The Times is now accusing Trump of tax fraud
It’s no surprise that the NY Times has obtained Donald Trump’s tax records, no doubt from some brave member of the The Resistance.
At least, the paper claims to have obtained them, and I’m going to assume that is the case.
Here’s the article, and a few excerpts:
But The Times’s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day.
Much of this money came to Mr. Trump because he helped his parents dodge taxes. He and his siblings set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents, records and interviews show. Records indicate that Mr. Trump helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more. He also helped formulate a strategy to undervalue his parents’ real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, sharply reducing the tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings.
These maneuvers met with little resistance from the Internal Revenue Service, The Times found.
Trying to interpret through the fog of the usual Times propaganda, I come up with this: Trump and the entire family set up a tax shelter of some sort, on the advice of attorneys and/or accountants. This was way back when the tax rate was much much higher, and complicated tax shelters were standard for anyone with a large amount of money.
And the fact that the IRS didn’t offer any “resistance” (interesting and revealing word, no?) means what? My guess is that the IRS always looked at the Trump tax return pretty carefully, as they do the returns of most mega-rich people with complex holdings and earnings, and the IRS decided the shelter was legal.
One of Trump’s attorneys has issued this statement:
The New York Times’s allegations of fraud and tax evasion are 100 percent false, and highly defamatory,” Mr. Harder said. “There was no fraud or tax evasion by anyone. The facts upon which The Times bases its false allegations are extremely inaccurate.”
Mr. Harder sought to distance Mr. Trump from the tax strategies used by his family, saying the president had delegated those tasks to relatives and tax professionals. “President Trump had virtually no involvement whatsoever with these matters,” he said. “The affairs were handled by other Trump family members who were not experts themselves and therefore relied entirely upon the aforementioned licensed professionals to ensure full compliance with the law.”
According to this article, the letter concludes with this sentence:
Should the Times state or imply that President Trump participated in fraud, tax evasion, or any other crime, it will be exposing itself to substantial liability and damages for defamation.
The Times is feeding its readers what they want. And it feels fully protected by Sullivan, which gave news outlets license to say virtually anything they want about a public figure they hate.
No one but a tax attorney familiar with the laws at the time and in full possession of the facts could rule on whether anything illegal was done. Very wealthy people are frequently audited; huge deductions and reclassifications would be closely looked at by the IRS in the years shortly after the return was filed. The Times is treading on shaky ground here.
Journalists don’t know how to run a corporation or bunch of corporations.
I can just imagine:
1) Journalist opens corporation in specific state called California – files Articles of Incorporation, etc.
2) Decides to get investors based on a business idea of this amazing service
3) Decides to file each of the monthly, quarterly and yearly taxes maximizing what they pay to California and the federal government.
4) Investors flee
5) Business closes shop.
6) Journalist decides to be a journalist again lecturing other business owners.
Where’s Harry Reid when ya need him?
“The Times is feeding its readers what they want. And it feels fully protected by Sullivan, which gave news outlets license to say virtually anything they want about a public figure they hate.”
That could change.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/21/the-associated-press-judges-signal-theyll-revive-sarah-palin-defamation-lawsuit.html
“NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals panel seems poised to reinstate a defamation lawsuit Sarah Palin brought against The New York Times after hearing oral arguments Friday.
A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan found it unusual that a judge tossed the lawsuit last year after hearing testimony from a single witness.
[ I didn’t know or had forgotten that little wrinkle.]
The onetime Republican vice presidential nominee sued over an editorial titled “America’s Lethal Politics.” The editorial was published in June 2017 after a gunman opened fire on Republican lawmakers in Virginia, wounding U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise.
The Times’ editorial was corrected twice when readers complained that it appeared to blame a political action committee belonging to Palin for “political incitement” after it distributed a map depicting Democratic lawmakers beneath crosshairs before the 2011 shooting of Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords in Arizona.
[which, as we all remember, was rebutted completely at the time in 2011, by the NYT’s itself]
….
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff tossed out the lawsuit last year after conducting a hearing in which he heard testimony from James Bennet, the Times’ editorial page editor. Bennet said he thought the editorial was accurate when he approved its publication but later learned otherwise.
[There were many comments about the Times editors not reading their own paper.]
Circuit Judge John M. Walker Jr. said Rakoff heard the testimony of the editorial page editor of the Times and “then he decides the position of The New York Times is more plausible than the other side.”
The appeals panel did not immediately rule.”
The news media “feels fully protected by Sullivan, which gave news outlets license to say virtually anything they want about a public figure they hate.”
When consequence is absent or easily avoided and the end is believed to justify whatever means are necessary… there is no limit to the depravity of the lies that may be advanced.
