Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The big issue here is that TRUMP borrowed from the banks and then defaulted on his loans thus screwing the banks NOT himself. Then he used the debt money that was defaulted as loss and carried over the loss for 15years offsetting any taxes. This is a big loophole. It is one thing to lose your money and claim loss. It is another thing to lose the banks money and claim loss on your tax returns, which is what Trump has done repeatedly. My bet is he has never paid taxes for over 3 decades.

It may not be illegal BUT it is a tax code that favors the rich and discriminates the average American. Because Rich people setup S-corps and they borrow in the S-corps name. When things don't go well they shut down the S-corp BUT they are not affected. So it's like the avg man should buy a home on S-Corp, never pay the mortgage, dissolve the S-Corp and then take the loss personally to offset tax payment. Can we do that? Of course not. Then why should the rich guys do it?

Now Trump wants to make the system even more favorable to the rich by giving himself tax cuts and drop estate taxes that benefits himself, Not the other 99%. He is boorish, misogynist, narcissistic Idiot. All of that are disqualifying by themselves. But he is a moocher that sucks every system dry by gaming the system in all possible ways. He is running for president to totally control the system for himself. Wake up America.

You are 100% wrong inyour first paragraph. From all accounts, the NOL people are freaked out about relates to Trumps PERSONAL investment in the Taj. It was the only one of his bankruptcies were he had skin in the game. To do the deal, he was required to be personally on the hook for 1 billion. It failed. He learned his lesson.

Beyond that, your post discloses you have heard about a lot of things and have little actual knowledge. That's dangerous.

How do you know he put his own money? Because he said so? Show us credible proof that he put his money down and that is the $1billion loss. Otherwise you are the one without credibility and that makes you a conned trumpkin.

The bankruptcy of the Taj is public record. Feel free to look it up. I am not here to do your work.

The idiot when exposed runs away because it is a lie. It is your job to prove your case otherwise it is a lie. I am not questioning the bankruptcy of trump tajmahal. But it was not his money he lost, it was banks money. Trump in the early1990s was not that rich to loan himself $1Billion. Do some math before you post. It shows your lack of intelligence and critical thinking ability. Bye.

Actually, the person making the original assertion must prove the case. And the original assertion is at the very top of this quote nest, which is that Trump's tax return losses were borrowed money from banks - in other words, he borrowed $X dollars from banks, lost it, didn't pay the banks back and all the while claiming the loss on his tax return.

I'm shaking my head in disbelief. Here you are typing passionately about a subject you obviously have zero knowledge of.

Look at the snopes link posted by someone above. Or you can google and find it yourself. The point was and it is legal, that he could take banks money , default on it, then take carry over loss in personal tax returns. It is a huge loophole.

I don't think you realize what the SNOPES link says. In addition to debt he owed to the banks, Trump had personal liabilities of 900 million - this is the portion that ultimately made it as a NOL carry forward on his tax return. One can only deduct loses of what he actually lost. You can't deduct loses of money you borrowed from someone else. Let me rephrase that: a settled loan that results in a reduction in amount of principal paid back to lender immediately results in the lender writing off the lost principal and the borrower recognizing the lost principal as income, which then washes against the actual operating loss. Simplified illustration:

Bank lends $100 at 0% interest rate
Borrower puts in $50 of his own money
Borrower has net operating loss of $75, settles loan for $50
Bank writes off $50 in losses, Borrower must now recognize $50 in income.
Borrower tax math: $50 income from unpaid principal, minus $75 in operating loss, results in $25 of net operating loss, which is exactly the amount of his own money that he lost, and is what he can report on the tax return. The borrower does not get to claim $75 in operating loss.

Trump runs his business as S-Corp. checkout S-Corp rules wrt to this situation. http://tax.cchgroup.com/images/fot/JPTE_10-03_Fellows.pdf

[Anonymous]

Trump runs his business as S-Corp. checkout S-Corp rules wrt to this situation. http://tax.cchgroup.com/images/fot/JPTE_10-03_Fellows.pdf

Upon what do you base this assertion? I did a brief search. Found a bunch of LLCs, LPs, C corporations, some GPs and no indication of a single solitary S corp. of course that would make total sense as a subchapter S corporation would be a wildly inappropriate vehicle for him to use given the nature of his business and his partners.

Perhaps you'd like to explain to our audience why that is as you seem to be the S corp guru?

[Anonymous]

^^bank passes lost onto other customers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump runs his business as S-Corp. checkout S-Corp rules wrt to this situation. http://tax.cchgroup.com/images/fot/JPTE_10-03_Fellows.pdf

Upon what do you base this assertion? I did a brief search. Found a bunch of LLCs, LPs, C corporations, some GPs and no indication of a single solitary S corp. of course that would make total sense as a subchapter S corporation would be a wildly inappropriate vehicle for him to use given the nature of his business and his partners.

Perhaps you'd like to explain to our audience why that is as you seem to be the S corp guru?

