4
   

To avoid tax, Trump may have used a loophole Hillary....

 
 
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2016 03:09 pm
To avoid tax, Trump may have used a loophole Hillary voted to close in 2002

This loophole was the subject of a 2001 Supreme Court case, Gitlitz v. Commissioner, in which the IRS argued the relevant tax law could not have possibly meant what it appeared to say, which was that business owners could in some cases deduct losses they had not actually borne.

After the IRS lost that case, the loophole was closed by the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, a bill that then Sen. Hillary Clinton voted for and President George W. Bush signed. But that law only stopped taxpayers from using the loophole going forward; they were still allowed to benefit from tax losses they had booked through it in prior years, such as 1995.
...
In the situation described by Sheppard, the S Corporation's massive business losses would have passed through to Trump as personal losses. The offsetting debt forgiveness enjoyed by the S Corporation would not have passed through to Trump as taxable personal income because it was excluded from the S Corporation's taxable income. In total, Trump would have harvested a huge loss that exceeded his initial investment in and prior profits from the S Corporation.

"But wait!" I hope you are saying. "Wouldn't that put Trump afoul of the rule that his tax losses from the S Corporation can't exceed what he invested in it in the first place plus the prior profits?"

Yes, it would — except that, before the 2002 loophole fix, the debt forgiveness enjoyed by the S Corporation would have passed through to Trump for the purposes of calculating the amount of profit the S Corporation had earned on his behalf, even though the same debt forgiveness did not pass through as actual taxable profit to him.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-did-trump-pay-so-little-tax-2016-10?r=US&IR=T

Complicated, so not easy to summarise here. But the end result is: Trump probably used a controversial loophole to stiff the USA; when the legality of this was definitively decided, lawmakers, including Senator Clinton, changed the law to stop that. So who do you want as president, the slime who took the money, or the lawmaker who made sure people have to pay their fair share in the future?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 763 • Replies: 2
No top replies

 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2016 05:24 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Let's face it: the tax code is 40,000 pages long, and no two experts have agreed on the interpretation of the tax code regulations.

http://www.laffercenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2011-Laffer-TaxCodeComplexity.pdf
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2016 05:43 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
The comical thing was his attempt to claim he has five billion in liquid asserts but when a bank stepped up to test his claim through a deposit scheme he failed. The bank implied he does not have access to the funds he claims.

One reason he doesn't want to disclose his taxes is because it hurts his ego to reveal he doesn't actually have the wealth he thinks he has.

Perceived wealth is the game of investor speculation. It's similar to fame. You can't really place a value on fame, it's only speculated. A wide investor utilizes this perceived worth to invent wealth. If you think a company is strong that's all that matters.

But for the common citizen we don't play those games because daily we are reminded we must be honest about out bank account balance or pay the price for ignoring it.

We wish the wealthy were held to the same standards but they are handed a free card at some point where their true wealth is considered derogatory to discus.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » To avoid tax, Trump may have used a loophole Hillary....
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 11:36:09