Trump tax returns

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by dyqik » Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:18 am

tom p wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:05 am
Gentleman Jim wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:36 am
tom p wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:29 am
corrupt US politicians (surely an oxymoron) working for some dodgy company rather than their constituents.
Oxymoron or tautology?

<looks around to return pedant hat to it's rightful owner>
FFS. Yes, obviously that.
I am so tired that I am making ridiculous dumb errors like that. What a Wally.
It's not a tautology either, unless you want to claim that every voter in the Western world is corrupted by corporations.

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by noggins » Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:54 am

dyqik wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 1:00 pm
plebian wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:52 am
Official records maybe, but as the quote states, the defendants may have mitigating evidence that explains the records but which they dispose of through normal tidying exercises.

Do you have all your payslips for the last 10years and p60s? HMRC say you didn't pay tax in 2010 on earnings, I presume you have the paperwork to prove that you did.
Yes.

I have all my payslips going back to 2005, on paper. I also have all my payslips I've ever received in this country, from 2011 on, but those are all electronic, and cost nothing to store.

I also have all my tax returns, ever.

The statute of limitations strikes me as most important for assaults, criminal damage, etc. that result from arguments and fights, where witness evidence of what happened at the time is subject to memories fading and changing, particularly around mitigating circumstances, whether Han shot first, etc.

Yeah but you are weird. Normal people throw that sh.t away.

Interestingly I asked HMRC if they could tell me my income tax history (long story) and they said they only had the past 7 years.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by dyqik » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:01 pm

The UK stuff is just payslips that piled up in my drawer at work, because I had to put them somewhere, and then got shipped to my new office in the US, because I couldn't be bothered to sort them out.

My US ones are all in the computer system provided by my work to pay us. The tax returns are just TurboTax output PDFs that went on my Google Drive for safe keeping.

I submit that people who actively sort and throw out old records, but keep 7 years worth only are the weird ones.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by tom p » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:11 pm

dyqik wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:18 am
tom p wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:05 am
Gentleman Jim wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:36 am


Oxymoron or tautology?

<looks around to return pedant hat to it's rightful owner>
FFS. Yes, obviously that.
I am so tired that I am making ridiculous dumb errors like that. What a Wally.
It's not a tautology either, unless you want to claim that every voter in the Western world is corrupted by corporations.
I think you may have misread that, or maybe I was unclear, but I thought the position of the bracket made it obvious that it is the phrase "corrupt US politicians" that I am (or should have been) saying is a tautology. I am, therefore, saying that every politician in the United States of America is corrupt. Now, admittedly that's a hint of hyperbole, but only a hint. The corrupting influence of the massive amounts of money in US politics is well-documented & a very sizeable chunk of the national politicians are irredeemably corrupted by it.
Of course, the word "corrupt" is only true if you think that politicians should represent their constituents, rather than the interests of the wealthy people, companies and membership organisations like the NRA who fund them and buy political advertisements on their behalf.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by dyqik » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:23 pm

tom p wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:11 pm
dyqik wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:18 am
It's not a tautology either, unless you want to claim that every voter in the Western world is corrupted by corporations.
I think you may have misread that, or maybe I was unclear, but I thought the position of the bracket made it obvious that it is the phrase "corrupt US politicians" that I am (or should have been) saying is a tautology. I am, therefore, saying that every politician in the United States of America is corrupt. Now, admittedly that's a hint of hyperbole, but only a hint. The corrupting influence of the massive amounts of money in US politics is well-documented & a very sizeable chunk of the national politicians are irredeemably corrupted by it.
Of course, the word "corrupt" is only true if you think that politicians should represent their constituents, rather than the interests of the wealthy people, companies and membership organisations like the NRA who fund them and buy political advertisements on their behalf.
I'm just surprised to see you repeating MAGA/Tea Party talking points.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by tom p » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:33 pm

