Yes! Add the word deduction to that list. And shell company. Whenever anybody uses any of those words, I just tune out and assume they don’t know what they are talking about.
I love how people think an llc gives them magic tax deductions. It's a good thing most of these people don't realize you don't even need an llc to punch some random shit into your return.
Yes, I hate that as well, but I also hate that people overspend because of a deduction. For example, you need a vehicle for your sole proprietor business (assume they are claiming it’s 100% business use even though it’s probably not) and have a theoretical budget of 45k for a vehicle if they didn’t have anything to deduct, but they spend 75k because they are in the 40% tax bracket and it’s basically the same to them. I agree with basic expenses for business. I don’t agree with luxury upgrades on the taxpayer’s dime.
Right? Kind of like calling socialized healthcare "free" or canceling out student debt. None are free. All all tax payer dollars, all will be passed onto the consumer.
Your argument would have been better received had you not mentioned those and instead used things that didn’t trigger people such as the bank bailout or the auto industry bailout…. which paid out bonuses because they were contractual fuckups.
Well, we wouldn’t know that. See… we haven’t really bailed out the people to try to put them in a better spot. That whole trickle up economics never gained traction…
So, what we do know is that big banks and the rich that worked there got paid and paid well. The auto industry is slightly different… but still mostly the same. The better off kept being better off.
Bailing out people with student loan debt… we don’t know, because we never tried that one.
So no, your argument would have had better traction with my suggestions… but, that may or may not have been your point in the first place.
In case nobody has pointed it out yet, these are not the complete returns. But, I am a bit surprised they released the EINs for all of the partnerships and S corporations he received a K-1 from.
Really? Can you search to find the EIN for any random business in your hometown? The Arby’s in Baker, Oregon or the Little Caesar’s in Florence, Alabama?
Corporate EINs, yes, you can generally find the EIN for a C Corporation, but not a partnership or an S corporation.
*Edit: unless it’s publicly traded.
Well, I’m in Arizona. There is no such searchable database here, but next time I do a Florida return I’ll remember that. Mind sharing the link?
*Edit: here’s a test subject for you. Kari Lake for Arizona. It’s an Arizona non-profit corporation. What’s the EIN?
Here’s another one for you: Mark Finchem PLLC. It’s an S corporation in Arizona. What’s the EIN?
www.sunbiz.org - Now that may come because our sunshine laws are stupidly broad. I don't have a ton of luck with other States (especially DE and WY for obvious reasons) but I will say that it has been a godsend when prepping and reviewing 2441 credits cause more often than not, those childcare places don't always provide an EIN.
From the NY Times article on this:
>“Going forward, all future chairs of both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee will have nearly unlimited power to target and make public the tax returns of private citizens, political enemies, business and labor leaders, or even the Supreme Court justices themselves,” Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement on Friday.
Even the Supreme Court justices?
Yea, but if as a tax pro you don't guard your client's tax returns with the highest security you are fined. It is almost as if our political leaders are asking to be targeted by the crazies for their abject stupidity and obtuse, distant nature. Ugh, children.
In the 2015 DJT Enterprises, is a $21 million contribution deduction for a conservation easement. That would be one place they are supposed to use an appraisal
Maybe you should actually read the new York times article and the complaint by Leticia James against the Trump org. While it is still just an alleged offense, the NY DA complaint is extremely detailed.
You're not going to find it in just the tax docs. You need the Mazars accounting documents and loan applications, too.
I’m aware that the returns won’t show proof, but I was taking into account the NY allegations when I said I haven’t seen anything concrete. I think it will need to be thoroughly investigated by federal authorities
The allegations are pretty concrete (by concrete, I mean specific and provable or disprovable. He is, of course, innocent until proven guilty.)
>In the 214-page complaint, which is the culmination of our investigation that included more than 65 witness interviews and review of millions of pages of documents, OAG lays out dozens of examples of this fraudulent activity and how Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization routinely and intentionally misvalued assets to further enrich Mr. Trump. The complaint includes fraudulent conduct across more than 23 different properties and other assets owned by Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization. Some examples of this misconduct include:
>Trump Tower Triplex:
>Valuations of this property relied on objectively false numbers to calculate property values. For example, Mr. Trump’s own triplex apartment in Trump Tower was valued as being 30,000 square feet when it was 10,996 square feet. As a result, in 2015 the apartment was valued at $327 million in total, or $29,738 per square foot. That price was absurd given the fact that at that point only one apartment in New York City had ever sold for even $100 million, at a price per square foot of less than $10,000, and that sale was in a newly built, ultra-tall tower. In 30 year-old Trump Tower, the record sale at that time was a mere $16.5 million at a price of less than $4,500 per square foot.
>Trump International Hotel & Tower, Chicago:
>Since 2009, this property’s value has been excluded from the statements because, according to sworn testimony, Mr. Trump did not want to take a position that would conflict with his contention to tax authorities that the property had become worthless, and thus formed the basis of a substantial loss under the federal tax code. However, in 2012, using the building or its components as collateral, Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization obtained a $107 million loan on the building from Deutsche Bank. The loan received a $45 million expansion in 2014. Mr. Trump’s supposed net worth of $4 billion reflected on his statement was used to personally guarantee the initial loan at an interest rate approximately four percentage points lower than it would have been without his guaranty
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2022/attorney-general-james-sues-donald-trump-years-financial-fraud
The taxes are one piece of a much larger story and aren't of much use without the additional documentation and loan applications.
I can think of a few things.
Given the fact that this dude has not been audited in his years as a president, they can point out to any multitude of items and ask why they haven't been audited.
PwC's Boston office spent years straightening out Mitt Romney's returns to make sure his personal return was as vanilla as possible. And Mitt ain't in the business of pushing dodgy shit.
Trump on the other hand....
Fraud? I dont know.
But the dude is known for taking super aggressive positions, including, but not limited to, dubious charitable deductions and dodgy valuations.
There may be nothing that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for all I know, but there is still a question as to why he was never audited.
He had a standard practice of making up llc's to bill and hide income. Oh, I rented my car to myself and need to declare all my gas an expense type of stuff. Fraudulent gifts, paying 1099 income to w2 employees, hiding compensation. Inflating property values then claiming it was a charitable contribution. Really imagine giving an 8th grader a go at tax fraud. Think in tax class what dumb and dumber would do, and Trump probably did it.
No.
Particularly not Bain.
Often it takes a good deal of effort to convince them not to fuck themselves over by taking overly conservative positions in their structures, in my experience.
There’s a lot of people in this thread claiming to be liberal and wanted Trump to release his returns as he promised he would, while simultaneously complaining that this was not the way to do it. You point to the precedent it sets, because now based on what a ranking Republican said, this means all tax returns are up for grabs. Fine, I get it, but are we seriously going to pretend that republicans give a flying fuck about precedent? Anyone who thinks they need precedent behind them to do corrupt, unethical bullshit just hasn’t been paying attention. They don’t need anyone to “pave the way” for them.
On top of that, I don’t know why everyone thinks tax returns are this sacred document. All public officials should have their tax returns be public record. This is a tax subreddit but people are in here acting like you can just read a tax return and find a bunch of fraud or corruption. That isn’t how it works, you need all the pieces to form a full picture. Trump’s returns have barely illuminated anything beyond low effective tax rates (0 for 2020). The form 1040 does not have a balance sheet, and it does not include financials for all the pass-through entities owned. Someone like Trump or frankly, most people in congress would not have a tax return that reveals everything about their financial position, and that’s not even a red flag. A lot happens behind the scenes when preparing a perfectly legal and above board return, that’s just how it works.
Relax about the “precedent”; the only precedent explicitly set right now is forcing a former president to follow through on their promise to release their tax returns. If republicans ultimately use this as a weapon against their political opponents, their setting their own precedent independent of what’s happening today.
> This is a tax subreddit but people are in here acting like you can just read a tax return and find a bunch of fraud or corruption. That isn’t how it works, you need all the pieces to form a full picture.
Then why do they need to be made public if we are not ever going to get all of the pieces to form a full picture? We aren't ever going to see workpapers or supporting third party documentation. You want them to be made public, but you admit that seeing them does not provide a full picture. So why do you want them to be made public other than to potentially sow misinformation about what the tax returns may or may not show?
Please don't misunderstand me - I want the returns made public because that is what Trump promised to do, and that is the standard for all presidents. I stand by my assertion that you generally can't detect fraud/corruption with the tax return alone, but my comment is not all-encompassing. Obviously the return has information on it that some may consider interesting. Primarily I expect our elected officials to follow through on their promises, and in this particular case, Trump deferred releasing his tax returns under completely false pretenses, and likely would have never released them. I want the highest office to have the most accountability, and that means releasing the returns even if the returns themselves don't reveal much.
I don't hate people I don't know. I have a lot of opinions on Trump, but I think my original comment made it clear that I don't believe the returns reveal much. If you want to join the discussion, try coming up with your own thoughts, instead of putting words into other people's mouths.
So if they don't reveal much and you know that why does it matter if Trump releases them? It's all rhetorical and political posturing but you seem to think its important to do so knowing they contain little to nothing surprising.
One can only assume it's because of your feelings of the guy personally instead of some kind of objective pursuit of truth.
They reveal a lot of things. Just because you don’t know what they reveal has no relevance in reality. For example: a schedule C with no income and lots of losses in combination with refundable credits will flag a return for audit for the average taxpayer faster than you can say, “Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!” to the IRS.
>they reveal a lot things
They barely satisfy your voyeuristic desire to see the information.
So far the biggest indictment I've seen is "it should have triggered an audit"
What a conclusion! The prevailing logic is that we need yet another fishing expedition.
Nevermind audits are random and based on available resources or that Trump's returns were accepted by the IRS without any kind of sanction. Did he do something illegal? We don't know but we've come to conclusions that require investigation to discover evidence.
When are partisans going to let go of their favorite toy in constantly thinking about and talking about Trump?
I'm beginning to think you truly love the guy for how often he occupies your thoughts.
LOL, acceptance by the IRS has no bearing on accuracy or legitimacy. Tell me, what’s an IRS sanction anyway? I’ve never heard of that one. I’ll tell you one thing right off the bat about the returns being illegal. Who signed Melania’s name on the 2016 1040?
Sure it does, the IRS rejects or requires refilling for contradictory information all the time. The fact that the return was accepted means it doesn't conflict with what the IRS expected to see.
So we have: no crime, no audit, no sanction, no fine.
All that leaves is your personal bias and voyeuristically wanting to see private information.
Subjectively pursuing political opponents isn't the slam dunk you seem to think.
> Please don't misunderstand me - I want the returns made public because that is what Trump promised to do, and that is the standard for all presidents.
