Trump Tax Returns Leaked
GL2 said:
Jasmo said:
Hiring a good accountant is what makes Trump a genius.
He simply used the same guy his daddy did. His genius is in being born on 3rd base.
Good point.
It does make Trump smarter than Bush Jr who did not listen to Bush Sr who said there was no need. The heavenly Father told him what to do.
And that (Bush/God) was a real eye-opener in the new Bush bio. Here I'd naively blamed Cheney, Rummy, et.al. for Iraq, thinking W was just a dupe. But he was on a mission from god from his days in TX...dude should've stayed a drunk instead of finding Jesus. Less harmful to the nation.
I just saw some interesting speculation online that the Times might be on safe legal ground because the return was given to them by one of the two people who filed it (there seem to be some clues suggesting the source was Marla Maples).
ETA relevant Daily News story:
Jasmo said:
I posted initially about a Washington Post story that the NYT broke the law. But this later slate article emphasizes both the fact that the Times only published state taxes where the law doesn't apply, as well as the First Amendment arguments, so maybe that will save the day for the Times:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/02/the_new_york_times_did_not_break_the_law_by_publishing_trump_s_tax_returns.html
I hope that story is true. Nothing would be more ironic than for Donald to be taken down by a woman.
imonlysleeping said:
I just saw some interesting speculation online that the Times might be on safe legal ground because the return was given to them by one of the two people who filed it (there seem to be some clues suggesting the source was Marla Maples).
ETA relevant Daily News story:
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/marla-maples-swore-if-donald-trump-ran-for-president-shed-take-him-down-now-it-appears-she-has/26167/
Jasmo said:
I posted initially about a Washington Post story that the NYT broke the law. But this later slate article emphasizes both the fact that the Times only published state taxes where the law doesn't apply, as well as the First Amendment arguments, so maybe that will save the day for the Times:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/02/the_new_york_times_did_not_break_the_law_by_publishing_trump_s_tax_returns.html
It is incredible to me that so many people are outraged by the NOL Carryforward provision in the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"). This provision has been in our tax law at least since 1939 (and probably from the outset of the income tax in 1913 but I don't have time to research its full history now). NOL Carryforward has been black letter law for almost 100 years. What is so controversial about allowing business to carry losses from the bad part of the business cycle to the good parts of the business cycle?
=================================================================================
Judge Learned Hand: "Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."
Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934)
Quote from Vreeland v. US (referenced below): "Generally, these carry-overs are designed to permit taxpayers to set off their lean years against their lush years, but they are not intended to permit, and do not permit, the averaging of all gains and losses over a period of years.”
Old quote on taxation: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s": generally has not been interpreted to pay as much as possible to Caesar (obviously Caesar represents the sovereign or crown).
============================================================================
Net Operating Loss (AKA NOL) defined as "a loss taken in a period where a company's allowable tax deductions are greater than its taxable income. When more expenses than revenues are incurred during the period, the net operating loss for the company can generally be used to recover past tax payments. The reasoning behind this is that corporations deserve some form oftax relief when they lose money, so they may apply the net operating loss to future income tax payments, reducing the need to make payments in future periods."
See Net Operating Loss - NOL Definition Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/netoperatingloss.asp#ixzz4M2SkLm1f
======================================================================
Loss carryforward (AKA NOL Carryforward) refers to an accounting technique that applies the current year's net operating losses to future years' profits to reduce tax liability and track profits accurately. Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) specify that loss carryforwards can be used in any one of the seven years following the loss, but tax collection agencies allow varying amounts of time for loss carryforwards depending on the tax entity, the type of loss and other factors.
Read more: Loss Carryforward Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/losscarryforward.asp#ixzz4M2THe5MM
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
======================================================================
26 U.S. Code § 172 - Net operating loss deduction
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
prev | next
(a)Deduction allowedThere shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an amount equal to the aggregate of (1) the net operating loss carryovers to such year, plus (2) the net operating loss carrybacks to such year. For purposes of this subtitle, the term “net operating loss deduction” means the deduction allowed by this subsection.