dyqik wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:23 pm
tom p wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:11 pm
dyqik wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:18 am
It's not a tautology either, unless you want to claim that every voter in the Western world is corrupted by corporations.
I think you may have misread that, or maybe I was unclear, but I thought the position of the bracket made it obvious that it is the phrase "corrupt US politicians" that I am (or should have been) saying is a tautology. I am, therefore, saying that every politician in the United States of America is corrupt. Now, admittedly that's a hint of hyperbole, but only a hint. The corrupting influence of the massive amounts of money in US politics is well-documented & a very sizeable chunk of the national politicians are irredeemably corrupted by it.
Of course, the word "corrupt" is only true if you think that politicians should represent their constituents, rather than the interests of the wealthy people, companies and membership organisations like the NRA who fund them and buy political advertisements on their behalf.
I'm just surprised to see you repeating MAGA/Tea Party talking points.
It's been true long before the Cock brothers or t'rump got into politics.
Everywhere has problems; but the USA is especially bad compared to the rest of the western world.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by dyqik » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:57 pm

tom p wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:33 pm
dyqik wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:23 pm
tom p wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:11 pm


I think you may have misread that, or maybe I was unclear, but I thought the position of the bracket made it obvious that it is the phrase "corrupt US politicians" that I am (or should have been) saying is a tautology. I am, therefore, saying that every politician in the United States of America is corrupt. Now, admittedly that's a hint of hyperbole, but only a hint. The corrupting influence of the massive amounts of money in US politics is well-documented & a very sizeable chunk of the national politicians are irredeemably corrupted by it.
Of course, the word "corrupt" is only true if you think that politicians should represent their constituents, rather than the interests of the wealthy people, companies and membership organisations like the NRA who fund them and buy political advertisements on their behalf.
I'm just surprised to see you repeating MAGA/Tea Party talking points.
It's been true long before the Cock brothers or t'rump got into politics.
Everywhere has problems; but the USA is especially bad compared to the rest of the western world.
I'm not convinced of that. I suspect that it's more that other countries are subtler and less open about it.

For example, the UK has at least one political party and a civil service that's often deeply in service of corporate interests. It's just that most of that interest flows by nods and winks, social functions, old boy networks and company, media and think-tank directorships and the like rather than openly declared donations to reelection funds. This is mostly a function of the more nationally integrated and unified classist UK society vs the US's more disparate and somewhat less classist society.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by tom p » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:42 pm

Both US political parties are in hock to big money, as opposed to one of the UK's ones (other countries also have left-wing parties that aren't completely bought by big money - instead they have their own corrupting influences).
The civil service problem is surely at least as true in the US as in the UK, with the added corrupting factor of the heads of departments usually being rich people buying their jobs.
No matter how bad any problems in the UK civil service might be, you'd never get anything as awful and blatant as the head of accuweather being picked to head the met office.

As for the USA being less classist - social mobility is no better in merkania than the UK - look at figures 2 & 5 (and even 4) from this OECD report on social mobility. You might not have an official aristocracy or royal family, but in all other respects your status & earnings as an adult are as likely to be governed by who your parents are in the USA as in the UK. The only difference is that you have the American Dream - that toxic victim-blaming prosperity gospel for a secular theocracy so you think you're classless and can't see the problem.

User avatar
bolo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:17 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by bolo » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:55 pm

tom p wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:42 pm
The civil service problem is surely at least as true in the US as in the UK, with the added corrupting factor of the heads of departments usually being rich people buying their jobs.
No matter how bad any problems in the UK civil service might be, you'd never get anything as awful and blatant as the head of accuweather being picked to head the met office.
Political appointees are (a) not part of the civil service and (b) more comparable to ministers in the UK system than to top UK civil servants.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by dyqik » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:06 pm

tom p wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:42 pm
Both US political parties are in hock to big money, as opposed to one of the UK's ones (other countries also have left-wing parties that aren't completely bought by big money - instead they have their own corrupting influences).
The civil service problem is surely at least as true in the US as in the UK, with the added corrupting factor of the heads of departments usually being rich people buying their jobs.
No matter how bad any problems in the UK civil service might be, you'd never get anything as awful and blatant as the head of accuweather being picked to head the met office.

