LOOK! Something shiny!
Posted on 10/02/2016 5:19:40 AM PDT by rktman
Well, it dropped. The first of possibly many October surprises this cycle. Wikileaks’ Julian Assange has already offered teasers about new information he’s obtained about Hillary Clinton that has yet to be released. For now, it’s brief glimpse into Donald Trump’s tax returns that The New York Times says could've legally allowed the billionaire to avoid paying taxes for almost two decades. It’s a 1995 return that the news publication obtained, which showed that Trump had lost almost a billion dollars. The Times contacted a lawyer and accountant to Trump, who said that the return was “legit,” while also detailing that the massive losses were probably associated with his casino interests that were bleeding cash in the 1990s. Again, there’s nothing illegal in these documents:
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
LOOK! Something shiny!
I am corrected yet again. Yes, 21 years ago. That tax return can have nothing to do with Trump’s current tax return. We all know that Trump has had one of the greatest comebacks in the history of business. Trump himself told us about this in The Art of the Comeback, one of fourteen books he has written over the years. From a $900 million loss in the 1990s, to a net worth of $10 billion. According to the New York Times, that’s a bad thing.
I'm sorry about your school, but subracting 1995 from 2016 is 21, not 19.
Oh, and it's spelled dog, not dawg.
But hey, you're in the thread and participating, so whilst your school mess up the "writing, and arthimetic" at least they got the "reading" part mostly down!
I can’t believe that any Lawyer and Accountant that works for Trump would admit and speculate about Trump’s personal business.
I hope he sues and ends up owning the Times.
Really? He thought of this smart move but wasn’t smart enough to not take the bait of Miss Universe, Piggy comment for days on end via twitter, rallies and news comments?
He should bring up when Bill left WH, they tried to steal 200,000 worth of items that didn’t belong to them.
I'm sure the value he puts on his "brand" is overstated. Trump Tower, for example, would probably lose no more than 2% of its value if it was sold tomorrow and became Fifth Avenue Tower.
They are really grasping for straws
Baloney. Just look at how this is presented in the media reports:
He reported a $900 million loss on his 1995 tax returns. He MAY HAVE been able to use that to offset tax liabilities for UP TO ten years (or whatever).
He has nothing to worry about. If the issue comes up, he just needs to explain (once) how the loss works, and then move on. He can't get involved in a detailed discussion about it because nobody -- either the moderator, the audience, or Hillary Clinton -- is going to understand it anyway.
1995 was Bill Clinton’s third year in office, and Trump filed his taxes in accordance with Clinton’s tax code. So... what’s the problem?
Legally Avoiding Paying IRS? My question is this, did he pay taxes for 18 years, or did he LEGALLY not paying taxes?
no taxes..sign me up..
“1995 wasn’t “almost two decades ago.” It was 12 years ago.”
Is this common core math? Children born in 1995 are 21yrs old this year, not 12.
And a lot of 12yr olds dress like they’re 21.
Worst of both worlds.
I am corrected a fourth time.
With those math skills, I sincerely hope that you aren’t a CPA.
This wouldn’t be the fifth correction?
Somewhat disappointed that the defense of Trump using carry-forward losses seems to be based on a “well it’s legal” meme. There’s a good reason why carry-forward losses are legal ... because it’s also MORAL! After all, if an entrepreneur who puts his own money at risk will have to pay heavy taxes if that gamble pays off, then of course any loss of capital in a bad year should be allowed to offset any increase in capital in future years, so that over the long term the only money that is taxed is the net increase in capital, since otherwise the effect of the tax law would be to confiscate the money you have rather than to tax net income.
That’s a fairly simple concept to explain and to understand, and this would be a good opportunity for the Trump campaign to use to explain this to those who do not, to defend the MORALITY of using carry-forward losses, rather than making sound like he is excusing an unfair loophole based on mere legality.
Also, aside from morality it’s also a sound pro-growth strategy, given that nearly half of all new businesses will fail - and the rest almost always lose money for a year or more before becoming profitable. So if those carry-forward loss provisions were taken away, you’d see a sharp decline in the number of entrepreneurs willing to put a significant portion of their accumulated wealth at risk in order to start a new business, since any losses from failures or even initial-year losses could not be recouped by offsetting those against future profits.
So he’s smart financially?
Thanks for confirming that!!
HilLIARy and Bill are too,... they took income tax deductions for used underwear they ‘donated’ to charity
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.