The fact remains that we shouldn't be guessing.Looks like DB but there are other questions like did someone cosign. When DB looked at his assets they found he had overvalued them by at least 70%. Given that he pretty badly burned the bank before, his financial statements are so thin as to be see through, and his assets are worth a fraction of what he claims but they lent anyway would seem to argue there could be.
The fact remains that we shouldn't be guessing.
How would releasing the returns compromise their source? They already described what they had: his tax filing from 2004 through 2018. If some accountant's name is on them, the name can be redacted. If Trump is going to say they're lying, they really should release them.
Also it's way too specific. If they were made up Trump could easily release some select figure from his real tax returns and blow the whole thing up.I'm guessing there's possibly a whole lot there which could end up entangling people with Trump that really aren't a focus of what we learn from the documents. And just like birthers rejecting Obama's birth certificate, it wouldn't actually shut up the deniers.
Anyone who doubts the veracity of NYT's sourcing is on very shaky ground. As reported, they had copies of the documents themselves, not what some source said/overheard/summarized. There is no way in hell NYT flat out invents fake tax documents in attempt to harm Trump.
Looks like DB but there are other questions like did someone cosign. When DB looked at his assets they found he had overvalued them by at least 70%. Given that he pretty badly burned the bank before, his financial statements are so thin as to be see through, and his assets are worth a fraction of what he claims but they lent anyway would seem to argue there could be.
Makes me wonder if he had some kind of hidden "co-signer" for those loans....
You guys are chasing a squirrel here.
The man is responsible for over 200,000 American dead and you think taxes will change the mind of his supporters?
Seriously? Tell me you're not that stupid.
Nobody cares about his base supporters, they are irrelevant. There is absolutely no need to convince a single one of them in order for Biden to win in a blowout. What’s important is the people who reluctantly voted for him last time.You guys are chasing a squirrel here.
The man is responsible for over 200,000 American dead and you think taxes will change the mind of his supporters?
Seriously? Tell me you're not that stupid.
You guys are chasing a squirrel here.
The man is responsible for over 200,000 American dead and you think taxes will change the mind of his supporters?
Seriously? Tell me you're not that stupid.
You need to be more specific about which poster we are discussing is this pcgeek, no mind, Brandonbull, Underroos, starbuck, or blackangst?Keep in mind he's the dipshit dumbfuck that was going apeshit railing about media while talking up some shitty random YouTube news channel who's hard hitting stories involved Twitch gamer girl selling dirty bathwater, and then getting pissed when his "oh mah gawd da muslims attacking EuroDisney!" turned out to be tabloids citing random Tweets (which I believe he regularly complained was all that mainstream media was doing) as their evidence, which the reality turned out to be a defective escalator made some noise.
He's the type of stupid to nail his own dick and balls to a tree stump to prove that it actually happens.
I feel really bad for his wife and kids (if they actually exist, which at this point seem like they exist only as split personalities of his because he probably believes in that shit still). Could you imagine being cooped up with that for months? But at least the rest of his family probably wasn't getting dinner invitations they'd decline so they wouldn't have to listen to his dumbass ranting.
Nobody cares about his base supporters, they are irrelevant. There is absolutely no need to convince a single one of them in order for Biden to win in a blowout. What’s important is the people who reluctantly voted for him last time.
You guys are chasing a squirrel here.
The man is responsible for over 200,000 American dead and you think taxes will change the mind of his supporters?
Seriously? Tell me you're not that stupid.
Records reviewed by The Times indicate that Mr. Trump filed for the first of several tranches of his refund several weeks later, in January 2010. That set off what tax professionals refer to as a “quickie refund,” a check processed in 90 days on a tentative basis, pending an audit by the I.R.S.
His total federal income tax refund would eventually grow to $70.1 million, plus $2,733,184 in interest. He also received $21.2 million in state and local refunds, which often piggyback on federal filings.
