PDA

View Full Version : Tax returns



C. Ross
10-02-2016, 08:53 AM
Uh oh. This one might leave a mark. Someone mailed part of Mr. Trump's 1995 tax return to The New York Times and it's ugly.


Donald J. Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/donald-trump-on-the-issues.html?inline=nyt-per) declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.

The 1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/p/plaza_hotel/index.html?inline=nyt-org) in Manhattan.

Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump’s 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0

This is cheese that will not go well with these whines:

Donald J. Trump– http://forum.woodenboat.com/image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhBQAGAIAAAP///////yH5BAEKAAEALAAAAAAFAAYAAAIFjI pawUAOw==Verified account ‏@realDonaldTrump (https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
@BarackObama (https://mobile.twitter.com/BarackObama) who wants to raise all our taxes, only pays 20.5% on $790k salary. http://1.usa.gov/HFZJKH Do as I say not as I do.

The White House (https://mobile.twitter.com/WhiteHouse)
President Obama and Vice President Biden’s 2011 Tax Returns

In 2011, the Obamas paid $162,074 in total tax and the Bidens paid $87,900 in total federal tax for 2011
(http://t.co/bqF26mQf)View on web (http://t.co/bqF26mQf)
11:19 AM - 13 Apr 2012
1,434 RETWEETS
762 LIKES


Donald J. Trump– http://forum.woodenboat.com/image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhBQAGAIAAAP///////yH5BAEKAAEALAAAAAAFAAYAAAIFjI pawUAOw==Verified account ‏@realDonaldTrump (https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
HALF of Americans don't pay income tax despite crippling govt debt...http://plu.gd/qLa

HALF of Americans don't pay income tax despite crippling government debt

In 2009, just 50.5 per cent of Americans paid any income tax to the federal government. This graph shows the rising proportion of non-taxpayers over the last 50 years.
(http://t.co/gDAUj0Kt)View on web (http://t.co/gDAUj0Kt)
11:59 AM - 23 Feb 2012
2,307 RETWEETS1,201 LIKES


Donald J. Trump– http://forum.woodenboat.com/image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhBQAGAIAAAP///////yH5BAEKAAEALAAAAAAFAAYAAAIFjI pawUAOw==Verified account ‏@realDonaldTrump (https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)

"@conservativeJT (https://mobile.twitter.com/conservativeJT): @bluejoni (https://mobile.twitter.com/bluejoni) @realDonaldTrump (https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump) Trump is an American that will pay more taxes in one year than you pay in your entire life.
3:50 AM - 28 Mar 2013
402 RETWEETS265 LIKES

Paul Pless
10-02-2016, 08:58 AM
Not to casth any doubt on the level of Trump douchebaggeriness, but isn't there a limit to how long a loss can be carried forward with regards to offsetting taxes.

Reynard38
10-02-2016, 08:58 AM
So you run a business into the ground and come out ahead.

What a country!

Good thing it doesn't work that way in my profession

Bobcat
10-02-2016, 09:13 AM
Trump can carry the loss for 18 years: three past and fifteen going forward.

At least we know some of the reasons he is not releasing his tax returns.

His campaign is not denying the substance of the story, just complaining how the New York Times got the partial tax return.

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
10-02-2016, 09:21 AM
That makes him smart?

RHAKCT
10-02-2016, 10:00 AM
If your accountant were to call you next tax season and say because of "X" - you don't owe any tax this year, would you say "screw that", I want you to send them $10,000 anyway?

Norman Bernstein
10-02-2016, 10:03 AM
If your accountant were to call you next tax season and say because of "X" - you don't owe any tax this year, would you say "screw that", I want you to send them $10,000 anyway?

I don't have a problem with the 'tax loss carry forward', per se.... except for two points:

1) He lost $916M in his failed casino ventures? This is the hallmark of a 'good businessman'?

2) Exactly WHO lost all that money? Trump personally? Or a Trump business.... and where did the money come from? Trump's pocket, or a series of banks and other creditors? Sorry, but thousands of OTHER people were the losers.

Bobcat
10-02-2016, 10:05 AM
If your accountant were to call you next tax season and say because of "X" - you don't owe any tax this year, would you say "screw that", I want you to send them $10,000 anyway?

I am not running for president. The optics for Trump are terrible

And knowing Trump, he will make things a whole lot worse for himself by the way he responds to this issue. The pressure will grow to release his tax returns and the more he refuses, the greater the suspicion that he is hiding them for a reason.

George Jung
10-02-2016, 10:18 AM
Not sure it matters if he releases any more tax returns - this one is pretty damning. But his 'supporters' won't care, anyway - that is not a rational group of people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLvGnro4Cgw

ljb5
10-02-2016, 10:18 AM
Trump will say that Hillary leaked this to distract people from learning about Bill's affair with Gennifer Flowers in the 1980s.

ljb5
10-02-2016, 10:23 AM
If your accountant were to call you next tax season and say because of "X" - you don't owe any tax this year, would you say "screw that", I want you to send them $10,000 anyway?

No, but neither would I go around telling people that makes me smart, or that the tax code is treating me unfairly.

The government stepped in and helped him out after he failed. He took money from the government like he's on welfare.

Tom Wilkinson
10-02-2016, 10:26 AM
Clearly this is why we need to cut tax rates for the wealthy.

Anyone that would support this man is a fool.

Hugh Conway
10-02-2016, 10:31 AM
, just complaining how the New York Times got the partial tax return.

Sounds like someone he knows well, really hates the guy.

C. Ross
10-02-2016, 10:32 AM
The principle issue here is not whether Mr. Trump broke any laws. We have no evidence of that. It's the shameless ego-driven contradictions in positions he's taken.

I'm a great businessman. Who lost a billion dollars.

I'm a man of the people. Who engages in complex and highly leveraged deals which often ends up with other people taking financial losses.

Obama is terrible because he only paid 20.5% in taxes. "Do as I say, not as I do." I pay more taxes in a year than you'll pay in your entire life. (I'm yuuuge and you're all schmucks, but that's OK I'll pick up the check.). Or not.

Crooked Hillary. Hm?

Ford is horrible, everybody's horrible for sending manufacturing overseas. Well, that doesn't apply to my clothing line manufactured in Malaysia and China.

Maybe Mr. Trump didn't pay taxes. Maybe he took advantage of the bankruptcy laws. It's called business. It's called being smart.

He's going to triple-down on Benghazi and emails and Ms. Clinton's pneumonia and President Clinton's infidelity. It's all he has left.

RonW
10-02-2016, 10:34 AM
Uh oh. This one might leave a mark. Someone mailed part of Mr. Trump's 1995 tax return to The New York Times and it's ugly.

No it's not, Who cares, except of course the clitonites, who already are voting for hill, it's not going to change one vote. And besides the facts are he started with millions and now has billions and it doesn't

matter if it is 5 billion or 10 billion it still is a lot of money and he has done well, so why does it matter or who really cares ?

Not one vote will change due to this .


.Next....


He's going to triple-down on Benghazi and emails and Ms. Clinton's pneumonia and President Clinton's infidelity. It's all he has left.

Actually what he has left is jobs, economy, national border security, energy independence, revised tax system, re-evaluation of bureaucratic excessive regulations. re-negotiations of foreign trade policies. etc.etc.etc. Oh and america first.

George Jung
10-02-2016, 10:37 AM
https://www.facebook.com/topic/Alec-Baldwin/112352762113130?source=whfrt&position=1&trqid=6336872076301593093

ron ll
10-02-2016, 10:48 AM
I wonder if this was leaked by an accountant he refused to pay.

Hugh Conway
10-02-2016, 10:54 AM
Oh and america first.

What the hell does that even mean?

Too Little Time
10-02-2016, 10:55 AM
I don't have a problem with the 'tax loss carry forward', per se.... except for two points:


1) He lost $916B in his failed casino ventures? This is the hallmark of a 'good businessman'?
Most people in business have failed ventures.


2) Exactly WHO lost all that money? Trump personally? Or a Trump business.... and where did the money come from? Trump's pocket, or a series of banks and other creditors? Sorry, but thousands of OTHER people were the losers.
Since it shows up on his tax return, he lost the money.

Perhaps you could show us the tax returns of the banks, other creditors, and the thousands of OTHER people who lost money. I am sure there were other investors who lost money, businesses that were not paid, and individuals who lost jobs. But that is part of life.

I just checked on my current investments. I have a series of investments that have losses. About $225 total. I must be a poor investor. Maybe I should blame the people who run the company.

Bobcat
10-02-2016, 10:59 AM
The principle issue here is not whether Mr. Trump broke any laws. We have no evidence of that. It's the shameless ego-driven contradictions in positions he's taken.

I'm a great businessman. Who lost a billion dollars.

I'm a man of the people. Who engages in complex and highly leveraged deals which often ends up with other people taking financial losses.

Obama is terrible because he only paid 20.5% in taxes. "Do as I say, not as I do." I pay more taxes in a year than you'll pay in your entire life. (I'm yuuuge and you're all schmucks, but that's OK I'll pick up the check.). Or not.

Crooked Hillary. Hm?

Ford is horrible, everybody's horrible for sending manufacturing overseas. Well, that doesn't apply to my clothing line manufactured in Malaysia and China.

Maybe Mr. Trump didn't pay taxes. Maybe he took advantage of the bankruptcy laws. It's called business. It's called being smart.

He's going to triple-down on Benghazi and emails and Ms. Clinton's pneumonia and President Clinton's infidelity. It's all he has left.

That pretty much sums it up.

But he will make things a lot worse for himself for at least the next week railing about the tax issues. He will blame everyone else and explain that losing almost a billion dollars makes him a genius and that only dopes pay for their share of the federal government. This is the opposite of Romney's remarks about the 47 percent and will hurt Trump worse than Romney was hurt by his comments.

RHAKCT
10-02-2016, 11:09 AM
The principle issue here is not whether Mr. Trump broke any laws. We have no evidence of that. It's the shameless ego-driven contradictions in positions he's taken.

Isn't this the same defense quoted here many, many times about Ms. Clinton?