By repeatedly engaging in intentional lies for ideological gain the Leftist media forfeit the right to the protections under which they abuse. In engaging in the machinations that prevent the redress of grievance, the Left is ensuring that ultimately, “politics by ‘other’ means” will eventuate.
“It’s no surprise that the NY Times has obtained Donald Trump’s tax records, no doubt from some brave member of the The Resistance.” – Neo
While I likewise have no doubt that the IRS is just as full of conservative-haters as it was during Lois Lerner’s tenure, they should consider that they no longer have nearly as many friends in high places as she did.
Hmm, the IRS has come after me for $20, but they are going to let Trump avoid millions that he legally owed? Really? This is Times logic at its finest. I’m glad I canceled my subscription a couple of decades ago.
This tactic seems to be the new standard: accuse Trump, or someone close to him or nominated for some post in government, of nefarious and illegal acts. Offer no factual evidence to support the accusation, just put it out there, make him deny it.
I think Neo pointed out that it was LBJ that started this sort of thing. It’s effective because Trump’s detractors want to believe it and his supporters simply dismiss it. People in the middle don’t have the time to follow it closely enough to see what a sham it is. When they go to vote, a percentage (Dems are hoping a large percentage) will think, that Trump guy cheated on his taxes, I’m voting D.
So a year ago the IRS discovered an error in our 2015 return in which we failed to claim a sum that was withdrawn from my retirement account (was used for house renovation work). Turns out I got two 1099 forms but they stuck together so I only reported on one of the sums. It was my mistake and we paid the amount due. Our income isn’t anywhere near Trump’s but they found our error. Somehow I think they would be highly motivated to find any error in Trump’s taxes.
PinB,
Yep. Unwise of the NY Times. Unwise. I learned that the NY Times covered up the holocaust in the 1930’s
https://www.thedailybeast.com/reporting-on-the-times-calls-out-new-york-times-holocaust-coverage?ref=home
steve walsh on October 3, 2018 at 5:44 pm at 5:44 pm said: People in the middle don’t have the time to follow it closely enough to see what a sham it is.
No, its worse than that… the people in the middle who have no time to analyze have had their answers crafted by education giving them the proper politically correct positions to take, and maybe a feeble argument that with 20 others agreeing they were taught the same thing, will drown out all other things… as they were also taught to trust that authority to the nth degree (reinoforced by how it was the first authority to allow them full fun freedom).
their gestalt, their world view is tied up to these truths, which are nothing more than beliefs, which is what ALL facts are… factual or not…
its beliefs… france is just a better belief than alien butt sex
we have no validity machines, so it all boils down to beliefs
and who has control over all that for so long, even pushing men out of the arena and making mom so busy she would cave and give hrr kids over to the brand new board of ed system which homogenized the zeitgeist and created a more natural slowly building gliechshaltung whose roots are like a dandelion…
cause
Prince or pauper, beggar man or thing
Play the game with ev’ry flower you bring
Dandelion don’t tell no lies
Dandelion will make you wise
Tell me if she laughs or cries
Blow away dandelion
Artfldgr on October 3, 2018 at 6:07 pm at 6:07 pm said: They did not read how the dems made up lies and what kind of lies and totally smeared and destroyed a woman they tortured
and what about Grover Cleveland raping Halpin? In doing that, she gets pregnant, and is going to have that baby (they had not yet legalized things. Strom Thurmond helped cause he had an illegitimate child with a very young black lady).
he takes the baby, its up for adoption, i think some friends then take it. the women, is then committed to a insane asylum against her wishes… of course… they thought she was bonkers.. this woman was saying the president took her baby and is trying to destroy her life! eventually they let her out, cause they discovered the president took her baby and is trying to destroy her life!!
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/president-clevelands-problem-child-100800/
as for Strom, the Times had this headline:
“Strom Thurmond, Foe of Integration, Dies at 100”
for those curious about Cleveland start with the Smithsonian:
President Cleveland’s Problem Child
Not even a specific allegation of philandering, illicit pregnancy and coverup barred Grover Cleveland from the White House
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/president-clevelands-problem-child-100800/
Her tale differed from Cleveland’s, substantially.
In an October 31, 1884, interview with the Chicago Tribune, she proclaimed, “The circumstances under which my ruin was accomplished are too revolting on the part of Grover Cleveland to be made public.”
We have no sense of knowledge missing, of holes in our minds, only those that already know, know what’s missing in a presentation. When we learn we have to trust things aren’t being left out that are important or would change our minds or would simplify our understanding. Otherwise we can never be what we are, we can only be what someone else allows us
not that i know anything that matters though…
This public discourse is so odd. On TWITTER
https://twitter.com/senjudiciary/status/1047606859610435594
Between Senate Judiciary and Senator Durbin.
