Boy, you got to carry that weight, carry that weight a long time....What Trump did or didn't do before his presidency may be moot. At some point the statute of limitations runs out. So, which years are they trying to prosecute? White collar crimes, expired by SOL, will probably make the prosecutors SOL. I'm certain Trump's counsel is aware of this and will base their defense on it.
There is no statute of limitations on federal tax fraud.
It would seem that if there was tax fraud, he would have been busted and the IRS would already know. Actually, you are correct abo ut the statute of limitations, but beyond 6 years its civil, not criminal. Let's say there was fraud 8 years ago, they would have had 6 years for criminal prosecution, but now that it's 8 years ago, the worst that could happen would be civil penalties. He'll probably just have to pay the taxes, fines, fees, etc.
But saying there is corruption proves there is corruption.*‡The problem (as I mentioned in the many other threads we have had on this discussion) is that proving tax fraud isn't as simple as seeing that something isn't right on their tax return.
So you have to prove that what was on the return was wrong - AND you have to prove that this was maliciously intended. That isn't easy in the slightest. Simply saying "You should have known better" is no longer valid and would be thrown out based on the 3 or 7 year statue of limitations.
Our courts work this way for a reason - simply saying there was malicious intent doesn't prove malicious intent. Seeing that there was tax fraud doesn't mean that it was purposefully and maliciously done. Goodluck proving that.
No one is arguing this, so why are you?The problem (as I mentioned in the many other threads we have had on this discussion) is that proving tax fraud isn't as simple as seeing that something isn't right on their tax return.
So you have to prove that what was on the return was wrong - AND you have to prove that this was maliciously intended. That isn't easy in the slightest. Simply saying "You should have known better" is no longer valid and would be thrown out based on the 3 or 7 year statue of limitations.
Generally speaking intent does not require malice or knowledge the action was illegal. Tax fraud is an exception as are numerous other crimes that rich people tend to commit.Our courts work this way for a reason - simply saying there was malicious intent doesn't prove malicious intent. Seeing that there was tax fraud doesn't mean that it was purposefully and maliciously done. Goodluck proving that.
Since the other Trump tax fraud thread had "criminal" in the title, I am posting this here since it's about the civil case that may ultimately bring Trump down before any criminal action.
How Trump just "snitched" on himself in New York fraud case | Salon.com
However, Snell added that he believes the backbone of the case is the evidence contained in documents. He pointed to a recent report from the Washington Post showing that the Trump Organization reported the value of one of its properties to lenders as $527 million, a few months before telling tax authorities it was worth only $16.7 million.
Snell went on to say that many people have been "sleeping" on the civil investigation because they want to see Trump go to prison on criminal charges.
"However, this could take an economic wrecking ball to the Trump Organization," he said. "This could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in back taxes, penalties, other fees that he could have to pay to the state as well as to the lenders that he defrauded, so this could be ruinous for him financially."
The linked article actually states the opposite.Whoopsie! Trump has $100 million forgiven in business transaction, neglects to report it to IRS for earned income.
NYC prosecutors' probe into Trump finances expands to include millions loaned for Chicago skyscraper
The Manhattan district attorney's office subpoenaed documents from an investment company that loaned the Trump Organization millions of dollars for its Chicago skyscraper in a sign that the investigation into the former president's finances continues to expand, according to people familiar with...www.cnn.com
The linked article actually states the opposite.
"The New York Times, which obtained Trump's taxes, said the forgiven debts showed up in Trump's tax returns as cancelled debts. The Times wrote that Trump took advantage of a law enacted after the 2008 financial crisis that allowed companies to spread out income from cancelled debts over several years".
Still working on my second cup, so I could be misunderstanding.
I'm not sure how those valuations work. A friend of mine saves a bundle on his taxes by deprecating his rental property's, even though the market value is skyrocketing. He has a CPA do his taxes, so I assume it's a reasonably legitimate exemption.That's a story from March, so I'm not sure I'd spend much time on it. The newer revelation Salon referenced is more interesting as it is — the disparity between valuations screams "tax fraud." The Trump Organization might not be big enough to pay hundreds of millions in back taxes. If that happens, I just hope the bill comes due relatively quickly.
I'm not sure how those valuations work. A friend of mine saves a bundle on his taxes by deprecating his rental property's, even though the market value is skyrocketing. He has a CPA do his taxes, so I assume it's a reasonably legitimate exemption.
Depreciation of capital investments like a rental house is a normal deduction. When the property is sold tax will be owed on the difference originally paid for the asset and the amount received. What your friend is doing is normal and I have no doubt part of the tax strategy of the Trump organization. But that is not what is being identified as potentially problematic for the Trump org.I'm not sure how those valuations work. A friend of mine saves a bundle on his taxes by deprecating his rental property's, even though the market value is skyrocketing. He has a CPA do his taxes, so I assume it's a reasonably legitimate exemption.
I'm not sure how those valuations work. A friend of mine saves a bundle on his taxes by deprecating his rental property's, even though the market value is skyrocketing. He has a CPA do his taxes, so I assume it's a reasonably legitimate exemption.
It could well be. I'm not a CPA or a tax attorney. He believes it's legal because his CPA said it was.Sounds like fraud to me.
Seems like a reasonable assumption.The size of the disparity is crucial, I think — I don't know how you'd convince tax authorities that your property is worth 1/31 of the value you reported to lenders.
Well that is a given. But knowing how poorly he picks people, it’s a bad tax lawyer and one that is willing to bend the law is a very likelySeems like a reasonable assumption.
I assume that Trump doesn't do his own taxes, and that somewhere along the line there is a CPA or two involved. I don't think they would just write down whatever number he want's, but perhaps that's how it works and they have a contract clause that puts the burden on Trump?
Regardless, it will be interesting to see how it all pans out. Or Trump may just run out the clock and die before it ever see's a court room.
Honestly doesn't matter if you don't do your own taxes. You sign the form saying that they are accurate. He could have also seemed out honest people to run his businesses and do his taxes instead of shady people that do shady things.Well that is a given. But knowing how poorly he picks people, it’s a bad tax lawyer and one that is willing to bend the law is a very likely
Remember that if 'fraud' is determined, it's not the CPA that gets held accountable.It could well be. I'm not a CPA or a tax attorney. He believes it's legal because his CPA said it was.
When he didn't drain the swamp, he sure did bring only the best alligators. Only the best very good smart people!Honestly doesn't matter if you don't do your own taxes. You sign the form saying that they are accurate. He could have also seemed out honest people to run his businesses and do his taxes instead of shady people that do shady things.
Is it fraud if a licensed tax professional tells you it's legal, accepted, and correct? Is it actually the responsibility of the person paying for the professional service to determine the veracity of the advice given?Remember that if 'fraud' is determined, it's not the CPA that gets held accountable.
How does it work if a contractor does some kind of construction on a house without getting the proper permits? That end up on the homeowner?Is it fraud if a licensed tax professional tells you it's legal, accepted, and correct? Is it actually the responsibility of the person paying for the professional service to determine the veracity of the advice given?
This is not accurate. As with a lot of crimes that white people in expensive suits commit you have to prove he knew it was illegal.Remember that if 'fraud' is determined, it's not the CPA that gets held accountable.
Nope. The question was rhetorical.How does it work if a contractor does some kind of construction on a house without getting the proper permits? That end up on the homeowner?