It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Trump did nothing illegal on 1995 tax returns? Not so fast!

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
There was something about the 1 billion dollar loss in 1995 that didn't sit right with me. I mean, it all seems legal when you look at the handful of pages provided to the NYT, but there was something bothering me. Then I saw an article pop up on Talking Points Memo that hit exactly what had been nagging me.


We've known for years that the collapse of Trump's debt ridden casino empire in Atlantic City almost destroyed him more than two decades ago. He was able to wriggle through by a number of angles and connivances. But one of the biggest was that he was able to convince his lenders that they'd be even worse off if he was cleaned out and removed from the picture entirely.


As I understand it, Trump was able to leverage his name and make a case to the banks he owed millions to that if they foreclosed and the properties such as "Trump Tower" lost his name, they would lose more money than if they allowed him to be "forgiven" of the debt in exchange for keeping a managing interest in the properties and hence his name would stay on the sign. That's called "debt forgiveness" and he got the bailout just like banks and car companies did in 2008 because he was "too big to fail."


If you sustain real capital losses, you can apply those losses to cancel out future income/profits and reduce your tax liability. But if your losses are canceled out by debt forgiveness, the debt forgiveness is counted as income. That cancels out the losses that would provide you with the tax benefit. In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

But there are many ways to be crafty and end up with both - some of those may simply be aggressive and sleazy and others may be clearly illegal.


Without even knowing tax law, my common sense was telling me you can't be forgiven for debt and then claim it as a loss on your returns. So, was the almost 1 billion dollar loss in 1995 ON TOP of the debt forgiven by the banks in exchange for keeping his name? Who knows? He refuses to release his taxes. So, there is a lot more to this tax return thing than simply, he didn't do anything illegal and therefore what's the big deal? It looks like there is a possibility that claiming that 1 billion dollar loss was illegal. Maybe this is what he's hiding by refusing to release his tax return information?

Also, why would an insider from Trump Tower send these documents if they were totally legal and didn't show Trump doing anything wrong? Maybe they were expecting the NYT to put more dots together than they did? I don't know, it's just something in the midst of this election smoke that has leapt out at me as an actual thing rather than distractions like out of context quotes about soldiers or Bernie backers.


talkingpointsmemo.com...




posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: SKMDC1
I am also curious about how his bankruptcies come into the tax picture.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: SKMDC1

I understood he wasn't forgiven per se...and instead paid pennies on the dollar to settle. So he paid something...
edit on 4-10-2016 by mysterioustranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   
If he did anything illegal, the IRS would be on it through their audit. No individual is going to claim almost a billion personal loss without the IRS doing a rectal exam. Without seeing future tax returns there is no way to know what was claimed and thus we'd be speculating.

With that said, if debt is forgiven it is general considered income. However, the issue is that between the LLCs, personal, Corporations, and partnerships the water gets muddied up quite a bit as to what is personal income vs that of an entity he controls.

This is why I said Trump has nothing to gain by releasing his tax returns. No matter what he does, it will be a negative.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
If he did anything illegal, the IRS would be on it through their audit. No individual is going to claim almost a billion personal loss without the IRS doing a rectal exam. Without seeing future tax returns there is no way to know what was claimed and thus we'd be speculating.

With that said, if debt is forgiven it is general considered income. However, the issue is that between the LLCs, personal, Corporations, and partnerships the water gets muddied up quite a bit as to what is personal income vs that of an entity he controls.

This is why I said Trump has nothing to gain by releasing his tax returns. No matter what he does, it will be a negative.


And it's that muddied water that the TPM article goes on to discuss. The way someone can "park" money in debt shelters to avoid claiming as income. If something like that isn't "illegal" per se, but sleazy and unethical, then the IRS audit wouldn't end in a revelation about Trump, and without further investigation into is tax returns the American people will have no way to know if he did something sleazy, unethical, illegal, or totally legit. The IRS shouldn't be the sole institution to investigate a Presidential candidates finances. It seems like the NYT is on the right track for something big maybe without the tax return release, especially if more anonymous packages show up in their mail box. Time will tell.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Now you see why all lawyers advised Trump to not release his tax information while the audit is still open?

A million armchair IRS agents scrutinizing every detail and trying to make connections and then squealing to the IRS could drag the investigation out forever.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Trump and Clinton for Prison 2016!



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: SKMDC1

While this is an interesting approach to the issue, I have to say that TPM is definitely not a go-to rag of opinions for most people, mainly (in my instance) because it's about as far from impartial as one can be.

Regardless, it raises questions that really should be answered by a professional, but I just don't care enough about it to really invest much effort, so I'm hoping that someone answers the questions for me.

Regardless, even if he did some sleazy things concerning taxes and debt forgiveness, it's still not as serious as the things that Clinton has done, IMO, and would only serve to help prove (even more) how terribly...terrible...our presidential candidates both are.

America can do better. Why don't we?



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
No conviction = no laws broken.

Hillary has set the bar.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: SKMDC1

Debt forgiveness counts as income. But, you're assuming his debt was forgiven. I'm going to wait for more details, but it's possible the banks simply extended his credit line rather than writing off the debt.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
This is why I said Trump has nothing to gain by releasing his tax returns. No matter what he does, it will be a negative.


Isn't this instead admitting that no matter how bad I think the tax issue is, the reality is that it's even worse? That's all the more reason it should be public knowledge.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: SKMDC1

I can save alot of time he's been audited 3 times he pays taxes. If a debt is forgiven that becomes income and is taxable. There is no way to avoid it short of creating a business entity outside the US. As far as not paying taxes for 18 years that's just stupid. They got this number because you can go back 3 years and forward 15. Judging from purchases he made after it was maybe 3 years total.

As to why this happens its to make that tax code fair and used by businesses all the time including companes like wal mart and people like Warren Buffett. Venture Capitolist wI'll have 2 or 3 good years and one bad. So peiple like Warren may make 1.8 billion 1 year 1 billion the next and lose a billion the third. That means in 3 years he made 1.8 billion or 900 million a year. And that is what he pays taxes on if he was taxed on the 2.8 billion without the loss his taxes would about 600 million. With the loss of another billion he would have lost 1.6 billion out of the 1.8 billion he made. Meaning thr company made 200 million in 3 years. And thus would lead to the company declaring bunkruptcy since they wouldn't have thr Capitol to invest.




top topics



 
6

log in

join