It could well be. I'm not a CPA or a tax attorney. He believes it's legal because his CPA said it was.
An accounting firm came out and said their accounting for the last ten years shouldn't be trusted as accurate. That's not going to make their clients fell all warm and fuzzy.totally normal - Mazars dumps Trump Organization and tells it not to rely on financial statements from the past decade - and to cascade that information to other interested parties such as its lenders.
Trump Organization's accounting firm says 10 years of financial statements are unreliable
Former President Donald Trump's long-time accounting firm informed the Trump Organization last week that it should no longer rely on nearly 10 years' worth of financial statements and that they would no longer be their accountants, citing a conflict of interest.www.cnn.com
It strikes me as evidence that they screwed up or were a willing party to fraud. How do they "discover" that ten years worth of work was wrong? Why would they make an insane statement that's going to ruin them?I'm sorry you think that his accounting firm going "yeah all those docs we signed our names to? LOL JK!" Is somehow evidence he DIDNT commit massive fraud of which he is accused?
This is another rat fleeing the ship. They basically admitted he's fucked and are trying to distance themselves. I fail to see how anyone doesn't see this as the biggest smoking gun on the planet.
I think that jibes with trumps statements in depositions as documented in that article; he basically made up the numbers according to his whims and weisselberg was the final arbiter.It strikes me as evidence that they screwed up or were a willing party to fraud. How do they "discover" that ten years worth of work was wrong? Why would they make an insane statement that's going to ruin them?
The only out I see is that Trump supplied them with fake documents, if that's so, he's toast.
The accuracy discrepancies are not due to something the accountants did, but from the documentation/information supplied to them by the Trump Organization. The accountants can only be as accurate as the information supplied to them by Trump. So what this tells us, is that Trump supplied them with fraudulent information which makes all the records inaccurate.An accounting firm came out and said their accounting for the last ten years shouldn't be trusted as accurate. That's not going to make their clients fell all warm and fuzzy.
An accounting firm came out and said their accounting for the last ten years shouldn't be trusted as accurate. That's not going to make their clients fell all warm and fuzzy.
I haven't seen a piece of information that, to me, is crucial in interpreting this new development from Mazars. To what level were the Statements of Financial Condition in question prepared? I saw an article on Huffpo that used the term "compiled" but that is likely to be a journalist imprecisely using a precise term of art.
A "compiled" financial statement is the lowest level of review by an accounting firm. Essentially the client gives the firm the numbers that the client books themselves and the firm categorizes into financial statements. So long as everything generally comes together with no discrepancies the firm gives the client a pass and publishes the work product with the disclaimer that the Statement was only compiled but can be relief upon.
A "reviewed" financial statement is one step up. In the process of categorizing transactions the accounting firm has a responsibility to review the transactions in general to ensure that no dubious transactions are being claimed.
An "audited" financial statement is the next step up. The accounting firm must use statistical sampling methods to test random impreciselye transactions for accuracy. In addition, the firm must demonstrate a working understanding of the client's business operations, legal risks, regulatory risks, etc. and opine on the overall stability and operational health of the entity.
So which level of financial statement is in play here? Were they compiled and Mazars is now indicating that they were fed bogus info and didn't catch it because they only reviewed it on a cursory basis? Were they reviewed and Mazars is indicating that there was likely some intentional chicanery to cook the books? Or were they audited and Mazars is indicating that they were complicit, intentional or not, in targeted fraud?
Didn't Trump say that his tax returns were under audit?I haven't seen a piece of information that, to me, is crucial in interpreting this new development from Mazars. To what level were the Statements of Financial Condition in question prepared? I saw an article on Huffpo that used the term "compiled" but that is likely to be a journalist imprecisely using a precise term of art.
A "compiled" financial statement is the lowest level of review by an accounting firm. Essentially the client gives the firm the numbers that the client books themselves and the firm categorizes into financial statements. So long as everything generally comes together with no discrepancies the firm gives the client a pass and publishes the work product with the disclaimer that the Statement was only compiled but can be relief upon.
A "reviewed" financial statement is one step up. In the process of categorizing transactions the accounting firm has a responsibility to review the transactions in general to ensure that no dubious transactions are being claimed.
An "audited" financial statement is the next step up. The accounting firm must use statistical sampling methods to test random impreciselye transactions for accuracy. In addition, the firm must demonstrate a working understanding of the client's business operations, legal risks, regulatory risks, etc. and opine on the overall stability and operational health of the entity.
