly promised to publish his tax returns, but then refused to do so, under demonstably false excuses. His hypocrisy led to speculations that the tax returns would contradict the public image of the 45th president of the US: That of a patriotic, law-respecting and immensely successful enterpreneur, basically the paragon of the American Dream.

Years of secrecy and obfuscation ended however yesterday, when New York Times published an article concerning the tax returns of Donald Trump during threee quarters of the last 20 years. To give a brief summary, Trum has been consistently engaging in tax avoidance (unlike tax evasion, tax avoidance is legal and not considered a fraud) in an unprecedented scale, has paid much fewer taxes than his predecessors, Bush and Obama, sometimes paid zero federal tax income, because he reported no net profits, while in 2016 and 2017, he paid in total only 1.500$ of federal tax income. Trump also guarantees a debt of 421 million dollars, large portion of which should be paid in a rather short-time span, which means that he's liable for bankruptcy. Trump's refunds and extremely low tax returns are partly explained by the nature of real estate business and shady practices of artificially reducing your taxable income, but the figures still remain huge.

As far as I understand, there are two conclusions we can reach from the aforementioned data. Either Trump is a failed businessman that may ruin the financial empire of his family or that he is manipulating the IRS, by hiding his revenues and magnifying his losses. Not sure what scenario is true or false, but neither really contributes to his patriotic profile of a loyal, American investor. Trump's response to the controversy has not been remarkably creative, but I wonder how his supporters will react to the news. Imitate their commander-in-chief and dismiss it as fake news or accept the possibility that Donald might not have been as sincere and transparent as originally assumed?

[Cope]

This is a recycled story from 2016 masquerading as new information. Trump admitted during the presidential debates four years ago that he exploits the the tax code. He claimed that the fault lies with lawmakers for failing to close loopholes and argued that major Democratic Party donors do the same (which is/was almost certainly true).

Donald J. Trump explicitly acknowledged for the first time during Sunday’s debate that he used a $916 million loss that he reported on his 1995 income tax returns to avoid paying personal federal income taxes for years.

Mr. Trump’s response — “Of course I do. Of course I do” — was the fullest the wealthy developer had provided since The New York Times reported that he had declared the loss, and that the tax deduction could have been large enough to allow him to avoid federal income taxes for up to 18 years.

Previously he had declined to comment on the documents, issuing a statement that neither challenged nor confirmed the $916 million loss.

Donald Trump Acknowledges Not Paying Federal Income Taxes for Years, New York Times, Oct 10th 2016.

At the same time, the NYT is cherry picking the facts. We know, for instance, that Trump has paid tens of millions in taxes over the years (as was revealed by Rachel Maddow's botched attempt to nail the president on the same issue) which, in all probability, is far more than any other president has contributed.

The suspense is killing me! Did she [Maddow] publish Trump’s entire tax history? No.

Or last year’s tax return? No. But she did publish two pages of one from 2005.

How did she get them? They turned up in the mailbox of an investigative journalist called David Cay Johnston. He says he doesn’t know who sent them.

And what, if anything, did they reveal? That Trump paid $38m (£31.1) in tax on an income of $150m (£122.7).

That sounds strangely reasonable. It’s an effective tax rate of 25%, which is pretty low for a high roller such as Trump. Hillary Clinton paid at a rate of 31% that year.

Bombshell, you said. Moreover, $31m of the $38m he did pay was incurred due to something called the “alternative minimum tax”, which Trump has pledged to eliminate.

Mildly scandalous! Indeed, so mild that Johnston speculated Trump may have leaked the pages himself.

Rachel Maddow and the Trump tax anticlimax, The Guardian, March 15th 2017.

[Coughdrop addict]

Since Trump's supporters would happily give their lives for him, it's no surprise they are offended that we would expect Dear Leader to pay taxes as if he were a mere peasant like them.

[antaeus]

At the same time, the NYT is cherry picking the facts. We know, for instance, that Trump has paid tens of millions in taxes over the years (as was revealed by Rachel Maddow's botched attempt to nail the president on the same issue) which, in all probability, is far more than any other president has contributed.

How much he pays in total is irrelevant. It's about whether he pays what he is obliged, or whether he games the system to lower his obligations. And before you go there, in this situation in particular, it's about whether the leader of a country should be gaming the system that he leads.

[Coughdrop addict]

How much he pays in total is irrelevant. It's about whether he pays what he is obliged, or whether he games the system to lower his obligations. And before you go there, in this situation in particular, it's about whether the leader of a country should be gaming the system that he leads.

Assuming, of course, Trump supporters wouldn't normally applaud crime and criminals.

[Cope]

How much he pays in total is irrelevant. It's about whether he pays what he is obliged, or whether he games the system to lower his obligations. And before you go there, in this situation in particular, it's about whether the leader of a country should be gaming the system that he leads.

