Trump's Taxes

[825VOL]

Let me help so of you “less informed” people. Any consultant fee he or his business paid was paid to a separate entity and that entity was provided a 1099. It is up to that separate entity to claim that income on their business taxes.
Many business returns show a loss for a variety of reasons. Depletion and depreciation are two of the main factors here. When a lender(bank) looks at the tax returns, those items are added back to the income in order to reflect the “true income”. Depending on the business size and the type of business, this can be $100,000’s.
Why is this done? It is done because lenders(banks) underwriters understand that any business will take all available deductions that the IRS allows to lower taxable income. However, the business is not required to take these deductions. So these deductions are added back into the income. Without in depth analysis of all business tax returns the NYT and others are doing nothing but a political hit job by speculating on this. You believing anything that is not a set of “audited financials” makes you look like a fool.

 

[Sandman 423]

Are you kidding? Given the number of venders he's stiffed, why would this one be any different? I want to see the receipts for his hair.

My 4 year old niece could have done a better job.

Be honest, would you have paid for that?

 

[evillawyer]

LMAO. So true.

 

[PointGuard]

Read through this thread. I'm absolutely not a DJT supporter but I can put my feelings aside to clear up misconceptions and misstatements on both sides.

Regarding bank and insurance fraud, that's not my area of expertise and I have not opined on them. That's different than tax fraud, which is what I addressed. No you didn't opine on that, I did based on Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony. Fraud is fraud, The difference is penalty between the tax codes and criminal codes

Regarding the hair, Trump was a TV star and I would say that is deductible. Not if it was deducted as a business expense by the Apprentice show. Mark Burnett would have that answer for you. His hair deduction was not tied to the Apprentice. THE only mention of the Apprentice by the NYT is in how the $410 million Trump earned from the Apprentice was in turn used to offset his other business investments/interests, questionable deductions That's part of his image. Here's a question for you: Should a stripper that gets a 1099 be able to deduct a breast augmentation as a business expense?

Most, but not all, of his foreign source income appears to be from golf courses in Europe All his Golf Course lose money, especially the foreign ones So on a consolidating tax return bases those foreign golf course line items would be expressed as (Losses) in parenthesis. The NYT findings imply actual income (not tax losses) from unnamed foreign sources. For as long as that remains a fact I stand by my comments in the matter.

 

[Mick]

Let me help so of you “less informed” people. Any consultant fee he or his business paid was paid to a separate entity and that entity was provided a 1099. It is up to that separate entity to claim that income on their business taxes.
Many business returns show a loss for a variety of reasons. Depletion and depreciation are two of the main factors here. When a lender(bank) looks at the tax returns, those items are added back to the income in order to reflect the “true income”. Depending on the business size and the type of business, this can be $100,000’s.
Why is this done? It is done because lenders(banks) underwriters understand that any business will take all available deductions that the IRS allows to lower taxable income. However, the business is not required to take these deductions. So these deductions are added back into the income. Without in depth analysis of all business tax returns the NYT and others are doing nothing but a political hit job by speculating on this. You believing anything that is not a set of “audited financials” makes you look like a fool.

We should just give immunity to Trump's CFO:

Trump Organization CFO granted immunity in latest blow to the president - 08/24/2018

 

[volbeast33]

I didn't ask you anything about "republicans" or "games", this is a direct comparison.

The assertion was about trump directly calling out Obama for paying 20% while its now been revealed that Trump paid less than 1%.

Do you believe that it was unfair or unreasonable for trump to have done that?

Yes..... definitely

 

[Septic]

Be honest, would you have paid for that?

Paid for that? Truthfully, I'm surprised he hasn't sued his stylist.

 

[825VOL]

We should just give immunity to Trump's CFO:

Trump Organization CFO granted immunity in latest blow to the president - 08/24/2018

What does that have to do with my explanation? So you are trying to say that something illegal was down by this guy? If so, it is his license or incarceration on the line not Trump’s.
You are just trying for another gotcha. I see you prefer to wallow in your ignorance as usual.

 

[McDad]

They do but to the extent that the $70K is related to TV work, it could be deductible. Trump is taking an aggressive position but it can be argued that this $70K is an ordinary and reasonable expense (in tax terms, not the way his hair looks).

From a tax perspective his hair has to have fully depreciated.

 

[Sandman 423]

Paid for that? Truthfully, I'm surprised he hasn't sued his stylist.

yes, and then he could use that money to make it appear as though he isn't broke. He should hire us today, wait, no I don't work for free.

