• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Trump Committed Tax Fraud & Insurance Fraud & Bank Fraud

I’m guessing Brasky would be for public daycare.

More government services can be a bridge to a simpler tax code. The government doesn’t have to worry as much about “reimbursing” taxpayers for paying for their own services.
 
the trump tax law changes pushed most Americans to the standard deduction. Unless you are paying significant home mortagage or have high charitable contributions.

Except for the rich. Who use it to pay next to nothing. Get rid of all of them.
 
Okay. But the single mom making $30K and paying $15K for daycare annually is going to pay the same in tax as the single college grad making $30K with no kids.

With all the money I'm bringing in the government will provide a day care for all children through the age of 5, just like we do K-12. But you will not "deduct" it. The subsidy will be sent to your public or private day care facility directly.

We're simplifying the federal income tax code so that's its no longer a game. You do your patriotic duty and pay your share of federal taxes and shut your goddamn mouth. Or vote for someone who will lower those tax rates. The tax code is intentionally complex so that a majority of this country doesn't realize how hard they are being fucked by the rich who can afford personal accountants to game the system.
 
Last edited:
I’m guessing Brasky would be for public daycare.

More government services can be a bridge to a simpler tax code. The government doesn’t have to worry as much about “reimbursing” taxpayers for paying for their own services.

Great. When those government services exist we can reform the tax code.

I would love nothing more than to pay half of my income and never get another doctors bill or daycare payment.
 
Pretty good article by a tax attorney breaking down the NYT article.

https://www.justsecurity.org/72604/...imes-bombshell-article-on-trumps-tax-returns/

4) There is nothing wrong in principle with using true economic losses to offset the tax that would otherwise be due on gains – but it also isn’t clever tax planning. The late, great Martin Ginsburg – a famous tax lawyer and the spouse of the recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – once jokingly described what he called the “Herman tax shelter.” The idea was that, if you need, say, a $1 million tax deduction, your fictional accountant Herman could say: “Give me $1 million, I’ll steal it from you and go to a country where you can’t reach me, and voila, you have a $1 million theft loss.”

The joke was that it isn’t actually beneficial to generate tax deductions by actually losing money. For example, if the tax rate that you face is 37 percent, losing $1 million that is fully deductible generates a tax saving of only $370,000. So you are still $630,000 behind from the loss after tax. For this reason, the key to effective tax shelter planning has always been to generate tax losses that substantially exceed true economic losses (which can happen legally under appropriate circumstances). Trump therefore was not doing himself any good insofar as he actually lost money that he then got to deduct. (And the Times article notes that his tax losses substantially exceeded the amount of his depreciation deductions on business property).

Trump famously said in 2016: “I love depreciation.” And well he might, given its legally authorizing deductions for supposed losses in the value of properties that may actually, so far as one knows, be gaining value the entire time. However, losses well in excess of depreciation deductions offer evidence, admittedly not definitive, of “Herman tax shelter”-type results.

A related point is that there is no tax abuse as such in using losses incurred in one year to offset taxable income earned in another year, if the tax system allows such use of the “net operating losses.” Suppose that Taxpayer A earns zero in both Year 1 and Year 2, while Taxpayer B has a $5 million loss in Year 1 and a $5 million profit in Year 2. They have both netted to zero net income over two years (ignoring the negative time value of B’s having incurred losses before gains). So we shouldn’t mind if, in full legal compliance with the rules, B manages to avoid paying any tax in Year 2 because the loss carryforward offsets his net income for the year.

We therefore should distinguish between (a) Trump’s losing so much money over the years – be it from bad luck, bad judgment, or incompetence – and (b) his also taking a number of tax positions that, as I discuss next, appear to be questionable or even fraudulent. The real losses rightfully offset tax on the gains, insofar as using them in the way he did was legally permissible, and the adverse inferences to be drawn from them lie outside the tax system (although again, as per the fallacy in the “Herman tax shelter,” they do not reflect clever tax planning).

Daniel Shaviro (@DanielShaviro) is Wayne Perry Professor of Taxation at NYU School of Law. He is a graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School. Before entering law teaching, he spent three years in private practice at Caplin & Drysdale, a leading tax specialty firm, and three years as Legislation Attorney at the Joint Congressional Committee on Taxation, where he worked on the Tax Reform Act of 1986. In 1987, Shaviro began his teaching career at the University of Chicago Law School, and he joined the New York University School of Law in 1995.
 
Pretty good article by a tax attorney breaking down the NYT article.

https://www.justsecurity.org/72604/...imes-bombshell-article-on-trumps-tax-returns/



Daniel Shaviro (@DanielShaviro) is Wayne Perry Professor of Taxation at NYU School of Law. He is a graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School. Before entering law teaching, he spent three years in private practice at Caplin & Drysdale, a leading tax specialty firm, and three years as Legislation Attorney at the Joint Congressional Committee on Taxation, where he worked on the Tax Reform Act of 1986. In 1987, Shaviro began his teaching career at the University of Chicago Law School, and he joined the New York University School of Law in 1995.