Whether Mr. Trump gets to keep the cash, though, remains far from a sure thing.
Refunds require the approval of I.R.S. auditors and an opinion of the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, a bipartisan panel better known for reviewing the impact of tax legislation. Tax law requires the committee to weigh in on all refunds larger than $2 million to individuals.
Records show that the results of an audit of Mr. Trump’s refund were sent to the joint committee in the spring of 2011. An agreement was reached in late 2014, the documents indicate, but the audit resumed and grew to include Mr. Trump’s returns for 2010 through 2013. In the spring of 2016, with Mr. Trump closing in on the Republican nomination, the case was sent back to the committee. It has remained there, unresolved, with the statute of limitations repeatedly pushed forward.
Precisely why the case has stalled is not clear. But experts say it suggests that the gap between the sides remains wide. If negotiations were to deadlock, the case would move to federal court, where it could become a matter of public record.
The dispute may center on a single claim that jumps off the page of Mr. Trump’s 2009 tax return: a declaration of more than $700 million in business losses that he had not been allowed to use in prior years. Unleashing that giant tax-avoidance coupon enabled him to receive some or all of his refund.
The material obtained by The Times does not identify the business or businesses that generated those losses. But the losses were a kind that can be claimed only when partners give up their interest in a business. And in 2009, Mr. Trump parted ways with a giant money loser: his long-failing Atlantic City casinos.
Mr. Trump announced in 2009 that he was abandoning his stake in his Atlantic City casino business. Mark Makela for The New York Times
The dispute may center on a single claim that jumps off the page of Mr. Trump’s 2009 tax return: a declaration of more than $700 million in business losses that he had not been allowed to use in prior years. Unleashing that giant tax-avoidance coupon enabled him to receive some or all of his refund.
The material obtained by The Times does not identify the business or businesses that generated those losses. But the losses were a kind that can be claimed only when partners give up their interest in a business. And in 2009, Mr. Trump parted ways with a giant money loser: his long-failing Atlantic City casinos.
After Mr. Trump’s bondholders rebuffed his offer to buy them out, and with a third round of bankruptcy only a week away, Mr. Trump announced in February 2009 that he was quitting the board of directors.
“If I’m not going to run it, I don’t want to be involved in it,” he told The Associated Press. “I’m one of the largest developers in the world. I have a lot of cash and plenty of places I can go.”
The same day, he notified the Securities and Exchange Commission that he had “determined that his partnership interests are worthless and lack potential to regain value” and was “hereby abandoning” his stake.
The language was crucial. Mr. Trump was using the precise wording of I.R.S. rules governing the most beneficial, and perhaps aggressive, method for business owners to avoid taxes when separating from a business.
A partner who walks away from a business with nothing — what tax laws refer to as abandonment — can suddenly declare all the losses on the business that could not be used in prior years. But there are a few catches, including this: Abandonment is essentially an all-or-nothing proposition. If the I.R.S. learns that the owner received anything of value, the allowable losses are reduced to just $3,000 a year.
And Mr. Trump does appear to have received something. When the casino bankruptcy concluded, he got 5 percent of the stock in the new company. The materials reviewed by The Times do not make clear whether Mr. Trump’s refund application reflected his public declaration of abandonment. If it did, that 5 percent could place his entire refund in question.
If the auditors ultimately disallow Mr. Trump’s $72.9 million federal refund, he will be forced to return that money with interest, and possibly penalties, a total that could exceed $100 million. He could also be ordered to return the state and local refunds based on the same claims.
I will say, the nearly half a billion he squeezed out of the Apprentice was a pretty good shake down. I think it was close to 400 million after royalties and endorsements.
I read this whole thread and there are a couple of folks who believe the President did no wrong based on the news reports we have seen about his tax returns. This includes @Greenman and @s0me0nesmind1. I would like to know what both of these users think about the original NYT articles, which states the following:
This sounds like tax fraud through and through. What is leading you to think otherwise?
he New York Times has obtained tax-return data extending over more than two decades for Mr. Trump and the hundreds of companies that make up his business organization, including detailed information from his first two years in office. It does not include his personal returns for 2018 or 2019.