Waiting for the NYT story about how Trump is really a Warlock, or perhaps even an Alien in disguise, here to pave the way for the Galactic Overlords.
Then, again, maybe they’ll feature a story about how his limo once ran over a squirrel, and how that makes him a murderer.
First day in Tax Accounting Class in MBA program years ago the professor asked us if we knew the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion and then he went on to tell us that with a good lawyer we might get off on a murder charge but if we did any tax evasion we would see the difference which was about 20 years in a Federal prison. He said that it is the duty of every American to pay the least amount of tax they legally can through tax avoidance and we would need good lawyers and CPAs to do that.
My older brother in his 80′ specializes in tax accounting and he still stays busy with a few very high end clients. His statement about the Trump situation was the same as Kate above. AS Kate said, there is no way to look at tax returns without knowing the complete rules and regs of the time and place and then it might require a big sit down with CPA’s, lawyers and knowledgable IRS officials to even understand what happened.
Big brother only lost one case to the IRS in over 50 years of practice because he worked hard to keep his clients on the right side of the law and in that case the client lied to him. He also sent several auditors back to the IRS and asked for more senior auditors who actually understood what they were doing, there are fewer bright IRS people around now then there used to be.
It’s a trap. Trump can not defend himself without his tax returns, which is what the NYT really wants.
Trump Is NOT a victim in the case of taxes as he was the one who promised to release them.
Does anyone deny that fact? Is it not a good point?
Don’t defend him on taxes, he doesn’t deserve it.
There is no wealthy family who wants to pass their wealth on to their children that does not use the best tax attorneys and whatever tax shelters the law allows to do just that. They could write a story about the Waltons, the Goldmans, the Mars family, the Kennedys, the Cox family, the Pritzkers, etc. as well. All have used the best tax attorneys to pay no more than absolutely necessary. For socialists, of course, that is a sin. For those of us who value hard work, entrepreneurship, and capitalism it just makes good sense. As pointed out in other comments, if the IRS is satisfied, there’s not much to complain about. They do go after every dime they can get, even from small fry.
markq:
Actually, that’s a really lousy point.
Let’s see—if you promise to give me something and you don’t do it, it’s okay if I steal it?
And then it’s perfectly okay if I get a reporter to write an article in The NY Times accusing you of something like fraud although you’re not guilty?
Serves you right for not giving it to me in the first place. Open season on you.
Oh, and Trump never said he’d release his tax forms. He said he’d release them when an audit is complete. It seems he’s subject to the never-ending audit. Maybe that’s even true. I assume it’s not. If I had a dime for every promise a politician made and didn’t keep, I’d be a rich person.
Oh, and by the way, whoever gave the information to the Times committed a crime.
Trump and the other billionaires have the IRS literally CAMP OUT and watch the return being assembled.
That’s how it’s done.
This is quite unlike ordinary Joes.
For us the audit comes later, if ever.
For the Big Boys, the returns are audited as they are assembled… the money is THAT big. EVERY return is audited.
Inherited assets get a total going over… because the money is that big.
The Big Corporations actually have IRS agents ‘on staff’ — at their HQ 40 hours a week every week of the year… and it’s a team affair.
What OldTexan said (“…. the duty of every American…”).
Here’s Judge Learned Hand with his well-known (except maybe for the NYT—at least when it comes to Trump and Republicans) quote on the subject:
http://businesslawbasics.com/legal-quote-week-learned-hand-taxes
On the other hand, the NYT may be on to something here since it seems that the new (not just liberal) “duty of every American” (as it were) is to seek—and act—to destroy the GOP and those who support it and those who give it credence:
– https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-left-the-republican-party-now-i-want-democrats-to-take-over/2018/07/03/54a4007a-7e38-11e8-b0ef-fffcabeff946_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c17420582a92
– https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/destroy-the-republican-party-max-boot-calls-for-a-clean-start/
(A real charmer, he…. “The very model of a modern moralizing intellectual”?…)
Yes, folks, the new definition of “patriotism”, “morality” and “goodness”….
The sad thing is that every American was more stunned when Milli Vanilli was exposed as a fraud.
“The sad thing…”
(Actually, the criminal, conspiracy thing….)
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/409817-russia-collusion-bombshell-dnc-lawyers-met-with-fbi-on-dossier-before
Another example of why people hate the media.
And this example is so blatant even the anti-Trumpers must see it is nothing more than an attack piece. Ford on Kavanaugh is more believable than this hit.
