Bitcoin Forum

The Guardian:



---------------

What seems to be clear is that Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 which was the year he became President and again just $750 in 2017 too.

• Trump paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years
• Trump paid no federal income taxes in 11 of 18 years NY Times reporters examined

Will that be enough to make voters feel disappointed with Trump? Or will the fact that Biden is the one who would replace him as President be enough to scare voters to keep Trump in power?

---------------



Full details here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/27/new-york-times-publishes-donald-trumps-tax-returns-election
And here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage



---------------

It really depends on the tax issues behind it. I read somewhere that Trump gave up all the control on his companies when becoming president so that there wouldn't be any conflict of interest. So if he doesn't have any control over the money and all returns are reinvested he might not have to pay taxes on them. And also some losses from the past can be matched against current earnings. Tax law is crazy complicated. Just look at Amazon almost paying no taxes in Europe, and still people buy as crazy on Amazon. Tax evasion is viewed not as a hard criminal activity in many countries.

@JollyGood first of all we need to understand that his tax files are yet under audit, hence we can’t actually believe this report to be true. Secondly like @Mauser righty said that tax laws are complicated, and hypothetically let’s assume that this report is indeed true, then too I see nothing wrong here because if a persons assets are in deep losses then how would he be expected to pay taxes?.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54319948

As per the BBC News: "In a public filing, President Trump said he made at least $434.9m in 2018. The newspaper disputes this, alleging that his tax returns show the president had instead gone into the red, with $47.4m in losses."

I think there is a huge disparity between the $434.9 million that Trump claims he made and the $47.4 million losses that the New York Times claims he actually incurred - therefore if trump thinks he is right he should sue the NYT. So will he do it?

Let us see what he says about these allegations when he attends his next press conference.

There's a 99.99% chance the reports are true. The NYT wouldn't run a story like this without some level of truth. They may not give the full context, but you HAVE to think a billionaire would take all the deductions he's entitled to.

Trump already tweeted fake news in response, *facepalm*. Creating a distraction is probably a better strategy. Hunter Biden taking a 3.5M wire from a former Russian governmental official is in the news, he could try that. The MSM has hardly mentioned it, which is not surprising.

Here are the top 6 highly damaging allegations:  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/27/new-york-times-trump-tax-returns-key-findings (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/27/new-york-times-trump-tax-returns-key-findings)



Trump pays little tax
The Times reported that Trump paid no federal income taxes in 11 of 18 years the newspaper looked at. In 2017, after he became president, his tax bill was only $750. This is despite Trump often railing against taxes in America and ushering through a series of tax cuts that critics say mostly helps the rich and big business. The Times said of Trump’s immediate predecessors: “Barack Obama and George W Bush each regularly paid more than $100,000 a year.”


A long audit – with potentially hefty costs
Trump is involved in a decade-long audit with the Internal Revenue Service over a $72.9m tax refund he claimed, and received, after declaring huge losses. A ruling against him could cost him more than $100m, the Times reported.

It added: “In 2011, the IRS began an audit reviewing the legitimacy of the refund. Almost a decade later, the case remains unresolved, for unknown reasons, and could ultimately end up in federal court, where it could become a matter of public record.”


Ivanka helps reduce Trump’s tax burden
The president’s oldest daughter, while working as an employee of the Trump Organization, appears to have received “consulting fees” that helped reduce the family’s tax bill, the Times said. Such a revelation might further tarnish the reputation of Ivanka, a senior White House adviser married to another, Jared Kushner, who often tries to distance herself from some of the biggest scandals of her father’s administration. She is widely believed to harbor political ambitions of her own after Trump leaves office.

The Times reported: “Trump’s private records show that his company once paid $747,622 in fees to an unnamed consultant for hotel projects in Hawaii and Vancouver, British Columbia. Ivanka Trump’s public disclosure forms – which she filed when joining the White House staff in 2017 – show that she had received an identical amount through a consulting company she co-owned.”


