Ivanka Trump Implicated in NY Times Published Tax Scandal

[squatz1]

...
Pretty sure there is no statue of limitations on tax fraud / tax evasion. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Maybe the criminal side of things is differently, but I think the IRS can come after you for the money you owe them (civil) at any point.

Source on that: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a0899314-b701-49b5-a695-d69896261788

Pretty moot point though, as the IRS does not have the funding or the political independence to just go after the sitting president and his family. LOL.

What you see in this thread is anti-trumpers attempting to argue that Trump can/should be proscecuted criminally for imagined tax issues.
(A) The actual facts don't matter as this is a pre election smear campaign
(B) Criminal prosecution has a statute of limitations, 6 years.
(C) Tax collection has a primary goal of COLLECTING MONEY, not putting people in jail.

(C) is really important. It's literally the case that the IRS can triple their money by waiting a couple years and going after someone that tried to deceive them. What maximizes collection of tax, should be their standard policy. Anything that tries to jail people instead of collect tax is contrary to the goal of collecting tax revenue. Anti-Trumpers would like a weaponized IRS that did their bidding, criminally charging Trump and totally ignoring Pelosi, Biden, etc. 

Now his daughter it seems has been on the payroll as an employee in one case and as a contractor in another with the allegation being made this was done to stop paying the appropriate tax. Whether that is legal or not I think it is clear it is morally wrong for someone trying to make it to the White House to be conducting in those types of behaviours.
...

Where did you come up with that idea? That would be okay or not based on the employee agreement terms and conditions. Are you not in the US and just don't know the law and practice here?

Oh yeah I understand that, I'm just kinda pointing out the fact that the IRS could go after this if they wanted to, doesn't seem to be anything stopping them in regards to the state of limiations and such. Maybe they can't go after them criminally, but civilly they can recoup whatever money they want.

Fair to point out from an earlier discussion that the IRS does not have the proper funding to audit rich people due to budgetary cuts over the past decade or so. Plus the fact that Trump is the president. No one is going to try to audit him.

I'll agree with you in saying that this is all pre election smear, nothing else.

[Spendulus]

...I'm just kinda pointing out the fact that the IRS could go after this if they wanted to, doesn't seem to be anything stopping them in regards to the state of limiations and such. Maybe they can't go after them criminally, but civilly they can recoup whatever money they want.

Fair to point out from an earlier discussion that the IRS does not have the proper funding to audit rich people due to budgetary cuts over the past decade or so. Plus the fact that Trump is the president. No one is going to try to audit him.

I'll agree with you in saying that this is all pre election smear, nothing else.

I disagree with that, because a lot of audits are a routine request for info or correction. Computer generated, seemingly. Others are a valid question on the appropriateness of a certain tactic.

Just don't really see why this would all stop if someone was president.

Another issue would be the nature of the deduction.

Say a taxpayer was wealthy and did a totally inappropriate deduction.

Let's say the fat cat deducted a 100M yacht, expensed it. He's got a dozen girls and ample supplies of various chemicals those his "customers" would like.

We know they'd pounce on you or I if small guys tried to deduce a boat for entertainment expense.

I can't imagine them not going after this clown. Maybe there's a loophole, but I have not ever heard of it. Granted there are explicit loopholes for aircraft, that's a different issue. So this guy tries to deduct his pleasure palace, and the IRS objects. He says I'm deducting it, take me to court if you like. I double dare you.

That guy is going down and going down hard. He's not criminal, mind you. This is just a dispute about money. He's moving in the direction of criminal if he listed the boat expenses fraudulently say as cost of goods sold. But even then, they'd want their money and penalties, more than to get him in jail. Now if the clown was a drug dealer, they'd want jail.

[squatz1]

...I'm just kinda pointing out the fact that the IRS could go after this if they wanted to, doesn't seem to be anything stopping them in regards to the state of limiations and such. Maybe they can't go after them criminally, but civilly they can recoup whatever money they want.

Fair to point out from an earlier discussion that the IRS does not have the proper funding to audit rich people due to budgetary cuts over the past decade or so. Plus the fact that Trump is the president. No one is going to try to audit him.