(b)Net operating loss carrybacks and carryovers(1)Years to which loss may be carried(A)General ruleExcept as otherwise provided in this paragraph, a net operating loss for any taxable year—(i)shall be a net operating loss carryback to each of the 2 taxable years preceding the taxable year of such loss, and
(ii)shall be a net operating loss carryover to each of the 20 taxable years following the taxable year of the loss.
26 U.S. Code § 172 - Net operating loss deduction
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
prev | next
(a)Deduction allowed There shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an amount equal to the aggregate of (1) the net operating loss carryovers to such year, plus (2) the net operating loss carrybacks to such year. For purposes of this subtitle, the term “net operating loss deduction” means the deduction allowed by this subsection.
(b)Net operating loss carrybacks and carryovers(1)Years to which loss may be carried(A)General ruleExcept as otherwise provided in this paragraph, a net operating loss for any taxable year—(i)shall be a net operating loss carryback to each of the 2 taxable years preceding the taxable year of such loss, and
(ii)shall be a net operating loss carryover to each of the 20 taxable years following the taxable year of the loss.
History: (Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 63; Pub. L. 85–866, title I, §§ 14(a), (b), 64(b), title II, § 203(a), (b), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1611, 1656, 1678; Pub. L. 87–710, § 1, Sept. 27, 1962, 76 Stat. 648; Pub. L. 87–792, § 7(f),Oct. 10, 1962, 76 Stat. 829; Pub. L. 87–794, title III, § 317(b), Oct. 11, 1962, 76 Stat. 889; Pub. L. 88–272, title II, §§ 210(a), (b), 234(b)(5), Feb. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 47, 48, 115; Pub. L. 90–225, § 3(a), Dec. 27, 1967, 81 Stat. 732; Pub. L. 91–172, title IV, § 431(b), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 619; Pub. L. 91–677, § 2(a)–(c), Jan. 12, 1971, 84 Stat. 2061; Pub. L. 94–455, title VIII, § 806(a)–(c), title X, § 1052(c)(3), title XVI, § 1606(b), (c), title XIX, §§ 1901(a)(29), 1906(b)(13)(A), title XXI, § 2126, Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1598, 1648, 1755, 1756, 1769, 1834, 1920; Pub. L. 95–30, title I, § 102(b)(2), May 23, 1977, 91 Stat. 137; Pub. L. 95–600, title III, § 371(a), (b), title VI, § 601(b)(1), title VII, §§ 701(d)(1), 703(p)(1), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2859, 2896, 2900, 2943; Pub. L. 96–222, title I, §§ 103(a)(15), 106(a)(1), (6), (7), Apr. 1, 1980, 94 Stat. 214, 221; Pub. L. 96–595, § 1(a),Dec. 24, 1980, 94 Stat. 3464; Pub. L. 97–34, title II, § 207(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 225; Pub. L. 97–354, § 5(a)(22), Oct. 19, 1982, 96 Stat. 1694; Pub. L. 97–362, title I, § 102(a)–(c), Oct. 25, 1982, 96 Stat. 1727, 1728; Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title I, §§ 91(d), 177(c), title IV, § 491(d)(5), title VII, § 722(a)(4), July 18, 1984,98 Stat. 606, 710, 849, 973; Pub. L. 99–514, title I, § 104(b)(4), title III, § 301(b)(3), title IX, §§ 901(d)(4)(B), 903(a), (b), title XIII, § 1303(b)(1), (2), title XVIII, § 1899A(6), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2105, 2217, 2380, 2383, 2658, 2958; Pub. L. 100–647, title I, §§ 1003(a)(1), 1009(c), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3382, 3449; Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, § 7211(a), (b), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2342, 2343; Pub. L. 101–508, title XI, §§ 11324(a), 11701(d), 11704(a)(2), 11811(a)–(b)(2)(A), (3), (4), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–465, 1388–507, 1388–518, 1388–530, 1388–532 to 1388–534; Pub. L. 103–66, title XIII, § 13113(d)(1), Aug. 