Trump businesses lose money
The Times was brutal in its assessment of Trump’s businesses, about which he often boasts and on the back of which he sought to promote a carefully curated image as a master businessman. “Trump’s core enterprises – from his constellation of golf courses to his conservative-magnet hotel in Washington – report losing millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars year after year,” the newspaper said.

It detailed how since 2000, Trump has reported losing more than $315m at his golf courses, with much of that coming from Trump National Doral in Florida. His Washington hotel, which opened in 2016 and has been the subject of much speculation regarding federal ethics laws, has lost more than $55m.


Trump has a big bill to pay
The newspaper also reported that Trump is facing a major financial bill, as within the next four years, hundreds of millions of dollars in loans will come due. The paper said Trump is personally responsible for many of those obligations.

The paper reported: “In the 1990s, Mr Trump nearly ruined himself by personally guaranteeing hundreds of millions of dollars in loans, and he has since said that he regretted doing so. But he has taken the same step again, his tax records show. He appears to be responsible for loans totaling $421m, most of which is coming due within four years.”

In a blunt summary of the problem, the Times speculated: “Should he win re-election, his lenders could be placed in the unprecedented position of weighing whether to foreclose on a sitting president.”


Trump businesses profit from his presidency
The issue of whether Trump’s businesses benefit from his position in the White House has been one of the long-running themes of reporting on the Trump presidency. The global nature of the Trump Organization and its portfolio of hotels, resorts and other interests has left Trump open to speculation that lobbyists, business leaders and foreign powers could spend money in them to try and peddle influence in the US.

The Times report on his tax returns is clear that Trump’s businesses have indeed benefited from his political career.

“Since he became a leading presidential candidate, he has received large amounts of money from lobbyists, politicians and foreign officials who pay to stay at his properties or join his clubs,” the newspaper reported, before detailing monies paid at his Mar-a-Largo resort in Florida, his Washington hotel and other locations.

Trump has done all kinds of things in his presidency. Some are good; others are not so good. Some people have opposite opinions about the things that are good, whether they are good or not. But here is the place where Trump fails to do a BIG CHUNK OF GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE.

Trump knows how to get away without paying much tax legally, right? And in some years, no tax at all, right? So, why doesn't he show the rest of us? He could easily hire some writers and technical people to put together a manual for not paying taxes for us, right?

Look at it this way. Government people are toying with the idea of giving us all a big chunk of UNEARNED INCOME. If government is thinking about paying us to live for nothing, but just can't figure out the way to do it properly, they can easily start with one thing that they can do... get rid of the IRS and taxation. Let the IRS people get out there and find something worthwhile to do rather than mess with the lives of other people, right?

Trump can start right now by figuring out ways that we can copy him, and pay little or no taxes. Then he can urge Congress to get rid of the IRS.

There is something in this whole operation of taxation that we don't understand. And it isn't simply that Trump has figured out ways to pay no tax. Lots of people do it. Many of them are corporate leaders... big income people. But there are many average income people who are quietly doing the same.

How do they do it? Let the rest of us know.

8)

Jeffrey like this!
It is just another easy thing Mr 0range, aka I can do anything, used to do to make America GREAT again. It requires tremendous efforts, genuineness and a smart guy to accomplish it better than everyone else. Can't you see that? He is awesome, he will save us from ByeDon...
Crappy crap, brainless dudes will vote for him even if he was nominated as a king.
Worst scenario is Pince pardoning him for all his thousands "mistakes" when he step down after his shameful defeat.

I think that this is done because it is legal when filing disclosures/ other documents (like bank financing) you're allowed to estimate what your income is going to be, instead of sending in the fully cleared documents when your filing out your tax returns. Plus for your tax returns you MAY be carrying a loss forward from prior years, something that wouldn't really make sense to do on a disclosure of income form.

Trump is going to deny this, I don't think that's surprising though. Who knows if this'll turn into an October surprise that can take down Trump. I think we're all expecting for some anti Biden news to come out soon to counteract all of this.