It seems USA needs more tough anti-defamation laws. They are the most weak by any international standard. In more normal situation free speech laws allow to counter libel and slander by more free speech for accused, but we do not live in normal situation. The press and hi-tech is almost monopolized by leftists. There are two possible cures for this monopolization: to break monopolies, or if this is not possible, regulate them as utilities.
neo says Actually, that’s a really lousy point.
Let’s see—if you promise to give me something and you don’t do it, it’s okay if I steal it?
And then it’s perfectly okay if I get a reporter to write an article in The NY Times accusing you of something like fraud although you’re not guilty?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you’ve refused to use leaked information obtained illegally by someone else on your blog to make points it would be a good point. Have you refused to make comments on contents of Democrats email, or something from WikiLeaks which is a publisher of illegally obtained material?
Looks like Manju handed off to markq for this story.
Barry Meislin on October 4, 2018 at 7:10 am at 7:10 am said:
“The sad thing…”
(Actually, the criminal, conspiracy thing….)
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/409817-russia-collusion-bombshell-dnc-lawyers-met-with-fbi-on-dossier-before
* * *
More analysis here by J E Dyer.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/10/04/explosive-house-testimony-on-russiagate-mystery-fbi-informant-fbi-meeting-with-dnc-reps/
Sergey on October 4, 2018 at 7:48 am at 7:48 am said:
It seems USA needs more tough anti-defamation laws.
* * *
But not ones that can be used by the left to harass people, which is how most of them are positioned.
What we need are more judges willing to (1) slap down snowflakes who use the courts in lieu of reasoned debate: Mark Steyn is in his seventh year of defending against Michael Mann’s claim that he was “defamed” by a one-paragraph snarky comment in an opinion editorial; I believe the judge is unwilling to make a decision because the correct one is so anathema to the left.
https://www.steynonline.com/7734/the-vertigo-at-the-top-of-the-stick
(2) allow fair challenges to biased news reports that maliciously defame public figures (and private ones as well; anybody who writes on social media is “public” now).
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/21/the-associated-press-judges-signal-theyll-revive-sarah-palin-defamation-lawsuit.html
i’m just saying, if you have a policy not to use stolen information yourself to make negative commentary that’s okay with me. Lots of bloggers didn’t have a problem using the leaked climate server info to attack climate science.
If you follow such a policy yourself, you have a legitimate claim to attack news sources for doing it.
markq throws out the weak “You are a hypocrite” charge (of course he has never been inconsistent in his own behavior) in asking for an impossible standard that the left will never comply with. Stolen of leaked tax records used by the NYT – all good. Fraudulent science used to formulate national and international policy – all good. Criticism of said policy because the fraudsters didn’t reveal their crimes – bad. Criticism of the NYT enabling criminal release of confidential data – bad. How would marq like his tax or medical records to be released for the benefit of the NYT – good?
Quite to tool to silence criticism of the left (proposed by markq). Genius! /s
I opened a 401(k) account in 1987 to minimize my tax liability. Does this mean that I engaged in tax evasion?
Another NYT article where the article was written to justify a sensational headline.
markq:
No, that is NOT what you were “just saying.” In fact, it’s not what you were saying at all, Mr. Troll.
But even if it were, it happens to be absurd. Logic is not your strong point.
(1) Leaked records of all kinds are not the same as leaked IRS records (or leaked doctor records, or leaked therapist records, for that matter). IRS records are confidential information that is protected by penalty of law. They are under a special class of high protection.
(2) Did you ever hear of the word “and”? A person can be against the leak of information that is private (such as an email correspondence, for example) AND also discuss the information disclosed, evaluate what it means, and have an opinion about that.
(3) I have never leaked information in my life. And believe me, I have a lot of confidential information from other people (legally confidential information from therapy) that I have never divulged and that it would take a court order to make me divulge. So even by that stupid rubric of yours, I would have every right to criticize the NY Times.
“The Times is now accusing Trump of tax fraud”
Excuse me, Neo. I believe you misspelled “always.”
The Times really overshot the mark on this one. They’re alleging criminal fraud and the NY state tax attorney’s are looking into it. This was done, obviously, as a Hail Mary attempt to take down Trump using the tax courts.
It will most likely fail, but will prove to his base, and many outside his base, that the Establishment is once again trying to take him down.
Now, if they hadn’t implied criminal tax fraud and just showed that 1) Trump received a LOT MORE than $1 million dollar loan from his father and 2) Trump is no different than other mega-rich people in that he pays people to hide his wealth (legally but in a scummy fashion) they would have eroded his support among the middle-class working Americans who voted for him.
Gods if the Dems weren’t so damn stupid maybe they would have taken him down already.