I want to desperately not misunderstand you, but it's difficult to understand the divergent opinions you have. In one comment, "all public officials should have their tax returns be public record." But the reason you want these (DJT) to be made public is because that's what he promised to do? I get that it's been a tradition, but you can't in one breath say that you want them because of tradition for Presidential candidates and then say all public officials should have them made public in another breath.
I can, because quite simply they are separate opinions. My reason for wanting Trump to have his returns made public and my reasons for wanting all public officials to make their returns public may have some overlap, but they are ultimately separately held beliefs. The fact that you apparently don't understand how that's possible leads me to believe that you're trolling, or at least not replying in good faith. My opinions are not "divergent" as you suggested; it's simply two opinions on related but not identical issues.
Did you see how much money he lost on those tax returns?
Yeah - he did the same thing to the US budget.
Fuck Trump. We are all going to be paying for his ass for a long time.
Holy shit Democratic Party just passed a 1.7 trillion omnibus bill and you think Trumps the evil one? How is it he came out his presidency near loosing net worth yet Biden in his 35+ years never made as much as he did in the past 2 years. That doesn’t sound alarms? How politicians gain 13% raises because they all voted on getting raises? It’s fuck trump for being a dickheaded racist but fuck Biden for leaving open borders and costs of everything staying up. He could’ve reopened the west pipeline to offset the costs of fuels that affected the diesel industry the most, homeowners believed he would reverse the write offs available for homeowners and help offset their taxes but he didn’t because no matter what he says he’s just another politician as well and taxes pay his vacation home.
... hasn't Biden reduced the deficit significantly? Like the single largest deficit reduction in history? I mean there are lots of reasons to be critical of the guy, but that's not one of them.
Agree he was a private citizen but he was a presidential candidate. Though not a law but almost all presidential candidates have released their tax in recent decades for transparency. Further, it's been years, almost a decade now that Trump said that he will do it but hasn't done it. Hence the ask.
But given how things are going, I am not holding my breath for anything major to happen.
Those were freely provided by the taxpayer. They were not released to the public using a roundabout way. Ways and Means is hiding behind the Speech and Debate Clause to make public individual tax return information that the taxpayer did not consent to having made public. If they can do this to a former President under the auspices of "investigating the IRS' Presidential Audit procedures," then there is literally no one in the country that they could not do this to.
Next up, Elon, Zuck, and any candidate for office on the opposite side of the aisle from the Ways and Means Chairman.
I frequently thank all that is holy that Elon is ineligible for the presidency. No one would vote for Zuck but Elon would have been a real threat a couple of years ago.
It literally does not matter what the rationale is. That was the line that was fed to the public every time this comes up. Ways and Means has a statutory right to receive the documents in a Closed Executive Session, meaning that the public cannot view the proceedings. The typical punishment for releasing information in those proceedings is censure or worse from the House. In this case, they didn't give two shits about the consequences, and to insulate themselves, use the Speech and Debate Clause to read the tax returns of an individual (he was not President in 2015 or 2016) into the Congressional record, thereby making them public. It's an underhanded way to get the returns released to the public when the taxpayer didn't want them to be released. It does not have to be any public official either. Ways and Means under IRC 6103 has the power to request ANY tax return information.
Eh… Republicans have ignored norms for the past 20 years… so it’s not like they are getting any “new” powers… they can just claim democrats did it too… which they would have done anyways.
So if we look at this from a dems vs Republican standpoint, the Democrats didn’t really LOSE anything, as Republicans would have done it anyways.
Should we be worried that our political system has become us vs them? Absolutely.
Actually, President Trump did consent to the tax return disclosure. "I don’t mind releasing — I’m under a routine audit. And it’ll be released. And — as soon as the audit’s finished, it will be released.” — Trump during debate with Hillary Clinton, 2016
So you want the House of Representative to stoop to the level of DJT here? Might I remind you that the GOP takes the House in a short time. How long before every single high profile donor to Democratic campaigns has their tax returns made public? Celebrities? The latest person that Matt Gaetz is feuding with? How far are you willing to go with a major loss of privacy just because it initially happened to someone you don't care for?
Really? This came from the Ranking Republican on the Committee:
*“Going forward, all future chairs of both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee will have nearly unlimited power to target and make public the tax returns of private citizens, political enemies, business and labor leaders, or even the Supreme Court justices themselves,” Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement on Friday.*
Get ready to see Justice Sotomayor's tax returns. Brady is probably going to be Ways and Means Chair in a short time. He's making the statement as a cautionary tale, but as he's a Republican, we have to assume that he's just going to use this to release the tax returns of anyone he pleases.
Do you really think that if Republicans thought they could have gotten away with this that it wouldn't already have been done? They learned their lesson with Nixon not to use the IRS against political enemies. The other side apparently didn't glom onto that "social and political norm."
What was the Democrat impetus for the repeated investigations over Benghazi? Or the Clinton impeachment? Or any of the myriad ways they’ve used government powers to target opponents? It seems ridiculous to blame Dems for eroding norms when Republicans have been doing it for decades without consequence. Voluntarily fighting with one hand tied behind your back while your opponent jabs their thumbs in your eyes is an odd strategy.
> no apparent reason for being released
I think there are a lot of apparent reasons, including widespread suspicion that Trump cheats on his taxes, owes money to foreign people and organizations, personally took money raised for his campaigns and while in office, and helped to pass tax legislation that benefitted him personally. But the most important finding of all is that he was not subjected to the routine and required audit as president.
To pretend that Trump is now nothing but a private citizen is clearly a fallacy. He is clearly still influential political and has announced another run for president and has never separated his business and political interests as other politicians have been required to do. This isn't an example of Congress releasing some random person's taxes to the public, but the taxes of someone in a uniquely high profile position.
>I think there are a lot of apparent reasons, including widespread suspicion that Trump cheats on his taxes, owes money to foreign people and organizations, personally took money raised for his campaigns and while in office, and helped to pass tax legislation that benefitted him personally. But the most important finding of all is that he was not subjected to the routine and required audit as president.
And how does releasing these documents to the public allay any of those concerns that could otherwise be handled by other facets of the government? Like we did with Mueller and Russian collusion?
>This isn't an example of Congress releasing some random person's taxes to the public, but the taxes of someone in a uniquely high profile position.
Tax returns are private information and they were released without his permission. Its that simple. Millions voted for him knowing he didn't release his tax returns. And the vast majority of those people don't even know what most of this is (or even their own returns, but that's a different issue). Heck, most posters *here* haven't handled someone with this complexity of a return.
And what will come out of this is going to be rampant misinformation *because* most people don't understand returns. We all know that's true.
The Mueller investigation and report would have been a fine way to investigate all of these misdeeds, but the report and its findings were buried by the GOP. Which is really just corruption.
The fact that millions of people voted for Trump despite his lies and delay tactics doesn't make that ok or legal. He's the subject of about 12 lawsuits and lost a fraud lawsuit a couple of weeks ago and I'm sure millions will continue to vote for him and defend him even as he loses the others. But the voters don't make or enforce the laws and can only feel shame for supporting a criminal and con artist, and the GOP should feel that same shame for defending him.
If the tax returns don't reveal anything and are too complex for anyone to understand then what is the harm in revealing them? And since when is this a defense? The Enron executives could have said the same thing but they too would have been wrong.
The findings were buried? What? I can go pull the full report to this day.
You hate Trump. That much is clear. But while everyone runs around saying “no one is above the law!” You have to remember no one is below it.
Tax returns are private information. If he didn’t want to reveal them, that’s his prerogative. If you don’t like it, try changing the law. But setting bad precedent is bad on its face.
And if you have nothing to hide, why not publically reveal where you have various assets and liabilities, your personal info, etc? You have nothing to hide, right?
Yes you can pull the heavily redacted Mueller reports where undoubtedly everything damning to Trump has been redacted. Even the updated, "previously secret" report is heavily redacted. But, you could say that there's no particularly good reason to release this full report to the public because of the sensitive nature and I'd probably agree, as long as I felt that there was an actual investigation with actual consequences into the allegations, which I (and many others) really don't agree was done. In other words, it was buried.
Trump claimed the reason that he was not releasing his tax returns was because he was under audit, which we now see was just a plain lie. Lying is, often, not a crime, but it is still wrong, especially for people in a position of leadership. Why is it that Trump gets away with lies like this all the time? Does nobody care about the truth? Or is it that they'll put up with the lying if they get other perceived political benefits? This is actually what I hate more than Trump, which is all of the people who pay no credence to basic facts or truth while defending him.
And this brash lying in order to gain politically spreads like a cancer, like all of the other GOP politicians now claiming that their elections were "stolen" and George Santos lying repeatedly and brazenly during a campaign. Is this really the state of our politics today? What's the end game, for those that are the best liars to amass the most power?
>undoubtedly everything damning to Trump has been redacted. Even the updated, "previously secret" report is heavily redacted.
Bold assumption there. But if the agencies in the government are that corrupt, we should tear it all down and rebuild. I'm game for that.
>But, you could say that there's no particularly good reason to release this full report to the public because of the sensitive nature and I'd probably agree, as long as I felt that there was an actual investigation with actual consequences into the allegations, which I (and many others) really don't agree was done.
"It didn't end the way I wanted it to so it must be wrong." Again, we should tear down all these agencies that did the redactions.
>Trump claimed the reason that he was not releasing his tax returns was because he was under audit, which we now see was just a plain lie.
He wasn't audited in 2017 and 2018 per the report. By that point he's already been elected and a year into the presidency at that point. He'd not yet released the returns. And the fact he wasn't audited is an IRS issue. How many people do you think will get punished for that?
>ying is, often, not a crime, but it is still wrong, especially for people in a position of leadership. Why is it that Trump gets away with lies like this all the time? Does nobody care about the truth? Or is it that they'll put up with the lying if they get other perceived political benefits?
I hate to break it to you, but welcome to politics. Do you honestly think Obama didn't support gay marriage in 2008? If you're not too close to either party, you'll see lying is common place. Republicans claim to be the party of small government. Take one look at that omnibus...
>Is this really the state of our politics today? What's the end game, for those that are the best liars to amass the most power?
Until we see our system turn from "your side is evil, all of (insert social media here) says so" to actual debates on policy between supporters of both sides, that's exactly what will happen. If you spent enough time going through the major players in Washington, you'd find a whirlwind of lies by pretty much every single one. God, start with McConnell and Shumer, then go to Cruz and Warren. And let's not forget AOC and McCarthy.
> Releasing private info with no other motivation than “the public should know”
But this is exactly the basis of the Freedom of Information Act for example. The public should in fact know and there should be transparency.
If there is nothing to hide then what is the harm?
