Trump's tax returns

[Leftus]

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.

Let's say he loses the audit, will he be posting an amended return? Will he post the transcripts (which really wouldn't tell you anything about audit). You would see a transaction code 300 and a dollar amount. Honestly, not that exciting.

I'm not sure what the harm would be to the audit were the return made public.

While I've never worked in Exam, I've worked in collections and I really don't see how making it public would change the numbers.

 

[jimbob]

Don't question his $70 000 stylists. They must really know their stuff.

Well if you were his stylist - would you care if he looked bad?

I'm sure he treats them with even more contempt than he did Cohen who almost literally knows where the bodies are.

 

[Leftus]

I wonder if the fight Trump is having with the IRS is about him using back-dated losses 5 years when the rule was 2?

It's 3 years from the assessment date, 2 years from last payment, whichever is more favorable to the taxpayer. 7 years for bad debt or worthless securities.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...tml/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006511----000-.html

 

[eeyore1954]

Let's say he loses the audit, will he be posting an amended return? Will he post the transcripts (which really wouldn't tell you anything about audit). You would see a transaction code 300 and a dollar amount. Honestly, not that exciting.

I'm not sure what the harm would be to the audit were the return made public.

While I've never worked in Exam, I've worked in collections and I really don't see how making it public would change the numbers.

I doubt if he will ever release anything.

I am guessing the harm is you don’t want millions of “auditors” going over your return With a fine tooth comb while it is being audited. I don’t know if the IRS would or could consider outside input.

I also worked at the IRS. I believe it was called tax correction. I was maybe one step about data input. This was before E filing.

 

[eeyore1954]

It's 3 years from the assessment date, 2 years from last payment, whichever is more favorable to the taxpayer. 7 years for bad debt or worthless securities.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...tml/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006511----000-.html

According to The Tax Girl this is the basis for the article.

“According to the Times, Trump claimed huge business losses — a total of $1.4 billion from his core businesses for 2008 and 2009. Before the bailout, those losses could only be carried back two years. But the bailout extended the look back to four years: the Times says that allowed Trump to recover taxes he paid when The Apprentice was profitable. That resulted in a large refund: that’s the issue that allegedly resulted in the refund audit.“

 

[Bob001]

According to The Tax Girl this is the basis for the article.
......

I had never heard of Tax Girl. But it's an interesting web site.https://www.taxgirl.com/

 

[Aridas]

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



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

I've read the suggestion that spending on Trump's appearance is a business expense because, in short, so much of the business that he did/does really is all about appearances, especially him projecting a particular image. I find it hard to refute that, honestly.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I've read the suggestion that spending on Trump's appearance is a business expense because, in short, so much of the business that he did/does really is all about appearances, especially him projecting a particular image. I find it hard to refute that, honestly.

That's why we need the actual financial statements. In Australia, an entertainer can claim as a deduction, a percentage of appearance costs (other than capital costs like normal clothing and teeth whitening). However, the taxpayer has to justify the percentage, if audited.

 

[Bob001]

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.

That depends on whether the numbers are correct. Trump is notorious for overvaluing or undervaluing his property values and expenses, and for padding his expenses (like paying Ivanka as a "consultant" when she was also an employee). Trump is a grifter, not a businessman.

 

[Resume]

That depends on whether the numbers are correct. Trump is notorious for overvaluing or undervaluing his property values and expenses, and for padding his expenses (like paying Ivanka as a "consultant" when she was also an employee). Trump is a grifter, not a businessman.

The highlighted explains the Trump phenomenon perfectly. Grifters are remarkably successful, right up until they get busted. Trump hasn't reached that point yet, but he'll get there.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Too soon to tell. Most polls go over three days so if this moves the needle, it will start today.

538 gave Biden one more point in their prediction: from 77 to 78 chances in 100 of winning the election.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

But we all know what is going on here. Trump is repeating his 2016 election tactics:

I'll release the taxes as soon as I can, really I will. Trust me, I want to but my lawyers tell me not to. ​

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Did you miss the part where Trump inflated his assets for loan applications and deflated them for tax losses?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's 3 years from the assessment date, 2 years from last payment, whichever is more favorable to the taxpayer. 7 years for bad debt or worthless securities.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...tml/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006511----000-.html

Is that before or after the last Tax Bill the Republicans pushed through which had the specific change which benefitted Trump?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

According to The Tax Girl this is the basis for the article.