Well Trump definitely is not the richest person in the USA - there are too many people that are richer than him but yes while others are afraid to play the system to benefit themselves against the IRS, Trump seems to be wriggling out of everything except making token tax return payments of $750 per year.

Just unbelievable that any prospective or sitting President could do that when so many citizens are on the poverty line.

Wriggling?

Aren't you pointing to a problem if not in your own understanding and prejudice or inclination, then with the IRS?

They audit and correct tax returns all the time. I think I'll take their opinion on the returns in question rather than yours, as to whether it was done correctly.

I wont be choosing side for USA presidency, I just wonder why the revelation is coming out now that the election is close, especially from dailies that had always been against him. I am expecting  response from the Presidency soon as campaign is ongoing. If the Tax news is true he might struggle to defend it but will it cost him the election? Partisanship is everywhere and it might play a long way in the choice of leader.

Others are not politicians. Politicians are fair and honest. Since they make laws, they should not abuse them. It is very similar as if we would elect pope who would be an atheist.  We can do it, but would have little sense to do it.  

Really?

Many see what Trump has done with his tax returns as being out-and-out fraud and criminal offending because he is exaggerating his losses in order to pay less taxes and in the eyes of many ordinary voters: exaggeration = fraud

Trump may yet try to squirm out of it but we have to wait for his press conferences about it, he has so far said that the NYT publications are fake news - what is new with his response?

BBC News: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54332956

According to the explosive report in the New York Times - which says it obtained tax records for Mr Trump and his companies over two decades - Mr Trump paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years. It adds that the president is personally responsible for more than $300m in loans, which will come due in the next four years.


----------

Speaking on NBC, Ms Pelosi said the report showed that "this president appears to have over $400m in debt".

"To whom? Different countries? What is the leverage they have?" she asked, adding: "So for me, this is a national security question."

"The fact that you could have a sitting president who owes hundreds of millions of dollars that he's personally guaranteed to lenders, and we don't know who these lenders are," she said, and suggested that Mr Trump may be indebted to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"What does Putin have on the president politically? Personally? Financially?"

----------

To be honest this is a game changer. How could a man with over $400 million in personal debt to unnamed creditors get to become the President of the USA? I think Pelosi is on to something factual when she says "Trump taxes are 'national security' issue"

I know, I know. It's so much more entertaining looking at the drama of Trump and his taxes, than looking at what we could learn from him if he would only teach us... and shut down the IRS at the same time.



8)

Hm. What's the part about these unnamed creditors? I know that he had large amounts of debt that is going to be due soon in the next few years, though I didn't know these were unnamed creditors.

Could this potentially be a national security issue? Yes. But that's something that we really don't know about at the time. It does make sense for someone who is involved in Real Estate to be massively leveraged to have a large amount of debts coming due. So I don't think that's surprising IMO.

We'll see in the coming weeks when more stuff comes out about this.

It'd be more meaningful to ask a question like... "What's the debt to equity ratio?"

Oh, wait...

That's way, way too complicated.

It's something a first year college business student might ask. We shouldn't expect that from you, right?

But ORANGEMANBAD!!!!

so who does he owe the money 💵 to?

This is TOTALLY the line of thinking that I'm going down here. That's NOT something you'd find on a personal income return, but that's not something that already hate Trump are going to care much about. That's something you'd find on business returns, and I highly doubt we're going to see another leak of the massive amount of businesses that the Trumps use for all of their properties. AND NO it is not WEIRD that they have many companies under them, that's something that you do when you own so many large value businesses / properties -- you want them all separated and insulated from one another in the event of a lawsuit.

Have ya seen Twitter recently?

Interesting question, because typically, you'd have no right to know such a thing.

But now, Trump is POTUS. I can see how people would want to know that he was not beholden to foreign powers or agents of them. Russian oligarchs would be a good example.

Typically commercial real estate loans are for a seven year period and are then renegotiated.

But there are many foreign countries that do not allow non-citizens to own property, and so some form of deal must be made with locals to do something like build a hotel.

On becoming POTUS, Trump set the properties aside I believe into a trust, because of exactly these sorts of concerns.