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 429; Pub. L. 104–188, title I, §§ 1702(h)(2), (16), 1704(t)(5), (30), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1873, 1874, 1887, 1889; Pub. L. 105–34, title X, § 1082(a), (b), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 950; Pub. L. 105–277, div. J, title II, § 2013(a)–(c), title III, § 3004(a), title IV, §§ 4003(h), 4004(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–902, 2681–905, 2681–910; Pub. L. 107–147, title I, § 102(a), (b), title IV, § 417(8), Mar. 9, 2002, 116 Stat. 25, 56; Pub. L. 108–311, title IV, § 403(b)(1), Oct. 4, 2004, 118 Stat. 1187; Pub. L. 109–58, title XIII, § 1311, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 1009; Pub. L. 109–135, title IV, §§ 402(f), 403(a)(17), Dec. 21, 2005, 119 Stat. 2611, 2619; Pub. L. 110–343, div. C, title VII, §§ 706(a)(2)(D)(v), (vi), 708(a), (b), (d), Oct. 3, 2008, 122 Stat. 3922, 3924, 3925; Pub. L. 111–5, div. B, title I, § 1211(a), (b), Feb. 17, 2009, 123 Stat. 335, 336; Pub. L. 111–92, § 13(a), Nov. 6, 2009, 123 Stat. 2992; Pub. L. 113–295, div. A, title II, §§ 211(c)(1)(B), 221(a)(30)(A), (B), (41)(B), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 4033, 4041, 4044.)
See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/172
======================================================================
Link to old case, Vreeland v. US, regarding NOL carryforward pursuant to Internal Revenue Code of 1939 Section 117. See https://casetext.com/case/vreeland-v-united-states
FilmCarp said:
His tax records indict the system more than him. Nothing illegal, but terrible nonetheless.
hoops said:
tl:dr
tax laws are not the point.
This.
About 50 people have already noted that's this practice is legal and normal. We get this point, thanks.
mjh said:
hoops said:
tl:dr
tax laws are not the point.
This.
About 50 people have already noted that's this practice is legal and normal. We get this point, thanks.
However, thanks for playing, RealityForAll.
To what standard, other than the legal standard, would you hold people?
hoops said:
tl:dr
tax laws are not the point.
RealityForAll said:
To what standard, other than the legal standard, would you hold people?
hoops said:
tl:dr
tax laws are not the point.
I would have wanted him to say that he wanted to change the laws to disallow what he is legally doing, even though it would personally hurt him. At that point he would no longer be so quick to lose other people's money and write it off himself.
For one thing, he and his supporters go on and on about what a great businessman he is, but a huge business loss isn't exactly something to be proud of.
And his unwillingness to release the returns IS certainly an issue, even if he is not legally bound to do so.
How about some kind of decency standard, eg, Warren Buffet, while benefiting legally from the tax code as it is, has pointed out that it's not good policy for him to be paying a lower rate than his secretary.
How about a good governance standard, something along the lines of We need to sit down together and figure out an equitable and effective way to pay for the services we want the government to provide (eg, infrastructure, defense, debt service, social security, name your own indispensables).
Something beyond (above?) Ha look at me! I got mine!
Trump’s tax plan would deliver far and away its largest windfalls to the highest earners, including those in the top 0.1 percent.
That's the issue at hand, IMHO, and the one that gives the story about his non-payment of federal income taxes legs.
RealityForAll said:
To what standard, other than the legal standard, would you hold people?
hoops said:
tl:dr
tax laws are not the point.
I suppose if more people could take a $1,000,000,000 loss in any given year while still remaining rich and then write off the loss for the next 20 years, they might be more understanding.