C. Ross
10-02-2016, 11:10 AM
No it's not, Who cares...

Ok.

So what about Mr. Trump's tweet shaming Pressient Obama for only paying 20.5% of income in taxes. Was the tweet wrong, or do different standards apply to Mr. Trump and President Obama?

So what about Mr. Trump's tweet saying it was terrible only half of Americans pay taxes? Does that mean it was terrible that half DID and are not as smart as him, or terrible that half DIDN'T but the rules don't apply to him?

So what about Mr. Trump's tweet saying he pays more taxes in a year than other people do in a lifetime? Is that true, or not? Does that reflect on his great wealth, or how much more important he is than you or me?




Actually what he has left is jobs, economy, national border security, energy independence, revised tax system, re-evaluation of bureaucratic excessive regulations. re-negotiations of foreign trade policies. etc.etc.etc. Oh and america first.

Except he isn't talking about that any more. He's mocking Ms. Clinton fainting, reminiscing about The Apprentice ... he can't stay on message. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...01475409346985 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/02/as-news-of-trumps-taxes-broke-he-goes-off-script-at-a-rally-in-pennsylvania/?postshare=8901475409346985)

America First? A great slogan for a man who doesn't even know where that well is dug. Don't drink the water. http://time.com/4273812/america-first-donald-trump-history/

RonW
10-02-2016, 11:11 AM
The New York Times Paid No Taxes in 2014

The New York Times has excited the Clinton campaign and the rest of the media with a revelation that Republican nominee Donald Trump declared a $916 million loss in 1995 that might have resulted in him not paying taxes in some subsequent years.
The implication, reinforced by CNN’s Jake Tapper on State of the Union on Sunday morning, is that Trump “avoided” paying taxes, when in fact his tax liability was zero.

But the Times itself has “avoided” paying taxes — in 2014, for example.

As Forbes noted at the time:

… for tax year 2014, The New York Times paid no taxes and got an income tax refund of $3.5 million even though they had a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million in 2014. In other words, their post-tax profit was higher than their pre-tax profit. The explanation in their 2014 annual report is, “The effective tax rate for 2014 was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations.” If you don’t think it took fancy accountants and tax lawyers to make that happen, read the statement again.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/02/new-york-times-paid-no-taxes-2014/

C. Ross
10-02-2016, 11:13 AM
The principle issue here is not whether Mr. Trump broke any laws. We have no evidence of that. It's the shameless ego-driven contradictions in positions he's taken.

Isn't this the same defense quoted here many, many times about Ms. Clinton?

Yes. And there's an order of magnitude or two difference between Mr. Trump and other politicians, including Ms. Clinton. I find the Clintons unattractive. I find Mr. Trump insane, ethically compromised, and potentially felonious.

C. Ross
10-02-2016, 11:19 AM
The New York Times Paid No Taxes in 2014

The New York Times has excited the Clinton campaign and the rest of the media with a revelation that Republican nominee Donald Trump declared a $916 million loss in 1995 that might have resulted in him not paying taxes in some subsequent years.
The implication, reinforced by CNN’s Jake Tapper on State of the Union on Sunday morning, is that Trump “avoided” paying taxes, when in fact his tax liability was zero.

But the Times itself has “avoided” paying taxes — in 2014, for example.

As Forbes noted at the time:

… for tax year 2014, The New York Times paid no taxes and got an income tax refund of $3.5 million even though they had a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million in 2014. In other words, their post-tax profit was higher than their pre-tax profit. The explanation in their 2014 annual report is, “The effective tax rate for 2014 was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations.” If you don’t think it took fancy accountants and tax lawyers to make that happen, read the statement again.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/02/new-york-times-paid-no-taxes-2014/

So Ron, is it a bad thing or a good thing or it doesn't matter if someone pays taxes?

Did the New York Times shame the Washigton Post for only paying 20.5% in taxes?
Did the New York Times brag that it paid more taxes in a year than all other newspapers?
Did the New York Times shame half of newspapers for not paying taxes?

Do rules of fairness and logic apply to Mr. Trump or not?

RonW
10-02-2016, 11:19 AM
Yes. And there's an order of magnitude or two difference between Mr. Trump and other politicians, including Ms. Clinton. I find the Clintons unattractive. I find Mr. Trump insane, ethically compromised, and potentially felonious.

Now we know why davidg and norm put up all their trump slurs. which is to hopefully change soneone's mind into voting for the big hill and who knows maybe there is a kickback from DNC.

So what is your purpose ? To change my mind, or possibly to change or confirm your decision ? Kinda questioning and having doubts about this hillary thing huh...

Tom Wilkinson
10-02-2016, 11:23 AM
So none of wealth has been taxed yet AND he want to eliminate the estate tax. Douchbag.

C. Ross
10-02-2016, 11:24 AM
So what is your purpose ? To change my mind, or possibly to change or confirm your decision ? Kinda questioning and having doubts about this hillary thing huh...

My purpose is to keep Mr. Trump out of the White House, and preferably to see him disappear from American public life.

Ive posted elsewhere that I do not like Ms. Clinton either, and intend to write in a candidate unless it appears the electoral vote in Minnesota is in doubt in which case I will vote for Ms. Clinton.

But more than anything else, I wish to add my small voice to turning the tide on the bigoted and hateful ideas at the core of the Trump campaign, and to denounce the dangerous, narcissistic and ego-poisoned Mr. Trump as a danger to our Republic. Never Trump ever.

RHAKCT
10-02-2016, 11:25 AM
Yes. And there's an order of magnitude or two difference between Mr. Trump and other politicians, including Ms. Clinton. I find the Clintons unattractive. I find Mr. Trump insane, ethically compromised, and potentially felonious.

And that's the same argument that many of the Trump supporters have about the Clinton's -

David G
10-02-2016, 11:34 AM
Yes. And there's an order of magnitude or two difference between Mr. Trump and other politicians, including Ms. Clinton. I find the Clintons unattractive. I find Mr. Trump insane, ethically compromised, and potentially felonious.

And that's the same argument that many of the Trump supporters have about the Clinton's -

Yes... the ones who believe that False Equivalence is logic.

Gerarddm
10-02-2016, 11:40 AM
The issue for me is not that he lost money and carried it forward, which is well within the law. The issue is that releasing his tax returns will show that he has gotten by using all sorts of loopholes and accounting gimmicks, that his income and net worth isn't anywhere near what he boasts they are, and that his charitable contributions are a pittance despite his claims to the contrary. It is the daylight between his CLAIMS and what reality really is that scares him so.

bobbys
10-02-2016, 11:40 AM
Uh oh. This one might leave a mark. Someone mailed part of Mr. Trump's 1995 tax return to The New York Times and it's ugly.

.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0

This is cheese that will not go well with these whines:

Donald J. Trump– http://forum.woodenboat.com/image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhBQAGAIAAAP///////yH5BAEKAAEALAAAAAAFAAYAAAIFjI pawUAOw==Verified account ‏@realDonaldTrump (https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
@BarackObama (https://mobile.twitter.com/BarackObama) who wants to raise all our taxes, only pays 20.5% on $790k salary. http://1.usa.gov/HFZJKH Do as I say not as I do.

The White House (https://mobile.twitter.com/WhiteHouse)
President Obama and Vice President Biden’s 2011 Tax Returns

In 2011, the Obamas paid $162,074 in total tax and the Bidens paid $87,900 in total federal tax for 2011
(http://t.co/bqF26mQf)View on web (http://t.co/bqF26mQf)
11:19 AM - 13 Apr 2012
1,434 RETWEETS
762 LIKES


Donald J. Trump– http://forum.woodenboat.com/image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhBQAGAIAAAP///////yH5BAEKAAEALAAAAAAFAAYAAAIFjI pawUAOw==Verified account ‏@realDonaldTrump (https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
HALF of Americans don't pay income tax despite crippling govt debt...http://plu.gd/qLa

HALF of Americans don't pay income tax despite crippling government debt

In 2009, just 50.5 per cent of Americans paid any income tax to the federal government. This graph shows the rising proportion of non-taxpayers over the last 50 years.
(http://t.co/gDAUj0Kt)View on web (http://t.co/gDAUj0Kt)
11:59 AM - 23 Feb 2012
2,307 RETWEETS1,201 LIKES


Donald J. Trump– http://forum.woodenboat.com/image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhBQAGAIAAAP///////yH5BAEKAAEALAAAAAAFAAYAAAIFjI pawUAOw==Verified account ‏@realDonaldTrump (https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)

"@conservativeJT (https://mobile.twitter.com/conservativeJT): @bluejoni (https://mobile.twitter.com/bluejoni) @realDonaldTrump (https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump) Trump is an American that will pay more taxes in one year than you pay in your entire life.
3:50 AM - 28 Mar 2013
402 RETWEETS265 LIKES


.
So taking someone's tax returns illegally is OK by you as long as it suits a political agenda?

bobbys
10-02-2016, 11:44 AM
I don't have a problem with the 'tax loss carry forward', per se.... except for two points:

1) He lost $916M in his failed casino ventures? This is the hallmark of a 'good businessman'?

2) Exactly WHO lost all that money? Trump personally? Or a Trump business.... and where did the money come from? Trump's pocket, or a series of banks and other creditors? Sorry, but thousands of OTHER people were the losers..

So he went bankrupt on casinos and did not have to pay taxes .

So what, did you expect him to pay taxes on a loss.?.

The idea of bankruptcy is to rebuild.

You said yerself your father went bankrupt.

Who did he stiff?.

Or was it the big bad rich guys that tricked him so he could stiff others?.

bobbys
10-02-2016, 11:45 AM
The issue for me is not that he lost money and carried it forward, which is well within the law. The issue is that releasing his tax returns will show that he has gotten by using all sorts of loopholes and accounting gimmicks, that his income and net worth isn't anywhere near what he boasts they are, and that his charitable contributions are a pittance despite his claims to the contrary. It is the daylight between his CLAIMS and what reality really is that scares him so..

Poor people that take a EIC credit use a loophole..

Is that a " gimmick " to you as well?