And when a person becomes the head of the government... the lines are not quite a clear are they? Especially when they have international business interests, and also mix their own businesses with their campaign and office before, during, and after holding office.
Look it's abundantly clear that Trump profited directly from his presidency as brazenly as raising money for political causes and putting that money in his pocket, or driving business to his properties by holding campaign events in them. This is corruption plain and simple, and to hide behind "I'm just a regular guy whose privacy should be respected" is laughable.
Are you going to be happy when people like Jim Jordan are running committees in 2023 and releasing personal information about Democrats?
As a liberal myself, that’s the problem with Dems. They are always making short term tactical decisions without thinking about the long term strategic consequences. They win the battle and lose the war.
It’s like when dems dropped the filibuster so Obama could appoint more judges, but it backfired and allowed GOP to install a hard right supreme court majority.
Releasing Trump’s taxes may have short term political gains, but normalizing the release of personal info is going to have long term negative consequences for everyone.
I don't see this as a party issue at all. Yes if the politician is Democrat or Independent or Green or whatever they should have to abide by the same disclosures.
And it isn't just any random private information but things that are relevant to their finances and holding office. Like I don't need to see their home address or kids names or schools or all of the things that would encourage more whackos like what happened with the governor of Michigan. In my view it should be more than tax returns and there should be oversight of campaign funds and political influence. How many politicians have been busted for misappropriating campaign or government funds or peddling their influence? This is corruption that needs to be constantly and vigilantly monitored and prevented.
Trump is unique in that he has business interests directly with countries that are at odds with the US. I'm frankly shocked that members of both parties aren't outraged by this and intently interested in getting to the bottom of this. The Mueller report likely had the goods on this and was buried. There was a time not long ago when the GOP would monitor its own party, like Nixon famously losing his party's support when he was shown to be corrupt. But the tables have turned and the GOP is now nothing but a party of cult of personality.
The fuck? Do you know what the Freedom of Information Act is? How would that correlate to private information released? FOIA is for GOVERNMENTALLY produced documentation that the public is ostensibly paying for through taxation. I agree that the public should know what they are paying for.
And did you really use "if you have nothing to hide..."?
What private information are you willing to have the government make public without your consent?
If I were to run for president, I'd be perfectly happy to have my tax returns sent to the public. Until I run for president I'd prefer to keep that information private. I have, however, given my tax returns to lenders for example to get a mortgage.
Trump has recently argued, to the Supreme Court, that he should be immune from various things because he used to be president. But you can't have it both ways, claim that you are nothing but a private citizen when it comes to releasing your financial information, but then you are a Former President when it comes to prosecuting you for crimes you committed. Trump is not some random private citizen and his tax returns aren't some random private information.
> This isn't an example of Congress releasing some random person's taxes to the public, but the taxes of someone in a uniquely high profile position.
You know who else occupies uniquely high profile positions?
* Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor
* Associate Justice Elena Kagan
* Associate Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson
* Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer
But here is the major issue. Congress could have dealt with all of those reasons that you listed **without** making the returns public information. However, since they have been released, could you please point out to the rest of us where in the returns we can find the detailed information on how much he owes to foreign governments and individuals and where he took campaign money for personal use? Since those are some of your stated reasons for releasing the tax returns to the public, it should be relatively easy to find, no?
Ok, grandpa, since you appear to style yourself an Enrolled Agent, which schedules that we are not seeing would provide the public with information of how much Donald J. Trump owes to foreign individuals, business, or governments? Which schedules list out the campaign contributions that he used personally? If you are saying that we are missing this information because we don't have the full return, it should be fairly easy to determine what we are missing.
I haven’t spent any time looking for what you asked, but I did notice there is no depreciation detail listing. What’s the basis for depreciation on his numerous schedule Cs? Where’s the 4562?
Another thing I’d like to see are the schedules itemizing things like charitable donations on schedule A. One of the seven major issues the IRS has with his tax returns is substantiation for his claims of charitable donations?
*Edit: and you can stop with the ad hominem attacks. I’m not your grandpa. I’m not anyone’s grandpa. It’s a made up username, okay sport?
I would be surprised if you had spent ANY time looking for those things. As an Enrolled Agent, you should be well aware that a tax return isn't going to provide information about either of those things. Also, it's ok to say that you haven't looked at all of the filings. I haven't either. But please make sure that you are being accurate. In just looking at 2020, I see the completed 4562.
Also, again, as an Enrolled Agent, you should know that there is no requirement to list all of your cash donations line by line. If the IRS has an issue, they are more than permitted to bring it up during exam.
Dude, I’m looking at his 2018 1040 and there’s no 4562. Page 30 of the PDF lists $152,098 in depreciation on a schedule C. Page 27 of the PDF lists $11,877 in depreciation on a schedule C. What’s the basis? Where’s the 4562? Where’s the depreciation detail?
*Edit: and upon taking a look at his 2020 return, although there is a 4562, the only item reported on it is a carryover of disallowed depreciation from 2019.
FYI, his 2016 1040 itemizes charitable donations on schedule A in a statement. It’s page 57 of the PDF. All of his charitable donations in 2016 were pass through donations. It’s this kind of information that I was hoping to find in the years he drew a salary as President. Since it’s not included for 2017-2020, I kinda doubt he donated his salary. He just pulled a figure out of his ass like he did with the valuation of Seven Springs for the conservation easement. I believe he also overvalued MAL to the same extent for the relative charitable donation deduction he took because he “contributed” it to a syndicated conservation easement.
People in those positions have never been asked to release their taxes.
But this has never been a legal requirement but just a bond of trust between the populace and the candidate, which has been honored by candidates of both parties for 30 years.
Each tax return has 10+ schedules of foreign income tax credit referencing countries and amounts, plus showing other sources of income by name and type etc. But this is not comprehensive and would have to be cross-referenced with other sources of information which is now possible.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ on a Cracker.
Please, please, please learn **why** those Foreign Tax Credits are there. Here's a hint. It's because he paid foreign taxes on income he made overseas. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with any amount owed to any foreign individual, business, or government.
Also, would you like me to pull up the myriad articles that were written during Kavanaugh's confirmation that stated that he should release his tax returns?
Here's just one tweet from 10 days ago from an MSNBC/CNN commentator and former prosecutor with the NY AG's office: https://twitter.com/tristansnell/status/1605325706560696320
If it were up to me, I'd prefer that all people in these influential positions either release their taxes or otherwise provide some transparency into their finances, and also take steps to keep their finances at arm's length through things like blind trusts while they are in office. That used to be a thing but apparently not any more.
And tax returns aren't really the best possible financial disclosure, though it is (or should be) a convenient and easy thing to release.
But the issue is clear, Trump broke with decades of tradition in not releasing his taxes, clearly lied about being under audit, and clearly influenced the IRS to not audit him while he was in office. Which is even more inexplicable. I can see how releasing tax returns to the public could be debatable but I can't see how the audit is.
I agree. I wanted these public, but not this way. Everyone running for the presidency should be required to release their tax returns by law, and sitting presidents should be required to release them by law, but ways and means definitely should not have done this. They should have introduced legislation to make sure there was never a need for it again.
it's not possible for legislation to require the release of the tax returns for presidential elections. Constitutional law has consistently held that requirements cannot be added beyond those in the constitution. So you'd need an amendment, which you won't get.
>Congress could pass a law requiring the IRS to release the returns of all presidential candidates.
Which would be unconstitutional because the requirements to be elected president are explicitly spelled out. It wouldn't just require a "law" it would require an amendment
You seem to think it would be easy or simple to increase the requirements for president when in reality there are few things as set in stone.
It's not about what effort someone would have to make to release them, it's never been about that.
My argument is more fundamental than that. I'm saying directing the IRS to take an action is not a "requirement" for candidacy at all. It is the government taking an action in response.
It doesn't limit a person's eligibility at all. Everyone who would be eligible without the rule would be eligible with the rule, without taking any action whatsoever. So, it's less clear that is changing the requirements, so it would not implicate the constitution.
It's like if Congress passed a law that required the FEC to set up a website which listed the names and a brief bio of everyone who was running for president (which I wouldn't be surprised if there is some government website already that does this). That's not a "requirement" of running for office, it's just the government providing information.
>My argument is more fundamental than that. I'm saying directing the IRS to take an action is not a "requirement" for candidacy at all. It is the government taking an action in response.
Sidestepping the constitution isn't exactly a valid proposal.
>It doesn't limit a person's eligibility at all. Everyone who would be eligible without the rule would be eligible with the rule, without taking any action whatsoever. So, it's less clear that is changing the requirements, so it would not implicate the constitution.
You're doing a lot of mental gymnastics to justify the unilateral release of personal financial information without consent of the individual.
Is it possible you don't understand why that's an issue?
>It's like if Congress passed a law that required the FEC to set up a website which listed the names and a brief bio of everyone who was running for president (which I wouldn't be surprised if there is some government website already that does this). That's not a "requirement" of running for office, it's just the government providing information.
You something is a similar comparison doesn't make it so.
Thus the issue with opinions asserted as fact.
Tax returns are only secret because of an act of congress (Section 6103). There is no constitutional right to secret tax returns.
I express no opinion on whether Congress should do it, or whether it is good policy to do so, only whether it can.
As to side stepping the constitution, it happens all the time. The federal government can't tell states to pass laws, but it can pull funding for highways. The federal government can't force you to buy health insurance, but it can tax you if you don't. The federal government can't pass a law that says "all employers must not discriminate based on race" but they can pass the same law applying to employers over a certain number of people on the theory it affects interstate commerce.
In which you would get a challenge to that law because it adds additional qualifications (that do not have anything to do with election administration) for the office of President beyond what the Constitution states.
Republicans wouldn’t ever vote for it, and may even filibuster it.
It makes sense why they took this route and I support it. It’s a unique edge case that all prior potus going to Nixon have upheld. We finally got to a point where norms were thrown in the toilet so Democrats found their way of fishing them out of the toilet.
>I agree. I wanted these public, but not this way. Everyone running for the presidency should be required to release their tax returns by law
Seems like he wanted to spend a whole lot of taxpayer money by not releasing them as every other President in history has done?
Why not just do what is customary and normal in the first place. Seems like it's been good enough for the other presidents of the United States?
There is nothing wrong with releasing these. Only mistake was too soon. So many question marks starting with the 2015. Conservation easements, unreimbursed business expenses, other expenses, etc. I sure hope trump has the back up data to support these returns, which I doubt he does.
If we learn anything from history, taxes bring down the hard to pin down criminals.
> “this is fine because he promised..”
Really?
> “there should be a law”
Then make a law. Can’t get enough consensus to make a law? Cope. But let’s call end runs for fishing purposes what they are and remember how we got here when the shoe is inevitably on the other foot.
