Trump's tax returns

[Horatius]

Why haven't they already? It's been 4 years, and the audit is still on. Why aren't these important appointees doing what you think they are doing?

Besides Rettig, can you name a decision-maker appointee?

Outright killing an audit is probably too obvious - everyone would see it as nothing more than pandering to Trump's desires.

But you don't need to kill it - you just need to de-prioritize it. If Bob the Auditor is working on several cases, one of which is Trump's case, the new boss just needs to keep asking Bob for the results of all the other cases. If the boss is on his ass to audit other people, it wouldn't take much for Bob to decide to focus on those cases. After all, Trump's audit has been dragging along for years already, what's a couple more?

Then just make sure that Bob keeps being assigned new cases. Trump never makes it back to the top of the pile.

 

[Bob001]

Outright killing an audit is probably too obvious - everyone would see it as nothing more than pandering to Trump's desires.

But you don't need to kill it - you just need to de-prioritize it. If Bob the Auditor is working on several cases, one of which is Trump's case, the new boss just needs to keep asking Bob for the results of all the other cases. If the boss is on his ass to audit other people, it wouldn't take much for Bob to decide to focus on those cases. After all, Trump's audit has been dragging along for years already, what's a couple more?

Then just make sure that Bob keeps being assigned new cases. Trump never makes it back to the top of the pile.

I would also imagine that Trump's lawyers are engaging in every possible delaying tactic, and the IRS people aren't knocking themselves out to fight back.

 

[Darat]

Why haven't they already? It's been 4 years, and the audit is still on. Why aren't these important appointees doing what you think they are doing?

Besides Rettig, can you name a decision-maker appointee?

Do we know that? I wouldn't have thought the IRS gave out that sort of information?

 

[Bob001]

Do we know that? I wouldn't have thought the IRS gave out that sort of information?

The NY Times confirmed it as part of their investigation. It involves the $72 million dollar refund Trump claimed.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...und-stuck-with-little-known-panel/ar-BB19wR2O

 

[Giordano]

Why haven't they already? It's been 4 years, and the audit is still on. Why aren't these important appointees doing what you think they are doing?

Besides Rettig, can you name a decision-maker appointee?

Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

Rettig is head of the IRS, the most powerful person in it!

I also previously cited an article listing I believe two additional high decision level Trump IRS appointments. I will prepare a more comprehensive list. But why do I suspect that you know all this and just want other posters to run around like monkeys to your organ grinding.

 

[eeyore1954]

So a 3 of the Trump scale:

1. he wouldn't do that.
2. okay, but he's not currently doing it
3. okay, but it's not illegal

I don't see anything wrong with it at all if it is legal. Not because he is Trump but because I would expect business people to take every deduction they are entitled to.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I don't see anything wrong with it at all if it is legal. Not because he is Trump but because I would expect business people to take every deduction they are entitled to.

it's not legal.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Literally no one who has ever used the "LOL hate the game, don't hate player" excuse actually hates the game.

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
It's worth noting that this gives the lie to Trump's excuse for not releasing his taxes, that he's under audit- Obama released his tax returns for 2008-2015:

Oh, I think I said that excuse was BS from day 1.

I don't know if I believe that is his real reason but while he is not legally required to not release them while under audit I think most tax professionals would advise against it.

This is from The Tax Girl at Forbes.

Whether it's a good idea or not is another matter: many tax pros, like me, weren't so sure that making a tax return public while it’s under audit was a good idea.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't see anything wrong with it at all if it is legal. Not because he is Trump but because I would expect business people to take every deduction they are entitled to.

And then some more just for good measure. Note that hair care is not deductable and trump deducted it. Never let the law stand in the way of a good deduction.

 

[eeyore1954]

it's not legal.

Have you examined his returns? Otherwise I don't see how you could make that statement of fact .

 

[JoeMorgue]

Man I'm so glad pedantics is now an official political party.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I don't see anything wrong with it at all if it is legal [and Trump does it]

FTFY.

 

[eeyore1954]

And then some more just for good measure. Note that hair care is not deductable and trump deducted it. Never let the law stand in the way of a good deduction.

That is probably not true. There are circumstances where it could be.

"To claim a deduction for business expenses, section 162 of the Tax Code requires that the expense is “ordinary and necessary.” According to the IRS, an ordinary expense is one that is common and accepted in your trade or business. The IRS defines a necessary expense as “one that is helpful and appropriate for your trade or business.” (You can read more about business expenses here.)

As a tax attorney, I can’t claim that hairdressing expenses - even if I need to look professional inside of a courtroom - are ordinary and necessary. But could someone who appears on television? Maybe. But only for the television/appearance bits - not for personal comfort or other unrelated business use."

I would suspect this is something he has been deducting for a while and the IRS has not disallowed (yet).

 

[JoeMorgue]

This was posted days ago:

As has been pointed out, the story will play out thusly:

1. It's #FakeNews
2. The reports are accurate but only suckers pay federal taxes
3. It's not illegal
4. OK, it's illegal but it's not a "real" crime
5. What about Hunter Biden ?
6. Emails, Benghazi etc, etc
7. Next crisis

So yeah we already know the excuses before they were even used.

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
I don't see anything wrong with it at all if it is legal [and Trump does it]

FTFY.

You do not know me and you are 100% wrong. I would feel the same about the returns no matter who did it (Maybe if that person specifically spoke against the deductions they took.) I would say it is wrong.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

It's #FakeNews
The reports are accurate but only suckers pay federal taxes
It's not illegal
OK, it's illegal but it's not a "real" crime
What about Hunter Biden ?
Emails, Benghazi etc, etc
Next crisis

You forgot their favourite "okay, but what are you going to do about it?" aka "lol triggered libs".

 

[Checkmite]

Also "why didn't Obama stop me from doing it?"

 

[Leftus]

Do we know that? I wouldn't have thought the IRS gave out that sort of information?

On in the sense it's not closed (per Trump and NYT), and not docketed on the tax court (per Tax court search). Beyond that, I've no information.

 

[Leftus]

Outright killing an audit is probably too obvious - everyone would see it as nothing more than pandering to Trump's desires.

But you don't need to kill it - you just need to de-prioritize it. If Bob the Auditor is working on several cases, one of which is Trump's case, the new boss just needs to keep asking Bob for the results of all the other cases. If the boss is on his ass to audit other people, it wouldn't take much for Bob to decide to focus on those cases. After all, Trump's audit has been dragging along for years already, what's a couple more?

Then just make sure that Bob keeps being assigned new cases. Trump never makes it back to the top of the pile.

Um, what new boss? The auditors likely have exactly the same management. The last big reorg was done in, 2014. And it wasn't a shakeup but a realignment.

Do you know how managers are rated? Keeping and aged case alive works against them.

Also, asking about all the other cases, results and whatnots could be considered a RR98 violation. And intentionally delaying closure is a TBOR violation too. But I'm sure some GS-12 auditor is putting it all on the line to protect a man who wasn't even president at the time this all started.