Norman Bernstein
10-02-2016, 11:47 AM
Now we know why davidg and norm put up all their trump slurs.

By definition, the truth is never a slur.

The definition of a slur: "an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation."

This is not an insinuation or allegation.

RonW
10-02-2016, 11:48 AM
My purpose is to keep Mr. Trump out of the White House, and preferably to see him disappear from American public life.

Ive posted elsewhere that I do not like Ms. Clinton either, and intend to write in a candidate unless it appears the electoral vote in Minnesota is in doubt in which case I will vote for Ms. Clinton.

But more than anything else, I wish to add my small voice to turning the tide on the bigoted and hateful ideas at the core of the Trump campaign, and to denounce the dangerous, narcissistic and ego-poisoned Mr. Trump as a danger to our Republic. Never Trump ever.

Well that all kinda sounds good till you actually look at what it means. And here is where I have to agree with my good friend from the left, the bernstein....Come nov. at least as it stands right now barring anything stupid happens, either the Trump representing the dreaded R's will be the next prez. of hillary representing the dirty D's will be the next prez. No writes ins will be considered.

So a writein while politicing against one candidate seems a little silly.

Oh and for the pay no tax........absolutely, it is part of the american dream to make as much as possible and pay as least as possible .....

You do remember a few years ago when G.E. made billions and turned in 4,000 page tax returns and paid no taxes simply by taking advantage of all the tax benefits available.

Now who wrote these stupid unfair taxes ???? Well that would be the dems from the 20's to the early 90's when 99% of the tax laws were written......blame the dems for the mess...

Tom Montgomery
10-02-2016, 11:58 AM
What a whiney pos:


Donald Trump Can’t Shut Down New York Times Tax Leak Showing He Lost Nearly $1 Billion in 1995

Donald Trump may fashion himself as a winner, but the law is on the side of The New York Times. Plus, when it comes to speech-related his attempts in the past to shut down opponents have failed miserably.

SUSAN E. SEAGER (http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/susan-e--seager.html)
10.02.16 9:26 AM ET

Donald J. Trump’s (http://www.thedailybeast.com/topics/donald-trump.html) threat to sue the New York Times (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/02/donald-trump-federal-income-tax-new-york-times) for its report about his leaked 1995 state tax returns (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/10/02/report-trump-lost-almost-1b-in-1995.html) showing he lost nearly $1 billion is as predictable as it is laughable.

Trump’s lawyer pledged “prompt initiation of appropriate legal action” against the Times, saying the Oct. 1 story was “illegal” because Trump did not authorize the release of his confidential tax returns.

What is the “appropriate” legal action? None.

Even my journalism students in my entry-level media law class know that the First Amendment provides an absolute legal shield to journalists who are sued for publishing lawfully obtained documents that are a matter of public concern.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Pentagon Papers, Florida Star v. B.J.F., and the tongue-twisting Bartnicki v. Vopper created a First Amendment protection for journalists who publish documents that are confidential by law – so long as the journalist is a passive recipient of the documents. The journalist cannot be prosecuted for criminal violations or sued under civil privacy laws even if the leaker broke civil or criminal laws by obtaining or leaking the documents.

There can be no dispute that the tax returns of a current presidential candidate are a matter of public concern, especially when that candidate is campaigning as a successful businessman, has several active businesses and business ties that may influence his decisions as president, and pledges to drastically change the tax code. The Times says it was a passive recipient of the documents, which were mailed anonymously. Trump, therefore, could not win a lawsuit against the Times based on a claim for violation of secrecy laws governing tax returns or invasion of privacy.

But, hey, the First Amendment never got in the way of Trump threatening or filing frivolous lawsuits to chill speech.

My study of the six speech-related cases filed by Trump & Co. found that all five filed in public courts were dismissed before trial. Trump’s only victory came in a private arbitration decided by a rent-a-judge who declared Trump the winner because the defendant was a no-show.

Here’s a walk down Trump’s Libel Walk of Shame, from LOL to ha ha.

My favorite is when Trump sued Bill Maher, host of HBO political talk show Real Time in 2013. Trump was in full birther mode at the time, trafficking his racist claim that our first African American president, Barack Obama, was born in Kenya and demanding his birth certificate.

Maher launched his own birther attack: Maher would donate $5 million to charity if Trump would provide his birth certificate to disprove he was the “spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan.”

Trump provided his birth certificate and filed a $5-million breach of contract lawsuit against Maher, only to quickly withdraw it, robbing Maher of the pleasure of slapping down one of LA’s silliest cases, even by crybaby Hollywood-celebrity standards.

Just two months ago, a federal judge in Las Vegas bounced the deceptive advertising lawsuit filed in 2015 by Trump’s Las Vegas hotel companies against two labor unions for calling Trump anti-union. As the judge ruled on Aug. 8, labor protests are hardly advertising.

Trump’s greediest lawsuit was his $5-billion libel lawsuit filed in 2006 against Timothy O’Brien for saying in his book TrumpNation, The Art of Being The Donald, that Trump was at best worth $250 million, not the billions Trump claimed.

A Jersey court dismissed the case because Trump failed to prove O’Brien had “any actual doubts” about the accuracy of his book and Trump lacked any “reliable” evidence that he was worth billions, admitting his net worth is “based on [his] … own feelings.”

Trump University (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/01/inside-trump-university-s-secret-playbooks.html) – Trump’s for-profit real estate “school” – lost its $1-million libel lawsuit in 2104 against a former Trump U student. Trump U sued Tarla Makaeff in California for saying Trump U and its affiliates engaged in “deceptive business practices,” “trickery,” and “fraud.” It took four years, but the libel claim was dismissed by a federal judge who ruled that Trump U failed to prove that the former student published with knowing falsity.

Trump fell in love with libel litigation when he filed his first libel lawsuit in 1984 against the Chicago Tribune and its architecture critic for calling Trump’s 1980’s plan to erect a 150-story Manhattan skyscraper “aesthetically lousy.” The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge in New York who said there is no accounting for taste and Trump should get a thicker skin.

Trump has one “victory:” Trump’s Miss Universe/Miss USA pageant company sued and won a $5-million default libel judgment in 2013 against Miss USA contestant in Sheena Monnin for calling the Miss USA pageant “rigged.” (Was she sued for using Trump’s favorite word?) But Monnin got bad advice from her attorney to skip the private arbitration, which was decided by a rent-a-judge who gave Trump a victory based on Monnin’s default. Winning by default is not a true win. It’s just good luck.

The Times is not likely sweating its tax return story. When faced with real lawyers and real judges who know about the First Amendment and libel law, Trump & Co. gets kicked out of court.


Susan Seager is a First Amendment attorney in Los Angeles who teaches media law at the University of Southern California.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/02/donald-j-trump-can-t-shut-down-new-york-times-tax-story.html

Trump fashions himself a "winner?" Donald Trump is a whiner.
.

David G
10-02-2016, 11:58 AM
By definition, the truth is never a slur.

The definition of a slur: "an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation."

This is not an insinuation or allegation.

Dingleberries just dingle louder when they trip over a fact.

Tom Wilkinson
10-02-2016, 12:17 PM
The real question is what is he paying now. He claims to have over 500 million in income and a net worth of billions. So let's assume the write off of 916 million over 18 years was legal. That's roughly 50 million a year for 18 years. Those 18 years are up. What is he paying now? Or has he managed to avoid it on current income as well. How did he get a net worth that high (or is that another lie) without having taxable income one he passed the 916m threshold for the write off?

Harvey Golden
10-02-2016, 01:26 PM
Comedy Break!

https://youtu.be/1aNdEaOAHfg

C. Ross
10-02-2016, 01:54 PM
Ron and Bobby raise some interesting questions and objections.

The fact is that ALL politicians go through this kind of scrutiny. ALL Presidential candidates for about 40 years have released their tax returns. Taxes and personal business affairs are complicated, and Mr. Trump might have perfectly good reasons for paying no taxes.

But Mr. Trump doesnt want to be like all other politicians. That's ok, it's worked for him so far, but where he falls apart is his mind-boggling self-declared double standards.

So he brags about his business acumen but won't release his tax returns.
He shames others for not paying taxes, and we don't know whether he does or not. The only evidence we have is that he does not.
He attacks other businesses for exporting jobs while his clothing line is manufactured overseas.
He calls his opponents Lyin' Ted and Crooked Hillary when there is tons of evidence of malfeasance around his businesses and foundation and he refuses to supply verified legal documents like a tax return to exonerate himself. Why?

Sometimes Mr. Trump says "it's smart business" to not pay taxes and take advantage of the housing market collapse. Sometimes he wants to attack Wall Street for exactly the same thing. He likes to attack Clinton for fees paid for speeches to Wall Street firms but we know similar firms like NBC Universal have paid his Foundation for media appearances.

The American people have a long-standing expectation to know the personal and business affairs and character of the politicians we elect as president. Mr. Trump chooses to be opaque, to make grandiose claims about his business super-powers, and to attack others about their personal and business affairs and character. This is a melt-down of his own making.

Chip-skiff
10-02-2016, 01:56 PM
That TrumpTM wants to run the government without paying for it is no great surprise.

What intrigues me is that someone close enough to him to have access to his tax returns is ratting him out (an ex-wife perhaps?)

No doubt a frantic search is underway for the traitorous scum.

Paul G.
10-02-2016, 03:10 PM
If Trump lost 918 million, how much was his own money and how much of it was owed to other parties. Who was on the other side of the ledger?

C. Ross
10-02-2016, 03:12 PM
.
So taking someone's tax returns illegally is OK by you as long as it suits a political agenda?

If it was illegally obtained or released that person is subject to prosecution.

It's possible this return was released by someone who had the right to disclose it.

But you've heard about leaks, right? What politician has not been the subject of a leak? It's only surprising this didn't occur sooner.

Tom Montgomery
10-02-2016, 03:30 PM
If it was illegally obtained or released that person is subject to prosecution.

It's possible this return was released by someone who had the right to disclose it.
And either way, The New York Times had every legal right to run with the story.