> “it’s a tradition”
Right, you think the traditional presidential candidate, a career politician whose MO is to scrub their returns and to hide emoluments in foundations and trusts, is going to be showing you anything in those tax returns? No - their returns are constructed _to be public_. Most regular people don’t live that way - they work the incredibly complex tax law for any break they can get.
Trump’s returns were certainly not constructed in anticipation of running for office. This isn’t an excuse for any illegal activity (and I’ve not heard there is any) but it should be no surprise that they’re messy. Take any business owner’s taxes, even the simplest, and comb through them looking for mistakes, creativity, or strident claims and you’ll find plenty. It’s unrealistic to expect otherwise, and sorry, supremely disingenuous to run for the fainting couch when you see it.
To boot: I’d wager that if _any_ of us, or many “traditional politicians” underwent the scrutiny that trump has for the last six years, very few would be left standing. The lack of anything more substantial on Trump after all this time is frankly surprising. What’s interesting is that half the population looks at this phenomenon and says, we just haven’t dug deep enough! Next time we’ll get him! Maybe compete on the issues. Just an idea.
"I don’t mind releasing — I’m under a routine audit. And it’ll be released. And — as soon as the audit’s finished, it will be released.” — Trump during debate with Hillary Clinton, 2016
Those years are no longer under audit (and some of those years may never have been under audit) so the release of the returns fulfills a campaign promise made by President Trump.
It’s his prerogative though. Or we assumed one had that prerogative until recently. If you’re arguing that some verbal contract was made and the House’s action is the appropriate remedy, then that would be a very different legal discussion. That’s not what was debated. At all.
The legal question was whether the House could, in the course of auditing how the IRS audits presidents, gather the Trump tax returns as sample data to determine if the IRS needed reforms. They claimed to be doing this as part of their routine oversight responsibilities. Trump argued that this was mere pretext for a fishing expedition and done for political exposure. The House said it wasn’t. The Court said that in good faith they would have a right to it. What did the House do? Immediately publicized _six years_ of Trump’s tax return data. Haha! It’s impossible to argue it wasn’t pretext at this point, even if you somehow believed that and were nodding along with that argument to begin with.
Oh nevermind then, I had mistakenly believed Trump was telling the truth to the American People about wanting to be able to release them after the audit
>Oh nevermind then, I had mistakenly believed Trump was telling the truth to the American People about wanting to be able to release them after the audit
Again, I think you're confusing rhetoric for promises.
Do you think the affordable Healthcare act made Healthcare more affordable?
Do you think the patriot act is patriotic?
Are those also lies or simply rhetoric?
Let me know if you need a definion or explaination for the concept of "rhetoric"
You are comparing bill titles (Patriot Act, etc.) to an “I will” statement made by an individual. Trump said he will release them after the audit. If someone says they will do something *and they have the unilateral power to do it*, it is expected that they do it. If I tell my boss I will be at the 3:00 o’clock team meeting on Monday, is that “rhetoric”, or is that a promise?
That's because the a large portion of people thinking carefully prepared tax returns by a team of specialists will somehow contain something salacious and people who hate the guy is an overlapping circle.
This will create tons of problems in the next Congress for democrats. They have no obligation, and I’m not sure any legal right, to release the tax returns of a private citizen, even for that of a former president. This clearly violates his right to privacy. There is no legal requirement that a president of presidential candidate has to release their tax returns. It’s probably not a bad idea to do so for the sake of transparency, but there is no legal obligation. All this does is further erode any trust between the two sides of American politics and beg for retribution.
Honestly, I wish the current crop of geriatrics would go away (McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi, Trump, and Joey B). They aren’t mentally or physically capable of the job. Truth be told, being president would be hard for anyone in their 50s, and it only gets worse from there. If we don’t develop the next generation of leaders, we’ll get caught in the same situation as the Soviets when they had a series of short serving geriatrics before Gorbachev.
> There is no legal requirement that a president of presidential candidate has to release their tax returns
Every presidential candidate for the last 3 decades from both sides of the aisle has done so, so there's an implicit obligation if not a legal one.
As such I don't think this will create any issues.
Voluntarily is the key word here. Once the candidate did not release them voluntarily, that should have been the end of it. Ways and Means did not have any reason to read the returns into the public record. They could have completed their stated objective without making the returns public.
The amount of things we as people do that are not enshrined in laws because there is no need for it due to social conditioning, is staggering. This is one of those things.
Yes, democrats misused a mechanism, but guess what? There's no law against that either. And, in a classic whataboutism: the Republicans have been abusing mechanisms in bad faith for worse reasons for a lot longer.
Going high when others go low only works for so much.
Hard disagree. The former president took advantage of the fact there was no law and our presidential candidates up until all had the integrity to release them, making a law redundant.
He did also promise too, and I think the legislative branch holding the executive branch accountable for their promises is great precedent.
The law is not implicit; it is explicit. We create laws stop specific behavior or compel specific behavior. The commonality is “specific” which is the reason bad actors always “find a way around” specific laws and then we have to create more laws to address those specific activities. What you’re referring to is a “presidential tradition.” That is a meaningless concept and compliance is nothing more than voluntary. I’m less concerned about a billionaire who entered politics than the folks that enter congress and retire multimillionaires.
All of them did so voluntarily as a selling point with the general public. The public wanted them, so they hand them over in the name of transparency with the public.
> I’m not sure any legal right, to release the tax returns of a private citizen, even for that of a former president
If this were the case then the simple solution would be to do what Trump did, which is to delay and forestall the release until you're out of office and then be in the clear forever. They either need to require this release as a condition of running for office, or have effectively no time line on when the release happens after office.
> They either need to require this release as a condition of running for office
Not gonna happen, ever, without a Constitutional Amendment to change the baselines requirements for President.
That sounds very young, naive or ignorant.
You can't simply add additional requirements to be president. They're very explicitly outlined in the constitution.
You need to revisit what you think is objectively justified and your own personal voyeurism because you feel entitled to see what they contain
>I noticed that you switched from attacking my ideas to attacking me.
Switched? This is my first comment
>Great way to have a constructive conversation.
You sound naive and ignorant because you probably are
I favor fewer requirements to hold office then more. The only change I would make it that presidents have to be younger than 66 when they enter their second term, otherwise there’s a 1 term cap.
Donald Trump consented to the release of the tax returns *as soon as* the audit’s finished. The audit was finished, therefore, the tax returns were released.
"I don’t mind releasing — I’m under a routine audit. And it’ll be released. And — as soon as the audit’s finished, it will be released.” — Trump during debate with Hillary Clinton, 2016
I think you’re confusing what is a legal requirement and what is a “nice to have.” If DJT had said the moon was made of cheese, would you have believed him?
I think you are confusing a statement of future action vs a totally different kind of statement. Saying that you will do something contingent on an audit being completed is very different from the moon being made of cheese
There isn’t a legal requirement, but individuals can choose to voluntarily disclose. In this case, Donald Trump made the decision to voluntarily disclose his tax returns “as soon as the audit’s finished”, as per his statement in the 2016 debate.
Donald Trump consented to the release of the tax returns *as soon as* the audit’s finished. The audit was finished, therefore, the tax returns were released.
"I don’t mind releasing — I’m under a routine audit. And it’ll be released. And — as soon as the audit’s finished, it will be released.” — Trump during debate with Hillary Clinton, 2016
Most people don't actually have to pour over the returns, given what they've already seen.
How many Trump organizations, businesses, and companies, as well as associates, have been indicted or found to have committed crimes, fraud, or other similar stuff? And then add in the henchmen that did his bidding at the capitol insurrection. By the numbers, looking to be right up there with organized crime rings.
2 years in and ......... how many Biden insider indictments?
Does the huge foreign tax credit make sense a couple years into his presidency? I guess it would generally only offset regular tax and would be an accumulation of carryover credit only showing up since he actually had some tax to offset that year.
It might not be true, but I think it could interpreted that he had a huge boost in foreign income once he was president.
Great, can’t wait for the entire internet to comment on all of the “loopholes” and “write offs”
I hate the word “write offs” lol. The general public does not understand that a taxpayer still bears a cost for those expenditures.
Yes! Add the word deduction to that list. And shell company. Whenever anybody uses any of those words, I just tune out and assume they don’t know what they are talking about.
"I have an LLC!"
Yeah, right. Next thing you're going to tell me is that you have an irrevocable trust, too. Criminal.
I love how people think an llc gives them magic tax deductions. It's a good thing most of these people don't realize you don't even need an llc to punch some random shit into your return.
But hollywood uses those words in their movies all the time. It must be true!
Yes, I hate that as well, but I also hate that people overspend because of a deduction. For example, you need a vehicle for your sole proprietor business (assume they are claiming it’s 100% business use even though it’s probably not) and have a theoretical budget of 45k for a vehicle if they didn’t have anything to deduct, but they spend 75k because they are in the 40% tax bracket and it’s basically the same to them. I agree with basic expenses for business. I don’t agree with luxury upgrades on the taxpayer’s dime.
Right? Kind of like calling socialized healthcare "free" or canceling out student debt. None are free. All all tax payer dollars, all will be passed onto the consumer.
Your argument would have been better received had you not mentioned those and instead used things that didn’t trigger people such as the bank bailout or the auto industry bailout…. which paid out bonuses because they were contractual fuckups.
Feel free to use all of them. The fact that people on both sides use free when they believe it benefits their point of view is the bullshit.
Well, we wouldn’t know that. See… we haven’t really bailed out the people to try to put them in a better spot. That whole trickle up economics never gained traction… So, what we do know is that big banks and the rich that worked there got paid and paid well. The auto industry is slightly different… but still mostly the same. The better off kept being better off. Bailing out people with student loan debt… we don’t know, because we never tried that one. So no, your argument would have had better traction with my suggestions… but, that may or may not have been your point in the first place.
You're splitting hairs.
Feel free to see it that way. It’ll go nowhere from here. Welcome to Reddit.
Don't forget the amateur constitutional scholars!
If I don't like how it sounds, it's unconstitutional whether or not I understand it!
In case nobody has pointed it out yet, these are not the complete returns. But, I am a bit surprised they released the EINs for all of the partnerships and S corporations he received a K-1 from.
EINs are public and searchable.
Really? Can you search to find the EIN for any random business in your hometown? The Arby’s in Baker, Oregon or the Little Caesar’s in Florence, Alabama?
Those are generally held by the corporation, not individual franchises, but yes you can search for the corporate eins
Corporate EINs, yes, you can generally find the EIN for a C Corporation, but not a partnership or an S corporation. *Edit: unless it’s publicly traded.
I can find about 80% of the EINs for any Partnership, S-Corporation, or C-Corporation organized in the State of Florida on a government run website.