I'll agree with you in saying that this is all pre election smear, nothing else.

I disagree with that, because a lot of audits are a routine request for info or correction. Computer generated, seemingly. Others are a valid question on the appropriateness of a certain tactic.

Just don't really see why this would all stop if someone was president.

Another issue would be the nature of the deduction.

Say a taxpayer was wealthy and did a totally inappropriate deduction.

Let's say the fat cat deducted a 100M yacht, expensed it. He's got a dozen girls and ample supplies of various chemicals those his "customers" would like.

We know they'd pounce on you or I if small guys tried to deduce a boat for entertainment expense.

I can't imagine them not going after this clown. Maybe there's a loophole, but I have not ever heard of it. Granted there are explicit loopholes for aircraft, that's a different issue.

When I say that no one is going to audit him, I'm saying that typically when you appoint the commissioner of the IRS they're not going to let their agency embarrass you with a scandal like this. I'm not saying that the IRS is internally stopping an audit from happening, just saying that there is probably a less then zero chance that it ever be allowed to go public. So yeah, just saying there's the IRS wouldn't have the political power to do this if they wanted to and if there was enough evidence to pounce.

I'm also talking about auditing him for the big stuff and going after him for all of what is alleged in the NYTimes report. Routine stuff isn't going to be blocked just cause you're the President.

Wealthy clients, like Trump, make it hard for the IRS as they can also employ fat cat tax lawyers to protect them.

[Spendulus]

...

Wealthy clients, like Trump, make it hard for the IRS as they can also employ fat cat tax lawyers to protect them.

But at that point, it's his legal team against their legal team, and the most likely outcome of that is a negotiated settlement rather than a court. There's nothing wrong with that - the Gov might get half plus penalties. That's particularly okay if the dispute is over a vague point of tax code, subject to multiple interpretations.

[squatz1]

...

Wealthy clients, like Trump, make it hard for the IRS as they can also employ fat cat tax lawyers to protect them.

But at that point, it's his legal team against their legal team, and the most likely outcome of that is a negotiated settlement rather than a court. There's nothing wrong with that - the Gov might get half plus penalties. That's particularly okay if the dispute is over a vague point of tax code, subject to multiple interpretations.

Oh yeah, totally not saying that it is BAD that wealthy clients have more resources to defend themselves, more so just bringing it up. It wasn't even a jab at Trump, moreso just saying that the IRS doesn't really have the funding to go against someone with the money to back themselves up.

If ya send a notice to someone who is poor and then force them to pay, they're going to do so.

If you try that same thing with someone who is wealthier, it's not going to fly.

People could debate if the IRS is always truly forthcoming about what you owe them, but that's for another time.

[Spendulus]

...

Wealthy clients, like Trump, make it hard for the IRS as they can also employ fat cat tax lawyers to protect them.

But at that point, it's his legal team against their legal team, and the most likely outcome of that is a negotiated settlement rather than a court. There's nothing wrong with that - the Gov might get half plus penalties. That's particularly okay if the dispute is over a vague point of tax code, subject to multiple interpretations.

Oh yeah, totally not saying that it is BAD that wealthy clients have more resources to defend themselves, more so just bringing it up. It wasn't even a jab at Trump, moreso just saying that the IRS doesn't really have the funding to go against someone with the money to back themselves up.

If ya send a notice to someone who is poor and then force them to pay, they're going to do so.

If you try that same thing with someone who is wealthier, it's not going to fly.

People could debate if the IRS is always truly forthcoming about what you owe them, but that's for another time.

I really have no clue whether what you are saying might be true. The IRS doesn't really need "Lots of funding" to go against someone with the money to fight them. The case just gets settled informally, or like I mentioned, it goes to tax court and the judges decide.

If there's fraud on a billionaire's tax return, I would be very surprised to hear of cases where it was discovered and let go. The exception would be something like law enforcement wanted to let the guy run around for a couple years before roping him in, and so by agreement the return is processed normally. Maybe LEO wants to learn the entire network of drug dealers, then capture them all at once. Cases involving national security, you could expect that.