I think it was not just brainless dudes that voted for Trump, there were plenty of business minded people too because would benefit from tax cuts. Let us not forget it was not just the far-right it was also centre-right as well as alienated and disaffected voters too that put Trump in the White House. Another important factor was people did not trust Hillary Clinton even though she won the popular vote she lost out on the electoral college because she and the Democrats took a victory for granted.

This time against Biden who does not look like he can string a few consecutive coherent sentences together, it looks like Trump will get re-elected but thanks to his tax avoidance revelations in the New York Times he might face legal issues.

You don't automatically owe taxes just because you are rich.  We have income taxes but Trump has no income so why would he pay taxes?  He's worth billions largely due to real estate assets for which he pays property taxes.  He wouldn't pay income taxes on that unless he sold it and cashed out. 

Its like the whole country discovered how our tax code works overnight.  It was only 6 months ago the democrats were wholeheartedly rejecting a wealth tax.  Now they are suddenly surprised 45 doesn't voluntarily pay one. 

This issue reminds me of one aspect of the Affordable Care Act.

When Demos had the power they passed that with a slim majority using a budget trick.

But did it apply to them? Oh, no. Of course not. All of Congress and the Senate have their own health care plans.

And tax law? It's for the little guys like us. Not them.

The man with the best tax lawyers... What did you expect?

Actually, the US tax collection system works very well, compared to those in many countries of the work.

I don't know if Trump's business affairs are largely or partly in matters that are subject to different interpretations of tax law.

Suppose that was the case, then it would be totally legitimate and expected to take one stand and expect the IRS to take another, and then to settle up somewhere down the line.

Regardless, it's way different that getting taxed on a salary. However, on that dimension it's Trump that reformed the tax code two years ago, making it much fairer and eliminating a lot of loopholes. Almost everyone pays substantially less than before those changes.

Hm. I think his assets were put into a trust, but it was not a blind trust that he has no control over, it is a revocable trust that he can pull back at any point. Not saying that a guy worth a few billion should just hand over his assets to someone else -- as that'd be asking for a lot, just clarifying that his children now run the day to day operations of the company which would mean that he is very likely still at the helm.

We've never had a president who owns these sorts of assets. Most before this had large stock holdings, which are very easy to just put into a blind trust and have someone manage them. Real estate is totally a different ball game.

I think he said he was going to put them in a blind trust, but then handled the whole thing the same way he handles his taxes.  He put Don Jr. and Eric in charge and promised not to tell them what to do, and left himself access to all the money like normal.

Sounds basically okay.

But that's my point of view, and I did vote for him. People talked about those issues in 2016, of course. They are no different today, so I would wager that those who voted for him before, or who did not but view him favorably now, will not have their minds changed by being reminded of this issue.

Of course, these issues were not issues when the Demos ran John Kerry for president. His wealth has been variously estimated, ranging from around $165 million to as high as $3.2 billion

Oh yeah I'm not saying there's something WRONG with using a revocable trust where you still more or less have control of the assets. That was me just clarifying, as when most people think 'trust' they think of something that is irrevocable and can't be controlled by themselves at the moment. That wouldn't be the case for someone who's children are now in charge of the company.

But you're right, I don't think anyone's mind will be changed by this in regards to people who were crazy happy to vote for him in 2016. May hurt some short term poll numbers in regards to moderates, but we'll see what the outlook looks like after tonight.

Debates can TOTALLY change the game from here.

A revocable trust seems like a proper method of handling the assets, given the term may be four years, or eight, or less than four, if you had believed the impeachment scam. The term was not known, but would come to an end.

That is the thing, will it be enough to bring Trump down or will the concerns surrounding Biden and his health be enough by some voters to want to keep in power?

In the morass of tax law, both could be simultaneously true.

$400mm in debt is nothing when you have $2-$8 billion in assets..
How many of you have mortgages?

I do not see tax minimalization as immoral at all..
I might not even feel that actual tax evasion is immoral, depending..