As for the USA being less classist - social mobility is no better in merkania than the UK - look at figures 2 & 5 (and even 4) from this OECD report on social mobility. You might not have an official aristocracy or royal family, but in all other respects your status & earnings as an adult are as likely to be governed by who your parents are in the USA as in the UK. The only difference is that you have the American Dream - that toxic victim-blaming prosperity gospel for a secular theocracy so you think you're classless and can't see the problem.
I know about social mobility in the US, thanks. I'm already taking those figures and the American Dream, etc. into account.

Again, you are repeating far-right talking points above, by painting all sides as equally and completely corrupt. The idea that both parties are equally corrupt and only an outsider like Donald Trump or whoever can drain the swamp is how Trump got elected, it's how Farage wins votes, etc. And it doesn't stand up to critical examination.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by tom p » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:28 pm

dyqik wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:06 pm
tom p wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:42 pm
Both US political parties are in hock to big money, as opposed to one of the UK's ones (other countries also have left-wing parties that aren't completely bought by big money - instead they have their own corrupting influences).
The civil service problem is surely at least as true in the US as in the UK, with the added corrupting factor of the heads of departments usually being rich people buying their jobs.
No matter how bad any problems in the UK civil service might be, you'd never get anything as awful and blatant as the head of accuweather being picked to head the met office.

As for the USA being less classist - social mobility is no better in merkania than the UK - look at figures 2 & 5 (and even 4) from this OECD report on social mobility. You might not have an official aristocracy or royal family, but in all other respects your status & earnings as an adult are as likely to be governed by who your parents are in the USA as in the UK. The only difference is that you have the American Dream - that toxic victim-blaming prosperity gospel for a secular theocracy so you think you're classless and can't see the problem.
I know about social mobility in the US, thanks. I'm already taking those figures and the American Dream, etc. into account.

Again, you are repeating far-right talking points above, by painting all sides as equally and completely corrupt. The idea that both parties are equally corrupt and only an outsider like Donald Trump or whoever can drain the swamp is how Trump got elected, it's how Farage wins votes, etc. And it doesn't stand up to critical examination.
Didn't say they were equally corrupt, just all corrupt.
And I acknowledged it's a bit of hyperbole.
Just because the far right has now adopted this claim, doesn't mean it originates with them
The left has despaired about corruption in US politics for a looooong time.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by tom p » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:30 pm

bolo wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:55 pm
tom p wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:42 pm
The civil service problem is surely at least as true in the US as in the UK, with the added corrupting factor of the heads of departments usually being rich people buying their jobs.
No matter how bad any problems in the UK civil service might be, you'd never get anything as awful and blatant as the head of accuweather being picked to head the met office.
Political appointees are (a) not part of the civil service and (b) more comparable to ministers in the UK system than to top UK civil servants.
I may be mistaken, but from what I have read and seen, it seems like heads of what are agencies or autonomous bodies in the UK are also political appointees in the US (e.g. the weather service, the intelligence agencies, judges). Also the heads of these agencies seem to do far more day to day meddling than in the UK, mainly cos the civil servants want to tell the truth and these heads want to peddle lies to advance their own financial interests.

User avatar
bolo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:17 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by bolo » Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:02 pm

I don't know enough about exactly which entities are autonomous there versus here to give a good answer to that.

Here, the National Weather Service is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is part of the Department of Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce is a political appointee and is pretty clearly the equivalent of a UK minister of something. The Administrator of NOAA is an Under Secretary of Commerce, a political appointee and I think the equivalent of a junior minister. The Director of the NWS, I am pretty sure, is a career civil servant, not a political appointee.

User avatar
username
Clardic Fug
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:51 pm
Location: The Good Place

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by username » Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:11 pm

tom p wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:29 am
It's trivial easy to have one rule for businesses and another for employees. Equally trivial to distinguish between real employees like you and fake employees who really own the company but who pay themselves a nominal salary for tax purposes.
There may be good reasons for having the statute of limitations as it is, but I suspect that the real reasons are political interference from corrupt US politicians (surely an oxymoron) working for some dodgy company rather than their constituents.
I might be misunderstanding,but it appears you are working backwards from a desire to prosecute a particular individual rather than looking at why statutes of limitations exist in almost all OECD countries (what reforms have taken place already, what reforms are proposed, which have already been rejected etc). This is a bit cart before horse.