Good luck trying to prove that the NYT illegally obtained the tax return. So long as they simply received it from someone else, they are golden per the Constitution of the United States of America according to the SCOTUS.

RonW
10-02-2016, 03:48 PM
If it was illegally obtained or released that person is subject to prosecution.

It's possible this return was released by someone who had the right to disclose it.

But you've heard about leaks, right? What politician has not been the subject of a leak? It's only surprising this didn't occur sooner.

The only person I can think of that has the legal right to release the tax returns would be donald trump himself, and no others as long as he is alive....

Can you think of someone else?

Tom Wilkinson
10-02-2016, 03:49 PM
The only person I can think of that has the legal right to release the tax returns would be donald trump himself, and no others as long as he is alive....

Can you think of someone else?
Depends. Was it a joint return?

Tom Montgomery
10-02-2016, 03:52 PM
The only person I can think of that has the legal right to release the tax returns would be donald trump himself, and no others as long as he is alive....

Can you think of someone else?If so someone will face prosecution if they are ever discovered.

An awfully embarrassing story in the NYT for The Donald, though. And the NYT is immune from either prosecution or a private lawsuit.

Don't you just love the First Amendment?

David G
10-02-2016, 04:12 PM
https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/14495302_1313441215356478_5218524331954888139_n.jp g?oh=0828fc7e2325eae1b6d5b01ad7255434&oe=5874D5AD

C. Ross
10-02-2016, 04:42 PM
The only person I can think of that has the legal right to release the tax returns would be donald trump himself, and no others as long as he is alive....

Can you think of someone else?

For starters:

An ex-spouse
A family member who had rights to the return
A firm he did business with where he needed to attach tax returns to secure a loan or another part of an agreement.
A public record of a filing, perhaps associated with his gaming interests or other required regulatory filing.
A bank, commercial firm, or individual who was subpoenaed for records by a court, and Trump's tax filings were included under law as part of that order.
A party in a lawsuit which obtained the records in a deposition or filing.

I'm sure there are dozens of other possibilities. Unless the documents are transferred with a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement, they would be fair game.

But again, every politician of every party comes to understand that everything they do will eventually become public knowledge. There are no secrets in public life. It's bizarre that Mr. Trump didn't understand this. His advisors either were ignored, or were negligent in not warning him about this.

And finally, if he's a business genius and this shows how savvy he is (as his defenders asserted on the talk shows today) then his records should show him in all his glory. Shouldn't be thrilled to show everyone?

Norman Bernstein
10-02-2016, 04:51 PM
My question in all this: did Trump actually lose $916M of his OWN money?

Trump controls something like 500+ corporations and LLC's and LLP's.... so the presumption is that any losses on his personal tax return would be losses from 'pass thru' entities... but where did the money come from, in the first place? It is only fair to assume that the bankrupt casinos and other businesses were all built on leverage... not personal assets, at least, not principally. I'm not familiar enough with the tax implications of a bankruptcy of a privately held corporation, or LLC/LLP... but I have to wonder if the 'losses' claimed actually came out of his own pocket... or is he capitalizing on the losses of others?

I'm not suggesting anything illegal here.... but the ethics and morality might be a different situation.

RonW
10-02-2016, 04:55 PM
C.Ross -


An ex-spouse
A family member who had rights to the return
A firm he did business with where he needed to attach tax returns to secure a loan or another part of an agreement.
A public record of a filing, perhaps associated with his gaming interests or other required regulatory filing.
A bank, commercial firm, or individual who was subpoenaed for records by a court, and Trump's tax filings were included under law as part of that order.
A party in a lawsuit which obtained the records in a deposition or filing.

I find all of the above to be wrong, with the exception of one. The one possibility is if the return was already part of a public record such as a lawsuit where it was disclose.

No family member including ex-spouse has a right to make the return public without his permission, and that includes his lawyer...

If I was him I wouldn't relesae anything, it seems to be driving the left up the wall, but then again the left isn't concerned over national security and e-mails with classified info....

RonW
10-02-2016, 04:57 PM
Norman liberal bernstein says --
My question in all this: did Trump actually lose $916M of his OWN money?

Trump controls something like 500+ corporations and LLC's and LLP's....

That is a whole lot of Job Creations and responsibilities, and obviously many frivolous lawsuits to defend against those who are looking for a free pass to fortune.....

Norman Bernstein
10-02-2016, 05:01 PM
That is a whole lot of Job Creations and responsibilities, and obviously many frivolous lawsuits to defend against those who are looking for a free pass to fortune.....


....and that has WHAT to do with his tax returns?

Canoeyawl
10-02-2016, 05:02 PM
All of Trumps money whatever it is, he took from someone else.
Just sayin'...

This is the problem with a "good businessman" in the position of politician. Elected officials are there to give, not to take.

Of course we get corrupt ones from time to time, but I can't recall when we have ever deliberately elected one. Well, Nixon maybe, but he was a good liar.

RonW
10-02-2016, 05:21 PM
....and that has WHAT to do with his tax returns?

Probably nothing....you obviously don't know it but to do that kind of business the financial institutions rely on financial statements prepared by a CPA and not tax returns.

But you should know that no one has a right to make his tax returns public without his permission and that includes a bank where he applied for a loan at..they are to be held private and confidential.

bobbys
10-02-2016, 05:21 PM
For starters:

An ex-spouse
A family member who had rights to the return
A firm he did business with where he needed to attach tax returns to secure a loan or another part of an agreement.
A public record of a filing, perhaps associated with his gaming interests or other required regulatory filing.
A bank, commercial firm, or individual who was subpoenaed for records by a court, and Trump's tax filings were included under law as part of that order.
A party in a lawsuit which obtained the records in a deposition or filing.

I'm sure there are dozens of other possibilities. Unless the documents are transferred with a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement, they would be fair game.

But again, every politician of every party comes to understand that everything they do will eventually become public knowledge. There are no secrets in public life. It's bizarre that Mr. Trump didn't understand this. His advisors either were ignored, or were negligent in not warning him about this.

And finally, if he's a business genius and this shows how savvy he is (as his defenders asserted on the talk shows today) then his records should show him in all his glory. Shouldn't be thrilled to show everyone?
.

your OP says " part" of the return was posted.

I could pick apart any business tax return if I take the part I would like to use.

Surely you understand this..

bobbys
10-02-2016, 05:23 PM
Probably nothing....you obviously don't know it but to do that kind of business the financial institutions rely on financial statements prepared by a CPA and not tax returns.

But you should know that no one has a right to make his tax returns public without his permission and that includes a bank where he applied for a loan at..they are to be held private and confidential.
.

well ,we already know the Goverment has targeted Tea party groups.

Most likely. It's the Gov itself playing political games to destroy a candidate

bobbys
10-02-2016, 05:26 PM
https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/14495302_1313441215356478_5218524331954888139_n.jp g?oh=0828fc7e2325eae1b6d5b01ad7255434&oe=5874D5AD
.
HHHHMMMMMMMm so you want him to do" time" without benefit of charges, jury, trial, etc.

And liberals call him a nazi?

Norman Bernstein
10-02-2016, 05:29 PM
Probably nothing....you obviously don't know it but to do that kind of business the financial institutions rely on financial statements prepared by a CPA and not tax returns.


That STILL has nothing to do with the question asked, which was whether the $916M in losses was Trump's personal money, or the consequence of bankruptcy... in which case, some or all of it would represent other people's losses, not his.

bobbys
10-02-2016, 05:30 PM
And either way, The New York Times had every legal right to run with the story.

Good luck trying to prove that the NYT illegally obtained the tax return. So long as they simply received it from someone else, they are golden per the Constitution of the United States of America according to the SCOTUS..

If a person was on trial and evidence was submitted against said person that was revieved illegally would the judge accept that or strike it.

SUppose it was you on trial..

I bet you would object.

Tom Montgomery
10-02-2016, 05:33 PM
This is not about any trial in a court of law. This is about the legality of a newspaper printing the details about information leaked to them by a source.

So you do not accept the several SCOTUS rulings on this very issue?

bobbys
10-02-2016, 05:34 PM
Trump will say that Hillary leaked this to distract people from learning about Bill's affair with Gennifer Flowers in the 1980s.
.

Would you be so cavalier if someone took part of Yer returns to make a case against you and someone had a inane reply as you just posted.

bobbys
10-02-2016, 05:36 PM
So you do not accept the several SCOTUS rulings on this very issue?.

I guess if it was you on trial and you faced jail time from illegal taken evidence I could accept it.

Tom Montgomery
10-02-2016, 05:37 PM
You are confused about the issue, bobbys.

The leaked tax return is not being used as evidence against Donald Trump in court of law.

It is being reported about in detail by a daily newspaper.

bobbys
10-02-2016, 05:38 PM
You are confused about the issue, bobbys.

The leaked tax return is not being used as evidence against Donald Trump in court of law.

It is being reported about in detail by a daily newspaper.
.

PART of it was released.

Part does not make a whole.

Yellow journalism

Tom Montgomery
10-02-2016, 05:38 PM
Whatever. :rolleyes:

What it does is illustrate what a hypocritical a$$ your man is.

RonW
10-02-2016, 05:39 PM
That STILL has nothing to do with the question asked, which was whether the $916M in losses was Trump's personal money, or the consequence of bankruptcy... in which case, some or all of it would represent other people's losses, not his.

I didn't know you could write off other peoples money losses on your tax returns ..

C. Ross
10-02-2016, 06:09 PM
If I was him I wouldn't relesae anything, it seems to be driving the left up the wall, but then again the left isn't concerned over national security and e-mails with classified info....

Benghazi was investigated by a House Committee for months.

The email server was investigated by the FBI for months.

These are important issues for many voters because they help us understand Ms. Clinton's actions, judgment and character. Why shouldn't voters want the same kind of information about Mr. Trump?

C. Ross
10-02-2016, 06:11 PM
I didn't know you could write off other peoples money losses on your tax returns ..

People do if they bend the rules.

He hasn't released his tax returns but thorough reporting from donors and beneficiaries strongly indicates he broke the tax law with his Foundation.