We both are speculating. That is the issue here. A person running a private enterprise UNWILLING to come out clean and transparent by releasing tax returns and other company financials is not the right person to lead a country. For all we know he can run for presidency so he can get a foot into Russia by changing laws here that will make it easy to get Russian investors. Or he may be easing up on Russian atrocities so Putin gives tax free protection for Trump organization.

It is also so difficult to separate himself from the company. So there is no way to eliminate conflict of interest. Plus the company is run by his own children WITHOUT other professionals in executive or board having real control. This is unprecedented and it will end up really bad for the USA.

It is different in a public company where there is so much more transparency and it is easy to separate the company and the individual because it will be professionally run without KIDS playing active role. Very different animals. I would prefer someone running a public company to run for office than a close and controversial private company owner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The big issue here is that TRUMP borrowed from the banks and then defaulted on his loans thus screwing the banks NOT himself. Then he used the debt money that was defaulted as loss and carried over the loss for 15years offsetting any taxes. This is a big loophole. It is one thing to lose your money and claim loss. It is another thing to lose the banks money and claim loss on your tax returns, which is what Trump has done repeatedly. My bet is he has never paid taxes for over 3 decades.

It may not be illegal BUT it is a tax code that favors the rich and discriminates the average American. Because Rich people setup S-corps and they borrow in the S-corps name. When things don't go well they shut down the S-corp BUT they are not affected. So it's like the avg man should buy a home on S-Corp, never pay the mortgage, dissolve the S-Corp and then take the loss personally to offset tax payment. Can we do that? Of course not. Then why should the rich guys do it?

Now Trump wants to make the system even more favorable to the rich by giving himself tax cuts and drop estate taxes that benefits himself, Not the other 99%. He is boorish, misogynist, narcissistic Idiot. All of that are disqualifying by themselves. But he is a moocher that sucks every system dry by gaming the system in all possible ways. He is running for president to totally control the system for himself. Wake up America.

You are 100% wrong inyour first paragraph. From all accounts, the NOL people are freaked out about relates to Trumps PERSONAL investment in the Taj. It was the only one of his bankruptcies were he had skin in the game. To do the deal, he was required to be personally on the hook for 1 billion. It failed. He learned his lesson.

Beyond that, your post discloses you have heard about a lot of things and have little actual knowledge. That's dangerous.

How do you know he put his own money? Because he said so? Show us credible proof that he put his money down and that is the $1billion loss. Otherwise you are the one without credibility and that makes you a conned trumpkin.

The bankruptcy of the Taj is public record. Feel free to look it up. I am not here to do your work.

The idiot when exposed runs away because it is a lie. It is your job to prove your case otherwise it is a lie. I am not questioning the bankruptcy of trump tajmahal. But it was not his money he lost, it was banks money. Trump in the early1990s was not that rich to loan himself $1Billion. Do some math before you post. It shows your lack of intelligence and critical thinking ability. Bye.

Actually, the person making the original assertion must prove the case. And the original assertion is at the very top of this quote nest, which is that Trump's tax return losses were borrowed money from banks - in other words, he borrowed $X dollars from banks, lost it, didn't pay the banks back and all the while claiming the loss on his tax return.

I'm shaking my head in disbelief. Here you are typing passionately about a subject you obviously have zero knowledge of.

Look at the snopes link posted by someone above. Or you can google and find it yourself. The point was and it is legal, that he could take banks money , default on it, then take carry over loss in personal tax returns. It is a huge loophole.

I don't think you realize what the SNOPES link says. In addition to debt he owed to the banks, Trump had personal liabilities of 900 million - this is the portion that ultimately made it as a NOL carry forward on his tax return. One can only deduct loses of what he actually lost. You can't deduct loses of money you borrowed from someone else. Let me rephrase that: a settled loan that results in a reduction in amount of principal paid back to lender immediately results in the lender writing off the lost principal and the borrower recognizing the lost principal as income, which then washes against the actual operating loss. Simplified illustration:

Bank lends $100 at 0% interest rate
Borrower puts in $50 of his own money
Borrower has net operating loss of $75, settles loan for $50
Bank writes off $50 in losses, Borrower must now recognize $50 in income.
Borrower tax math: $50 income from unpaid principal, minus $75 in operating loss, results in $25 of net operating loss, which is exactly the amount of his own money that he lost, and is what he can report on the tax return. The borrower does not get to claim $75 in operating loss.

Trump runs his business as S-Corp. checkout S-Corp rules wrt to this situation. http://tax.cchgroup.com/images/fot/JPTE_10-03_Fellows.pdf

Did you read what is in the PDF you linked? All that establishes is how S-Corp shareholders may be able to deduct business losses on their personal return but establishing additional basis through debt structuring. None of this says what happens when the loan is settled for less than full, which is the scenario being discussed.