Dude, you cannot read, haha.I'm not the judge and jury of his tax records. We ultimately don't have jack shit as far as overall proof of anything. The IRS is the judge and jury - and they can feel free to audit him and make him pony up if that is the case. I fully stand by that.
But by god it is fucking hilarious seeing people here that aren't even business majors - let alone CPAs - let alone income tax experts (because CPAs have little to do with tax on the face of it) that are acting as if they were qualified to understand our convoluted tax system overnight.
I mentioned this before, but it bears repeating because there are a TON of people who are incompetently stupid and can't even read/understand this article. They. Do. NOT. Have. His. Tax. Returns.
So do you think the NYT was wrong to publish these articles based on what data they have?I'm not the judge and jury of his tax records. We ultimately don't have jack shit as far as overall proof of anything. The IRS is the judge and jury - and they can feel free to audit him and make him pony up if that is the case. I fully stand by that.
But by god it is fucking hilarious seeing people here that aren't even business majors - let alone CPAs - let alone income tax experts (because CPAs have little to do with tax on the face of it) that are acting as if they were qualified to understand our convoluted tax system overnight.
I mentioned this before, but it bears repeating because there are a TON of people who are incompetently stupid and can't even read/understand this article. They. Do. NOT. Have. His. Tax. Returns.
Dude, you cannot read, haha.
The whole sentence that includes the part you underlined said they don’t have his personal tax returns for 2018 or 2019, not that they don’t have any of his personal tax returns.Instead of just shouting complete bullshit, why not quote in the article where what I said isn't true?
Oh wait, that would require not being a complete moron that makes shit up.
So do you think the NYT was wrong to publish these articles based on what data they have?
The whole sentence that includes the part you underlined said they don’t have his personal tax returns for 2018 or 2019, not that they don’t have any of his personal tax returns.
This is basic English, which makes you saying people can’t read or understand the article even funnier. Seriously basic, basic English.
Would your opinion change if another news source corroborated the claims made in NYT? What if NYT allowed an independent CPA to review these documents and that CPA said "yes it looks like fraud" or "no it doesn't look like fraud"?I believe they are heavily misconstruing what they have - and slyly slipping their opinion into this piece where it clearly isn't mentioned that it's an editorial.
If you want to release it to the public - that's fine. You're the press and free to do so though.
This is... literally... how many? 50 paragraphs of their personal bias? Any CPA that does tax returns will tell that the "tax data" they have is ultimately worthless.
But no one here is a CPA. Or a business major. Or someone that has filed a complex tax return. But magically overnight they will act like it.
Please quote in the article where this is stated.They do not have ANY of his tax returns.
The article is purposefully vague as to what they have in order to protect their source, but it is entirely obvious to anyone with a brain that they have his personal returns or at least substantial portions of them considering they mention discrete entries on his form 1040s, which is literally the main form from a personal tax return, his specific claims to income and losses from year to year, and more.Quote in the article where they do. Go on ahead little boy.
They obviously have not only his personal returns but a great deal more. You just don’t know how to read so you didn’t understand the sentence related to two years and not a categorical statement.After tabulating all the profits and losses from Mr. Trump’s various endeavors on Form 1040, the accountants came to Line 56, where they had to enter the total income tax the candidate was required to pay. They needed space for only a single figure.
Zero.
...
But no one here is a CPA. Or a business major. Or someone that has filed a complex tax return. But magically overnight they will act like it.
I itemized in 2017. What am I supposed to be understanding? That "good" businesses operate at a loss for tax purposes? That's bullshit, you run losses year over year and your business gets classified as a hobby.
(Oh, I also have an MBA in tax accounting.)