Zombie [NY Times] Trump tax returns

For the accountant types out there... he could have had $1B in losses due to depreciation alone. That wouldn't say squat about his ability as a businessman - in fact it would say he's brilliant at it.

Prior to the Reagan tax cuts, tax law was quite different regarding real estate and NYTimes isn't going to talk about that. For every ~$3500 in income, a rich person needed $100K in real estate to pay $0 in tax due to depreciation. That deduction was eliminated as part of the tax cuts - the RICH had to pay (more) in taxes.

In Vegas, they build casinos that cost multiple $billions. A sub $1B loss in an environment when banks and S&Ls were going belly up doesn't speak to success at all.

Obama lost $500M+ on Solyndra alone, and another $500M+ on Fisker Automotive. And he left us $10T more in debt when he left. Why do you think trusting liberal politicians is any better?

There are better reasons to not vote for Trump. He's a racist. Good enough for me.

For the accountant types:

How can capital losses wash ordinary income as the NYTimes claims?

My understanding is that it can only wipe out capital gains going forward.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey...orate-taxes-reaches-record-high/#3c1e58f26577

New York Times Hypocrisy On Corporate Taxes Reaches Record High
JAN 31, 2016 @ 12:00 PM

Apparently, The New York Times believes companies should take no actions in order to lower their tax rates. In fact, the editorial makes clear that the Times is particularly incensed at Johnson Control’s maneuver because the auto bailout used taxpayer money to keep Chrysler and GM in business, indirectly benefiting Johnson Controls who sold them auto parts. At this point, I would normally launch into an explanation about how corporations have no obligation to pay taxes and that it is government’s fault if it offers companies tax breaks or leaves loopholes in the tax code.

However, I do not need to lecture The New York Times on that topic because it knows that lesson well. After all, the newspaper of record has its headquarters in a building built on landseized by the government under the power of eminent domain from ten different owners, some of whom did not want to sell, implying that the government exercise of power saved the developer money. In addition to that benefit, The New York Times alsoreceived $26 million in tax breaks in exchange for keeping jobs in New York City.

More recently, for tax year 2014, The New York Times paid no taxes and got an income tax refund of $3.5 million even though they had a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million in 2014. In other words, their post-tax profit was higher than their pre-tax profit. The explanation in their 2014 annual report is, “The effective tax rate for 2014 was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations.” If you don’t think it took fancy accountants and tax lawyers to make that happen, read the statement again.

 

I would like to think so, but his tax returns are also fodder for bullshit claims about his finances like this one

Tax returns are not true financial statements. A company can show lots of profit on its actual books while showing losses for tax purposes. In fact, when preparing a tax return, you want to show as little income (legitimately) as possible so you don't have to overpay taxes.


This is him signing his tax return:

 

Agreed, he should release audited financial statements for his companies as well as his tax returns.

barfo

 

Some of his companies are public. They're required to file financial statements.

Yet he's served no jail time. Scams being illegal and all.

 

John Kerry was the Democratic nominee in 2004. He married a $billionaire, who was the Heinz ketchup heiress. Heinz was not a public company.

She released only a few pages of her 2003 tax return.

Those whining about Trump's returns didn't put up a fuss about Kerry's. Hypocrites.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/16/p...-part-of-her-2003-income-tax-return.html?_r=0

Tax documents that would indicate if Ms. Heinz Kerry has offshore accounts were withheld, as were the schedules detailing her charitable deductions, interest expenses and the nature of the $14,412 in capital gains she reported. But Paul Bschorr, a lawyer for Ms. Heinz Kerry, said Friday that none of her personal investment accounts or accounts controlled by her family trust are deposited outside the United States, a step some wealthy American use to defer or escape taxes.

No information was provided about how much income was earned by trusts of which she is the beneficiary. If the trusts are as large as reported -- and the Kerry campaign has not challenged the billion dollar estimate -- then even a modest 5 percent return would have generated $50 million of income, 10 times what was on the two pages released by Ms. Heinz Kerry. A statement released by the Kerry campaign noted that income taxes are paid directly by the Heinz family trust, in addition to taxes that Ms. Heinz Kerry pays.

Ms. Heinz Kerry released her tax return this week because she had requested an tax-filing extension last spring.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...-hillary-used-same-tax-avoidance-scheme-trump

Well this is a little awkward. With the leaked 1995 Trump tax returns 'scandal' focused on the billionaire's yuuge "net operating loss" and how it might have 'legally' enabled him to pay no taxes for years, we now discover none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton utilized a $700,000 "loss" to avoid paying some taxes in 2015.

 

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/02/donald-trumps-billion-dollar-tax-loss-is

/thread