You mean a mortgage where the whole principal is due next year and there is no income to repay it? I don't have one of those.

For commercial mortgages. 3-10 year terms are very common.

The reason is that the lender just uses works a spread on short term CDs.

It’s called a “balloon” payment mortgage/loan, which are very common in residential land contracts and commercial real estate loans..
Basically just means the loan has to be refinanced within the term.. I’ve had one myself..


Real estate investing, usually, is a game of making more profit on the investment that it costs to service the debt on the investment.. For example, look into the BRRRR method..
For most it’s more of a cashflow game than an assets/equity game.. But Trump is very heavy into the equity/assets side, actually owning the majority of his holdings without being leveraged to the max, which most are..

Most real estate “investors”, who “own” many rentals, usually have them all very close to maxed out in leverage as a way to expand..

When Trump says his debt to assets ratio is low, well, “debt to asset” ratio is a very common metric in the business world, especially real estate where most use a lot of leverage..


If you buy the propaganda that Trump is broke because he has loans, you probably don’t understand how the world works..
All fiat money is debt btw, I think you would know..

Real estate and the credit system are kinda a couple of my many other interests other than crypto..
Anyone wanna chat about how to max out your credit score and how to use it to make money off of the banks? Heh

Trump might be a thief and a very skillful one but do you know what he also stole?

He has stolen people's hearts.

So what if he didn't pay his taxes? Regardless of that taxation is being theft, if IRS can't find anything on Trump, why do we talk about it anyway?

As you all know, IRS is above everyone else in USA.

Did Trump skillfully evade paying taxes? Then it means he is smart. You should too. If you can't, you are not smart enough.

Why is google and other big tech companies have their HQ's in Ireland? You think Is it because they like the Irish booze?

Ignore my post above.

Trump will win again. Biden sucked so much last night.

As truth is a truth regardless of when it is revealed. There could be ulterior motives to release these tax documents so close to the Presidential elections and just before the first of three television debates but it is still a concern. Nobody can be sure if the news will affect a chance Trump has of being re-elected but what cannot be denied is that Biden needs to capitalise on it otherwise it will be a failing on his part.

And the selective release of parts of documents, creating a false impression with purpose and malice, is called "lying by omission."

You guys have this thing all backwards. Here's what I mean.

It's difficult to balance your income for taxation, if you have many income streams like Trump does. The difficulty for Trump is to show some tax for popularity purposes.

Trump didn't have to pay any taxes at all. Done the right way, he might have even been able to get money back from the IRS. But if he did it this way, what would the people say then? So, he had to pay some taxes just to make it look good in front of the people.

Why didn't he pay a little more, say, like $20,000? Because twisting IRS language to open himself up to a $20,000 tax range, would have pushed him into, possibly, a $20,000,000 tax category.

The $750 area was the best he could do, to show that he paid taxes... and yet wouldn't have to pay enormously higher taxes.

In other words, the amount Trump paid was for political show. He didn't have to pay anything.

8)

I do not think Biden performed that badly, I mean Trump was not exactly great either. Maybe Biden will fare better in the second live debate but that also gives an opportunity for Trump to get prepared for part 2 as well. I hope they remain civil next time rather than talk over each other.

As for the whole tax issue, many people will disconnect with Trump if someone with that sort of wealth is paying less tax in a fiscal year than the average school teacher pays. If he has nothing wrong then so be it but if he has swindled the US government out of millions in taxes or if he owes any of that $400 million in loans to people that might be able to influence his decision making process while he is President then it will come back to haunt him as the truth will always out.

What Trump did might or might not be classed as smart, it depends on what happens in the coming days when he/if he releases his tax returns

That's completely, totally meaningless in the presence of an ongoing, non-resolved, not-finalized tax audit.

The very meaning of the audit is that the numbers are not settled.

Duh....

An audit occurs after you've filed your taxes.  It's basically just the IRS double checking to make sure everything is accurate.