It's none of it *that* important, really, anyway(*); it's not clear on the face off it what Trump has actually done yet. There are published allegations about acts which may or may not be illegal, and any illegal bits may or may not be criminal but none of these things have been tested beyond journalism to date. I offered statutory limitations as a big reason for an (apparent) lack of prosecution thus far in response to plodder's question; I'm sure there are many other reasons possible which may even come down to him having done nothing illegal, idk, or that investigations are underway but progressing behind the scenes or that the NY AG is waiting until he's not president to start acting etc.

Probably also worth remembering we're talking about layers of tax stuff- IRS stuff is federal- we have not, afaik, seen that stuff yet. That's the subject of the current court fight about keeping the returns hidden. The income taxes LPM referred to are I think state taxes and are dealt with by the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (They also collect the New York City Personal Income Tax from residents, so at least there's only two layers to grind through). Applicable limitations, such as they are, apply to relevant jurisdictions; idk if the federal government would get involved in a state tax case, I suspect not.

eta*The statutes of limitations digression, I mean!
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.

User avatar
Martin_B
After Pie
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:20 pm
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by Martin_B » Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:31 am

bolo wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:02 pm
I don't know enough about exactly which entities are autonomous there versus here to give a good answer to that.

Here, the National Weather Service is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is part of the Department of Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce is a political appointee and is pretty clearly the equivalent of a UK minister of something. The Administrator of NOAA is an Under Secretary of Commerce, a political appointee and I think the equivalent of a junior minister. The Director of the NWS, I am pretty sure, is a career civil servant, not a political appointee.
However, in the UK all ministers and junior ministers are MPs. Here in Australia they are either MPs or senators. So they have at least been voted in by their local constituents (even if the local vote is usually based on the national leadership/party rather than the local MP).

In America, these political appointees are specifically not congressmen or senators. I recall that John Ashcroft lost his senate seat (to a dead candidate!) and then became the Attorney General for Dubya. He couldn't have taken that role if he'd still been a senator, or he'd have had to have given up his seat.
"My interest is in the future, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life there"

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by dyqik » Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:40 am

Martin_B wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:31 am
bolo wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:02 pm
I don't know enough about exactly which entities are autonomous there versus here to give a good answer to that.

Here, the National Weather Service is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is part of the Department of Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce is a political appointee and is pretty clearly the equivalent of a UK minister of something. The Administrator of NOAA is an Under Secretary of Commerce, a political appointee and I think the equivalent of a junior minister. The Director of the NWS, I am pretty sure, is a career civil servant, not a political appointee.
However, in the UK all ministers and junior ministers are MPs. Here in Australia they are either MPs or senators. So they have at least been voted in by their local constituents (even if the local vote is usually based on the national leadership/party rather than the local MP).

In America, these political appointees are specifically not congressmen or senators. I recall that John Ashcroft lost his senate seat (to a dead candidate!) and then became the Attorney General for Dubya. He couldn't have taken that role if he'd still been a senator, or he'd have had to have given up his seat.
This is based on the pretty sound theory that the legislature can't carry out effective oversight of the executive if the executive are members of the legislature, and by definition, members of the majority party.

Of course it breaks down when the legislature majority and the executive are from the same party, but it doesn't really break down more than it does in every Parliamentary executive system by default. That's not too say the US is better at oversight, more that it would be worse if it had a UK or US style system.

User avatar
bolo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:17 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by bolo » Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:15 am

Martin_B wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:31 am
However, in the UK all ministers and junior ministers are MPs. Here in Australia they are either MPs or senators. So they have at least been voted in by their local constituents (even if the local vote is usually based on the national leadership/party rather than the local MP).