 

[Septic]

Let me help so of you “less informed” people. Any consultant fee he or his business paid was paid to a separate entity and that entity was provided a 1099. It is up to that separate entity to claim that income on their business taxes.
Many business returns show a loss for a variety of reasons. Depletion and depreciation are two of the main factors here. When a lender(bank) looks at the tax returns, those items are added back to the income in order to reflect the “true income”. Depending on the business size and the type of business, this can be $100,000’s.
Why is this done? It is done because lenders(banks) underwriters understand that any business will take all available deductions that the IRS allows to lower taxable income. However, the business is not required to take these deductions. So these deductions are added back into the income. Without in depth analysis of all business tax returns the NYT and others are doing nothing but a political hit job by speculating on this. You believing anything that is not a set of “audited financials” makes you look like a fool.

You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action.

 

[McDad]

Paid for that? Truthfully, I'm surprised he hasn't sued his stylist.

 

[825VOL]

You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action.

You need to rethink that post and try again

 

[PointGuard]

Don’t hate the man because he and his lawyers know every loophole in the IRS.

I hate no one. It is a given that everyone maximizes their legal deductions to yo minimize their tax liability. Trump should do that too. That is no what the NYT findings alleges. You cannot claim deductions that are not provided for in the tax code. That, among other more troubling things, is what this report alleges. The more troubling things is who is Trump working for every day you or foreign interests. If is foreign interests that is treason

 

[McDad]

You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action.

Yes and no. I can be an employee. I can also have a consulting firm which is a separate legal entity. I can be paid as an employee. My consulting firm can be paid for consulting work. Both of these can come from the same entity paying for payroll and consulting.

 

[volbeast33]

I hate no one. It is a given that everyone maximizes their legal deductions to yo minimize their tax liability. Trump should do that too. That is no what the NYT findings alleges. You cannot claim deductions that are not provided for in the tax code. That, among other more troubling things, is what this report alleges. The more troubling things is who is Trump working for every day you or foreign interests. If is foreign interests that is treason

Isn’t that why we have the irs to catch things like that?

 

[Septic]

You need to rethink that post and try again

Was something I said incorrect?

When determining employee/employer relationships with respects to independent contractor status the keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control.

 

[Septic]

Yes and no. I can be an employee. I can also have a consulting firm which is a separate legal entity. I can be paid as an employee. My consulting firm can be paid for consulting work. Both of these can come from the same entity paying for payroll and consulting.

I'm just saying. I think the post directly above clarified the optics of how the relationship would be viewed.

 

[McDad]

I hate no one. It is a given that everyone maximizes their legal deductions to yo minimize their tax liability. Trump should do that too. That is no what the NYT findings alleges. You cannot claim deductions that are not provided for in the tax code.

You can claim. The IRS can audit. If deduction isn't valid, there will be money owed plus fines and interest. Proving criminality for those deductions is much tougher.

 

[Mick]

What does that have to do with my explanation? So you are trying to say that something illegal was down by this guy? If so, it is his license or incarceration on the line not Trump’s.
You are just trying for another gotcha. I see you prefer to wallow in your ignorance as usual.

I guess you don't know what immunity is or having his CFO signed "audited financials" means. Not saying NYT has his business financials but the SDNY does.

 

[DynaLo]

Read through this thread. I'm absolutely not a DJT supporter but I can put my feelings aside to clear up misconceptions and misstatements on both sides.

Regarding bank and insurance fraud, that's not my area of expertise and I have not opined on them. That's different than tax fraud, which is what I addressed.

Regarding the hair, Trump was a TV star and I would say that is deductible. That's part of his image. Here's a question for you: Should a stripper that gets a 1099 be able to deduct a breast augmentation as a business expense?

Most, but not all, of his foreign source income appears to be from golf courses in Europe

Didn’t she have to fight that up to the higher courts to get that deduction?

But to answer your question, yes it should be a business expense just like her costumes are as it is part of the trade tools that directly contribute to her income, especially if said stripper is a headline act.

 

[hog88]

Yes and no. I can be an employee. I can also have a consulting firm which is a separate legal entity. I can be paid as an employee. My consulting firm can be paid for consulting work. Both of these can come from the same entity paying for payroll and consulting.

The rules are so ambiguous when it comes to this it's amazing. I even know a full time teacher that is a paid consultant in the district she teaches in, has 4-5 other teachers that work for her.

 

[evillawyer]

I think the true takeaway from the NY Times tax story is one thing: BUT HER EMAILS!!!!!!

 

[McDad]

I'm just saying.

View attachment 309768

You're correct. The code is written to prevent business from creating employment without payroll contributions.

But an employee who provides labor related to X can also have a consulting firm which provides Y services.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Without knowing the specifics of how his compensation was set up for the Apprentice, I still think the hair could be deductible if:

1. Trump actually paid the $70K
2. It can be related to TV work.

It's definitely a gray area and an aggressive position but it's not fraud.

Regarding the foreign income, I read it as receipts from foreign sources and not net foreign income. Won't know for sure until you see the returns. $73M of receipts isnt eye-opening since most of them would be non profitable receipts (Scotish golf revenue). $73M of net foreign income would be eye opening. Given how the NYT has framed this story, I would lean towards mostly golf property revenue.