An example of an area of dispute between hotel/casino owners and the IRS is how remodeling is handled. This gets very intricate and complicated. There is a real world need to renew interiors periodically, let's say every 5-10 years. The standard IRS depreciation for most things on commercial buildings is 35 years.

A developer tears out a section of a casino that held a restaurant and puts something different in, still a restaurant. He is on the 7th year of 35 years depreciation on 3M costs, and has 80% deductions left (3M*.80=2.4m). The new buildout costs him 4M, of which he classifies 1M as equipment. Ice machines, tables, chairs, rolling buffet carts, and he assigns that fraction to a 5year depreciation schedule. He calculates first year depreciation at (3m/35 + 1m/5 + salvage). The IRS argues it is 4M/35 plus salvage.

Developer = 85,714+200,000 = 285,714
IRS = 114,285

The amount at dispute is 171,428.

Salvage value in both cases is 28/35 * 3M = 2,400,000. It would not be disputed by the IRS ... usually.

Multiply that single issue by about 100 and you've got an idea of ONE ASPECT of the complexity of billion dollar real estate dominant tax returns.

A lot of these issues were clarified and simplified in the Trump tax reform legislation. It's not perfect but a lot better than the previous. My example is of an issue prior.

There is absolutely nothing stopping anybody releasing their tax returns while the audit with the IRS is going on.

Trump claimed he will release his tax returns after the audit is complete but whether the audit is complete or not Trump has copies of the returns he filed, he should publish them.

Yeah, that's you trying to push someone else into doing something.

You can ask nicely.

Naw, leftists would rather sue to get them, or outright steal them.

Ah, you don't approve of the democrats not being nice and filing so many lawsuits.  Makes sense that you found a home in the Trump cult.

There's really not much to be proud of in the behavior of the corrupt political and power system we loosely refer to as "the Democrats" for the last four years.

Perhaps there were times when the Republicans were similarly corrupt and the Democrats were not, and perhaps there were times when both were, or neither was.

We'd have to EXCLUDE all the historical decades when the Democrats were the party of slavery, the KKK, and of white supremacy. We'd also certainly have to exclude the Obama years, when Chicago style corruption was brought to Washington.

That leaves a period from about 1960 to 2008 for consideration.

Both parties have evolved since the time when Republicans were the progressive party that represented more cities, fought for the rights of immigrants and minorities and was mostly in the North.

Luckily not all Republicans are accepting what has become of the GOP since becoming the party of Trump: one example (https://lincolnproject.us/)

Sorry, I made a mistake. We'll have to exclude the time your Demo party had its beloved longest serving member, Robert Byrd, member of the KKK.

When Byrd died in 2010, he had served in the Senate longer than anyone else; the New York Times described him as "a pillar of Capitol Hill." In a statement, then-President Barack Obama called him "a voice of principle and reason." Biden said Byrd was "a dear friend."

In West Virginia in the 1940s — late 1941 or early 1942, according to Byrd’s memoir — he organized and led a 150-member chapter, or "Klavern," of the Klan as the "Exalted Cyclops." In Klan hierarchy, according to Slate, each Klavern is led by an Exalted Cyclops typically elected by his fellow Klansmen. The Exalted Cyclops reports to a "Grand Giant" (provincial leader), "Grand Dragon" (state director) and "Grand Wizard" (national chair).

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/15/viral-image/robert-byrd-wasnt-grand-wizard-kkk-he-once-led-loc/

1960 to 2008 but Byrd died in 2010?

I guess that leaves you and your party with no good years? Certainly no years in which you can proudly pontificate as a moral authority.

All from the link you provided:

In the 1940s Byrd was in the Klan.

He "then spent decades apologizing for what he called a ‘sad mistake".

In his 2005 memoir he wrote "It has emerged throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me and has taught me in a very graphic way what one major mistake can do to one’s life, career, and reputation,"


So your conclusion is that, since Bird died in 2010 - the democratic party shared ideals with the Klan until 2010.

Quite a stretch, even for you - the guy who attacked me for calling someone racist who was openly recruiting for the KKK and calling for all blacks to be caged again or sent back to africa where they belong.  You weren't triggered by what he said, you were triggered that someone was called a racist.
 