The NOL carryforward provision has been around for almost 100 years. Would you be as upset if HRC (orWJC) did the same thing?
By the way, I detest DJT but suggesting settled law should not be relied upon in preparing one's taxes makes no sense. Why would we get rid of the NOL carryover provision as it allows taxpayers to set off their lean years against their lush years? This is such an accepted principle of taxation that I have never heard of a repeal demand for the NOL and NOL carryover provisions.
FilmCarp said:
RealityForAll said:
To what standard, other than the legal standard, would you hold people?
hoops said:
tl:dr
tax laws are not the point.
I would have wanted him to say that he wanted to change the laws to disallow what he is legally doing, even though it would personally hurt him. At that point he would no longer be so quick to lose other people's money and write it off himself.
RealityforAll, it's almost like you didn't read the responses to your post. Because no one made that argument.
tourn said:
Jackson_Fusion said:
unixiscool said:
Jackson_Fusion said:
These were state department functions, not foundation functions. They've fought the disclosure tooth and nail. By the formulation given earlier, that resistance to disclose means concealment of something, this is troubling- and the emails do nothing to allay the concern. Quite the contrary.
What ate you talking about, you can just go to their website and see the donor list. They released their donors before she became SS.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors/
Read the article again. I'm sure you'll get it the second time through.
Maybe your exposure to pesticides is affecting how you "get" things. Trump is a billion dollar loser who hasn't made a dime in a real business in years. Watch the Frontline special. He's just a TV personality who lives in a fantasy world where the truth is shunned. He will never release his taxes because they are the only thing about him that doesn't lie.
Jean Coutu called, your order is ready for pickup! Maybe this one will help. 
RealityForAll said:
It is incredible to me that so many people are outraged by the NOL Carryforward provision in the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"). This provision has been in our tax law at least since 1939 (and probably from the outset of the income tax in 1913 but I don't have time to research its full history now). NOL Carryforward has been black letter law for almost 100 years. What is so controversial about allowing business to carry losses from the bad part of the business cycle to the good parts of the business cycle?
The concept is not controversial. The concerns are about what qualifies as a "loss". Not all losses are actual, real-time, cash losses. Trump's nearly-billion dollar "losses" could be due, in large part, to those "on paper", from accelerated depreciations or cost recoveries that are available for some people or businesses. In other words, it wasn't actual cash out of his pocket.
In contrast (for example), the music store owner who was stiffed on the bill for pianos he sold to a Trump casino, DID apparently lose real money as a result. Completely irrelevant aside - it's been recently discovered that said music store owner was also the guy who rented Bruce Springsteen's mother the very first guitar Springsteen ever had, as a kid. If karma means anything, it might come into play in this instance.
I bet this kid wishes he knew what NOL Carry forwards were.
Are you aware that Warren Buffet's comment on higher marginal rate of secretary is primarily the result of mixing apples (income taxation) and oranges (insurance premiums,AKA Social Security). Social Security ("SS") provides death benefits, retirement income and disability benefits. Thus, SS is a mix of insurance for disability and death combined with an old age annuity. SS insurance premiums are crafted so that those on the lower end of the scale pay lower premiums. Further, SS premiums are limited to the first $118,500 of taxable income.
What you are doing is focusing on tax rate for both income tax, SS and medicare for the secretary. While most of Buffet's tax arises from capital gains taxes from investing. Many secretaries in the real world pay no income taxes (but generally do pay SS premiums and Medicare tax on earned income). Mixing apples and oranges appears at best to be an example of a lack of understanding, logic and reason (alternatively, it could also be viewed in an attempt to enrage the average worker so that they become emotional and fearful). Emotion and fearfulness are powerful tools for getting the average person to vote for the politician (and their party) invoking such scare tactics. Perhaps DJT's utilization of NOL carryforward can be linked to Hitler and the Nazis (didn't the Nazis use NOL carryforwards) to carry your argument even further.
