NDL Forum

NYT story today on Presidents taxes. Sheesh

Was it more unnamrd sources? I'm taking those with a grain of salt now with all the false stories that have come out with confidential sources

Was there anything illegal done on his taxes?

shel311 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:25 pm Was there anything illegal done on his taxes?

Probably doesn't say that. Just says how little taxes he has allegedly paid. The whole tax code should be rewritten and have a flat tax for everyone with no deductibles

I mean I'm sure Trump is pulling shady shit but the article to me is more an indictment on our tax code than Trump

New York Times

jeheinz72 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:02 am I mean I'm sure Trump is pulling shady shit but the article to me is more an indictment on our tax code than Trump

This whole story is a non-story. He was audited by the IRS for the 2015 or 2014 year, supposed reason why he didn't release his taxes for the election. If he had done something unlawful I'm sure it would have been caught in the audit.

But like you said, it's a direct indictment on the tax code. Anyone in here saying they wouldn't do the same if they were worth a couple hundred million dollars, just leave the forum and never come back

In a brief skim the shady stuff seems to tie in to claims of losses that don't make sense (unexplained jumps in operating costs at his properties or gold courses in order to show no profit or losses in certain years).

The numbers are pretty staggering and do show the system is broken. No taxes in 11 of 18 years? $750 taxes the year after he was elected?

Makes you wonder why he had to pass tax cuts for the rich...

The bigger details seem to focus on how he's not making money and has huge debts. Which, we should have all expected to be the case as that's where shady con men end up eventually.

dakshdar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:35 am No taxes in 11 of 18 years? $750 taxes the year after he was elected?

I bet donating his whole presidential salary helps lower the bottom line a lot as well.

Our taxes are broken, and there is no end in sight for them to be fixed. Not by a democrat, republican or 3rd party. I'd love to see a flat rate tax and then higher sales taxes on luxury items, the rich will continue to buy what they want and that is a good way to get some extra tax money out of them.

Donating $400k isn't putting a dent in his filing.

He's claiming tens of millions of dollars of losses yearly. In comparison his $400k is like you or I claiming a $4 donation to March of Dimes.

dakshdar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:43 am Donating $400k isn't putting a dent in his filing.

He's claiming tens of millions of dollars of losses yearly. In comparison his $400k is like you or I claiming a $4 donation to March of Dimes.

I didn't read the article. I don't put much weight in anything with nothing but anonymous sources

But yes, if he is claiming that much in losses then his salary donation is like us donating $4.

Smart business move to have the best tax lawyers to do his filings. We would do the same if we had that kind of money

They're not anonymous sources, they're his tax returns.

And if the manner in which he got his tax burden that low was illegal, we're now calling fraud a smart move?

dakshdar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:20 am They're not anonymous sources, they're his tax returns.

And if the manner in which he got his tax burden that low was illegal, we're now calling fraud a smart move?

This is what remains to be seen. Sadly, with out tax code, the line between smart move/fraud can get pretty narrow for businesses. A lot of it can come down to just a matter of days +/- in terms of reporting.

I saw something about paying Ivanka $700k for consulting... if the timing on that is the end of the fiscal year and that specific entry triggered enough to send it to a loss for that entity, there's a pretty good case of shady business. If it's earlier in the year, it's all a non-issue and no different than many others out there.

Ultimately, it comes down to BS being thrown around vs actually doing something illegal. If it's illegal, bust his ass. Until we reach that point, IDC.

dakshdar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:20 am They're not anonymous sources, they're his tax returns.

Well actually...



The NYT is not releasing his tax returns, they've posted that article based on anonymous sources and won't release it.



Not saying it's not true, just pointing out that it actually is anonymous sources we're trusting here.

The Ivanka stuff was pertinent because she's already on the company payroll so paying her as a consultant to take a tax break on a cost doesn't really fly. That's simple conflict of interest/senior year college ethics class stuff.

There were also interesting details that, as everyone expected, his hotels and golf course income increased after becoming President. But his operating expenses increased enough to offset that so he still didn't owe anything. That's the kind of stuff that just makes you have to shake your head. He could claim losses for years and years but when he finally makes new money he can't pay the taxes on that new income. He just has to keep that always at zero. He always seems to take it a step further than anybody would reasonably.

It's like when you read the news that someone that won a big lottery ends up caught in a tax evasion issue a few years later...

If the part where he has hundreds of millions of dollars in debt coming due in the next few years plus his refusal to put his businesses in a blind trust doest set off some conflict of interest alarms in everyone then they got their head buried deep in that sand.....

dakshdar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:51 am The Ivanka stuff was pertinent because she's already on the company payroll so paying her as a consultant to take a tax break on a cost doesn't really fly. That's simple conflict of interest/senior year college ethics class stuff.

There were also interesting details that, as everyone expected, his hotels and golf course income increased after becoming President. But his operating expenses increased enough to offset that so he still didn't owe anything. That's the kind of stuff that just makes you have to shake your head. He could claim losses for years and years but when he finally makes new money he can't pay the taxes on that new income. He just has to keep that always at zero. He always seems to take it a step further than anybody would reasonably.

I'm speaking blind, as I haven't read the article, but just based on what you're saying, I'm not seeing alarms here...

- Ivanka - when you're looking at taxes, she could have consulted prior to being on payroll (I did this for a company in '18). Also, depending on the consulting service provided, it could be 100% legit. All comes down to roles within the company and service offered.

- Revenue goes up, expenses go up... that's common.

- It's not really a matter of reasonable, it's a matter of what the tax code lets you do. Again, not uncommon for a business to look at net profit year to year and push/pull as needed, for tax benefit.

Crowes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:14 am If the part where he has hundreds of millions of dollars in debt coming due in the next few years plus his refusal to put his businesses in a blind trust doest set off some conflict of interest alarms in everyone then they got their head buried deep in that sand.....

What is the alarm that should be going off that would preclude him from being president?
- A guy with multiple bankruptcies has more debt coming? Nothing illegal there.
- As for the blind trust piece, as long as he did what was necessary to take office, I don't care. You're also assuming his voter base ever cared. How many politicians that make $250k per year turned into multi-millionaires? For years we've watched "public servants" turn into millionaires. I doubt that many, if any, Trump supporters care that a billionaire/millionaire/"millions-in-debt-aire" or whatever, is the president.

Again, we have 2 trash options when it comes to this stuff. The last thing anyone on the left should be considering is pushing Trump on his taxes, finances or children's involvement, because you have to know that he's going to bury Joe on the same stuff as retaliation and Joe's not going to be able to defend himself.