Ivanka Trump Implicated in NY Times Published Tax Scandal

[Spendulus]

When it becomes known who Trump is in personal debt to the tune of $400 million, a connection will be made between him and his creditors to some action he took which might have benefited his benefactors. The whole thing looks like it will be published before the election.....

Creditors are not "benefactors." Not in the least. What you do with creditors is pay the payments and adhere to the terms of the loan.

It's been pointed out to you before ... several times ... that 400M is small compared to the asset values.

It's like having a $1000 loan on a $10,000 car.

[TwitchySeal]

When it becomes known who Trump is in personal debt to the tune of $400 million, a connection will be made between him and his creditors to some action he took which might have benefited his benefactors. The whole thing looks like it will be published before the election.....

Creditors are not "benefactors." Not in the least. What you do with creditors is pay the payments and adhere to the terms of the loan.

Or you negotiate a deal that doesn't involve paying the debt directly but benefits the creditors in other ways.  Like, for example, allowing Turkey to steamroll the Kurds even though they were our close allies in taking out ISIS in exchange for writing off a few hundred million in personal debt.

[Spendulus]

When it becomes known who Trump is in personal debt to the tune of $400 million, a connection will be made between him and his creditors to some action he took which might have benefited his benefactors. The whole thing looks like it will be published before the election.....

Creditors are not "benefactors." Not in the least. What you do with creditors is pay the payments and adhere to the terms of the loan.

Or you negotiate a deal that doesn't involve paying the debt directly but benefits the creditors in other ways.  Like, for example, allowing Turkey to steamroll the Kurds even though they were our close allies in taking out ISIS in exchange for writing off a few hundred million in personal debt.

Really?

A case of TDS creates interesting conspiracy theories.

The only problem is, what you assert hasn't actually happened.

[TwitchySeal]

When it becomes known who Trump is in personal debt to the tune of $400 million, a connection will be made between him and his creditors to some action he took which might have benefited his benefactors. The whole thing looks like it will be published before the election.....

Creditors are not "benefactors." Not in the least. What you do with creditors is pay the payments and adhere to the terms of the loan.

Or you negotiate a deal that doesn't involve paying the debt directly but benefits the creditors in other ways.  Like, for example, allowing Turkey to steamroll the Kurds even though they were our close allies in taking out ISIS in exchange for writing off a few hundred million in personal debt.

Really?

A case of TDS creates interesting conspiracy theories.

The only problem is, what you assert hasn't actually happened.

I think you could gas light people much more effectively if you mixed it up a little.  The TDS + vague comment is so 2018.

[squatz1]

If Trump's taxes are under audit, wouldn't Ivanka Trump receiving a consulting fee from a company that she is an employee of turn up (if it's even against the law)?

All this tax loophole bullshit just outlines the case for a flat tax. Billionaires will pay the best accountants and tax attorney's in the world to take advantage of all the loopholes while some waiter is stuck paying 20 percent of their paycheck away.

Not sure a straight flat tax really does anything here. As a flat tax is just present on income, which rich people typically don't have a lot of. At least like, ordinary income that is produced from working a job. Most rich people are making money from their stock investments. If you want to increase the amount of capital gains for richer people, that's totally possible, though it's not as easy as saying 'tax the rich'

Making income taxes more for rich people will just shift more high earners at companies to receiving more stock incentives rather then regular income. Now if you want to tackle that, then it makes sense.

[Spendulus]

When it becomes known who Trump is in personal debt to the tune of $400 million, a connection will be made between him and his creditors to some action he took which might have benefited his benefactors. The whole thing looks like it will be published before the election.....

Creditors are not "benefactors." Not in the least. What you do with creditors is pay the payments and adhere to the terms of the loan.

Or you negotiate a deal that doesn't involve paying the debt directly but benefits the creditors in other ways.  Like, for example, allowing Turkey to steamroll the Kurds even though they were our close allies in taking out ISIS in exchange for writing off a few hundred million in personal debt.

Really?

A case of TDS creates interesting conspiracy theories.

The only problem is, what you assert hasn't actually happened.

I think you could gas light people much more effectively if you mixed it up a little.  The TDS + vague comment is so 2018.

Maybe, but they are 100% your theories, they have no basis in reality, and that's the way it is. I can see where you have a point as to a contingency that would work to the benefit of a POTUS and the detriment of the USA, but it's still a made up issue.

[JollyGood]

If something like that were the case and it were proven in future, it would ensure that no other President would ever be allowed to take office until their financial history were properly looked in to (far more than before) and candidate should ever be considered by any party until every single aspect of their financial dealing are laid out for all to see in order to ensure no conflict of interest and no corruption.

Trump did not even publish his tax returns, he should never have been allowed to stand as a candidate for any party.