Politifacts does a good job explaining the difference between SS premiums and income tax. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/sep/21/does-secretary-pay-higher-taxes-millionaire/
mjc said:
How about some kind of decency standard, eg, Warren Buffet, while benefiting legally from the tax code as it is, has pointed out that it's not good policy for him to be paying a lower rate than his secretary.
How about a good governance standard, something along the lines of We need to sit down together and figure out an equitable and effective way to pay for the services we want the government to provide (eg, infrastructure, defense, debt service, social security, name your own indispensables).
Something beyond (above?) Ha look at me! I got mine!
Hmmm......
Moral
Ethical
Human
RealityForAll said:
To what standard, other than the legal standard, would you hold people?
hoops said:
tl:dr
tax laws are not the point.
Capital gains tax should be taxed at the same rates as ordinary income tax (maybe with an exemption for the first $25,000 of capital gains to help small investors).
and we should hold our candidates for president to a higher standard than allowing them to say it was legal therefore it is ok. And we don't know if what Trump did was legal - we do not have enough information.
Hard to believe anyone can defend Trump. It is one thing to say you are voting for Trump because you think he would be a better president, but to defend his business practices is idiotic since he is so basically dishonest.
Once again I detest DJT (especially for his stiffing the small business person or contractor). In your comment, you equate "not actual losses" with accelerated depreciation and cost recoveries. Then you advance your argument with the comment "it wasn't actual cash out of his pocket." Absent depreciation and cost recoveries, most reale state centered businesses would be then judged on their cash flow. Again, there has never been any attempt in the last 50 years in the Congress (that I know of) to repeal depreciation, cost recoveries, accrual accounting or force taxpayers onto cash flow accounting. Your comment appears to be inspired by the fact that the loss was encountered by DJT or one of his companies. Would you have the same comment if HRC carried over an NOL arising from when HRC (and WJC) left the Whitehouse broke?
I doubt it. IMHO, your real qualm is with DJT. The IRS has the authority to audit losses of taxpayers (we do not know whether this loss was ever audited or adjusted by the IRS). Similarly, I detest DJT but I am not going to blame DJT's use of the tax laws for my dislike for him. However, I am willing to defend any person who has followed the tax law and where others complain that they paid no tax (or not enough tax).
nohero said:
RealityForAll said:
It is incredible to me that so many people are outraged by the NOL Carryforward provision in the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"). This provision has been in our tax law at least since 1939 (and probably from the outset of the income tax in 1913 but I don't have time to research its full history now). NOL Carryforward has been black letter law for almost 100 years. What is so controversial about allowing business to carry losses from the bad part of the business cycle to the good parts of the business cycle?
The concept is not controversial. The concerns are about what qualifies as a "loss". Not all losses are actual, real-time, cash losses. Trump's nearly-billion dollar "losses" could be due, in large part, to those "on paper", from accelerated depreciations or cost recoveries that are available for some people or businesses. In other words, it wasn't actual cash out of his pocket.
In contrast (for example), the music store owner who was stiffed on the bill for pianos he sold to a Trump casino, DID apparently lose real money as a result. Completely irrelevant aside - it's been recently discovered that said music store owner was also the guy who rented Bruce Springsteen's mother the very first guitar Springsteen ever had, as a kid. If karma means anything, it might come into play in this instance.
Mike, nice sentiment. Who would set this higher standard? How would anyone what standard to use twenty years ago if standard does not kick in until they run for president?
mikescott said:
Capital gains tax should be taxed at the same rates as ordinary income tax (maybe with an exemption for the first $25,000 of capital gains to help small investors).
and we should hold our candidates for president to a higher standard than allowing them to say it was legal therefore it is ok. And we don't know if what Trump did was legal - we do not have enough information.
Hard to believe anyone can defend Trump. It is one thing to say you are voting for Trump because you think he would be a better president, but to defend his business practices is idiotic since he is so basically dishonest.
tjohn said:
I suppose if more people could take a $1,000,000 loss in any given year while still remaining rich and then write off the loss for the next 20 years, they might be more understanding.