We're choking on the smoke. There's clearly a fire to be investigated.

bobbys
10-02-2016, 06:27 PM
Whatever. :rolleyes:

What it does is illustrate what a hypocritical a$$ your man is.
.

Hypocritial?.

Well let's see how libs want it both ways.

If he declared bankruptcy on the casinos they are sore he writes it off.

If he makes money liberals are sore it's not enough as they say here he should have just socked it away.

If FORD opens a rambler factory and that goes bankrupt. Would you say they should not write it off..

Not every deal works out.

I had years of loses, someone could take a part of my return and state something seemed off.

As if a depreciated a tar pot or dump trucks.

Tom Montgomery
10-02-2016, 06:33 PM
Yes. Hypocritical. The Donald claims that he cannot reveal his latest tax return because he is undergoing an audit. But he refuses to release ANY of his past tax returns.

No surprise that you love the fact that he is going rogue.

C. Ross
10-02-2016, 06:35 PM
Bobby, I don't care if he writes off his losses.

But once he took a position that Obama was bad for paying 20.5%, that it was bad when half of Americans don't pay taxes, and brags that he pays more in a year than peons like you and me pay in a lifetime ... his hypocrisy becomes an issue. He's on record with these statements.

He hasn't denied the truthfulness of the tax returns. The Times interviewed his former accountant and he says they're authentic.

I can't square what he says with what he does. How do you?

Tom Montgomery
10-02-2016, 06:37 PM
Trumpistas simply do not care that his behavior contradicts his rhetoric.

Too Little Time
10-02-2016, 06:48 PM
I didn't know you could write off other peoples money losses on your tax returns ..
You cannot. But many people hate Trump, facts don't get in their way.

Hugh Conway
10-02-2016, 06:55 PM
You cannot. But many people hate Trump, facts don't get in their way.

What facts? You mean like the facts how he's played fast and loose with the law regarding his personal charity, his campaign funding, among other things? Why the hell wouldn't people assume he'd do the same with his taxes whatever they law might say? You cannot legally​. That doesn't mean people don't.

C. Ross
10-02-2016, 07:22 PM
You cannot. But many people hate Trump, facts don't get in their way.

I look forward to when he releases his tax returns. This will settle the matter fair and square.

If what he says about himself is true, and the defense his supporters offered today is accurate, he has nothing to fear.

Or not.

RonW
10-02-2016, 07:25 PM
I look forward to when he releases his tax returns. This will settle the matter fair and square.

If what he says about himself is true, and the defense his supporters offered today is accurate, he has nothing to fear.

Or not.

Then I take it for granted that you feel the same about Hillary and the e-mails, particularly the top secret ones.

George Jung
10-02-2016, 07:40 PM
Gosh. You almost get the impression the Trumpista's feel this tax-return scandal could actually hurt Trump. Not so teflon, after all.

I suggest deflection.

John Smith
10-02-2016, 07:41 PM
.
So taking someone's tax returns illegally is OK by you as long as it suits a political agenda?

You feel the same about hacked emails?


I expect there's a deeper issue here. David K. Johnson (I think that's his name) was on today and he's come to believe Trump keeps more than one set of books. The IRS gets one set of numbers while people he seeks to borrow money from get another set.

If he's right, Trump may have some really big problems. He may have lied to people who will not be happy. He may end up being investigated for tax fraud. Time will tell.

Imagine the possibilities.

Norman Bernstein
10-02-2016, 07:44 PM
You feel the same about hacked emails?


I expect there's a deeper issue here. David K. Johnson (I think that's his name) was on today and he's come to believe Trump keeps more than one set of books. The IRS gets one set of numbers while people he seeks to borrow money from get another set.

If he's right, Trump may have some really big problems. He may have lied to people who will not be happy. He may end up being investigated for tax fraud. Time will tell.

Imagine the possibilities.

David Kay Johnston. Brilliant guy, and good writer.

skuthorp
10-02-2016, 07:47 PM
Now maybe it matters who his putative VP is?

John Smith
10-02-2016, 07:48 PM
.

If a person was on trial and evidence was submitted against said person that was revieved illegally would the judge accept that or strike it.

SUppose it was you on trial..

I bet you would object.

You are defending the man who says "Lock her up" with no evidence.

C. Ross
10-02-2016, 07:50 PM
Then I take it for granted that you feel the same about Hillary and the e-mails, particularly the top secret ones.

I feel the email matter should be thoroughly investigated.

I do not want top secret emails released to the public.

I haven't followed it in deepest detail, but my understanding is the main focus was on the content of the deleted emails. You cannot prove that she or an assistant did not successfully delete an email that couldn't be recovered, but short of destruction of a physical disk it's extremely hard to permanently delete something on a computer.

Also, the thing about deleted emails is they always have a sender and/or recipient. I suspect but cannot prove that the FBI's inquiry extended to the email inboxes of nearly all of the people within the government that Secretary Clinton corresponded with. By rights under the investigation they performed, they would have subpoena-like rights to email boxes throughout the federal government. I am aware that the FBI has the most sophisticated computer forensics tools and a truly impressive team. If there was something fishy or a smoking gun in her emails, they would have found it. Is this chapter closed? I dunno. But I have a lot of faith in the FBI Director and his lengthy report. Those guys are highly capable and as serious as a heart attack.

John Smith
10-02-2016, 07:51 PM
Yes. Hypocritical. The Donald claims that he cannot reveal his latest tax return because he is undergoing an audit. But he refuses to release ANY of his past tax returns.

No surprise that you love the fact that he is going rogue.

He's presented no evidence that he's under audit, and the IRS says being under audit does not prevent him from releasing them.

Only a fool would vote for one who refuses to release his tax returns. Some won't like that opinion, but I don't know how they could argue with it.

Tom Montgomery
10-02-2016, 07:51 PM
David Kay Johnston. Brilliant guy, and good writer.
David Cay Johnston.

David G
10-02-2016, 07:55 PM
Now maybe it matters who his putative VP is?

Which also don't look so hot for the R's --

Most voters outside the Hoosier State know fairly little about Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, a lifelong social conservative who served in Congress for 12 years, as governor for three years and is a favorite of the Koch Brothers (http://billmoyers.com/story/whats-mike-pence-got-offer-trump-billionaire-backers/). Since Trump tweeted out his choice (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/753965070003109888), various news organizations have been reporting on Pence’s early career, his rise to national politics and where he stands on important issues — as well as his peculiar stance on the Disney animated film Mulan.

http://billmoyers.com/story/need-know-mike-pence-ahead-rnc-speech/

John Smith
10-02-2016, 07:56 PM
I feel the email matter should be thoroughly investigated.

I do not want top secret emails released to the public.

I haven't followed it in deepest detail, but my understanding is the main focus was on the content of the deleted emails. You cannot prove that she or an assistant did not successfully delete an email that couldn't be recovered, but short of destruction of a physical disk it's extremely hard to permanently delete something on a computer.

Also, the thing about deleted emails is they always have a sender and/or recipient. I suspect but cannot prove that the FBI's inquiry extended to the email inboxes of nearly all of the people within the government that Secretary Clinton corresponded with. By rights under the investigation they performed, they would have subpoena-like rights to email boxes throughout the federal government. I am aware that the FBI has the most sophisticated computer forensics tools and a truly impressive team. If there was something fishy or a smoking gun in her emails, they would have found it. Is this chapter closed? I dunno. But I have a lot of faith in the FBI Director and his lengthy report. Those guys are highly capable and as serious as a heart attack.

FBI director, when directly asked, testified that NONE of the emails (which she, by the way, didn't author) were properly marked with a head warning of classified data being contained in them.

Powell handed NOTHING over to the FBI when they asked, and no one seemed to care. If you read some of his emails that have surfaced, apparently hacked, you find he's been less than honest. No one cares. G.W. and Cheney deleted lots of emails, and no one seems to care. Jeb released all of his emails including names, addresses, phone numbers, and medical records of Floridians. No one seemed to care.

John Smith
10-02-2016, 07:57 PM
Are we talking about his personal taxes or his casino's?

Too Little Time
10-02-2016, 08:03 PM
Uh oh. This one might leave a mark. Someone mailed part of Mr. Trump's 1995 tax return to The New York Times and it's ugly.
Looking at this thread it is obvious that Trump was correct in saying that no one would understand his returns.

The New York Times made errors in their conclusions. In particular, this stuff about 18 years. They would have to know his actual income for those 18 years to make any valid conclusion.

As a side note: if he carried his losses forward or backward his charitable contributions may not have shown up on his returns.

But facts should never get in the way of opinions.

I don't particularly like Trump and I don't intend to vote. After reading so many of Clinton's supporters' comments, I may vote for him. She has too many supporters who are just plain ...

George Jung
10-02-2016, 08:13 PM
Yeah, that's the ticket - wonderful 'stream of consciousness', TLT. Not to mention logic and decision making.

John Smith
10-02-2016, 08:27 PM
If he would release his tax returns he'd end all this speculation.

The only reason I can think of is why he won't is that what they will reveal is worse than anything speculated.

bobbys
10-02-2016, 08:51 PM
The question is...how on earth do you run a casino with 10 or 15 million potential suckers...err...customers less than 2 hours away into the ground?

An astounding amount of mismanagement had to be involved to make that happen.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
.
ALL the casinos had trouble in A C..

This is like someone saying why did anyone have trouble in real estate in the last decade..

Bobcat
10-02-2016, 08:51 PM
If Trump wasn't hiding something in the tax returns, he would have released them months ago.

bobbys
10-02-2016, 08:52 PM
Yeah, that's the ticket - wonderful 'stream of consciousness', TLT. Not to mention logic and decision making.
.

What? No spelling corrections in Yer hard hitting reply?

bobbys
10-02-2016, 08:53 PM
If Trump wasn't hiding something in the tax returns, he would have released them months ago.
.

Well going by the critics here he should just release the parts he likes.

bobbys
10-02-2016, 08:57 PM
You feel the same about hacked emails?


I expect there's a deeper issue here. David K. Johnson (I think that's his name) was on today and he's come to believe Trump keeps more than one set of books. The IRS gets one set of numbers while people he seeks to borrow money from get another set.