When it becomes known who Trump is in personal debt to the tune of $400 million, a connection will be made between him and his creditors to some action he took which might have benefited his benefactors. The whole thing looks like it will be published before the election.....

Creditors are not "benefactors." Not in the least. What you do with creditors is pay the payments and adhere to the terms of the loan.

Or you negotiate a deal that doesn't involve paying the debt directly but benefits the creditors in other ways.  Like, for example, allowing Turkey to steamroll the Kurds even though they were our close allies in taking out ISIS in exchange for writing off a few hundred million in personal debt.

[Spendulus]

If something like that were the case and it were proven in future, it would ensure that no other President would ever be allowed to take office until their financial history were properly looked in to (far more than before) and candidate should ever be considered by any party until every single aspect of their financial dealing are laid out for all to see in order to ensure no conflict of interest and no corruption.

Trump did not even publish his tax returns, he should never have been allowed to stand as a candidate for any party.
....

Here's the problem with your assertion. (one problem... there are others)

You've been non-stop slamming Trump's financial activities with zero proof, and very, very limited facts, because of your obvious political inclinations.

Your own actions are the proof that such data should not be made public.

[TwitchySeal]

If something like that were the case and it were proven in future, it would ensure that no other President would ever be allowed to take office until their financial history were properly looked in to (far more than before) and candidate should ever be considered by any party until every single aspect of their financial dealing are laid out for all to see in order to ensure no conflict of interest and no corruption.

Trump did not even publish his tax returns, he should never have been allowed to stand as a candidate for any party.
....

Here's the problem with your assertion. (one problem... there are others)

You've been non-stop slamming Trump's financial activities with zero proof, and very, very limited facts, because of your obvious political inclinations.

Your own actions are the proof that such data should not be made public.

It's pretty irrational to assume that Trump isn't guilty of Bank and Tax Fraud or that there's 'zero proof'.  We have the NYTimes reports (including the one that won a Pulitzer for investigative journalism in 2018), we have documents, we know his personal lawyer and campaign chairman both went to prison for Bank and Tax Fraud.

[Spendulus]

If something like that were the case and it were proven in future, it would ensure that no other President would ever be allowed to take office until their financial history were properly looked in to (far more than before) and candidate should ever be considered by any party until every single aspect of their financial dealing are laid out for all to see in order to ensure no conflict of interest and no corruption.

Trump did not even publish his tax returns, he should never have been allowed to stand as a candidate for any party.
....

Here's the problem with your assertion. (one problem... there are others)

You've been non-stop slamming Trump's financial activities with zero proof, and very, very limited facts, because of your obvious political inclinations.

Your own actions are the proof that such data should not be made public.

It's pretty irrational to assume that Trump isn't guilty of Bank and Tax Fraud or that there's 'zero proof'.  We have the NYTimes reports (including the one that won a Pulitzer for investigative journalism in 2018), we have documents, we know his personal lawyer and campaign chairman both went to prison for Bank and Tax Fraud.

Clearly you and your biased, lying cunt friends at the NYT know more and better than the IRS. Even though the IRS routinely brings criminal cases for tax fraud.

If the IRS chose not to bring a case, after either four or seven years have passed, the individual cannot be prosecuted.

With very rare exceptions, in the case of federal tax, it is the IRS who brings the case. However, they are a tax collection agency, not a vindictive, partisian prosecutor. Unless we are referring to the IRS under Obama, of course. They weaponized the IRS. A tax collection agency might wait a couple years on a suspect, then bring an audit, with the intention of maximizing tax collected through higher interest and penalties.

"we have documents..." You mean you've got documents that TRUMP GAVE TO THE IRS, which resulted in discussions, audits, corrections, tax paid.

Has it occurred to you that your complaint if it has any merit, should be with the IRS?

Really what you want is more of the partisian, political weaponizing of the IRS. A continuation of the Chicago Way, as OBAMA USED IT. GO AFTER THOSE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOU!

And Trump is just one of your targets, right? Why don't you give us the full list?

[TwitchySeal]

If something like that were the case and it were proven in future, it would ensure that no other President would ever be allowed to take office until their financial history were properly looked in to (far more than before) and candidate should ever be considered by any party until every single aspect of their financial dealing are laid out for all to see in order to ensure no conflict of interest and no corruption.

Trump did not even publish his tax returns, he should never have been allowed to stand as a candidate for any party.
....

Here's the problem with your assertion. (one problem... there are others)

You've been non-stop slamming Trump's financial activities with zero proof, and very, very limited facts, because of your obvious political inclinations.

Your own actions are the proof that such data should not be made public.

It's pretty irrational to assume that Trump isn't guilty of Bank and Tax Fraud or that there's 'zero proof'.  We have the NYTimes reports (including the one that won a Pulitzer for investigative journalism in 2018), we have documents, we know his personal lawyer and campaign chairman both went to prison for Bank and Tax Fraud.