It may be missing a few zeros, but that's as apt a summary of the outcry as I've seen.
This "RealityForAll" comment has little to do with what I wrote. I was addressing his mistaken assertion about what others were commenting about. I'd have the same comment no matter who was taking the deductions, because I made a factual comment.
RealityForAll said:
Once again I detest DJT (especially for his stiffing the small business person or contractor). In your comment, you equate "not actual losses" with accelerated depreciation and cost recoveries. Then you advance your argument with the comment "it wasn't actual cash out of his pocket." Absent depreciation and cost recoveries, most reale state centered businesses would be then judged on their cash flow. Again, there has never been any attempt in the last 50 years in the Congress (that I know of) to repeal depreciation, cost recoveries, accrual accounting or force taxpayers onto cash flow accounting. Your comment appears to be inspired by the fact that the loss was encountered by DJT or one of his companies. Would you have the same comment if HRC carried over an NOL arising from when HRC (and WJC) left the Whitehouse broke?
I doubt it. IMHO, your real qualm is with DJT. The IRS has the authority to audit losses of taxpayers (we do not know whether this loss was ever audited or adjusted by the IRS). Similarly, I detest DJT but I am not going to blame DJT's use of the tax laws for my dislike for him. However, I am willing to defend any person who has followed the tax law and no others complain that they paid no tax (or not enough tax).
nohero said:
RealityForAll said:
It is incredible to me that so many people are outraged by the NOL Carryforward provision in the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"). This provision has been in our tax law at least since 1939 (and probably from the outset of the income tax in 1913 but I don't have time to research its full history now). NOL Carryforward has been black letter law for almost 100 years. What is so controversial about allowing business to carry losses from the bad part of the business cycle to the good parts of the business cycle?
The concept is not controversial. The concerns are about what qualifies as a "loss". Not all losses are actual, real-time, cash losses. Trump's nearly-billion dollar "losses" could be due, in large part, to those "on paper", from accelerated depreciations or cost recoveries that are available for some people or businesses. In other words, it wasn't actual cash out of his pocket.
In contrast (for example), the music store owner who was stiffed on the bill for pianos he sold to a Trump casino, DID apparently lose real money as a result. Completely irrelevant aside - it's been recently discovered that said music store owner was also the guy who rented Bruce Springsteen's mother the very first guitar Springsteen ever had, as a kid. If karma means anything, it might come into play in this instance.
Trump's tax proposals would not only "fix" the current problem, it would make it so that people like him would pay even less than they do now.
Just eliminating the estate tax, by itself, would be a tremendous windfall to his family.
His plans to solve the problems are nothing more than transparent plans to enrich himself even further.
So Mr./Ms. yahooyahoo when was the last time such moral, ethical and human standards caused you to overpay your income tax?
In your perfect worldwho would establish such moral, ethical and human standards?
These higher standards of which you speak sound undemocratic. Why would you neuter the Congress elected by all the people of this country by creating new standards formulated by an unelected body (or, alternatively, why is the duly elected Congress not adequate)?
yahooyahoo said:
Hmmm......
Moral
Ethical
Human
RealityForAll said:
To what standard, other than the legal standard, would you hold people?
hoops said:
tl:dr
tax laws are not the point.
Tom, not what we are discussing here. What standard, other than the legal standard, should a presidential candidate be held up to?
If presidential candidates should be held to a higher standard then would we also apply the higher ethical standard to HRC?
tom said:
Trump's tax proposals would not only "fix" the current problem, it would make it so that people like him would pay even less than they do now.
Just eliminating the estate tax, by itself, would be a tremendous windfall to his family.
His plans to solve the problems are nothing more than transparent plans to enrich himself even further.
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
Wondering, very seriously, how anyone can defend this scumbag w/o mentioning hatred for HRC.