In America, these political appointees are specifically not congressmen or senators. I recall that John Ashcroft lost his senate seat (to a dead candidate!) and then became the Attorney General for Dubya. He couldn't have taken that role if he'd still been a senator, or he'd have had to have given up his seat.
This is correct. Members of Congress cannot hold any office in the Executive branch. This is in the Constitution, Article I, Section 6.

User avatar
bolo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:17 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by bolo » Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:32 am

dyqik wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:40 am
This is based on the pretty sound theory that the legislature can't carry out effective oversight of the executive if the executive are members of the legislature, and by definition, members of the majority party.

Of course it breaks down when the legislature majority and the executive are from the same party, but it doesn't really break down more than it does in every Parliamentary executive system by default. That's not too say the US is better at oversight, more that it would be worse if it had a UK or US style system.
It only partially breaks down. First, there are two chambers, so even if the President's party holds a majority in one, it may not in the other (as at present). Second, congressional leaders tend to stick around longer than any President, so they have an incentive to protect the institution's prerogatives and independence as a coequal branch of government, rather than just going along with what the President says, even if he's of their party.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by tom p » Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:02 am

username wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:11 pm
tom p wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:29 am
It's trivial easy to have one rule for businesses and another for employees. Equally trivial to distinguish between real employees like you and fake employees who really own the company but who pay themselves a nominal salary for tax purposes.
There may be good reasons for having the statute of limitations as it is, but I suspect that the real reasons are political interference from corrupt US politicians (surely an oxymoron) working for some dodgy company rather than their constituents.
I might be misunderstanding,but it appears you are working backwards from a desire to prosecute a particular individual rather than looking at why statutes of limitations exist in almost all OECD countries (what reforms have taken place already, what reforms are proposed, which have already been rejected etc). This is a bit cart before horse.
You are indeed misreading it. Possibly as a result of your desire to defend a particular type of individual; but that may be me unfairly judging the current comment on past behaviour, so I won't do that.

If a company is failing to pay its taxes, then it is either incompetent or fraudulent.
If they are incompetent, then they are likely to be found out soon and get punished.
If they are fraudulent, then they may be able to hide the fraud for long enough that a pathetically short statute of limitations (5 years) will enable the individuals involved to get away with it.
Especially when said companies own the politicians, who in turn reduce the number of auditors at the IRS (down 1/3 since 2010 according to this ProPublica article I found).

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by tom p » Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:05 am

bolo wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:32 am
dyqik wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:40 am
This is based on the pretty sound theory that the legislature can't carry out effective oversight of the executive if the executive are members of the legislature, and by definition, members of the majority party.

Of course it breaks down when the legislature majority and the executive are from the same party, but it doesn't really break down more than it does in every Parliamentary executive system by default. That's not too say the US is better at oversight, more that it would be worse if it had a UK or US style system.
It only partially breaks down. First, there are two chambers, so even if the President's party holds a majority in one, it may not in the other (as at present). Second, congressional leaders tend to stick around longer than any President, so they have an incentive to protect the institution's prerogatives and independence as a coequal branch of government, rather than just going along with what the President says, even if he's of their party.
You say that, and then you see how Moscow Mitch behaves.
The US constitution is brilliant, IF the legislature does their job. If they don't, then the executive can do anything.

User avatar
username
Clardic Fug
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:51 pm
Location: The Good Place

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by username » Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:55 am

tom p wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:02 am
username wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:11 pm
tom p wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:29 am
It's trivial easy to have one rule for businesses and another for employees. Equally trivial to distinguish between real employees like you and fake employees who really own the company but who pay themselves a nominal salary for tax purposes.
There may be good reasons for having the statute of limitations as it is, but I suspect that the real reasons are political interference from corrupt US politicians (surely an oxymoron) working for some dodgy company rather than their constituents.
I might be misunderstanding,but it appears you are working backwards from a desire to prosecute a particular individual rather than looking at why statutes of limitations exist in almost all OECD countries (what reforms have taken place already, what reforms are proposed, which have already been rejected etc). This is a bit cart before horse.
You are indeed misreading it. Possibly as a result of your desire to defend a particular type of individual; but that may be me unfairly judging the current comment on past behaviour, so I won't do that.

