Trump Tax Avoidance: Shrewd Smart Businessman or Deserves Jail Time?

[Spendulus]

Regardless of the technicalities of "repay or restructure" what cannot be denied is that Trump will have to make arrangements with people/organisations that he personally owes $400 million to about repaying or restructuring his phenomenal debt to his creditors.

To make matter worse, Trump has not named them. As for evaluating his finances and background checks for his security clearance when standing for office, it means nothing if he hid things ro was economical with the truth - and we do not know what he claimed when seeking clearance from the security services but I am sure that information will be leaked at some point too....

Which would have been evaluated when he got his security clearance. But I'm dubious that info needs to go to YOU, or that "the public" is competent to evaluate such things.

Anyway, "due to pay back" is false. Those type loans are written for 7 year periods because of some federal banking regulation. The correct phrase is "due to be renewed."

You're obviously not knowledgable about the things you are talking about.

I don't know of information on a security clearance being leaked, EVER. Lying and mistatements on such applications are routinely caught and dealt with.

If The NY Times actually has his tax returns, they can tell you who loaned him the money.

Why we're at it, let's find out which Iranian source paid for Obama's college fees.

[1714625556]

1714625556

[1714625556]

1714625556

[JollyGood]

I do know what I am talking about. Trump maybe lying is one thing but being economical with the truth is another thing entirely. Which will it be when the whole story comes out.

Legendary journalist Carl Bernstein summed up Trump fairly well when he called him a pathological lair and a con-artist this morning during a British television interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRh5PdPkpm0

Regardless of the technicalities of "repay or restructure" what cannot be denied is that Trump will have to make arrangements with people/organisations that he personally owes $400 million to about repaying or restructuring his phenomenal debt to his creditors.

To make matter worse, Trump has not named them. As for evaluating his finances and background checks for his security clearance when standing for office, it means nothing if he hid things ro was economical with the truth - and we do not know what he claimed when seeking clearance from the security services but I am sure that information will be leaked at some point too....

Which would have been evaluated when he got his security clearance. But I'm dubious that info needs to go to YOU, or that "the public" is competent to evaluate such things.

Anyway, "due to pay back" is false. Those type loans are written for 7 year periods because of some federal banking regulation. The correct phrase is "due to be renewed."

You're obviously not knowledgable about the things you are talking about.

I don't know of information on a security clearance being leaked, EVER. Lying and mistatements on such applications are routinely caught and dealt with.

If The NY Times actually has his tax returns, they can tell you who loaned him the money.

Why we're at it, let's find out which Iranian source paid for Obama's college fees.

[squatz1]

....

I personally do think that the IRS gives a pass to the rich, but not because of the Obamas, the Clintons, or whatever.....

Disagree strongly. You've got to focus on the actual tax code. They only apply that code. If the IRS applies that code, the IRS has done their job. The tax return can be reviewed, and if there is no tax due, there are deductions that reduced the taxable sum to zero or below. Simple as that. The deductions are either acceptable or not.

The certain case of unacceptable and unfair application of the tax code by the IRS is when Obama used it as a weapon to shut down people who opposed him.

Well yes, you either use the tax code right or you don't. But would you agree that it is cheaper to audit poor people, right?...

No. Say the IRS wanted 100M in revenue. They could do us for 10k each or one fat cat. They'd have to do 10,000 of us to get it AND THAT'S IF EVERYONE PAID. Some wouldn't, some would make a deal for less, many simply didn't owe the money. So let's say they audit 10 people to get 10,000$.

Then they have to audit 100k people to get the 100M.

Versus one fat cat? Realistically, say they audit 10 fat cats, and tell each they'll settle for 10M. Sounds easier to me that a hundred thousand.

Auditing poor people IS CHEAPER THOUGH and the IRS has said this is the case. Poor people have very simple tax returns, they most likely have have on W-2 and the way they'd try to fuck with their return is by putting bogus deductions on it. That's pretty simple to notice if you're a low income earner and randomly you have a ton of charitable deductions. You don't need teams and teams of IRS high level personnel on that case, you can send someone straight out of college to handle that as it is pretty simple.

Auditing one 'fat cat' is expensive and the IRS budget has been slashed, not allowing them to go after these sorts of people.

To me auditing and making people pay the right amount isn't about the money received in penalties, it's about making sure the rule of law is followed.

[Spendulus]

...
To me auditing and making people pay the right amount isn't about the money received in penalties, it's about making sure the rule of law is followed.

But Trump DOES HAVE an audit ongoing. And his complaint all along about releasing his tax returns is that he would, after the audit finalizes the numbers to a correct figure.

[squatz1]

...
To me auditing and making people pay the right amount isn't about the money received in penalties, it's about making sure the rule of law is followed.

But Trump DOES HAVE an audit ongoing. And his complaint all along about releasing his tax returns is that he would, after the audit finalizes the numbers to a correct figure.

Oh that wasn't me trying taking a dig at Trump, that was me saying that we shouldn't AVOID auditing rich people because it is too expensive and not cost effective. Everyone should get audited so that that the rule of law is followed.

I understand Trump may have an audit and such, not sure why that would stop you from releasing your tax returns. But tax returns don't really have much info on it to digest anyway, so I never really understood the hype.

[vapourminer]

But tax returns don't really have much info on it to digest anyway, so I never really understood the hype.

think of it like blockchain analysis in bitcoin in a way. like they found a writeoff in donalds return that matched exactly income in his daughters return.

im sure they will find many more matches to family and friends. maybe legal, maybe not.

[BADecker]

This thread is silly. Thousands or millions of people make mistakes in their taxes. The point isn't the mistakes. The point is whether or not the mistakes were intentional.

If your accountant makes a mistake that you don't catch, and you are called by the IRS about it, all you have to do is change it and pay the penalties. As long as there isn't any fraud proven, no problems. You go on with life.

The Dems are simply trying to make a big stink about nothing because Trump is a Republican.

[Spendulus]

...
To me auditing and making people pay the right amount isn't about the money received in penalties, it's about making sure the rule of law is followed.

But Trump DOES HAVE an audit ongoing. And his complaint all along about releasing his tax returns is that he would, after the audit finalizes the numbers to a correct figure.

Oh that wasn't me trying taking a dig at Trump, that was me saying that we shouldn't AVOID auditing rich people because it is too expensive and not cost effective. Everyone should get audited so that that the rule of law is followed.

I understand Trump may have an audit and such, not sure why that would stop you from releasing your tax returns. But tax returns don't really have much info on it to digest anyway, so I never really understood the hype.

So their practice on avoiding auditing rich people doesn't apply to Trump? Just to people like Biden, right?

No way I'd release key evidence in a dispute with the IRS. That's like revealing the details of a court case right in the middle of it to the public. But don't worry Trump doesn't expect to be treated fairly.

By the way, most audits are simply letters from the IRS asking about one or several things. You correct it and send in a response.

Then there are the "Compliance Audits" where you are forced to prove every single expense and income item. That's what Obama subjected hundreds of leaders in the Tea Party to. That's the "Weaponized IRS."