If he's right, Trump may have some really big problems. He may have lied to people who will not be happy. He may end up being investigated for tax fraud. Time will tell.

Imagine the possibilities..

May , may , may may,

I guess I can accuse anyone of anything in Yer world if I put a " may" in front..

LOL.

bobbys
10-02-2016, 08:58 PM
David Kay Johnston. Brilliant guy, and good writer..

In this case he is a idiot .

C. Ross
10-02-2016, 09:00 PM
Looking at this thread it is obvious that Trump was correct in saying that no one would understand his returns.

The New York Times made errors in their conclusions. In particular, this stuff about 18 years. They would have to know his actual income for those 18 years to make any valid conclusion.

As a side note: if he carried his losses forward or backward his charitable contributions may not have shown up on his returns.

But facts should never get in the way of opinions.

I don't particularly like Trump and I don't intend to vote. After reading so many of Clinton's supporters' comments, I may vote for him. She has too many supporters who are just plain ...

Well, it's quite fair that it's likely none of us are tax accountants, and there isn't enough material to allow for a cogent and complete analysis anyway.

I'd refer you back to the original NYT story for details. As I understand it, the eighteen years thing comes in this sentence:


Under I.R.S. rules in 1995, net operating losses could be used to wipe out taxable income earned in the three years before and the 15 years after the loss.

You're right that they didn't know his actual income in those 18 years. But they did accurately divide $916M loss by 18 years and conclude that it would offset taxes on $50M in income per year, and they compared that to what is publicly known about his income in those years. So imprecise, but directionally correct, I'd say.


Although Mr. Trump’s taxable income in subsequent years is as yet unknown, a $916 million loss in 1995 would have been large enough to wipe out more than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years.
The $916 million loss certainly could have eliminated any federal income taxes Mr. Trump otherwise would have owed on the $50,000 to $100,000 he was paid for each episode of “The Apprentice,” (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/17/business/media/donald-trump-apprentice.html?_r=1) or the roughly $45 million he was paid between 1995 and 2009 when he was chairman or chief executive of the publicly traded company he created to assume ownership of his troubled Atlantic City casinos.


Your side note about the deductibility of his charitable contributions is completely fair. We just don't know.

But if I'm not a tax expert, the story did quote Mr. Trump's former accountant, who signed the 1995 return. I think his words reflect poorly on Mr. Trump.


On Wednesday, The Times presented the tax documents to Jack Mitnick, a lawyer and certified public accountant who handled Mr. Trump’s tax matters for more than 30 years, until 1996. Mr. Mitnick was listed as the preparer on the New Jersey tax form.
Mr. Mitnick, 80, now semiretired and living in Florida, said that while he no longer had access to Mr. Trump’s original returns, the documents appeared to be authentic copies of portions of Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax returns. Mr. Mitnick said the signature on the tax preparer line of the New Jersey tax form was his, and he readily explained an obvious anomaly in the way especially large numbers appeared on the New York tax document.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0#story-continues-3)
A flaw in the tax software program he used at the time prevented him from being able to print a nine-figure loss on Mr. Trump’s New York return, he said. So, for example, the loss of “-915,729,293” on Line 18 of the return printed out as “5,729,293.” As a result, Mr. Mitnick recalled, he had to use his typewriter to manually add the “-91,” thus explaining why the first two digits appeared to be in a different font and were slightly misaligned from the following seven digits.
“This is legit,” he said, stabbing a finger into the document.



Mr. Mitnick, the lawyer and accountant, was the person Mr. Trump leaned on most to do the spinning. Mr. Mitnick worked for a small Long Island accounting firm that specialized in handling tax issues for wealthy New York real estate families. He had long handled tax matters for Mr. Trump’s father, Fred C. Trump, and he said he began doing Donald Trump’s taxes after Mr. Trump turned 18.
In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Mitnick said he could not divulge details of Mr. Trump’s finances without Mr. Trump’s consent. But he did talk about Mr. Trump’s approaches to taxes, and he contrasted Fred Trump’s attention to detail with what he described as Mr. Trump’s brash and undisciplined style. He recalled, for example, that when Donald and Ivana Trump came in each year to sign their tax forms, it was almost always Ivana who asked more questions.
But if Mr. Trump lacked a sophisticated understanding of the tax code, and if he rarely showed any interest in the details behind various tax strategies, Mr. Mitnick said he clearly grasped the critical role taxes would play in helping him build wealth. “He knew we could use the tax code to protect him,” Mr. Mitnick said.
According to Mr. Mitnick, Mr. Trump’s use of net operating losses was no different from that of his other wealthy clients. “This may have had a couple extra digits compared to someone else’s operation, but they all benefited in the same way,” he said, pointing to the $916 million loss on Mr. Trump’s tax returns.
In “The Art of the Deal,” his 1987 best-selling book, Mr. Trump referred to Mr. Mitnick as “my accountant” — although he misspelled his name. Mr. Trump described consulting with Mr. Mitnick on the tax implications of deals he was contemplating and seeking his advice on how new federal tax regulations might affect real estate write-offs.
Mr. Mitnick, though, said there were times when even he, for all his years helping wealthy New Yorkers navigate the tax code, found it difficult to face the incongruity of his work for Mr. Trump. He felt keenly aware that Mr. Trump was living a life of unimaginable luxury thanks in part to Mr. Mitnick’s ability to relieve him of the burden of paying taxes like everyone else.
“Here the guy was building incredible net worth and not paying tax on it,” he said.

Too Little Time
10-02-2016, 09:09 PM
But if I'm not a tax expert, the story did quote Mr. Trump's former accountant, who signed the 1995 return. I think his words reflect poorly on Mr. Trump.

You failed to note that Trump's former accountant has violated the law by verifying that the return appeared to be authentic copies of Trump's returns.

Hugh Conway
10-02-2016, 09:14 PM
Looking at this thread it is obvious that Trump was correct in saying that no one would understand his returns.

The New York Times made errors in their conclusions. In particular, this stuff about 18 years. They would have to know his actual income for those 18 years to make any valid conclusion.

They made no errors. They said "up to" which is entirely factually correct. Again, you are confusing logic with "facts".


You failed to note that Trump's former accountant has violated the law by verifying that the return appeared to be authentic copies of Trump's returns.

It would appear that the accountants definition of what is legal for him to divulge differs from yours. You are not a judge, are you? So why make pronouncements on the law?

George Jung
10-02-2016, 09:33 PM
You failed to note that Trump's former accountant has violated the law by verifying that the return appeared to be authentic copies of Trump's returns.

Yeah. That's the important part.

C. Ross
10-02-2016, 09:35 PM
You failed to note that Trump's former accountant has violated the law by verifying that the return appeared to be authentic copies of Trump's returns.

Mr. Mitnick may have been foolish to comment, and Mr. Trump may have legal recourse against him. From the AICPA:



Professional standards prescribe what CPAs can and cannot do in these circumstances, and there are professional risks to signing these “comfort” letters or any other request for “certification” of tax return information. The third parties requesting these letters are not the CPA’s clients. Tax preparers therefore should not convey any information to anyone without their clients’ written permission. This is a requirement under professional ethics standards, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Internal Revenue Code, and other federal and state privacy statutes and regulations.

http://www.aicpa.org/InterestAreas/FRC/Pages/AICPATaxSection3PV.aspx

Will Mr. Trump sue his 80 year old former accountant for verifying that the 1995 tax return is legitimate? Who knows.

Can the New York Times be sued for publishing it? Certainly not. One might look to the Pentagon Papers and Watergate Tapes litigation for a guide.

Chris249
10-02-2016, 09:48 PM
So let me get this straight;

When security staff working to protect the Attorney General betray confidence to provide information that may embarrass the Clintons, it's fine.

When an accountant betrays confidence to provide information that can embarrass Trump, it's wrong.

Is that the way it's supposed to work?

Chris249
10-02-2016, 09:59 PM
.
So taking someone's tax returns illegally is OK by you as long as it suits a political agenda?

So security staff betraying the confidence of the Attorney General about the meeting with Clinton is OK by you as long as it suits a political agenda?

TomF
10-03-2016, 09:59 AM
I find it truly entertaining that when the source of leaked information damaging to the Clinton campaign appears to be Russian hackers, likely state-sponsored, the source of the documents doesn't matter. What matters is the content ... and any questions about whether a foreign power is interfering in America's electoral processes (or is potentially colluding with one of the candidates) are verboten. And there's no mention of whether news media should have had second thoughts about publishing the information, either way.

However ... when the source of leaked information damaging to the Trump campaign is not known, the legit conversations can only be about the wrongdoing of whoever that source could be. That, and conversations about how the media is doing a hatchet job on Trump, publishing stuff from anonymous sources ... even if it's apparently true. We aren't allowed to notice the content of the leak, when it damages Trump's narrative.

This is sickening.

Too Little Time
10-03-2016, 10:51 AM
I find it truly entertaining that when the source of leaked information damaging to the Clinton campaign appears to be Russian hackers, likely state-sponsored, the source of the documents doesn't matter. What matters is the content ... and any questions about whether a foreign power is interfering in America's electoral processes (or is potentially colluding with one of the candidates) are verboten. And there's no mention of whether news media should have had second thoughts about publishing the information, either way.

I am ignorant of the law in the matter. How are foreign governments prohibited from interfering with US elections? They are unlikely bound by US law.

I know this is true:


The ban on political contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals was first enacted in 1966 as part of the amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), an "internal security" statute. The goal of the FARA was to minimize foreign intervention in U.S. elections by establishing a series of limitations on foreign nationals.

TomF
10-03-2016, 11:10 AM
I am ignorant of the law in the matter. How are foreign governments prohibited from interfering with US elections? They are unlikely bound by US law.I didn't say that a sovereign nation was prohibited under US law from interfering in US elections. "Sovereignty" means, after all, that a state is the sole legitimate political authority within its own borders - nowadays we recognize certain norms of international law which apply outside those borders too. Those include non-interference in other states' governance processes (like elections). In practice, states have always done this - state sponsored coups, for instance. "Regime change" military actions too.