1) Tax is the least of it
2) Trump appears to be an absolutely terrible businessman.
3) As a matter of net worth, Trump appears not to be rich (despite his having inherited a large fortune).
4) There is nothing wrong in principle with using true economic losses to offset the tax that would otherwise be due on gains – but it also isn’t clever tax planning.
5) The ongoing IRS audit dispute regarding a $72.5 million loss deduction looks very bad for Trump.
6) The consulting fees that Trump’s various foreign businesses paid to Ivanka Trump and others look potentially fraudulent.
7) Other improper deductions that may have been claimed fraudulently.
8) Trump appears to have used substantial foreign losses to offset tax that would otherwise have been due on domestic source income.
9) The 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow raises troubling issues (albeit not tax-related) about the potential funneling of cash from a Putin associate to Trump.
10) There is an old saying that one can never detect tax fraud purely on the face of a tax return – but this comes closer than usual.
 
Pretty good article by a tax attorney breaking down the NYT article.

https://www.justsecurity.org/72604/...imes-bombshell-article-on-trumps-tax-returns/



Daniel Shaviro (@DanielShaviro) is Wayne Perry Professor of Taxation at NYU School of Law. He is a graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School. Before entering law teaching, he spent three years in private practice at Caplin & Drysdale, a leading tax specialty firm, and three years as Legislation Attorney at the Joint Congressional Committee on Taxation, where he worked on the Tax Reform Act of 1986. In 1987, Shaviro began his teaching career at the University of Chicago Law School, and he joined the New York University School of Law in 1995.

Eh, Brad told me everyone else was wrong on this. I think it makes more sense to trust him than some dumbshit tax professor.
 
The NYTimes is going to roll out tax return dirt from now until the election. Today's installment: Trump cut a deal with buddies in Las Vegas to unlock millions of dollars for his campaign's homestretch in 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/09/us/donald-trump-taxes-las-vegas.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

And the president’s long-hidden tax records, obtained by The New York Times, also reveal this: how he engineered a sudden financial windfall — more than $21 million in what experts describe as highly unusual one-off payments from the Las Vegas hotel he owns with his friend the casino mogul Phil Ruffin.

In previous articles on the tax records, The Times has reported that, in all but a few years since 2000, chronic business losses and aggressive accounting strategies have allowed Mr. Trump to largely avoid paying federal income taxes. And while the hundreds of millions of dollars earned from “The Apprentice” and his attendant celebrity rescued his business career, those riches, together with the marketing power of the Trump brand, were ebbing when he announced his 2016 presidential run.

The new findings, part of The Times’s continuing investigation, cast light on Mr. Trump’s financial maneuverings in that time of fiscal turmoil and unlikely political victory. Indeed, they may offer a hint to one of the enduring mysteries of his campaign: In its waning days, as his own giving had slowed to a trickle, Mr. Trump contributed $10 million, leaving many people wondering where the burst of cash had come from.

The tax records, by their nature, do not specify whether the more than $21 million in payments from the Trump-Ruffin hotel helped prop up Mr. Trump’s campaign, his businesses or both. But they do show how the cash flowed, in a chain of transactions, to several Trump-controlled companies and then directly to Mr. Trump himself.

The bulk of the money went through a company called Trump Las Vegas Sales and Marketing that had little previous income, no clear business purpose and no employees. The Trump-Ruffin joint venture wrote it all off as a business expense.

Experts in tax and campaign-finance law consulted by The Times said that while more information was needed to assess the legitimacy of the payments, they could be legally problematic.

“Why all of a sudden does this company have more than $20 million in fees that haven’t been there before?” said Daniel Shaviro, a professor of taxation at the New York University School of Law. “And all of this money is going to a man who just happens to be running for president and might not have a lot of cash on hand?”

Unless the payments were for actual business expenses, he said, claiming a tax deduction for them would be illegal. If they were not legitimate and were also used to fund Mr. Trump’s presidential run, they could be considered illegal campaign contributions.
 
Last edited:
Trump is the Swamp, personified. That his supporters refuse to see this, and actually believe that Trump is going to "drain" the DC swamp, is one of the biggest jokes of this low point in our history.
 
I believe it was moonz or Lectro that posted that the Swamp he’s draining is the Deep State
 
Given that the "deep state" is a derogatory term for the federal government doing its job, that is correct.
 
Anything important happen to Trump in 2017 that could be connected to a mysterious $17 million?
 
Anything important happen to Trump in 2017 that could be connected to a mysterious $17 million?
 
Back
Top