Clearly you and your biased, lying cunt friends at the NYT know more and better than the IRS. Even though the IRS routinely brings criminal cases for tax fraud.

If the IRS chose not to bring a case, after either four or seven years have passed, the individual cannot be prosecuted.

With very rare exceptions, in the case of federal tax, it is the IRS who brings the case. However, they are a tax collection agency, not a vindictive, partisian prosecutor. Unless we are referring to the IRS under Obama, of course. They weaponized the IRS. A tax collection agency might wait a couple years on a suspect, then bring an audit, with the intention of maximizing tax collected through higher interest and penalties.

"we have documents..." You mean you've got documents that TRUMP GAVE TO THE IRS, which resulted in discussions, audits, corrections, tax paid.

Has it occurred to you that your complaint if it has any merit, should be with the IRS?

Really what you want is more of the partisian, political weaponizing of the IRS. A continuation of the Chicago Way, as OBAMA USED IT. GO AFTER THOSE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOU!

And Trump is just one of your targets, right? Why don't you give us the full list?

You should read the NY Times reports (including the one that won a Pulitzer for investigative journalism in 2018) (It's clear you haven't).

It's true most of the stuff can't be prosecuted in criminal court due to statute of limitations.  I'm surprised in your seemingly new found faith in the IRS' ability to audit and prosecute the wealthy and lack of faith in Trumps capability of getting away with crimes.

[Spendulus]

....

Clearly you and your biased, lying cunt friends at the NYT know more and better than the IRS. Even though the IRS routinely brings criminal cases for tax fraud.

If the IRS chose not to bring a case, after either four or seven years have passed, the individual cannot be prosecuted.

With very rare exceptions, in the case of federal tax, it is the IRS who brings the case. However, they are a tax collection agency, not a vindictive, partisian prosecutor. Unless we are referring to the IRS under Obama, of course. They weaponized the IRS. A tax collection agency might wait a couple years on a suspect, then bring an audit, with the intention of maximizing tax collected through higher interest and penalties.

"we have documents..." You mean you've got documents that TRUMP GAVE TO THE IRS, which resulted in discussions, audits, corrections, tax paid.

Has it occurred to you that your complaint if it has any merit, should be with the IRS?

Really what you want is more of the partisian, political weaponizing of the IRS. A continuation of the Chicago Way, as OBAMA USED IT. GO AFTER THOSE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOU!

And Trump is just one of your targets, right? Why don't you give us the full list?

You should read....

It's true most of the stuff can't be prosecuted in criminal court due to statute of limitations.  I'm surprised in your seemingly new found faith in the IRS' ability to audit and prosecute the wealthy and lack of faith in Trumps capability of getting away with crimes.

The bolded above is incorrect, the primary court would be the IRS tax court, which is neither state or federal district court, but a "US Tax Court." The typical four and seven year statutes of limitations apply, and the typical exceptions. Because it's a tax court, it operates somewhat differently than you may think. But none of the discussion in this thread has been fact based, it's been all innuendo.

Actually, I've been convinced for decades that powerful creatures in DC got treated differently. This has certainly been obvious to pro-Trump people the last couple of years.  

Here's what you didn't address.

Has it occurred to you that your complaint, if it has any merit, should be with the IRS?

Really, what you want is more partisian, political weaponizing of the IRS. A continuation of the Chicago Way, as OBAMA USED IT. GO AFTER THOSE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOU!

And Trump is just one of your targets, right? Why don't you give us the full list?

[TwitchySeal]

It's true most of the stuff can't be prosecuted in criminal court due to statute of limitations.  I'm surprised in your seemingly new found faith in the IRS' ability to audit and prosecute the wealthy and lack of faith in Trumps capability of getting away with crimes.

The bolded above is incorrect, the primary court would be the IRS tax court, which is neither state or federal district court, but a "US Tax Court."

I think you're confused.  The IRS conducts criminal investigations. If they build a strong enough case they refer it to the DOJ or District attorney for prosecution.

[JollyGood]

I hope all tax related issues are in the open before the election so ordinary citizens can make up their minds about which candidate to vote for and whether they will be voting for the right reasons.

All of this confusion and questions after question has been asked simply because Trump did not release his tax returns before he was elected and following that he is hiding behind a ridiculous excuse that his tax returns are being auditied and he will release them as soon as they are audited - but there is no reason he should wait, there is nothing stopping him. Even if after the audit it showed there is a small + or - it makes no difference to the overall openness he should have towards the American people.

If the IRS decide there are sufficient grounds for a criminal investigation then it really makes things interesting from a political perspective.

It's true most of the stuff can't be prosecuted in criminal court due to statute of limitations.  I'm surprised in your seemingly new found faith in the IRS' ability to audit and prosecute the wealthy and lack of faith in Trumps capability of getting away with crimes.

