More Trump fraud: businesses keep 2 sets of numbers, one for taxes, the other to get loans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All large businesses maintain two sets of books. This is a simple fact of life for businesses in the US. It is discussed in Managerial Accounting courses in any college/university. This is because tax law and GAAP do not have to use the same basis for accounting.

Seeing liberals hyperventilating about a completely normal thing is par for the course.

BS. GAAP and tax accounting are different, but proper GAAP accounting gives you information to reconcile with tax accounting.

Providing made up numbets to lenders is a different matter altogether.

LOL, are you arguing that there is but one way to do GAAP-compliant accounting? It is not a black or white decision to decide the proper treatment of transactions and balances. The decisions exist along a sliding scale between conservative and aggressive. Given the exact same set if businesses activities, there can be many many different Tax and GAAP-compliant outcomes. Just because the numbers are different or seem aggressive does not mean they are made up.

I’m not arguing that GAAP doesn’t require judgements and interpretations.

I’m calling you out for vapidly defending Trump with an irrelevant point. The finding of the investigation — supported by a number of professors— is that the financials given to lenders are fraudulent, not simply aggressive.

As the article said, “There can be legitimate reasons for numbers to diverge between tax and loan documents, the experts noted, but some of the gaps seemed to have no reasonable justification.”

Your hatred has made you blind and delirious. Where did I defend Trump? I merely defended the reality that it is normal to have two sets of accounting books. Just because there doesn't SEEM to be a reasonable justification does not mean there isn't one. Professionals reserve judgement after looking through relevant facts. I recommend a thorough audit of Trump, but people like you make it all to easy to dismiss your arguments because it is not rooted in rationality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No surprises here to anyone who paid attention.

IKR
another day, another raft of evidence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All large businesses maintain two sets of books. This is a simple fact of life for businesses in the US. It is discussed in Managerial Accounting courses in any college/university. This is because tax law and GAAP do not have to use the same basis for accounting.

Seeing liberals hyperventilating about a completely normal thing is par for the course.

BS. GAAP and tax accounting are different, but proper GAAP accounting gives you information to reconcile with tax accounting.

Providing made up numbets to lenders is a different matter altogether.

LOL, are you arguing that there is but one way to do GAAP-compliant accounting? It is not a black or white decision to decide the proper treatment of transactions and balances. The decisions exist along a sliding scale between conservative and aggressive. Given the exact same set if businesses activities, there can be many many different Tax and GAAP-compliant outcomes. Just because the numbers are different or seem aggressive does not mean they are made up.

I’m not arguing that GAAP doesn’t require judgements and interpretations.

I’m calling you out for vapidly defending Trump with an irrelevant point. The finding of the investigation — supported by a number of professors— is that the financials given to lenders are fraudulent, not simply aggressive.

As the article said, “There can be legitimate reasons for numbers to diverge between tax and loan documents, the experts noted, but some of the gaps seemed to have no reasonable justification.”

Your hatred has made you blind and delirious. Where did I defend Trump? I merely defended the reality that it is normal to have two sets of accounting books. Just because there doesn't SEEM to be a reasonable justification does not mean there isn't one. Professionals reserve judgement after looking through relevant facts. I recommend a thorough audit of Trump, but people like you make it all to easy to dismiss your arguments because it is not rooted in rationality.

Okay, boss. There could be a reasonable explanation for all of the inconsistencies described in the article. Just as there could be a reasonable explanation to the heroic lengths that Trump is goiong to in order to prevent the disclosure of his tax returns.

I'm not creative enough to imagine those reasonable explanations. I'll leave them to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All large businesses maintain two sets of books. This is a simple fact of life for businesses in the US. It is discussed in Managerial Accounting courses in any college/university. This is because tax law and GAAP do not have to use the same basis for accounting.

Seeing liberals hyperventilating about a completely normal thing is par for the course.

It's hilarious that you think you can have differing accounting data for a loan versus what is reported to the IRS based on GAAD principles.

-attorney with an MBA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All large businesses maintain two sets of books. This is a simple fact of life for businesses in the US. It is discussed in Managerial Accounting courses in any college/university. This is because tax law and GAAP do not have to use the same basis for accounting.

