Except the Clinton's didn't write down $699k of their 2015 taxes or their income from their capital loses of 2015. You know how much transferred from their Sch. D, where that capital loss was taken from, to their 1040 as a write-down of their 2015 income, where the deduction for capital losses applies?
$3,000. That's it. $3K. Not $669K. Bet you didn't know there was a deduction limit imposed on capital losses, did you? Wonder why ZeroHedge didn't inform you of that? Hmmmmm......
My proof? Well.....
I'm going to ask you to do something hard, like read. ZeroHedge claims that page 17 of the Clinton's 2015 tax return shows them claiming a $669K long-term capital loss, right? Refer to the original linked article, ZH says this:
"However, a look back at
Hillary Clinton's tax returns from 2015 (here), proudly displayed by the campaign proving she has nothing to hide - shows something awkward on page 17...", and then refers to line 15 of their 2015 Schedule D.
(The Clintons' 2015 tax return is linked the quoted line directly above, please use as reference...it's ZH's link to a .pdf.)
And line 15 does indeed show the Clintons having a $669K long-term capital loss. But the story doesn't end there, as ZeroHedge would like you to believe. Now comes the hard part, further reading. Continue down the same Schedule D to line 21 (it's on the second page of Sch. D, the page ZH doesn't show you) and you find the amount that transfers from Sch. D to line 13 on their 1040, is $3K. It's $3K because that's the limit for capital losses that can transfer from Sch. D to be claimed on your personal 1040.
So, I wonder why ZH neglected to inform you of that, eh? And capital losses are treated MUCH differently vs. business losses, which is a separate entry on a personal 1040.