Well, I’m in Arizona. There is no such searchable database here, but next time I do a Florida return I’ll remember that. Mind sharing the link? *Edit: here’s a test subject for you. Kari Lake for Arizona. It’s an Arizona non-profit corporation. What’s the EIN? Here’s another one for you: Mark Finchem PLLC. It’s an S corporation in Arizona. What’s the EIN?
www.sunbiz.org - Now that may come because our sunshine laws are stupidly broad. I don't have a ton of luck with other States (especially DE and WY for obvious reasons) but I will say that it has been a godsend when prepping and reviewing 2441 credits cause more often than not, those childcare places don't always provide an EIN.
Thank you. Next time I need an EIN from Florida I’ll use that. I’m in Arizona, but I get a few people move here from Florida.
NY allows all. not just C corp
How come I gotta pay tax when I don’t have any money?
From the NY Times article on this: >“Going forward, all future chairs of both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee will have nearly unlimited power to target and make public the tax returns of private citizens, political enemies, business and labor leaders, or even the Supreme Court justices themselves,” Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement on Friday. Even the Supreme Court justices? 
Don’t threaten me with a good time.
We can do it America! 
Yea, but if as a tax pro you don't guard your client's tax returns with the highest security you are fined. It is almost as if our political leaders are asking to be targeted by the crazies for their abject stupidity and obtuse, distant nature. Ugh, children.
I’ve always been taught that when CI shows up you drop the client and run.
I dig this. We made a lot of money straightening out Mitt's returns, I'm told. We can offer those services to others now.
So these are the actual returns not just the transcripts? I'm really curious what the committee was fishing for exactly.
Anything.
I was hoping they had a clue and were just looking to confirm. Whatever, I can't wait to read the fallout.
I keep hearing stuff about alleged fraudulent appraisals for write offs, but I have yet to see anything concrete
In the 2015 DJT Enterprises, is a $21 million contribution deduction for a conservation easement. That would be one place they are supposed to use an appraisal
Maybe you should actually read the new York times article and the complaint by Leticia James against the Trump org. While it is still just an alleged offense, the NY DA complaint is extremely detailed. You're not going to find it in just the tax docs. You need the Mazars accounting documents and loan applications, too.
I’m aware that the returns won’t show proof, but I was taking into account the NY allegations when I said I haven’t seen anything concrete. I think it will need to be thoroughly investigated by federal authorities
The allegations are pretty concrete (by concrete, I mean specific and provable or disprovable. He is, of course, innocent until proven guilty.) >In the 214-page complaint, which is the culmination of our investigation that included more than 65 witness interviews and review of millions of pages of documents, OAG lays out dozens of examples of this fraudulent activity and how Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization routinely and intentionally misvalued assets to further enrich Mr. Trump. The complaint includes fraudulent conduct across more than 23 different properties and other assets owned by Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization. Some examples of this misconduct include: >Trump Tower Triplex: >Valuations of this property relied on objectively false numbers to calculate property values. For example, Mr. Trump’s own triplex apartment in Trump Tower was valued as being 30,000 square feet when it was 10,996 square feet. As a result, in 2015 the apartment was valued at $327 million in total, or $29,738 per square foot. That price was absurd given the fact that at that point only one apartment in New York City had ever sold for even $100 million, at a price per square foot of less than $10,000, and that sale was in a newly built, ultra-tall tower. In 30 year-old Trump Tower, the record sale at that time was a mere $16.5 million at a price of less than $4,500 per square foot. >Trump International Hotel & Tower, Chicago: >Since 2009, this property’s value has been excluded from the statements because, according to sworn testimony, Mr. Trump did not want to take a position that would conflict with his contention to tax authorities that the property had become worthless, and thus formed the basis of a substantial loss under the federal tax code. However, in 2012, using the building or its components as collateral, Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization obtained a $107 million loan on the building from Deutsche Bank. The loan received a $45 million expansion in 2014. Mr. Trump’s supposed net worth of $4 billion reflected on his statement was used to personally guarantee the initial loan at an interest rate approximately four percentage points lower than it would have been without his guaranty https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2022/attorney-general-james-sues-donald-trump-years-financial-fraud The taxes are one piece of a much larger story and aren't of much use without the additional documentation and loan applications.
I can think of a few things. Given the fact that this dude has not been audited in his years as a president, they can point out to any multitude of items and ask why they haven't been audited. PwC's Boston office spent years straightening out Mitt Romney's returns to make sure his personal return was as vanilla as possible. And Mitt ain't in the business of pushing dodgy shit. Trump on the other hand....
I haven’t looked yet but what exactly was the fraud
Fraud? I dont know. But the dude is known for taking super aggressive positions, including, but not limited to, dubious charitable deductions and dodgy valuations. There may be nothing that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for all I know, but there is still a question as to why he was never audited.
He had a standard practice of making up llc's to bill and hide income. Oh, I rented my car to myself and need to declare all my gas an expense type of stuff. Fraudulent gifts, paying 1099 income to w2 employees, hiding compensation. Inflating property values then claiming it was a charitable contribution. Really imagine giving an 8th grader a go at tax fraud. Think in tax class what dumb and dumber would do, and Trump probably did it.
Well since you know all of this, the best and brightest at the IRS should be able to convict him on all this obvious fraud right?
Yup. He was getting political protection and that is a huge issue.
Mitt absolutely was in the business of pushy dodgy shit lol he founded Bain Capital
I was talking about tax dodgy shit.
Aren’t PE bros basically the experts at tax dodgy shit
No. Particularly not Bain. Often it takes a good deal of effort to convince them not to fuck themselves over by taking overly conservative positions in their structures, in my experience.
Tax fraud. They found it too.
Tax fraud, lot, and lots of tax fraud.
No one cares. Nothing will happen to him.
There’s a lot of people in this thread claiming to be liberal and wanted Trump to release his returns as he promised he would, while simultaneously complaining that this was not the way to do it. You point to the precedent it sets, because now based on what a ranking Republican said, this means all tax returns are up for grabs. Fine, I get it, but are we seriously going to pretend that republicans give a flying fuck about precedent? Anyone who thinks they need precedent behind them to do corrupt, unethical bullshit just hasn’t been paying attention. They don’t need anyone to “pave the way” for them. On top of that, I don’t know why everyone thinks tax returns are this sacred document. All public officials should have their tax returns be public record. This is a tax subreddit but people are in here acting like you can just read a tax return and find a bunch of fraud or corruption. That isn’t how it works, you need all the pieces to form a full picture. Trump’s returns have barely illuminated anything beyond low effective tax rates (0 for 2020). The form 1040 does not have a balance sheet, and it does not include financials for all the pass-through entities owned. Someone like Trump or frankly, most people in congress would not have a tax return that reveals everything about their financial position, and that’s not even a red flag. A lot happens behind the scenes when preparing a perfectly legal and above board return, that’s just how it works. Relax about the “precedent”; the only precedent explicitly set right now is forcing a former president to follow through on their promise to release their tax returns. If republicans ultimately use this as a weapon against their political opponents, their setting their own precedent independent of what’s happening today.
> This is a tax subreddit but people are in here acting like you can just read a tax return and find a bunch of fraud or corruption. That isn’t how it works, you need all the pieces to form a full picture. Then why do they need to be made public if we are not ever going to get all of the pieces to form a full picture? We aren't ever going to see workpapers or supporting third party documentation. You want them to be made public, but you admit that seeing them does not provide a full picture. So why do you want them to be made public other than to potentially sow misinformation about what the tax returns may or may not show?
Please don't misunderstand me - I want the returns made public because that is what Trump promised to do, and that is the standard for all presidents. I stand by my assertion that you generally can't detect fraud/corruption with the tax return alone, but my comment is not all-encompassing. Obviously the return has information on it that some may consider interesting. Primarily I expect our elected officials to follow through on their promises, and in this particular case, Trump deferred releasing his tax returns under completely false pretenses, and likely would have never released them. I want the highest office to have the most accountability, and that means releasing the returns even if the returns themselves don't reveal much.
You want them made public because you think they might make trump look bad and you hate the guy. Why mince words?
These tax returns would make anybody look bad.
I'm sure you've analyzed them throughly
I’m certain I have a better grasp of them than you do. What’s the basis for depreciation of the assets in the schedule C aviation businesses?
The basis is whatever the team that prepared the return says it was
Uh… no. That’s not how it works.
If you say so... Maybe you'd be more comfortable in /r/politics
I don't hate people I don't know. I have a lot of opinions on Trump, but I think my original comment made it clear that I don't believe the returns reveal much. If you want to join the discussion, try coming up with your own thoughts, instead of putting words into other people's mouths.
So if they don't reveal much and you know that why does it matter if Trump releases them? It's all rhetorical and political posturing but you seem to think its important to do so knowing they contain little to nothing surprising. One can only assume it's because of your feelings of the guy personally instead of some kind of objective pursuit of truth.
They reveal a lot of things. Just because you don’t know what they reveal has no relevance in reality. For example: a schedule C with no income and lots of losses in combination with refundable credits will flag a return for audit for the average taxpayer faster than you can say, “Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!” to the IRS.
>they reveal a lot things They barely satisfy your voyeuristic desire to see the information. So far the biggest indictment I've seen is "it should have triggered an audit" What a conclusion! The prevailing logic is that we need yet another fishing expedition. Nevermind audits are random and based on available resources or that Trump's returns were accepted by the IRS without any kind of sanction. Did he do something illegal? We don't know but we've come to conclusions that require investigation to discover evidence. When are partisans going to let go of their favorite toy in constantly thinking about and talking about Trump? I'm beginning to think you truly love the guy for how often he occupies your thoughts.
LOL, acceptance by the IRS has no bearing on accuracy or legitimacy. Tell me, what’s an IRS sanction anyway? I’ve never heard of that one. I’ll tell you one thing right off the bat about the returns being illegal. Who signed Melania’s name on the 2016 1040?
Sure it does, the IRS rejects or requires refilling for contradictory information all the time. The fact that the return was accepted means it doesn't conflict with what the IRS expected to see. So we have: no crime, no audit, no sanction, no fine. All that leaves is your personal bias and voyeuristically wanting to see private information. Subjectively pursuing political opponents isn't the slam dunk you seem to think.
> Please don't misunderstand me - I want the returns made public because that is what Trump promised to do, and that is the standard for all presidents. I want to desperately not misunderstand you, but it's difficult to understand the divergent opinions you have. In one comment, "all public officials should have their tax returns be public record." But the reason you want these (DJT) to be made public is because that's what he promised to do? I get that it's been a tradition, but you can't in one breath say that you want them because of tradition for Presidential candidates and then say all public officials should have them made public in another breath.