Seeing liberals hyperventilating about a completely normal thing is par for the course.

I recognize your writing - weren't you part of the accounting team in Enron?

Why are liberals so eager to demonstrate their ignorance and contempt for real actual knowledge. Two sets of accounting books being normal isn't some loophole or nefarious behavior, it simply reflect that the US government uses different accounting requirements than banks. It's like a runner using different shoes for trail running and pavement running - it just is.

GAAP vs. tax accounting treatment does not explain 2x the amount of rent for a particular building or wildly discrepant occupancy figures. They just don't.

Stop cluttering this discussion with red herrings.

Can you please explain how the occupancy percentage of a specific building would be treated differently for purposes of GAAP accouting vs. tax accounting?

Hint: there is no difference.

Unlike you, I know enough about accounting to know that only a detailed audit can uncover the justification for the different figures. No one who has only read a newspaper article or have seen only a property tax filing can have any type of an informed opinion on this. I will restate that I am not claiming there is no fraud, just that there is nothing wrong with there being different figures or having two sets of accounting books.

Again:
Can you please explain how the occupancy percentage of a specific building would be treated differently for purposes of GAAP accouting vs. tax accounting?

This is an academic exercise and since - clearly - you are an expert, you can provide examples of legally allowable discrepancies in the occupancy ratio.

I am not a NY state/city tax law expert, so I have no idea what could account for differences. Nor do I normally deal with large commercial real estate operations, especially ones with complex ownership structures, licensing agreements, and easements. I would point you to the experts cited in the article, not one of which concluded that there is fraud, just that is highly suspicious, and warrants a closer look, because any real professional would reserve judgement until they have reviewed all relevant facts. As for professors, it's arguable if they are professionals... Again, I recommend an audit of Trump, but the the mere fact that there is a difference is not proof of fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All large businesses maintain two sets of books. This is a simple fact of life for businesses in the US. It is discussed in Managerial Accounting courses in any college/university. This is because tax law and GAAP do not have to use the same basis for accounting.

Seeing liberals hyperventilating about a completely normal thing is par for the course.

It's hilarious that you think you can have differing accounting data for a loan versus what is reported to the IRS based on GAAD principles.

-attorney with an MBA

As a fellow MBA degree holder, it's people like you that give the rest of us a bad name. Of course you can have different accounting data for a loan versus IRS. You don't report to IRS based on GAAP, as IRS does not follow GAAP. Go Google Tax accounting vs GAAP.

God help your clients. Just goes to show that passing the bar is no guarantee of intelligence or wisdom, which is why so many lawyers barely eek out a living doing document review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All large businesses maintain two sets of books. This is a simple fact of life for businesses in the US. It is discussed in Managerial Accounting courses in any college/university. This is because tax law and GAAP do not have to use the same basis for accounting.

Seeing liberals hyperventilating about a completely normal thing is par for the course.

I see you didn't bother to read the article. Was it too long for you?

It probably had too many multi-syllable words for PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All large businesses maintain two sets of books. This is a simple fact of life for businesses in the US. It is discussed in Managerial Accounting courses in any college/university. This is because tax law and GAAP do not have to use the same basis for accounting.

Seeing liberals hyperventilating about a completely normal thing is par for the course.

It's hilarious that you think you can have differing accounting data for a loan versus what is reported to the IRS based on GAAD principles.

-attorney with an MBA

As a fellow MBA degree holder, it's people like you that give the rest of us a bad name. Of course you can have different accounting data for a loan versus IRS. You don't report to IRS based on GAAP, as IRS does not follow GAAP. Go Google Tax accounting vs GAAP.

God help your clients. Just goes to show that passing the bar is no guarantee of intelligence or wisdom, which is why so many lawyers barely eek out a living doing document review.

Dp: The presentation of the financial statements can be different, but the underlying bookkeeping data is the same.