“According to the Times, Trump claimed huge business losses — a total of $1.4 billion from his core businesses for 2008 and 2009. Before the bailout, those losses could only be carried back two years. But the bailout extended the look back to four years: the Times says that allowed Trump to recover taxes he paid when The Apprentice was profitable. That resulted in a large refund: that’s the issue that allegedly resulted in the refund audit.“

And yet the IRS is disputing the tax refund.

I'm only going by what I heard on NPR. I don't claim to know. But common sense says the IRS had a reason to deny the revised taxes where Trump got the $73 million refund the IRS wants back.

Or maybe the IRS is simply challenging the claimed losses.

 

[eeyore1954]

Did you miss the part where Trump inflated his assets for loan applications and deflated them for tax losses?

Do you think when Trump or anyone in that circumstance gets a $100,000,000 loan it is without independent (or the banks) appraisers determining the value of properties?

I am wondering how deflating value of assets give tax losses aside from walking away from an investment and declaring it worthless. Or selling at a loss.

I do think I read somewhere there was an IRS dispute about an asset he had declared worthless.

 

[eeyore1954]

And yet the IRS is disputing the tax refund.

I'm only going by what I heard on NPR. I don't claim to know. But common sense says the IRS had a reason to deny the revised taxes where Trump got the $73 million refund the IRS wants back.

Or maybe the IRS is simply challenging the claimed losses.

Clearly the IRS feels they had reason to dispute some or all of the refund. Also it is not cut and dried or it wouldn't still be worked on.

 

[The Don]

Do you think when Trump or anyone in that circumstance gets a $100,000,000 loan it is without independent (or the banks) appraisers determining the value of properties?

I am wondering how deflating value of assets give tax losses aside from walking away from an investment and declaring it worthless. Or selling at a loss.

I do think I read somewhere there was an IRS dispute about an asset he had declared worthless.

As I understand it, there are at least two ways someone can benefit from deflating the value of an asset.

In some circumstances, the amount of tax payable on a (property) asset is dependent on the value of that asset. It is alleged that President Trump claimed that one of his Florida courses which was worth $50m was worth "no more than $5m" in order to pay lower local taxes. Permanently undervaluing the asset reduces the tax payable.

By deflating the value of an asset, you can create a "paper loss" which you can then offset against profits made elsewhere in the company reducing your tax liability towards, or even beyond, zero. When you come to dispose of the asset, you may make a capital gain for which taxes may be payable. Then again in some tax jurisdictions, the longer you hold onto an asset, the lower your capital gains liability so no capital gains tax may be due. In this case, the devaluing of an asset now reduces the current tax liability.

I am not an accountant (IANAA) but I did have to take some accountancy courses more than 30 years ago and am a director/part owner of a business. Our assets are largely things like IT equipment, furniture and so on and so we depreciate them at "standard" rates (over three or five years typically). For businesses with more volatile assets (like property companies, or companies with a lot of intangible assets) then there may be a lot more flexibility about how those assets are valued and hence how much can be written off against taxes. Done "correctly" this is legal tax avoidance.

However, if a business is deemed to be too aggressive about asset re-evaluation (for example writing off too much of an asset's value) then the tax authorities may deem it illegal tax evasion.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Traditional wisdom also doesn't account for someone who would be more than willing to lose money to maintain the image and persona of rich, high end, wheeling and dealing businessman.

Losing money makes a lot of sense in ways that it never would otherwise if you factor that in

"Why would anyone lose that much money running a business?" can be the same question as "Why would anyone get a car loan at that high of a interest rate just to be seen with a Lambo in their driveway?" Because image is very, very important to some people.

 

[Giordano]

Do you think when Trump or anyone in that circumstance gets a $100,000,000 loan it is without independent (or the banks) appraisers determining the value of properties?

I am wondering how deflating value of assets give tax losses aside from walking away from an investment and declaring it worthless. Or selling at a loss.

I do think I read somewhere there was an IRS dispute about an asset he had declared worthless.

IINAAccountant. But my limited understanding is that showing a depreciation of a business over a tax year can be taken as a deduction. If the property is still worth more than $100 million one can probably get a $100 million loan using the remaining value as collateral.

But I may be wrong.

BTW: creative use of zeros to make the loan look huge! Why didn’t you include cents?
$100,000,000.00