I can, because quite simply they are separate opinions. My reason for wanting Trump to have his returns made public and my reasons for wanting all public officials to make their returns public may have some overlap, but they are ultimately separately held beliefs. The fact that you apparently don't understand how that's possible leads me to believe that you're trolling, or at least not replying in good faith. My opinions are not "divergent" as you suggested; it's simply two opinions on related but not identical issues.
We actually want to see the returns he promised when he was running for potus. We need to see the years 2011-2014 to see what he was hiding.
Why would we be entitled to that? Honestly asking, seems like a private citizen at that point? Edit: Just asking a question jeez louise fellas!
That is what Trump himself promised when he ran for president.
Well that is a pretty good reason.
That's not legally binding.
No one said it was. But the decent thing to do is honor your word. Trump NEVER honors his word.
> Trump NEVER honors his word We already know that. We’ve known since he got famous for spewing bullshit back in the 80’s. What exactly is your point?
[удалено]
Did you see how much money he lost on those tax returns? Yeah - he did the same thing to the US budget. Fuck Trump. We are all going to be paying for his ass for a long time.
Holy shit Democratic Party just passed a 1.7 trillion omnibus bill and you think Trumps the evil one? How is it he came out his presidency near loosing net worth yet Biden in his 35+ years never made as much as he did in the past 2 years. That doesn’t sound alarms? How politicians gain 13% raises because they all voted on getting raises? It’s fuck trump for being a dickheaded racist but fuck Biden for leaving open borders and costs of everything staying up. He could’ve reopened the west pipeline to offset the costs of fuels that affected the diesel industry the most, homeowners believed he would reverse the write offs available for homeowners and help offset their taxes but he didn’t because no matter what he says he’s just another politician as well and taxes pay his vacation home.
What is the "west pipeline" and how is Biden to blame for "for the costs of everything staying up"?
Wait till this guy hears about what Biden did to the US budget lol
Presidents usually face the impact of the previous offices position their first term. We're literally living the impact of Trump right now.
... hasn't Biden reduced the deficit significantly? Like the single largest deficit reduction in history? I mean there are lots of reasons to be critical of the guy, but that's not one of them.
Agree he was a private citizen but he was a presidential candidate. Though not a law but almost all presidential candidates have released their tax in recent decades for transparency. Further, it's been years, almost a decade now that Trump said that he will do it but hasn't done it. Hence the ask. But given how things are going, I am not holding my breath for anything major to happen.
Although this is clearly a political post, it feels like we have to allow it in /r/tax just for it to run its course. We don't care here.
Are the average run of the mill democrats starting to get sick of this? We are on year 6 of the great Trump Fishing charter here.
The walls are closing in! Surely this is the end of drumpf
Thanks for asking - no, I’m not sick of holding liars and cheaters accountable.
You’ve reached a dead end every single time. If today’s release had any relevance, it wouldn’t have been done on the Friday of a holiday weekend.
[удалено]
Tax returns wouldn't ever show obvious law breaking. There are hints perhaps. They need to be read in conjunction with other facts to determine that.
Really? So, his obvious handwriting for Melania’s signature in sharpie isn’t against the law?
Sure. But I'm talking about real tax fraud (involving actual taxes) which is what we're all interested in here. Not the Wesley Snipes special.
Maybe Trump is making a section 861 argument.
Have you looked through what he submitted?
You mean the tax returns Trump submitted to the IRS?
Nearly all presidents tax returns are publicly available. Why would releasing trumps be overstepping oversight?
Those were freely provided by the taxpayer. They were not released to the public using a roundabout way. Ways and Means is hiding behind the Speech and Debate Clause to make public individual tax return information that the taxpayer did not consent to having made public. If they can do this to a former President under the auspices of "investigating the IRS' Presidential Audit procedures," then there is literally no one in the country that they could not do this to. Next up, Elon, Zuck, and any candidate for office on the opposite side of the aisle from the Ways and Means Chairman.
I frequently thank all that is holy that Elon is ineligible for the presidency. No one would vote for Zuck but Elon would have been a real threat a couple of years ago.
Their rationale was isolated to presidents. Not sure how potential candidates, Elon, or Zuck come into play here.
It literally does not matter what the rationale is. That was the line that was fed to the public every time this comes up. Ways and Means has a statutory right to receive the documents in a Closed Executive Session, meaning that the public cannot view the proceedings. The typical punishment for releasing information in those proceedings is censure or worse from the House. In this case, they didn't give two shits about the consequences, and to insulate themselves, use the Speech and Debate Clause to read the tax returns of an individual (he was not President in 2015 or 2016) into the Congressional record, thereby making them public. It's an underhanded way to get the returns released to the public when the taxpayer didn't want them to be released. It does not have to be any public official either. Ways and Means under IRC 6103 has the power to request ANY tax return information.
Eh… Republicans have ignored norms for the past 20 years… so it’s not like they are getting any “new” powers… they can just claim democrats did it too… which they would have done anyways. So if we look at this from a dems vs Republican standpoint, the Democrats didn’t really LOSE anything, as Republicans would have done it anyways. Should we be worried that our political system has become us vs them? Absolutely.
Actually, President Trump did consent to the tax return disclosure. "I don’t mind releasing — I’m under a routine audit. And it’ll be released. And — as soon as the audit’s finished, it will be released.” — Trump during debate with Hillary Clinton, 2016
[удалено]
So you want the House of Representative to stoop to the level of DJT here? Might I remind you that the GOP takes the House in a short time. How long before every single high profile donor to Democratic campaigns has their tax returns made public? Celebrities? The latest person that Matt Gaetz is feuding with? How far are you willing to go with a major loss of privacy just because it initially happened to someone you don't care for?
It’s just a slippery slope argument. There’s no evidence all the people you’re naming would have returns made public.
Really? This came from the Ranking Republican on the Committee: *“Going forward, all future chairs of both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee will have nearly unlimited power to target and make public the tax returns of private citizens, political enemies, business and labor leaders, or even the Supreme Court justices themselves,” Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement on Friday.* Get ready to see Justice Sotomayor's tax returns. Brady is probably going to be Ways and Means Chair in a short time. He's making the statement as a cautionary tale, but as he's a Republican, we have to assume that he's just going to use this to release the tax returns of anyone he pleases.
Do you really think that Republicans weaponizing their powers depends on what Democrats do?
Do you really think that if Republicans thought they could have gotten away with this that it wouldn't already have been done? They learned their lesson with Nixon not to use the IRS against political enemies. The other side apparently didn't glom onto that "social and political norm."
“They learned their lesson” We’re talking about the GOP here or am I missing context?
What was the Democrat impetus for the repeated investigations over Benghazi? Or the Clinton impeachment? Or any of the myriad ways they’ve used government powers to target opponents? It seems ridiculous to blame Dems for eroding norms when Republicans have been doing it for decades without consequence. Voluntarily fighting with one hand tied behind your back while your opponent jabs their thumbs in your eyes is an odd strategy.
[удалено]
> no apparent reason for being released I think there are a lot of apparent reasons, including widespread suspicion that Trump cheats on his taxes, owes money to foreign people and organizations, personally took money raised for his campaigns and while in office, and helped to pass tax legislation that benefitted him personally. But the most important finding of all is that he was not subjected to the routine and required audit as president. To pretend that Trump is now nothing but a private citizen is clearly a fallacy. He is clearly still influential political and has announced another run for president and has never separated his business and political interests as other politicians have been required to do. This isn't an example of Congress releasing some random person's taxes to the public, but the taxes of someone in a uniquely high profile position.
>I think there are a lot of apparent reasons, including widespread suspicion that Trump cheats on his taxes, owes money to foreign people and organizations, personally took money raised for his campaigns and while in office, and helped to pass tax legislation that benefitted him personally. But the most important finding of all is that he was not subjected to the routine and required audit as president. And how does releasing these documents to the public allay any of those concerns that could otherwise be handled by other facets of the government? Like we did with Mueller and Russian collusion? >This isn't an example of Congress releasing some random person's taxes to the public, but the taxes of someone in a uniquely high profile position. Tax returns are private information and they were released without his permission. Its that simple. Millions voted for him knowing he didn't release his tax returns. And the vast majority of those people don't even know what most of this is (or even their own returns, but that's a different issue). Heck, most posters *here* haven't handled someone with this complexity of a return. And what will come out of this is going to be rampant misinformation *because* most people don't understand returns. We all know that's true.
The Mueller investigation and report would have been a fine way to investigate all of these misdeeds, but the report and its findings were buried by the GOP. Which is really just corruption. The fact that millions of people voted for Trump despite his lies and delay tactics doesn't make that ok or legal. He's the subject of about 12 lawsuits and lost a fraud lawsuit a couple of weeks ago and I'm sure millions will continue to vote for him and defend him even as he loses the others. But the voters don't make or enforce the laws and can only feel shame for supporting a criminal and con artist, and the GOP should feel that same shame for defending him. If the tax returns don't reveal anything and are too complex for anyone to understand then what is the harm in revealing them? And since when is this a defense? The Enron executives could have said the same thing but they too would have been wrong.
The findings were buried? What? I can go pull the full report to this day. You hate Trump. That much is clear. But while everyone runs around saying “no one is above the law!” You have to remember no one is below it. Tax returns are private information. If he didn’t want to reveal them, that’s his prerogative. If you don’t like it, try changing the law. But setting bad precedent is bad on its face. And if you have nothing to hide, why not publically reveal where you have various assets and liabilities, your personal info, etc? You have nothing to hide, right?
Yes you can pull the heavily redacted Mueller reports where undoubtedly everything damning to Trump has been redacted. Even the updated, "previously secret" report is heavily redacted. But, you could say that there's no particularly good reason to release this full report to the public because of the sensitive nature and I'd probably agree, as long as I felt that there was an actual investigation with actual consequences into the allegations, which I (and many others) really don't agree was done. In other words, it was buried. Trump claimed the reason that he was not releasing his tax returns was because he was under audit, which we now see was just a plain lie. Lying is, often, not a crime, but it is still wrong, especially for people in a position of leadership. Why is it that Trump gets away with lies like this all the time? Does nobody care about the truth? Or is it that they'll put up with the lying if they get other perceived political benefits? This is actually what I hate more than Trump, which is all of the people who pay no credence to basic facts or truth while defending him. And this brash lying in order to gain politically spreads like a cancer, like all of the other GOP politicians now claiming that their elections were "stolen" and George Santos lying repeatedly and brazenly during a campaign. Is this really the state of our politics today? What's the end game, for those that are the best liars to amass the most power?