But, again, this side discussion is unimportant to what the investigation found about the Trump Org: That the differences between the financial statements used for varying purposes are inexplicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All large businesses maintain two sets of books. This is a simple fact of life for businesses in the US. It is discussed in Managerial Accounting courses in any college/university. This is because tax law and GAAP do not have to use the same basis for accounting.

Seeing liberals hyperventilating about a completely normal thing is par for the course.

It's hilarious that you think you can have differing accounting data for a loan versus what is reported to the IRS based on GAAD principles.

-attorney with an MBA

As a fellow MBA degree holder, it's people like you that give the rest of us a bad name. Of course you can have different accounting data for a loan versus IRS. You don't report to IRS based on GAAP, as IRS does not follow GAAP. Go Google Tax accounting vs GAAP.

God help your clients. Just goes to show that passing the bar is no guarantee of intelligence or wisdom, which is why so many lawyers barely eek out a living doing document review.

Dp: The presentation of the financial statements can be different, but the underlying bookkeeping data is the same.

But, again, this side discussion is unimportant to what the investigation found about the Trump Org: That the differences between the financial statements used for varying purposes are inexplicable.

Sure but we are not looking at the underlying book keeping or ledger, but the presentation with regards to tax filings and lender submissions. These differences are inexplicable to the extent that all such differences are inexplicable to anyone not privy to the underlying explanation. Just saying that it is inexplicable is stating the obvious and of no value, certainly not enough to come to the conclusion that there is fraud.

[Anonymous]

Two sets of books = cooking the books and Trump's appears to be a first class chef.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two sets of books = cooking the books and Trump's appears to be a first class chef.

Yeah - this seems like a question with an easy answer. This wasn't some ermahgd complex accounting system. It was two sets of books so you could do some frauds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No surprises here to anyone who paid attention.

Yep. Michael Cohen brought documents to his Congressional hearing proving this. Ocasio-Cortez asked him about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All large businesses maintain two sets of books. This is a simple fact of life for businesses in the US. It is discussed in Managerial Accounting courses in any college/university. This is because tax law and GAAP do not have to use the same basis for accounting.

Seeing liberals hyperventilating about a completely normal thing is par for the course.

I recognize your writing - weren't you part of the accounting team in Enron?

Why are liberals so eager to demonstrate their ignorance and contempt for real actual knowledge. Two sets of accounting books being normal isn't some loophole or nefarious behavior, it simply reflect that the US government uses different accounting requirements than banks. It's like a runner using different shoes for trail running and pavement running - it just is.

GAAP vs. tax accounting treatment does not explain 2x the amount of rent for a particular building or wildly discrepant occupancy figures. They just don't.

Stop cluttering this discussion with red herrings.

Can you please explain how the occupancy percentage of a specific building would be treated differently for purposes of GAAP accouting vs. tax accounting?

Hint: there is no difference.

Unlike you, I know enough about accounting to know that only a detailed audit can uncover the justification for the different figures. No one who has only read a newspaper article or have seen only a property tax filing can have any type of an informed opinion on this. I will restate that I am not claiming there is no fraud, just that there is nothing wrong with there being different figures or having two sets of accounting books.

Again:
Can you please explain how the occupancy percentage of a specific building would be treated differently for purposes of GAAP accouting vs. tax accounting?

This is an academic exercise and since - clearly - you are an expert, you can provide examples of legally allowable discrepancies in the occupancy ratio.

I am not a NY state/city tax law expert, so I have no idea what could account for differences. Nor do I normally deal with large commercial real estate operations, especially ones with complex ownership structures, licensing agreements, and easements. I would point you to the experts cited in the article, not one of which concluded that there is fraud, just that is highly suspicious, and warrants a closer look, because any real professional would reserve judgement until they have reviewed all relevant facts. As for professors, it's arguable if they are professionals... Again, I recommend an audit of Trump, but the the mere fact that there is a difference is not proof of fraud.

You’re going to strain something reaching that hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All large businesses maintain two sets of books. This is a simple fact of life for businesses in the US. It is discussed in Managerial Accounting courses in any college/university. This is because tax law and GAAP do not have to use the same basis for accounting.

Seeing liberals hyperventilating about a completely normal thing is par for the course.