So which level of financial statement is in play here? Were they compiled and Mazars is now indicating that they were fed bogus info and didn't catch it because they only reviewed it on a cursory basis? Were they reviewed and Mazars is indicating that there was likely some intentional chicanery to cook the books? Or were they audited and Mazars is indicating that they were complicit, intentional or not, in targeted fraud?
I haven't seen a piece of information that, to me, is crucial in interpreting this new development from Mazars. To what level were the Statements of Financial Condition in question prepared? I saw an article on Huffpo that used the term "compiled" but that is likely to be a journalist imprecisely using a precise term of art.
A "compiled" financial statement is the lowest level of review by an accounting firm. Essentially the client gives the firm the numbers that the client books themselves and the firm categorizes into financial statements. So long as everything generally comes together with no discrepancies the firm gives the client a pass and publishes the work product with the disclaimer that the Statement was only compiled but can be relief upon.
A "reviewed" financial statement is one step up. In the process of categorizing transactions the accounting firm has a responsibility to review the transactions in general to ensure that no dubious transactions are being claimed.
An "audited" financial statement is the next step up. The accounting firm must use statistical sampling methods to test random impreciselye transactions for accuracy. In addition, the firm must demonstrate a working understanding of the client's business operations, legal risks, regulatory risks, etc. and opine on the overall stability and operational health of the entity.
So which level of financial statement is in play here? Were they compiled and Mazars is now indicating that they were fed bogus info and didn't catch it because they only reviewed it on a cursory basis? Were they reviewed and Mazars is indicating that there was likely some intentional chicanery to cook the books? Or were they audited and Mazars is indicating that they were complicit, intentional or not, in targeted fraud?
Friend worked at (Shall remain nameless Top 5 Accounting firm in the US) and when the client was important enough, " anomalies that kinda look real shady or outrigtht bad" would get swept on the table. They have since moved on to a much smaller company where the ethical questions are much simpler now they can simply observe the wrong doing instead of being professionally obligated to care.Well, shame on those companies that relied on compiled statements for large transactions. Compiled statements are essentially the "liar's loans" of financial services: everyone knows they're probably bullshit but some firms will turn a blind eye to that.
Given the size of the transactions and the purported size and complexity of the Trump Organization the fact that none of the transaction partners insisted on audited financials speaks volumes about those transactions and the firms that entered into them.
They obviously have a major conflict of interest they are trying to get out from under. They could be in trouble for looking the other way for years also.totally normal - Mazars dumps Trump Organization and tells it not to rely on financial statements from the past decade - and to cascade that information to other interested parties such as its lenders.
Trump Organization's accounting firm says 10 years of financial statements are unreliable
Former President Donald Trump's long-time accounting firm informed the Trump Organization last week that it should no longer rely on nearly 10 years' worth of financial statements and that they would no longer be their accountants, citing a conflict of interest.www.cnn.com
Prompts Trump to testify? Lol, he is never going to testify. Any lawyer worth the paper their degree is printed on would strangle him themselves before letting him do that.Will this be the straw that breaks Weisselberg's back and prompts him to testify?
Prompts Trump to testify? Lol, he is never going to testify. Any lawyer worth the paper their degree is printed on would strangle him themselves before letting him do that.
And an op-ed I read this morning said this action by Mazars could potentially cause a bit of financial trouble for Trump...something about clauses that essentially give banks the ability to call the loan if it's found that the supporting accounting was false. Dunno, but I'm getting the impression that while Trump may have insulated himself with Weisselberg legally, he's in deep shit financially.
That seems more likely. Still not sure HOW likely, but definitely more likely.No, gets Weisselberg to flip on Trump....Weisselberg is front and center for the financial statement fiasco going on. His name is everywhere...signed off on everything that it was factual. From some of the opinions I've read, Weisselberg is the one in trouble, not Trump, because he's assumed responsibility for what Mazars used as figures in their accounting.
And an op-ed I read this morning said this action by Mazars could potentially cause a bit of financial trouble for Trump...something about clauses that essentially give banks the ability to call the loan if it's found that the supporting accounting was false. Dunno, but I'm getting the impression that while Trump may have insulated himself with Weisselberg legally, he's in deep shit financially.