But when their agents are engaged in such things, and are caught, it's called "espionage." America has laws about that. While you can't take the Kremlin to court for working to influence the American presidential race, you can prosecute the Russian hackers paid to do the work. The "rendition" stuff (which I find execrable, BTW) means that under present American law you can even forcibly pick these guys up somewhere and fly them back to America to prosecute on American soil.

Too Little Time
10-03-2016, 12:32 PM
I didn't say that a sovereign nation was prohibited under US law from interfering in US elections. "Sovereignty" means, after all, that a state is the sole legitimate political authority within its own borders - nowadays we recognize certain norms of international law which apply outside those borders too. Those include non-interference in other states' governance processes (like elections). In practice, states have always done this - state sponsored coups, for instance. "Regime change" military actions too.

But when their agents are engaged in such things, and are caught, it's called "espionage." America has laws about that. While you can't take the Kremlin to court for working to influence the American presidential race, you can prosecute the Russian hackers paid to do the work. The "rendition" stuff (which I find execrable, BTW) means that under present American law you can even forcibly pick these guys up somewhere and fly them back to America to prosecute on American soil.
Espionage seems to deal with interfering with war or perhaps the military. But then I only looked at the Espionage Act of 1917.

Foreign powers hire hackers to work for them, that seems to be the same as NSA (and other US agencies) hiring hackers. I don't see any crime. I don't even see a basis for rendition.

TomF
10-03-2016, 12:47 PM
Espionage deals with interfering in a state's interests. Yes with war or the military, but also with economic strategy, trade, and anything else which can be turned towards competitive advantage. A lot of recent hacking has had to do with intellectual property, the progress of hearings into major projects with economic impacts (e.g. pipelines), etc. And yeah, into the servers and databases of the foreign offices of many Sovereign States in the OECD looking expressly for intel and briefings about the American Presidential election.

This has been rather widely covered in the news.

George Jung
10-03-2016, 01:13 PM
But... does it fit *anyones* agenda? No?

There. You have your answer.

Bobcat
10-03-2016, 02:48 PM
If you burn through $900,000,000 in a year, that's losing over $2-1/2 million a day.

RHAKCT
10-03-2016, 04:24 PM
Has anybody here looked into the Clintons tax returns and seen that they did the same thing everybody seems so uptight about Trump doing? or how about the 6 Billion that was lost by the state dept. during Hillary's reign? - everything here seems awful one sided?

Norman Bernstein
10-03-2016, 04:29 PM
Has anybody here looked into the Clintons tax returns and seen that they did the same thing everybody seems so uptight about Trump doing?

That is simply NOT true. The Clintons have released DECADES of tax returns; they paid taxes (between 20% and 30% of their income), and there has been NO evidence of any malfeasance.


....or how about the 6 Billion that was lost by the state dept. during Hillary's reign? - everything here seems awful one sided?

You need far more than a right wing talking point for anyone here to pay attention to THAT charge.... and furthermore, it has NOTHING to do with Clinton's personal taxes... which IS the subject of the thread.

RHAKCT
10-03-2016, 04:39 PM
I thought the honesty or lack of by the candidates was the real point of this thread?

Norman Bernstein
10-03-2016, 04:42 PM
I thought the honesty or lack of by the candidates was the real point of this thread?

Read the title of the thread.

If you want to make accusations against Hillary Clinton involving something she did as Secretary of State, then by all means, start a thread. Be prepared to back up the accusations with credible sources and links. You COULD c&p stuff from Breitbart, WND, NewsMax, and the Drudge Report... but all that will do is generate a laugh.

RHAKCT
10-03-2016, 04:48 PM
Long-term capital loss carryover. - $702, 540
this figure is straight from the Clinton's 2015 tax return - same deduction as Trump is being accused of cheating by using.

Norman Bernstein
10-03-2016, 04:58 PM
Long-term capital loss carryover. - $702, 540
this figure is straight from the Clinton's 2015 tax return - same deduction as Trump is being accused of cheating by using.

I'm looking right at the Clinton's 2015 tax return, right now.... https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-documents/01-health-financial-records/Clinton_2015_Form_1040_with_Signature_Page.pdf

There is no such figure.

The closest I can see is a $699,540 loss on a business, entitled 'ZFS Holdings', which had gross receipts of $3,000,000.... but you can only deduct $3,000 for a loss of this type. In the end, The Clintons paid a whopping $3,624,455, or 43.2%, of their income in federal taxes.

NOT the same thing as ZERO dollars in tax, is it?

Michael D. Storey
10-03-2016, 04:58 PM
Look, if he had any sense, any brains at all, he would show the return that was in the NYT yesterday, and say, ' look what it is legal to get away with!! I broke no laws!! But it should be illegal!! I will make it so, and that my friends is where the money for infrastructure development will come from!!' He would have capitalized on the fact that no one who has called for overdue federal spending on infrastructure projects has come up with any good ways to pay for them. I dont think that he gives a hot wet fertilizer.

Dave Wright
10-03-2016, 05:04 PM
Long-term capital loss carryover. - $702, 540
this figure is straight from the Clinton's 2015 tax return - same deduction as Trump is being accused of cheating by using.

The devil is always in the details, check this out as a counter to the sites that you have been reading. Note that you can accurately comment on Clinton's return because, unlike Trump, the Clintons release their returns:

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/03/right-wing-media-faceplant-rush-accuse-clintons-doing-same-thing-trump-taxes/213487

" The claim, which originated with a pseudonymous Reddit poster and has already spread to Fox News, fails to note that while the Clintons’ 2015 return shows that they did have a roughly $700,000 capital loss carried over from a prior year, that loss originates with the financial crash of 2008, and they received only a $3,000 deduction for those losses and paid $3.2 million in federal income taxes in 2015."

Norman Bernstein
10-03-2016, 05:05 PM
The devil is always in the details, check this out as a counter to the sites that you have been reading. Note thst you can accurately comment on Clinton's return because, unlike Trump, the Clintons release there returns:

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/03/right-wing-media-faceplant-rush-accuse-clintons-doing-same-thing-trump-taxes/213487

" The claim, which originated with a pseudonymous Reddit poster and has already spread to Fox News, fails to note that while the Clintons’ 2015 return shows that they did have a roughly $700,000 capital loss carried over from a prior year, that loss originates with the financial crash of 2008, and they received only a $3,000 deduction for those losses and paid $3.2 million in federal income taxes in 2015."

Yeah, it figures... the haters will believe absolutely ANYTHING!!!!!!!

David G
10-03-2016, 05:16 PM
It really pays to figure out which news sources are reliable... and which are not.

Norman Bernstein
10-03-2016, 05:18 PM
RHAKCT, you have nothing to say?

Usually, when I get the story wrong, or buy off on false information, two things happen:

1) I am very embarrassed, and
2) I apologize and retract.

RHAKCT
10-03-2016, 05:52 PM
but I'm not wrong and I've never seen either 1 or 2 from you

johnw
10-03-2016, 06:00 PM
but I'm not wrong and I've never seen either 1 or 2 from you

You claimed the Clintons used the same deduction.


Long-term capital loss carryover. - $702, 540
this figure is straight from the Clinton's 2015 tax return - same deduction as Trump is being accused of cheating by using.

But the Clintons are not real estate professionals, and can only write off about $3,000, so it looks like they didn't get the same deduction.

As to 1 & 2, you've only been here since July.

ccmanuals
10-03-2016, 06:01 PM
Another glow light.

Lew Barrett
10-03-2016, 06:04 PM
.
So taking someone's tax returns illegally is OK by you as long as it suits a political agenda?

Is hacking the DNC OK by you as long as it supports your political agenda?

Too Little Time
10-03-2016, 06:04 PM
Look, if he had any sense, any brains at all, he would show the return that was in the NYT yesterday, and say, ' look what it is legal to get away with!! I broke no laws!! But it should be illegal!! I will make it so, and that my friends is where the money for infrastructure development will come from!!' He would have capitalized on the fact that no one who has called for overdue federal spending on infrastructure projects has come up with any good ways to pay for them. I dont think that he gives a hot wet fertilizer.

I was talking to a fellow at lunch today. And then I read an article on the internet - who would have thought I could lose the link in 5 minutes. Both made the same comment. A tax loss is not the same as a financial loss. At one time you could have a large tax loss without a financial loss. There was a court decision validating that tax position. Subsequently Congress passed a law correcting the situation. They both thought that is what happened to Trump.

But they both thought it was folly to base any comments on the first page of 3 state returns.

I think the fact that the IRS did not prosecute Trump indicates that there was nothing illegal. I don't think comments from Trump are necessary.

Hugh Conway
10-03-2016, 06:36 PM
I think the fact that the IRS did not prosecute Trump indicates that there was nothing illegal.

I'm not sure why you persist with this fantasist view of prosecution. There are many reasons crimes are not prosecuted in the US.

johnw
10-03-2016, 06:46 PM
I'm not sure why you persist with this fantasist view of prosecution. There are many reasons crimes are not prosecuted in the US.

There's plenty of time for a prosecution to happen. It's also more likely to happen in regard to his foundation than his tax returns, although the use of his foundation could pose problems with the IRS as well.

Usually, the IRS assesses fines rather than sending people to prison.

Dave Wright
10-03-2016, 06:51 PM
I think the fact that the IRS did not prosecute Trump indicates that there was nothing illegal. I don't think comments from Trump are necessary.