Conservatives tend not to worship redistribution.

Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.

Billings Learned Hand, Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934)

Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.

Billings Learned Hand, Commissioner v. Newman, 159 F.2d 848, 851 (2d Cir. 1947)

19 Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.

20 For he shall not much remember the days of his life; because God answereth him in the joy of his heart.

Ecclesiastes 5:19-20.

[antaeus]

Conservatives tend not to worship redistribution.

Having a partisan objection to tax wasn't a checkbox you could tick to get out of your tax obligations last I looked.

Although it would be a special kind of special to argue that Trump avoids tax because of his belief in liberal economic principles.

[antaeus]

Although it would be a special kind of special to argue that Trump avoids tax because of his belief in liberal economic principles.

*cough* trade barriers *cough* tariffs *cough* tight with the Democrats in the 90s while still avoiding tax

I think I have something stuck in my throat. It might be the hypocrisy I ate earlier...

[Cope]

Having a partisan objection to tax wasn't a checkbox you could tick to get out of your tax obligations last I looked.

Although it would be a special kind of special to argue that Trump avoids tax because of his belief in liberal economic principles.

Tax obligations are what a person/corporation is legally bound to pay; not even the Times is alleging criminality (ie. tax fraud) on Trump's part.

[Alastor]

How much he pays in total is irrelevant. It's about whether he pays what he is obliged, or whether he games the system to lower his obligations. And before you go there, in this situation in particular, it's about whether the leader of a country should be gaming the system that he leads.

If he games the system to lower his obligations and then pays that, he is paying what he is obliged to pay. It is called tax avoidance, it's not "technically" tax evasion and every major business does the exact same thing. Is it unfortunate? Totally. Should it be rectified? Most definitely. Does it make Trump a criminal or in any way special? Unfortunately no. The wealthy businessmen supporting both parties all partake in this gravy train. Big time. It is one of the main reasons the US political system is faltering and inequality is on the rise.

[Morifea]

So it legal to declare the Costs for Make up and hairstyling as Business expenses an lower the Tax base with those? Same Thing with the Costs for the private Jet?
Also Seven Springs as a "Investment" while Living there? Of Course mister President….
740.000 Dollars for Consulting by a Company of Ivanka?

In Germany, most of These Costs are private Costs, using those to minimize your tax is a criminal offense.

Furthermore, the files Show that mister President isn`t the great Businessmen, he is just a bunch of fraud and lies.
But that`s Nothing new.

[Heathen Hammer]

I guess we've been long over due for the monthly "Trump hid his tax returns" thread.

As far as I understand, there are two conclusions we can reach from the aforementioned data. Either Trump is a failed businessman that may ruin the financial empire of his family or that he is manipulating the IRS, by hiding his revenues and magnifying his losses. Not sure what scenario is true or false, but neither really contributes to his patriotic profile of a loyal, American investor. Trump's response to the controversy has not been remarkably creative, but I wonder how his supporters will react to the news. Imitate their commander-in-chief and dismiss it as fake news or accept the possibility that Donald might not have been as sincere and transparent as originally assumed?

Um, you do realize that corporate and individual bankruptcies are very different things, right?

[B. W.]

It's ironic hat the Times story validates what Trump has been saying all along: that he was being audited by the IRS.

Other than that, it's comforting to know that some Democrat on the government's payroll is going to go to jail because they committed a felony by giving the NYT those records.

Anyway, Trump owns many companies and no doubt has a whole staff of tax lawyers and accountants who manage those records; not to mention any number of managers who run the day to day operations of said companies. Trump is not a micro manager. To claim other than that is only showing you haven't done due diligence in research on the man.

[Coughdrop addict]

Do you really not care that that in 2016 and 2017 each, Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes? That he took a $70,000 to take care of his hair? Or wrote off hundreds of thousands of dollars paying Ivanka as a consultant to the Trump Organization? Would you accept this behavior if it was Biden?

[Heathen Hammer]

The main mistake of the Democrat brass is assuming that Trump is one of them - a career politician relying on rich and influential donors. Yeah, your average career politician usually leaves a paper trail of various fiscal sins, so its easy to prevent from going rogue by refusing to maintain endless wars in middle east or auditing federal reserve. Trump spent past 4 years under a literal microscope, and then only fiscal transgression of his was some of his companies using bankruptcies - and anyone fiscally literate is aware of the fact that in corporate world bankruptcy is merely a tool to be used to maximize returns and minimize expenses, so judging Trump as businessman on that is just proving to everyone that you don't know what corporate bankruptcy even is.
That's why they hate Trump, since while I disagree with his policies, he simply isn't in politics for the money. He has agenda and he has ideas - which makes him very different from Republican rhinos and Democrat apparatchicks, which change their beliefs every electoral season to fit in. For example, Clinton and Biden are former white supremacists, and only became "anti-racist" relatively recently. Trump's meritocratic disregard of identity politics hasn't changed since he spoke of the matter in Reagan era.