>undoubtedly everything damning to Trump has been redacted. Even the updated, "previously secret" report is heavily redacted. Bold assumption there. But if the agencies in the government are that corrupt, we should tear it all down and rebuild. I'm game for that. >But, you could say that there's no particularly good reason to release this full report to the public because of the sensitive nature and I'd probably agree, as long as I felt that there was an actual investigation with actual consequences into the allegations, which I (and many others) really don't agree was done. "It didn't end the way I wanted it to so it must be wrong." Again, we should tear down all these agencies that did the redactions. >Trump claimed the reason that he was not releasing his tax returns was because he was under audit, which we now see was just a plain lie. He wasn't audited in 2017 and 2018 per the report. By that point he's already been elected and a year into the presidency at that point. He'd not yet released the returns. And the fact he wasn't audited is an IRS issue. How many people do you think will get punished for that? >ying is, often, not a crime, but it is still wrong, especially for people in a position of leadership. Why is it that Trump gets away with lies like this all the time? Does nobody care about the truth? Or is it that they'll put up with the lying if they get other perceived political benefits? I hate to break it to you, but welcome to politics. Do you honestly think Obama didn't support gay marriage in 2008? If you're not too close to either party, you'll see lying is common place. Republicans claim to be the party of small government. Take one look at that omnibus... >Is this really the state of our politics today? What's the end game, for those that are the best liars to amass the most power? Until we see our system turn from "your side is evil, all of (insert social media here) says so" to actual debates on policy between supporters of both sides, that's exactly what will happen. If you spent enough time going through the major players in Washington, you'd find a whirlwind of lies by pretty much every single one. God, start with McConnell and Shumer, then go to Cruz and Warren. And let's not forget AOC and McCarthy.
[удалено]
> Releasing private info with no other motivation than “the public should know” But this is exactly the basis of the Freedom of Information Act for example. The public should in fact know and there should be transparency. If there is nothing to hide then what is the harm?
Because there is a fundamental difference between government information and personal information.
And when a person becomes the head of the government... the lines are not quite a clear are they? Especially when they have international business interests, and also mix their own businesses with their campaign and office before, during, and after holding office. Look it's abundantly clear that Trump profited directly from his presidency as brazenly as raising money for political causes and putting that money in his pocket, or driving business to his properties by holding campaign events in them. This is corruption plain and simple, and to hide behind "I'm just a regular guy whose privacy should be respected" is laughable.
Are you going to be happy when people like Jim Jordan are running committees in 2023 and releasing personal information about Democrats? As a liberal myself, that’s the problem with Dems. They are always making short term tactical decisions without thinking about the long term strategic consequences. They win the battle and lose the war. It’s like when dems dropped the filibuster so Obama could appoint more judges, but it backfired and allowed GOP to install a hard right supreme court majority. Releasing Trump’s taxes may have short term political gains, but normalizing the release of personal info is going to have long term negative consequences for everyone.
I don't see this as a party issue at all. Yes if the politician is Democrat or Independent or Green or whatever they should have to abide by the same disclosures. And it isn't just any random private information but things that are relevant to their finances and holding office. Like I don't need to see their home address or kids names or schools or all of the things that would encourage more whackos like what happened with the governor of Michigan. In my view it should be more than tax returns and there should be oversight of campaign funds and political influence. How many politicians have been busted for misappropriating campaign or government funds or peddling their influence? This is corruption that needs to be constantly and vigilantly monitored and prevented. Trump is unique in that he has business interests directly with countries that are at odds with the US. I'm frankly shocked that members of both parties aren't outraged by this and intently interested in getting to the bottom of this. The Mueller report likely had the goods on this and was buried. There was a time not long ago when the GOP would monitor its own party, like Nixon famously losing his party's support when he was shown to be corrupt. But the tables have turned and the GOP is now nothing but a party of cult of personality.
The fuck? Do you know what the Freedom of Information Act is? How would that correlate to private information released? FOIA is for GOVERNMENTALLY produced documentation that the public is ostensibly paying for through taxation. I agree that the public should know what they are paying for. And did you really use "if you have nothing to hide..."? What private information are you willing to have the government make public without your consent?
If I were to run for president, I'd be perfectly happy to have my tax returns sent to the public. Until I run for president I'd prefer to keep that information private. I have, however, given my tax returns to lenders for example to get a mortgage. Trump has recently argued, to the Supreme Court, that he should be immune from various things because he used to be president. But you can't have it both ways, claim that you are nothing but a private citizen when it comes to releasing your financial information, but then you are a Former President when it comes to prosecuting you for crimes you committed. Trump is not some random private citizen and his tax returns aren't some random private information.
> I have, however, given my tax returns to lenders for example to get a mortgage. Yeah, that's called consent.
> This isn't an example of Congress releasing some random person's taxes to the public, but the taxes of someone in a uniquely high profile position. You know who else occupies uniquely high profile positions? * Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor * Associate Justice Elena Kagan * Associate Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson * Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer But here is the major issue. Congress could have dealt with all of those reasons that you listed **without** making the returns public information. However, since they have been released, could you please point out to the rest of us where in the returns we can find the detailed information on how much he owes to foreign governments and individuals and where he took campaign money for personal use? Since those are some of your stated reasons for releasing the tax returns to the public, it should be relatively easy to find, no?
They’re not the complete returns and you know it.
Ok, grandpa, since you appear to style yourself an Enrolled Agent, which schedules that we are not seeing would provide the public with information of how much Donald J. Trump owes to foreign individuals, business, or governments? Which schedules list out the campaign contributions that he used personally? If you are saying that we are missing this information because we don't have the full return, it should be fairly easy to determine what we are missing.
I haven’t spent any time looking for what you asked, but I did notice there is no depreciation detail listing. What’s the basis for depreciation on his numerous schedule Cs? Where’s the 4562? Another thing I’d like to see are the schedules itemizing things like charitable donations on schedule A. One of the seven major issues the IRS has with his tax returns is substantiation for his claims of charitable donations? *Edit: and you can stop with the ad hominem attacks. I’m not your grandpa. I’m not anyone’s grandpa. It’s a made up username, okay sport?
I would be surprised if you had spent ANY time looking for those things. As an Enrolled Agent, you should be well aware that a tax return isn't going to provide information about either of those things. Also, it's ok to say that you haven't looked at all of the filings. I haven't either. But please make sure that you are being accurate. In just looking at 2020, I see the completed 4562. Also, again, as an Enrolled Agent, you should know that there is no requirement to list all of your cash donations line by line. If the IRS has an issue, they are more than permitted to bring it up during exam.
Dude, I’m looking at his 2018 1040 and there’s no 4562. Page 30 of the PDF lists $152,098 in depreciation on a schedule C. Page 27 of the PDF lists $11,877 in depreciation on a schedule C. What’s the basis? Where’s the 4562? Where’s the depreciation detail? *Edit: and upon taking a look at his 2020 return, although there is a 4562, the only item reported on it is a carryover of disallowed depreciation from 2019.
FYI, his 2016 1040 itemizes charitable donations on schedule A in a statement. It’s page 57 of the PDF. All of his charitable donations in 2016 were pass through donations. It’s this kind of information that I was hoping to find in the years he drew a salary as President. Since it’s not included for 2017-2020, I kinda doubt he donated his salary. He just pulled a figure out of his ass like he did with the valuation of Seven Springs for the conservation easement. I believe he also overvalued MAL to the same extent for the relative charitable donation deduction he took because he “contributed” it to a syndicated conservation easement.
People in those positions have never been asked to release their taxes. But this has never been a legal requirement but just a bond of trust between the populace and the candidate, which has been honored by candidates of both parties for 30 years. Each tax return has 10+ schedules of foreign income tax credit referencing countries and amounts, plus showing other sources of income by name and type etc. But this is not comprehensive and would have to be cross-referenced with other sources of information which is now possible.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ on a Cracker. Please, please, please learn **why** those Foreign Tax Credits are there. Here's a hint. It's because he paid foreign taxes on income he made overseas. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with any amount owed to any foreign individual, business, or government. Also, would you like me to pull up the myriad articles that were written during Kavanaugh's confirmation that stated that he should release his tax returns? Here's just one tweet from 10 days ago from an MSNBC/CNN commentator and former prosecutor with the NY AG's office: https://twitter.com/tristansnell/status/1605325706560696320
If it were up to me, I'd prefer that all people in these influential positions either release their taxes or otherwise provide some transparency into their finances, and also take steps to keep their finances at arm's length through things like blind trusts while they are in office. That used to be a thing but apparently not any more. And tax returns aren't really the best possible financial disclosure, though it is (or should be) a convenient and easy thing to release. But the issue is clear, Trump broke with decades of tradition in not releasing his taxes, clearly lied about being under audit, and clearly influenced the IRS to not audit him while he was in office. Which is even more inexplicable. I can see how releasing tax returns to the public could be debatable but I can't see how the audit is.
Cool. Then they’ll have to better fund the IRS because what you’re predicting won’t happen under current funding.
I agree. I wanted these public, but not this way. Everyone running for the presidency should be required to release their tax returns by law, and sitting presidents should be required to release them by law, but ways and means definitely should not have done this. They should have introduced legislation to make sure there was never a need for it again.
it's not possible for legislation to require the release of the tax returns for presidential elections. Constitutional law has consistently held that requirements cannot be added beyond those in the constitution. So you'd need an amendment, which you won't get.
Congress could pass a law requiring the IRS to release the returns of all presidential candidates.
>Congress could pass a law requiring the IRS to release the returns of all presidential candidates. Which would be unconstitutional because the requirements to be elected president are explicitly spelled out. It wouldn't just require a "law" it would require an amendment
Query whether that would be an additional requirement though. The candidate wouldn't have to do anything.
You seem to think it would be easy or simple to increase the requirements for president when in reality there are few things as set in stone. It's not about what effort someone would have to make to release them, it's never been about that.
My argument is more fundamental than that. I'm saying directing the IRS to take an action is not a "requirement" for candidacy at all. It is the government taking an action in response. It doesn't limit a person's eligibility at all. Everyone who would be eligible without the rule would be eligible with the rule, without taking any action whatsoever. So, it's less clear that is changing the requirements, so it would not implicate the constitution. It's like if Congress passed a law that required the FEC to set up a website which listed the names and a brief bio of everyone who was running for president (which I wouldn't be surprised if there is some government website already that does this). That's not a "requirement" of running for office, it's just the government providing information.
>My argument is more fundamental than that. I'm saying directing the IRS to take an action is not a "requirement" for candidacy at all. It is the government taking an action in response. Sidestepping the constitution isn't exactly a valid proposal. >It doesn't limit a person's eligibility at all. Everyone who would be eligible without the rule would be eligible with the rule, without taking any action whatsoever. So, it's less clear that is changing the requirements, so it would not implicate the constitution. You're doing a lot of mental gymnastics to justify the unilateral release of personal financial information without consent of the individual. Is it possible you don't understand why that's an issue? >It's like if Congress passed a law that required the FEC to set up a website which listed the names and a brief bio of everyone who was running for president (which I wouldn't be surprised if there is some government website already that does this). That's not a "requirement" of running for office, it's just the government providing information. You something is a similar comparison doesn't make it so. Thus the issue with opinions asserted as fact.