If a company is failing to pay its taxes, then it is either incompetent or fraudulent.
If they are incompetent, then they are likely to be found out soon and get punished.
If they are fraudulent, then they may be able to hide the fraud for long enough that a pathetically short statute of limitations (5 years) will enable the individuals involved to get away with it.
Especially when said companies own the politicians, who in turn reduce the number of auditors at the IRS (down 1/3 since 2010 according to this ProPublica article I found).
Taxation is not straightforward and I am sure you are aware of the difference between avoidance, which is legal, and evasion, which is not. These distinctions often do not become apparent until fully tested at law.

Since the matters at hand (that is, the passing of wealth from Fred to his children*), occurred last century what has happened since 2010 is of questionable relevance.

*(If there are allegations about more recent shenanigans feel free to provide evidence and links; the scope of what is being discussed seems to be shifting like sand on a weatherbeaten beach)
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.

User avatar
username
Clardic Fug
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:51 pm
Location: The Good Place

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by username » Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:18 am

(Also, come to think of it, if this is state tax stuff, which is the tax stuff that we've seen so far, it is not an IRS matter, as I pointed out already)
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by tom p » Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:29 am

username wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:18 am
(Also, come to think of it, if this is state tax stuff, which is the tax stuff that we've seen so far, it is not an IRS matter, as I pointed out already)
The statute of limitations in NY state is 3-6 years. Again, stupidly short.
I get why they exist, but that seems excessively geared towards letting smart people get away with dodgy sh.t. Since they are generally written by wealthy people who can afford the smart people to help them do dodgy shenanigans, it's unsurprising

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by tom p » Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:32 am

username wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:55 am
tom p wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:02 am
username wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:11 pm


I might be misunderstanding,but it appears you are working backwards from a desire to prosecute a particular individual rather than looking at why statutes of limitations exist in almost all OECD countries (what reforms have taken place already, what reforms are proposed, which have already been rejected etc). This is a bit cart before horse.
You are indeed misreading it. Possibly as a result of your desire to defend a particular type of individual; but that may be me unfairly judging the current comment on past behaviour, so I won't do that.

If a company is failing to pay its taxes, then it is either incompetent or fraudulent.
If they are incompetent, then they are likely to be found out soon and get punished.
If they are fraudulent, then they may be able to hide the fraud for long enough that a pathetically short statute of limitations (5 years) will enable the individuals involved to get away with it.
Especially when said companies own the politicians, who in turn reduce the number of auditors at the IRS (down 1/3 since 2010 according to this ProPublica article I found).
Taxation is not straightforward
No sh.t, Sherlock
username wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:55 am
and I am sure you are aware of the difference between avoidance, which is legal, and evasion, which is not. These distinctions often do not become apparent until fully tested at law.
Indeed, but that's irrelevant cos thanks to a 5-year statute of limitations, many things could easily avoid being tested at law. As I'm sure you're aware.

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Trump tax returns

Post by Gfamily » Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:40 am

From here relating to US law
Statute of Limitations
The statute of limitations of a crime is the amount of time a prosecutor or a plaintiff has to file charges. In the case of taxes, it represents how long you should be looking over your shoulder after – willfully or otherwise – lying on your tax return.

The general rule of thumb is that the IRS has 3 years to audit your tax returns. If an investigation of your tax return reveals you concealed over 25% of your income, the IRS gets twice the time, 6 years, to file charges. However, this time period can be extended for a variety of reasons.

For instance, if you are not in the United States or you become a fugitive, the statute of limitations may be “tolled” – or stop running – until you are found or return home. Another matter to consider is when the 6-year period starts. The IRS could prosecute a series of fraudulent tax returns as a single charge and only start counting the 6-year period from your last act of tax evasion or fraud.

It gets worse. Although the IRS is limited to how far back it can look when filing charges in criminal court, there is no statute of limitations for civil tax fraud. This means the IRS can look back as far as it wants when suing for civil fraud. In practice the IRS rarely goes back more than 6 years because it has a high enough burden of proof to meet in fraud cases without having to deal with the added difficulties of proving older charges.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

Post Reply