Of course you are correct; it's unlikely that he did anyhing illegal. But what you should consider is that when he decides to run for high office his life will be scrutinized in detail. Believe it or not, some few people actually donate money to the U.S. government above and beyond their tax bill. Here's a table of recent donations the treasury department:



Fiscal Year to Date
Totals


2016 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2016.htm)
$2,561,023.36


2015 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2015.htm)
$3,864,661.38


2014 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2014.htm)
$5,103,452.84


2013 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2013.htm)
$1,763,754.56


2012 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2012.htm)
$7,749,618.27


2011 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2011.htm)
$3,277,369.23


2010 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2010.htm)
$2,840,466.75


2009 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2009.htm)
3,063,057.05


2008 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2008.htm)
2,189,358.89


2007 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2007.htm)
2,624,862.42


2006 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2006.htm)
1,646,209.41


2005 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2005.htm)
1,455,541.65


2004 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2004.htm)
664,911.25


2003 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2003.htm)
1,277,423.40


2002 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2002.htm)
744,675.06


2001 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2001.htm)
1,645,082.28


2000 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_2000.htm)
1,868,891.93


1999 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_99.htm)
1,457,510.59


1998 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift_98.htm)
1,535,541.02


1997
955,897.15


1996
1,985,175.10


Gifts to Reduce Debt Held by the Public have been reported in the footnotes of the Monthly Statement of the Public Debt since February 1988. Visit the MSPD (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm) to view the debt historical information archives including fiscal year to date tables through and including 1987.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

Clearly the donations are small, but they are an interesting oddity.. Are the people who do this well meaning, or patriotic, or simply fools? Who knows. Can we fault them for what they do? What an interesting contrast to compare people like this, or even just your average Joe, who pays his 12 to 20 percent of income in tax to the feds. Compare these folks to a man running for public office who gloats on his ability to nickel and dime the goverment and everyone who he has business dealings with. Is it valid for us to consider this aspect of a man who says he is going to make the country great again and be our personal savior? To my way thinking his tax machinations are just one more aspect of a selfish character, a character that is revealed to us over and over again. A character that should make him unworthy of representing and governing us.

Norman Bernstein
10-03-2016, 07:40 PM
but I'm not wrong....

Can you please explain why you are not wrong?

You saw the link to the Clinton's actual tax returns?

You read them?

You saw that the claim you repeated was made by an anonymous Reddit poster? Without proof or evidence?

So, if you're 'not wrong', please explain why.

Too Little Time
10-03-2016, 07:49 PM
I'm not sure why you persist with this fantasist view of prosecution. There are many reasons crimes are not prosecuted in the US.
You seem to have a fantasist view also. I accept it. Part of living in society is allowing others to have views you might not agree with.

RHAKCT
10-03-2016, 07:55 PM
the tax return is on the internet as a PDF document, all you have to do is look at it. and I'm sure as a self employed person you know you can't write off the entire "loss" the following year ie. the Clinton's reduced amt for 2015 - same as Trump not possibly having to pay tax on his loss for the past 18 years? I advocate an honest look at both candidates but you seem to be a rabid Hillary supporter who can't even consider any viewpoint that might cast a doubt on her.

Norman Bernstein
10-03-2016, 08:13 PM
the tax return is on the internet as a PDF document, all you have to do is look at it.

I did... and provided a link. Are you trying to claim that the one I found was NOT real?


and I'm sure as a self employed person you know you can't write off the entire "loss" the following year ie. the Clinton's reduced amt for 2015 - same as Trump not possibly having to pay tax on his loss for the past 18 years?

You claimed the following:


Long-term capital loss carryover. - $702, 540

That figure itself is wrong (It was $699,540).... but it's not the same kind of loss that Trump would have claimed, if indeed he paid no income tax in any given year, as a result. Certain kinds of losses can be claimed as a deduction, only up to $3000 in a given year.... but a loss which reduces one's taxes to ZERO in any given year is a different kind of loss.


I advocate an honest look at both candidates but you seem to be a rabid Hillary supporter who can't even consider any viewpoint that might cast a doubt on her.

I'm always willing to deal with facts. If you are getting the numbers wrong, the person with the facts isn't you.

RHAKCT
10-03-2016, 08:15 PM
yeah, OK - goodnight.

Norman Bernstein
10-03-2016, 08:20 PM
yeah, OK - goodnight.

FYI, Trumps tax loss carry forward was aided by specific tax rules for real estate developers, which are different than losses of other businesses.... such as the ability to deduct depreciation from income, as if it were an actual loss. This is NOT the same as the $3000 limit imposed on taxpayers who are NOT real estate developers. The rules for Trump, in other words, were NOT the same rules as those the Clintons had to operate under... so your original premise was indeed wrong.

RonW
10-03-2016, 08:21 PM
the tax return is on the internet as a PDF document, all you have to do is look at it. and I'm sure as a self employed person you know you can't write off the entire "loss" the following year ie. the Clinton's reduced amt for 2015 - same as Trump not possibly having to pay tax on his loss for the past 18 years? I advocate an honest look at both candidates but you seem to be a rabid Hillary supporter who can't even consider any viewpoint that might cast a doubt on her.

I kinda noticed that to........

Hugh Conway
10-03-2016, 08:38 PM
You seem to have a fantasist view also. I accept it. Part of living in society is allowing others to have views you might not agree with.

No - I have a realist view. There are choices made in prosecution.

I don't think there's much wrong with Trump's tax return, likely, But the choice not to prosecute has little relevance - for that number the accountants and everyone would have documentation to support whatever they claimed. Honest, or not, there'd be documents and lawyers and much difficulty.

This is the USA. That's reality. Fantasy is believing that only people who break the law are prosecuted and those that aren't prosecuted never broke the law. Many people in our country persist in this childish delusion unfortunately.

Too Little Time
10-03-2016, 09:39 PM
Espionage deals with interfering in a state's interests. Yes with war or the military, but also with economic strategy, trade, and anything else which can be turned towards competitive advantage. A lot of recent hacking has had to do with intellectual property, the progress of hearings into major projects with economic impacts (e.g. pipelines), etc. And yeah, into the servers and databases of the foreign offices of many Sovereign States in the OECD looking expressly for intel and briefings about the American Presidential election.

This has been rather widely covered in the news.
While you are correct, I prefer the more narrow traditional definition.

C. Ross
10-03-2016, 09:51 PM
Hot off the presses. CNN/ORC poll suggests that even Mr. Trump's supporters feel he should release his tax returns, and that paying taxes is "a civic duty". Note that these results from CNN were assembled before the publishing of portions of his 1995 return. This is an excerpt from a larger story about the poll.


Although most interviews in the survey were completed before Saturday night's revelation that Trump may have avoided income taxes for nearly two decades, the results were clear that about three-quarters of voters think Trump should release his tax returns for public review (73% say so, including about half of Trump's own supporters, 47%).

Poll: 8-in-10 Trump backers say paying taxes is 'civic duty'

More respondents also see Trump's refusal to release this taxes as a sign that he's hiding something than that he's under audit from the IRS (57% say he's hiding something, 33% that he's holding back due to an audit).

Voters are in near-universal agreement, though, that paying taxes is every American's civic duty. Nearly 9-in-10 feel that way while just 12% say they see taxes as an unnecessary burden to be avoided. Even among Trump backers, 79% see them as a civic duty.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/03/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-polls/

George Jung
10-03-2016, 09:53 PM
Well. That's an inconvenient fact, eh, TLT?

RonW
10-03-2016, 10:16 PM
Hot off the presses. CNN/ORC poll suggests that even Mr. Trump's supporters feel he should release his tax returns, and that paying taxes is "a civic duty". Note that these results from CNN were assembled before the publishing of portions of his 1995 return. This is an excerpt from a larger story about the poll.


CNN .......the clinton news network..

O.K. everyone that will vote for the big Donn if he releases his taxes..........raise your hand......

O.K. now let's see the hands of all that will vote for hillary if she releases her e-mails.

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
10-03-2016, 10:36 PM
yeah, OK - goodnight.



Quit confusing him with the facts Norm.
Like those PTSD Vets, he can't handle it.:)

C. Ross
10-03-2016, 10:45 PM
CNN .......the clinton news network..

O.K. everyone that will vote for the big Donn if he releases his taxes..........raise your hand......

O.K. now let's see the hands of all that will vote for hillary if she releases her e-mails.

Ron, you're a rascal! Your commitment to Trump knows no bounds, and there is no argument you're not willing to make!

RonW
10-03-2016, 10:50 PM
Ron, you're a rascal! Your commitment to Trump knows no bounds, and there is no argument you're not willing to make!

I plead guilty, but you are slightly wrong, it isn't my commitment to Trump, it is my commitment to save my country by educating as many as possible about the wicked witch from the north.


https://66.media.tumblr.com/8b1043a310950d50badd1ac29446202b/tumblr_nm25pb9MMK1tbw8ydo1_500.gif

Keith Wilson
10-03-2016, 10:55 PM
Um - Ron? I think you're confused. That picture is the Wicked Witch of the West. The Witch of the North was the good one, with the glittery pink costume and the very odd hat

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3Tk0Os4Q2Sw/VFLq6PCkMfI/AAAAAAAAIgA/xfBxoRPfmxc/s1600/goodwitch.jpg

RonW
10-03-2016, 11:02 PM
Um - Ron? I think you're confused. That picture is the Wicked Witch of the West. The Witch of the North was the good one, with the glittery pink costume and the very odd hat

Keith, that may be so in your fairy tale, but in the real world, Hillary Rodham Clinton is from Chicago..........

Keith Wilson
10-03-2016, 11:10 PM
Not my fairy tale, and in the real world Ms. Clinton is neither particularly wicked nor a witch. Nor does she suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. But don't let me slow you down; post as many obvious lies as you like. You might want to think about making some of them at least halfway plausible, since I suspect the latest round isn't helping your cause at all. Your call, though.

C. Ross
10-03-2016, 11:18 PM
<satire>
She is a woman, though. Isn't that sufficient cause?
</satire>

TomF
10-04-2016, 09:31 AM
I think the fact that the IRS did not prosecute Trump indicates that there was nothing illegal. ...And the fact that the FBI did not prosecute Clinton for her email issues?

Too Little Time
10-04-2016, 09:46 AM
And the fact that the FBI did not prosecute Clinton for her email issues?
That is a good point. Are you saying both the IRS and the FBI are corrupt?

TomF
10-04-2016, 09:49 AM
That is a good point. Are you saying both the IRS and the FBI are corrupt?Bettridge's law.

Too Little Time
10-04-2016, 12:10 PM
Bettridge's law.
Godel