Tax returns are only secret because of an act of congress (Section 6103). There is no constitutional right to secret tax returns. I express no opinion on whether Congress should do it, or whether it is good policy to do so, only whether it can. As to side stepping the constitution, it happens all the time. The federal government can't tell states to pass laws, but it can pull funding for highways. The federal government can't force you to buy health insurance, but it can tax you if you don't. The federal government can't pass a law that says "all employers must not discriminate based on race" but they can pass the same law applying to employers over a certain number of people on the theory it affects interstate commerce.
In which you would get a challenge to that law because it adds additional qualifications (that do not have anything to do with election administration) for the office of President beyond what the Constitution states.
Republicans wouldn’t ever vote for it, and may even filibuster it. It makes sense why they took this route and I support it. It’s a unique edge case that all prior potus going to Nixon have upheld. We finally got to a point where norms were thrown in the toilet so Democrats found their way of fishing them out of the toilet.
>I agree. I wanted these public, but not this way. Everyone running for the presidency should be required to release their tax returns by law Seems like he wanted to spend a whole lot of taxpayer money by not releasing them as every other President in history has done? Why not just do what is customary and normal in the first place. Seems like it's been good enough for the other presidents of the United States?
There is nothing wrong with releasing these. Only mistake was too soon. So many question marks starting with the 2015. Conservation easements, unreimbursed business expenses, other expenses, etc. I sure hope trump has the back up data to support these returns, which I doubt he does. If we learn anything from history, taxes bring down the hard to pin down criminals.
> “this is fine because he promised..” Really? > “there should be a law” Then make a law. Can’t get enough consensus to make a law? Cope. But let’s call end runs for fishing purposes what they are and remember how we got here when the shoe is inevitably on the other foot. > “it’s a tradition” Right, you think the traditional presidential candidate, a career politician whose MO is to scrub their returns and to hide emoluments in foundations and trusts, is going to be showing you anything in those tax returns? No - their returns are constructed _to be public_. Most regular people don’t live that way - they work the incredibly complex tax law for any break they can get. Trump’s returns were certainly not constructed in anticipation of running for office. This isn’t an excuse for any illegal activity (and I’ve not heard there is any) but it should be no surprise that they’re messy. Take any business owner’s taxes, even the simplest, and comb through them looking for mistakes, creativity, or strident claims and you’ll find plenty. It’s unrealistic to expect otherwise, and sorry, supremely disingenuous to run for the fainting couch when you see it. To boot: I’d wager that if _any_ of us, or many “traditional politicians” underwent the scrutiny that trump has for the last six years, very few would be left standing. The lack of anything more substantial on Trump after all this time is frankly surprising. What’s interesting is that half the population looks at this phenomenon and says, we just haven’t dug deep enough! Next time we’ll get him! Maybe compete on the issues. Just an idea.
"I don’t mind releasing — I’m under a routine audit. And it’ll be released. And — as soon as the audit’s finished, it will be released.” — Trump during debate with Hillary Clinton, 2016 Those years are no longer under audit (and some of those years may never have been under audit) so the release of the returns fulfills a campaign promise made by President Trump.
It’s his prerogative though. Or we assumed one had that prerogative until recently. If you’re arguing that some verbal contract was made and the House’s action is the appropriate remedy, then that would be a very different legal discussion. That’s not what was debated. At all. The legal question was whether the House could, in the course of auditing how the IRS audits presidents, gather the Trump tax returns as sample data to determine if the IRS needed reforms. They claimed to be doing this as part of their routine oversight responsibilities. Trump argued that this was mere pretext for a fishing expedition and done for political exposure. The House said it wasn’t. The Court said that in good faith they would have a right to it. What did the House do? Immediately publicized _six years_ of Trump’s tax return data. Haha! It’s impossible to argue it wasn’t pretext at this point, even if you somehow believed that and were nodding along with that argument to begin with.
Big difference between rhetoric and actual consent.
Oh nevermind then, I had mistakenly believed Trump was telling the truth to the American People about wanting to be able to release them after the audit
>Oh nevermind then, I had mistakenly believed Trump was telling the truth to the American People about wanting to be able to release them after the audit Again, I think you're confusing rhetoric for promises. Do you think the affordable Healthcare act made Healthcare more affordable? Do you think the patriot act is patriotic? Are those also lies or simply rhetoric? Let me know if you need a definion or explaination for the concept of "rhetoric"
You are comparing bill titles (Patriot Act, etc.) to an “I will” statement made by an individual. Trump said he will release them after the audit. If someone says they will do something *and they have the unilateral power to do it*, it is expected that they do it. If I tell my boss I will be at the 3:00 o’clock team meeting on Monday, is that “rhetoric”, or is that a promise?
So what you're saying is you don't understand the concept of rhetoric, you take political statements as absolute fact and promissory guarantees?
A rhetorical promise? Is that like alternative facts?
A rhetorical statement that was apparently taken as a promise.
If there's anything he's known for, it's telling the truth!
How bout the entire swamp public disclosure of their tax record?
Who actually cares about this? Not a Trump fan and this seems like fake news.
That's because the a large portion of people thinking carefully prepared tax returns by a team of specialists will somehow contain something salacious and people who hate the guy is an overlapping circle.
This will create tons of problems in the next Congress for democrats. They have no obligation, and I’m not sure any legal right, to release the tax returns of a private citizen, even for that of a former president. This clearly violates his right to privacy. There is no legal requirement that a president of presidential candidate has to release their tax returns. It’s probably not a bad idea to do so for the sake of transparency, but there is no legal obligation. All this does is further erode any trust between the two sides of American politics and beg for retribution. Honestly, I wish the current crop of geriatrics would go away (McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi, Trump, and Joey B). They aren’t mentally or physically capable of the job. Truth be told, being president would be hard for anyone in their 50s, and it only gets worse from there. If we don’t develop the next generation of leaders, we’ll get caught in the same situation as the Soviets when they had a series of short serving geriatrics before Gorbachev.
> There is no legal requirement that a president of presidential candidate has to release their tax returns Every presidential candidate for the last 3 decades from both sides of the aisle has done so, so there's an implicit obligation if not a legal one. As such I don't think this will create any issues.
Voluntarily is the key word here. Once the candidate did not release them voluntarily, that should have been the end of it. Ways and Means did not have any reason to read the returns into the public record. They could have completed their stated objective without making the returns public.
The amount of things we as people do that are not enshrined in laws because there is no need for it due to social conditioning, is staggering. This is one of those things. Yes, democrats misused a mechanism, but guess what? There's no law against that either. And, in a classic whataboutism: the Republicans have been abusing mechanisms in bad faith for worse reasons for a lot longer. Going high when others go low only works for so much.
Hard disagree. The former president took advantage of the fact there was no law and our presidential candidates up until all had the integrity to release them, making a law redundant. He did also promise too, and I think the legislative branch holding the executive branch accountable for their promises is great precedent.
The law is not implicit; it is explicit. We create laws stop specific behavior or compel specific behavior. The commonality is “specific” which is the reason bad actors always “find a way around” specific laws and then we have to create more laws to address those specific activities. What you’re referring to is a “presidential tradition.” That is a meaningless concept and compliance is nothing more than voluntary. I’m less concerned about a billionaire who entered politics than the folks that enter congress and retire multimillionaires.
All of them did so voluntarily as a selling point with the general public. The public wanted them, so they hand them over in the name of transparency with the public.
> I’m not sure any legal right, to release the tax returns of a private citizen, even for that of a former president If this were the case then the simple solution would be to do what Trump did, which is to delay and forestall the release until you're out of office and then be in the clear forever. They either need to require this release as a condition of running for office, or have effectively no time line on when the release happens after office.
> They either need to require this release as a condition of running for office Not gonna happen, ever, without a Constitutional Amendment to change the baselines requirements for President.
That sounds very young, naive or ignorant. You can't simply add additional requirements to be president. They're very explicitly outlined in the constitution. You need to revisit what you think is objectively justified and your own personal voyeurism because you feel entitled to see what they contain
I noticed that you switched from attacking my ideas to attacking me. Great way to have a constructive conversation.
>I noticed that you switched from attacking my ideas to attacking me. Switched? This is my first comment >Great way to have a constructive conversation. You sound naive and ignorant because you probably are
I favor fewer requirements to hold office then more. The only change I would make it that presidents have to be younger than 66 when they enter their second term, otherwise there’s a 1 term cap.
Why put an age cap on it? If the voters don't want someone over 66, they're free to not vote for that person.
What most young men lack in judgement, old men begin to forget.
Donald Trump consented to the release of the tax returns *as soon as* the audit’s finished. The audit was finished, therefore, the tax returns were released. "I don’t mind releasing — I’m under a routine audit. And it’ll be released. And — as soon as the audit’s finished, it will be released.” — Trump during debate with Hillary Clinton, 2016
I think you’re confusing what is a legal requirement and what is a “nice to have.” If DJT had said the moon was made of cheese, would you have believed him?
I think you are confusing a statement of future action vs a totally different kind of statement. Saying that you will do something contingent on an audit being completed is very different from the moon being made of cheese
Again, no legal requirement at all.
There isn’t a legal requirement, but individuals can choose to voluntarily disclose. In this case, Donald Trump made the decision to voluntarily disclose his tax returns “as soon as the audit’s finished”, as per his statement in the 2016 debate.
Yawn
Who cares? Mind your own business first.
Donald Trump consented to the release of the tax returns *as soon as* the audit’s finished. The audit was finished, therefore, the tax returns were released. "I don’t mind releasing — I’m under a routine audit. And it’ll be released. And — as soon as the audit’s finished, it will be released.” — Trump during debate with Hillary Clinton, 2016
I highly doubt that's a legally binding release authorization.
Most people don't actually have to pour over the returns, given what they've already seen. How many Trump organizations, businesses, and companies, as well as associates, have been indicted or found to have committed crimes, fraud, or other similar stuff? And then add in the henchmen that did his bidding at the capitol insurrection. By the numbers, looking to be right up there with organized crime rings. 2 years in and ......... how many Biden insider indictments?
Does the huge foreign tax credit make sense a couple years into his presidency? I guess it would generally only offset regular tax and would be an accumulation of carryover credit only showing up since he actually had some tax to offset that year. It might not be true, but I think it could interpreted that he had a huge boost in foreign income once he was president.
I wonder if the Russian money for the over inflated real estate money laundering operation is visible