Here's a quote tucked deep in the NYT article that illustrates how they try to spin every fact to fit their "trump is a liar and a crook" narrative.
"For 2005 through 2007... he paid substantial federal income taxes for the first time in his life: a total of $70.1 million."
Huh? He actually paid over $70 million in personal federal income taxes?
Originally Posted by lustylad
They don't actually say it in the article, but he probably got the $70 million back. Legislation was passed during the Obama administration to allow people with business losses like Trump's to carry back the losses to previous years and apply for refunds. So that was probably the source of his $72.9 million refund that the IRS is questioning. And the reason he "only" got $72.9 million back on $700 million of accumulated losses. With a 35% tax rate, he would have gotten back $245 million if he'd paid that much in tax during the applicable prior years.
I didn't read the whole article yet, but it sounds like the authors lacked a decent tax & accounting background and were in over their heads trying to wade through 20+ years of returns. I suggest waiting to see what the WSJ has to say. They understand business. The New York Times doesn't. They just pretend to know enough to vilify it.
Originally Posted by lustylad
Don't count on that happening. As you say, somehow the New York Times got a hold of 20+ years of tax returns, that they say were obtained by their source legally. That may be true, but the Times sure as hell didn't get them legally. The source will be in big trouble if caught. The WSJ probably won't get copies of the returns. And if they do, it's possible they might not report on them because of moral and ethical considerations. If I were an editor of a newspaper I sure as hell wouldn't be analyzing peoples' confidential tax returns and publishing what I come up with for all to see. But maybe that's just me.
Trump has hundreds of businesses. Some are profitable, others show losses. In real estate, depreciation can make cashflow-positive ventures show losses for tax purposes. And guess what? Losses in some businesses can be used to offset profits in others. This stuff is only a revelation to idiots who never studied business or the tax code or worked a lick in the real world.
Originally Posted by lustylad
The real revelation here is that Trump would be broke if not for stiffing his creditors. And he's stiffed them more than once. For me, that's his real sin, not violations of tax regulations. I feel sorry for the institutions and people (like Atlantic City bondholders) who loaned him money.
Basically he borrowed lots of money, put it into businesses that failed, and ran up huge tax losses. Because of the way the tax code worked, when he failed to repay his creditors, he didn't have to pay tax on the "forgiveness of debt income," but he did get to keep much of the benefit of the losses. The way he did this was perfectly legal on the first 900 million in losses from the Atlantic City Casinos. The way he used part of the next $700 million in losses is being questioned by the IRS, because he retained an interest in the business that generated the losses.
What we haven't discussed, the NYT article says Trump has a lot of debt coming due in the next few years, more than $400 million, and he may not have enough steady income coming in to satisfy the banks so they'll roll over the loans. Add to that the $100 million the IRS is coming after (the $72.9 million tax refund plus accumulated interest) and the losses he's running up year after year on his golf courses and the like, and he may land in bankruptcy court.