I'm just looking for some period where you can rationally, objectively claim some moral high ground to pontificate about other peoples' faults from.

There's no triggering here. Triggering is a ridiculous contrived liberal delusion.

Why would he hide behind excuses? What is stopping him from releasing his tax returns while the audit is on-going?

I'm guessing the reason you wouldn't want to release them during an audit is that the legal team / tax law team is interested in ensuring that the financial ramifications of the audit are as low as possible. If you are to release your tax returns to the public you risk pressure on the IRS to ensure that they make penalties as strict as possible.

Seems to be common practice for wealthier individuals to draw out their audits as long as possible, as that puts them in the best spot to benefit themselves financially.

All Presidents and Vice Presidents are subject to mandatory examinations by the IRS. So that has probably been a fun process over the years. Typically for Presidents only in politics auditing them was probably much easier, but auditing all of their businesses and such? Who knows if that's even on the table for the IRS.

Current IRS Commissioner, Charles Rettig, is a friend of the Trump admin and personally wrote an OP-ED in Forbes defending Trumps practice of not releasing his tax returns.

Sounds reasonable. In such a situation I might make a quick compromise offer to the IRS, something like "let's settle for 1/2 the disputed amount, but this offer is only good for 10 days."

But then people'd complain he got off easy.

I think it's because he doesn't want people to know that he's not a successful businessman, just a reality TV star that's good at being famous.

https://i.gyazo.com/882faf6ea6401fee40a003356de58cf5.png

What's the source on this by the way?

I read something very funny the other day, which is probably present for all people who inherited tons of money at some point in their life. The whole article was about how if Trump had just taken his $474m he inherited in and put it in the stock market he would now be worth like double what he is now. Obviously his inheritance come in drips and drabs instead of all in one go. Plus he would've had to liquidate real estate holdings into cash for this as well.

Why would a person who was once a presidential candidate and then later became a president make deals and settle with the IRS?

Anybody who is fiddling their tax returns should not be allowed anywhere near the presidency of any country.

Why should someone settle?

One reason would be if the point of tax law being discussed is in fact unclear and subject to multiple interpretations.

The IRS makes deals and settles with a vast number of taxpayers, for various reasons.

Another reason would be because you did whatever has been alleged and the offer now is better than if you made them put the effort into proving what you already know is true.

This reminds me of your silly "Michael Flynn is innocent because he admitted he was guilty (twice) and took a plea deal." argument.

I can see that. In the case of the IRS, they would much prefer to take someone who seemed to owe tax, and settle, collecting something, rather than risking the court process and possibly losing, or winning and collecting nothing.

That's entirely different than weaponizing the IRS and using it vindictively against political enemies.

Plea bargaining and settling are very similar processes.

someone who in fact did owe tax*

I found it rather interesting when the New York Times released an article the other day stating that Trump has Chinese bank accounts. I have a strange feeling that the Chinese government, being an authoritarian style, would be much harder to skirt around any sort of tax laws - meaning he probably paid more in taxes to China than he has to his home country. This is how a business mind works and it's still shocking that the average working person on the street thinks that Trump is trying to help them and not just enrich himself further.

Haven't seen what he's paid to China, but the NY Times article reported that he paid ~$15k to Panama, $100k to india and $150k to the Philippines.

This sort or ambiguity has a stench of elitism and that should not be applied to a presidential candidate or incumbent, it is far more synonymous with those suited and booted tax evaders and tax avoiders that sit on the corporate ladder within high powered institutions that makes them think they are above the law because of the donations they make to their favourite political parties.
 

Well, that would indicate a final determination by the IRS and the courts in the audit, which has not yet occurred.

Which is why I phrased it as "seemed to owe tax." The IRS can be wrong.

The IRS routinely settles for a fraction of what's due, often with small businessmen or individuals that have fallen on hard times.

They even pester a president for money. At least he kept the amount low. Good work, Trump! Way to go!

8)