I recognize your writing - weren't you part of the accounting team in Enron?

Why are liberals so eager to demonstrate their ignorance and contempt for real actual knowledge. Two sets of accounting books being normal isn't some loophole or nefarious behavior, it simply reflect that the US government uses different accounting requirements than banks. It's like a runner using different shoes for trail running and pavement running - it just is.

GAAP vs. tax accounting treatment does not explain 2x the amount of rent for a particular building or wildly discrepant occupancy figures. They just don't.

Stop cluttering this discussion with red herrings.

Can you please explain how the occupancy percentage of a specific building would be treated differently for purposes of GAAP accouting vs. tax accounting?

Hint: there is no difference.

Unlike you, I know enough about accounting to know that only a detailed audit can uncover the justification for the different figures. No one who has only read a newspaper article or have seen only a property tax filing can have any type of an informed opinion on this. I will restate that I am not claiming there is no fraud, just that there is nothing wrong with there being different figures or having two sets of accounting books.

Again:
Can you please explain how the occupancy percentage of a specific building would be treated differently for purposes of GAAP accouting vs. tax accounting?

This is an academic exercise and since - clearly - you are an expert, you can provide examples of legally allowable discrepancies in the occupancy ratio.

I am not a NY state/city tax law expert, so I have no idea what could account for differences. Nor do I normally deal with large commercial real estate operations, especially ones with complex ownership structures, licensing agreements, and easements. I would point you to the experts cited in the article, not one of which concluded that there is fraud, just that is highly suspicious, and warrants a closer look, because any real professional would reserve judgement until they have reviewed all relevant facts. As for professors, it's arguable if they are professionals... Again, I recommend an audit of Trump, but the the mere fact that there is a difference is not proof of fraud.

OMG I need a drink. Please say something about how Obama vacationed all the way in "Hawaii" which is way worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All large businesses maintain two sets of books. This is a simple fact of life for businesses in the US. It is discussed in Managerial Accounting courses in any college/university. This is because tax law and GAAP do not have to use the same basis for accounting.

Seeing liberals hyperventilating about a completely normal thing is par for the course.

I recognize your writing - weren't you part of the accounting team in Enron?

Why are liberals so eager to demonstrate their ignorance and contempt for real actual knowledge. Two sets of accounting books being normal isn't some loophole or nefarious behavior, it simply reflect that the US government uses different accounting requirements than banks. It's like a runner using different shoes for trail running and pavement running - it just is.

GAAP vs. tax accounting treatment does not explain 2x the amount of rent for a particular building or wildly discrepant occupancy figures. They just don't.

Stop cluttering this discussion with red herrings.

Can you please explain how the occupancy percentage of a specific building would be treated differently for purposes of GAAP accouting vs. tax accounting?

Hint: there is no difference.

Unlike you, I know enough about accounting to know that only a detailed audit can uncover the justification for the different figures. No one who has only read a newspaper article or have seen only a property tax filing can have any type of an informed opinion on this. I will restate that I am not claiming there is no fraud, just that there is nothing wrong with there being different figures or having two sets of accounting books.

Again:
Can you please explain how the occupancy percentage of a specific building would be treated differently for purposes of GAAP accouting vs. tax accounting?

This is an academic exercise and since - clearly - you are an expert, you can provide examples of legally allowable discrepancies in the occupancy ratio.

I am not a NY state/city tax law expert, so I have no idea what could account for differences. Nor do I normally deal with large commercial real estate operations, especially ones with complex ownership structures, licensing agreements, and easements. I would point you to the experts cited in the article, not one of which concluded that there is fraud, just that is highly suspicious, and warrants a closer look, because any real professional would reserve judgement until they have reviewed all relevant facts. As for professors, it's arguable if they are professionals... Again, I recommend an audit of Trump, but the the mere fact that there is a difference is not proof of fraud.

You’re going to strain something reaching that hard.

The people doing the reaching are the ones concluding that there is fraud. Acknowledging the reality of tax vs GAAP accounting and reserving judgement is a conservative (in accounting parlance) position.