The bolded above is incorrect, the primary court would be the IRS tax court, which is neither state or federal district court, but a "US Tax Court."

I think you're confused.  The IRS conducts criminal investigations. If they build a strong enough case they refer it to the DOJ or District attorney for prosecution.

[Spendulus]

...

If the IRS decide there are sufficient grounds for a criminal investigation then it really makes things interesting from a political perspective.
.....

I am genuinely curious, why would you think that Trump, in having a dispute with the IRS, would have done something criminal in nature? I understand that slinging around "criminal" furthers your and Twitch's Trump Derangement Syndrome monomania.

But almost all tax disputes are resolved by the taxpayer paying the disputed amount, or a negotiated settlement such as half the disputed amount. That would be a "civil" issue, not a "criminal" issue.

Of course, I understand that you and Twitch would love to have a weaponized IRS, that could be used for political targeting of your enemies of the moment. Let's set, that's pretty much what Lori Lerner when she headed the IRS under Obama, right?

Wasn't she given immunity from prosecution to tell all the bad bad things she did?

[Spendulus]

It's true most of the stuff can't be prosecuted in criminal court due to statute of limitations.  I'm surprised in your seemingly new found faith in the IRS' ability to audit and prosecute the wealthy and lack of faith in Trumps capability of getting away with crimes.

The bolded above is incorrect, the primary court would be the IRS tax court, which is neither state or federal district court, but a "US Tax Court."

I think you're confused.  The IRS conducts criminal investigations. If they build a strong enough case they refer it to the DOJ or District attorney for prosecution.

It's not me that is confused. It's always been you.

Your confusion is that you want a criminal investigation, and to get that, you need to get any matter related to Trump OUT of the US Tax Courts. To do that you pre-define Trump tax activities as "Criminal," because ORANGEMANBAD.

[TwitchySeal]

It's true most of the stuff can't be prosecuted in criminal court due to statute of limitations.  I'm surprised in your seemingly new found faith in the IRS' ability to audit and prosecute the wealthy and lack of faith in Trumps capability of getting away with crimes.

The bolded above is incorrect, the primary court would be the IRS tax court, which is neither state or federal district court, but a "US Tax Court."

I think you're confused.  The IRS conducts criminal investigations. If they build a strong enough case they refer it to the DOJ or District attorney for prosecution.

It's not me that is confused. It's always been you.

Your confusion is that you want a criminal investigation, and to get that, you need to get any matter related to Trump OUT of the US Tax Courts. To do that you pre-define Trump tax activities as "Criminal," because ORANGEMANBAD.

I already explained:

most of the stuff can't be prosecuted in criminal court due to statute of limitations

[squatz1]

It's true most of the stuff can't be prosecuted in criminal court due to statute of limitations.  I'm surprised in your seemingly new found faith in the IRS' ability to audit and prosecute the wealthy and lack of faith in Trumps capability of getting away with crimes.

The bolded above is incorrect, the primary court would be the IRS tax court, which is neither state or federal district court, but a "US Tax Court."

I think you're confused.  The IRS conducts criminal investigations. If they build a strong enough case they refer it to the DOJ or District attorney for prosecution.

It's not me that is confused. It's always been you.

Your confusion is that you want a criminal investigation, and to get that, you need to get any matter related to Trump OUT of the US Tax Courts. To do that you pre-define Trump tax activities as "Criminal," because ORANGEMANBAD.

I already explained:

most of the stuff can't be prosecuted in criminal court due to statute of limitations

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.

[JollyGood]

Whether someone under investigation is a sitting President or the average citizen, it should not affect the course of any investigation or outcome because the law really should be the same for all. Yes it will be difficult for the IRS to their job if it is related to a sitting President because of the political pressures from all sides but they should have concluded all their investigations long ago and allowed the Courts to conclude whether Trump was guilty of anything or not.

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.

It's true most of the stuff can't be prosecuted in criminal court due to statute of limitations.  I'm surprised in your seemingly new found faith in the IRS' ability to audit and prosecute the wealthy and lack of faith in Trumps capability of getting away with crimes.

The bolded above is incorrect, the primary court would be the IRS tax court, which is neither state or federal district court, but a "US Tax Court."

I think you're confused.  The IRS conducts criminal investigations. If they build a strong enough case they refer it to the DOJ or District attorney for prosecution.

It's not me that is confused. It's always been you.

Your confusion is that you want a criminal investigation, and to get that, you need to get any matter related to Trump OUT of the US Tax Courts. To do that you pre-define Trump tax activities as "Criminal," because ORANGEMANBAD.

I already explained:

most of the stuff can't be prosecuted in criminal court due to statute of limitations

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.

[Spendulus]

...
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?