[Infidel144]

If he games the system to lower his obligations and then pays that, he is paying what he is obliged to pay. It is called tax avoidance, it's not "technically" tax evasion and every major business does the exact same thing.

Yep, but not just major business. Everybody. Hence deductions.

So it legal to declare the Costs for Make up and hairstyling as Business expenses an lower the Tax base with those? Same Thing with the Costs for the private Jet?
Also Seven Springs as a "Investment" while Living there? Of Course mister President….
740.000 Dollars for Consulting by a Company of Ivanka?

Yes.
If it wasn't, then the IRS would probably have busted him over it long before he got involved in politics...

Furthermore, the files Show that mister President isn`t the great Businessmen, he is just a bunch of fraud and lies.
But that`s Nothing new.

Yeah. Though I've been informed he is raking in millions and millions, while the NYT makes it seem like he is broke...

Do you really not care that that in 2016 and 2017 each, Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes?

Correct. I really do not. (Though I think the NYT article indicates something a little different). I wish that was the case for me as well.

That he took a $70,000 to take care of his hair? Or wrote off hundreds of thousands of dollars paying Ivanka as a consultant to the Trump Organization? Would you accept this behavior if it was Biden?

To the extent where this stuff may have been when he was advocating for higher taxes, then hypocritical of Trump. Same standard with Biden or anybody else who demands taxes be raised.

Speaking of which, do you demand taxes be raised? Do you utilize any deductions when you file taxes?

[Gaidin]

This is a recycled story from 2016 masquerading as new information. Trump admitted during the presidential debates four years ago that he exploits the the tax code. He claimed that the fault lies with lawmakers for failing to close loopholes and argued that major Democratic Party donors do the same (which is/was almost certainly true).

What I would find interesting is that, you know, aside from the minor shell games with the tax code he plays like paying his daughter consulting fees...he's a really crappy businessman and his loans are going to start coming due in two years. And he depends on tax refunds to keep his lifestyle afloat.

So much for his image and his "you need me, a really good businessman, to solve all your problems" BS.

If he games the system to lower his obligations and then pays that, he is paying what he is obliged to pay. It is called tax avoidance, it's not "technically" tax evasion and every major business does the exact same thing. Is it unfortunate? Totally. Should it be rectified? Most definitely. Does it make Trump a criminal or in any way special? Unfortunately no. The wealthy businessmen supporting both parties all partake in this gravy train. Big time. It is one of the main reasons the US political system is faltering and inequality is on the rise.

Well no. It's about when he left his Casino in Atlantic City. His announcement was that he dropped all interests in his Casino and lost all profits...er..."profits"...and interests and shares and walked away. That's what let him really, truly, game the system and get the approximately 72 million dollars back. With the caveat that it would be audited. But when the bankruptcy was done he may have gotten something from the bankrupt casino he walked away from. Which means his 72 million dollar refund may get flipped on him with interest.

[B. W.]

Do you really not care that that in 2016 and 2017 each, Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes? That he took a $70,000 to take care of his hair? Or wrote off hundreds of thousands of dollars paying Ivanka as a consultant to the Trump Organization? Would you accept this behavior if it was Biden?

Hey, don't knock the hair. That hair was designed to withstand gale-force winds. It's a technological marvel.

[Alastor]

Well no. It's about when he left his Casino in Atlantic City. His announcement was that he dropped all interests in his Casino and lost all profits...er..."profits"...and interests and shares and walked away. That's what let him really, truly, game the system and get the approximately 72 million dollars back. With the caveat that it would be audited. But when the bankruptcy was done he may have gotten something from the bankrupt casino he walked away from. Which means his 72 million dollar refund may get flipped on him with interest.

And until that's proven... well... *yawn*

As an article on the spectator puts it there is no smoking gun in this report, so as far as I am concerned this is just the NYTimes doing all they can to aid Biden in the upcoming debate and little more, aka yet another blatant example of partisan journalism.

But there is no smoking gun. Despite clearly exhaustive efforts, the Times investigative team has failed to uncover any illegality or clear wrongdoing. In fact, the subtext of the story is a mounting frustration at the skill of Trump’s accountants in alleviating their man’s fiscal burden. The reporters seem particularly pained to note that a law passed under President Barack Obama enabled Trump to recoup more historic losses than he could otherwise have done.
As a result, the paper is reduced to mocking Trump where they think it hurts him most — by pointing out that he’s not as rich or as ‘smart’ as he says he is. Most of his business empire runs at a loss — ha ha! That line of attack gives satisfaction to media people who now hate Trump for a living. But do voters really care?

[Gaidin]

And until that's proven... well... *yawn*

Hey, you want to know why he's getting audited? He either walked away or he didn't. And after his antics in the mid 90's, the IRS has a right to be curious.