Replies

Trump and Hillary on tax loopholes:

I thought the dust-up over the tax pages released by the NYT was interesting and as it has set everyone speculating over what it means, I thought I too would speculate. First of all, the loss carry forward only extends to the point where the loss is totally expended by profits, and so I believe this loss would end up being wiped out after a few good economic years by Trump. (I guess the 18-year number is from the tax code as the outside limit on carry forward from a single loss.) It has been said that Trump’s tax plan would terminate these kinds of loopholes so that in the future rich people like him would not be able to benefit so hugely. In fact Trump is supposed to have said that these changes will hit his business particularly hard, but he does not go into enough detail, here is what I was able to find:

Trump would eliminate business deductions except for R and D. This means that business under Trump’s plan would lose the ability to write off business losses for reasons other than R and D. However, I still believe that no tax plan will prevent losses from being deducted from profits before paying taxes so this means the loss would still be allowed up to the level of profits. Whether this affects the loss carry forward provisions or not is not clear. If it were disallowed, then the loss that Trump experienced according to the NYT would not have been allowed and would have no doubt destroyed his company. So we have to ask, why are these “loopholes” in the tax code and do we really want to eliminate them? My guess is that there will still be substantial support for the loss carry forward provision in the code, here is why:

The truth about the tax code is that every loophole has a supporter in Congress (or many). Congress tinkers with loopholes in an effort to incentivize certain behaviors. Loss carry forward is designed to incentivize taking larger risks or buying more expensive equipment than necessary to offset the profits of a single year. This way an investor in equipment or property can be assured that even if they lose more than they make (and have no taxes to pay as a result) they will get to expense the remainder of the loss the next year. This is interesting because there is in general no equivalent rule for gains, except that there used to be a three year averaging that could be used to offset a windfall year. At any rate, the tax code is complex precisely because of these incentive features. It would be nice to simplify things but these incentives are thought to be better for the economy than simply collecting the regular tax. Thus when Trump has a massive loss, which is what is being reported, he is actually helping the economy to a greater extent than he would have if he had no loss and simply paid the taxes each year as Hillary is implying he should have done. Of course everyone with any math skills can analyze each approach and use the approach that results in the net lowest taxes over the period of interest. Note that no one is asserting that Trump did not have a loss. Thus he bought equipment or property and spent the money on it over and above any money he took in or he wrote off these costs due to closing of property or loss of business. (The business in question seems to be the Casino business at a time when all the casino businesses were failing. So the loss is likely due to expenses outpacing gambling income.) BTW, Trump has many business so this means that the net profit over loss was negative for this year. In some cases the taxpayer has an option with respect to the year in which the loss is taken. It is also worth noting that when Hillary says this loss means that many other businesses also had losses because when Trump had a loss he would have “stiffed” his suppliers is not something that correlates with a loss. (perhaps a bankruptcy, and maybe that is also going on here but I do not know. The fact is that the loss Trump had to experience would be increased by his paying money to suppliers. If he did not pay suppliers, then the loss would be less to Trump and the supplier would also have a loss. Hillary implies that she would fix the tax code so that the rich would pay more of their fair share. (Of course how much is fair is a matter for debate, since the rich are the main tax payers given that many poor under both Trump’s plan or Hillary’s or the current plan do not have to pay taxes.)

Hillary also does not say what would happen to the loss carry forward provision with her plan, but would allow immediate expensing of costs for new equipment. (This eliminates the confusing depreciation provision in my opinion) and would lead to losses if a lot of equipment were purchased in a single year. So I would imagine this loss would carry forward too. In other words, I believe each plan would leave the loss carry forward provision as it stands today. Since each plan wants the taxpayer to expense losses incurred.

I also do not see how it could be otherwise, businesses sometimes have losses and up to now these losses have been allowed to be banked against profits made in future years. Same for capital gains.

So now I have to say that listening to Hillary say that she will eliminate this “loophole” that Trump used which Hillary has also used in the past and that the NYT has also used is probably not a true statement. I believe this kind of campaigning is designed to appeal to the base and represents the kind of campaign lie that we should all be aware of and vote to defeat. I also believe that a lot of the media do not understand the tax code and are making a bigger deal of this than it is worth, but it does avoid the other issues that could be discussed.

What about this tiny issue? BTW, I also believe that Trump is wallowing in the mud in precisely the manner that Hillary’s campaign wants. However, as hope springs eternal, I also believe Trump will somehow not fall for this in the next two debates.