[Anonymous]

I think this is such a non issue that Trump and his surrogates should have just deflected and ignored it. Instead they dug in deep with the genius and rambling on and on about changing the tax code. Stupid move, imo. I don't think any supporters care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump runs his business as S-Corp. checkout S-Corp rules wrt to this situation. http://tax.cchgroup.com/images/fot/JPTE_10-03_Fellows.pdf

Upon what do you base this assertion? I did a brief search. Found a bunch of LLCs, LPs, C corporations, some GPs and no indication of a single solitary S corp. of course that would make total sense as a subchapter S corporation would be a wildly inappropriate vehicle for him to use given the nature of his business and his partners.

Perhaps you'd like to explain to our audience why that is as you seem to be the S corp guru?

We both are speculating. That is the issue here. A person running a private enterprise UNWILLING to come out clean and transparent by releasing tax returns and other company financials is not the right person to lead a country. For all we know he can run for presidency so he can get a foot into Russia by changing laws here that will make it easy to get Russian investors. Or he may be easing up on Russian atrocities so Putin gives tax free protection for Trump organization.

It is also so difficult to separate himself from the company. So there is no way to eliminate conflict of interest. Plus the company is run by his own children WITHOUT other professionals in executive or board having real control. This is unprecedented and it will end up really bad for the USA.

It is different in a public company where there is so much more transparency and it is easy to separate the company and the individual because it will be professionally run without KIDS playing active role. Very different animals. I would prefer someone running a public company to run for office than a close and controversial private company owner.

"We are speculation" is not an excuse for pulling something out of thin air and offering it as an argument. Why don't you speculate that Trump operates all of his companies as non-for-profits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically because he was a horrible businessman, he took a 900 Million loss and has been amortizing it for decades in tax avoidance.

So we are all chumps for paying our 30% or whatever while he freeloads on the government and then bases his campaign on poor government and his business acumen.

Ya, he's smart.

Asshole.

Where's your outrage for the TRILLIONS Google, Facebook, Exxon, Amazon, General Electric, etc. dodge? Trump is small potatoes.

Those are ALL corps. Trump's PERSONAL deduction in 1995 was 1.9% of NATIONWIDE total.

I don't think Trumpsters understand the difference between personal and corporate tax returns. If Trumpsters want to talk about corporate tax returns, then by all means, let's drudge up the Trump organization tax returns and see how much that organization actually paid. And btw, those other corporations are all public, meaning they answer to shareholders, and shareholders, including individuals who own shares through mutual funds, make money off of those companies. Trump Org. is private. Only the Trump family really makes money off of those loopholes.

Do you know Jeff Bezos owns a big chunk of Amazon, Mark Zukerberg owns a big chunk of facebook and so on .... When the companies owned by Jeff Bezos and Mark Zukerburg take the exact same type of losses to minimize their companies' taxes, who benefited the most? Jeff Bezos and Mark Zukerburg the persons.

Wrong. Publicly traded companies.

Now if they sell stock at a loss, they can take a $3,000/year carry over against future capital gains.

Which part is wrong? Who is the largest shareholder of Amazon or facebook? It's not you, it's not even some large mutual fund. Jeff Bezos, the individual owns a large chunk of the company. Whether the company is publicly traded or not is irrelevant. Their fortunes tied with their companies. Jeff Bezos or Mark Zukerberg's net worth fluctuates in the amount of billions on a day-to-day basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically because he was a horrible businessman, he took a 900 Million loss and has been amortizing it for decades in tax avoidance.

So we are all chumps for paying our 30% or whatever while he freeloads on the government and then bases his campaign on poor government and his business acumen.

Ya, he's smart.

Asshole.

Where's your outrage for the TRILLIONS Google, Facebook, Exxon, Amazon, General Electric, etc. dodge? Trump is small potatoes.

Those are ALL corps. Trump's PERSONAL deduction in 1995 was 1.9% of NATIONWIDE total.

I don't think Trumpsters understand the difference between personal and corporate tax returns. If Trumpsters want to talk about corporate tax returns, then by all means, let's drudge up the Trump organization tax returns and see how much that organization actually paid. And btw, those other corporations are all public, meaning they answer to shareholders, and shareholders, including individuals who own shares through mutual funds, make money off of those companies. Trump Org. is private. Only the Trump family really makes money off of those loopholes.

Do you know Jeff Bezos owns a big chunk of Amazon, Mark Zukerberg owns a big chunk of facebook and so on .... When the companies owned by Jeff Bezos and Mark Zukerburg take the exact same type of losses to minimize their companies' taxes, who benefited the most? Jeff Bezos and Mark Zukerburg the persons.

Wrong. Publicly traded companies.

Now if they sell stock at a loss, they can take a $3,000/year carry over against future capital gains.

Which part is wrong? Who is the largest shareholder of Amazon or facebook? It's not you, it's not even some large mutual fund. Jeff Bezos, the individual owns a large chunk of the company. Whether the company is publicly traded or not is irrelevant. Their fortunes tied with their companies. Jeff Bezos or Mark Zukerberg's net worth fluctuates in the amount of billions on a day-to-day basis.

That part is wrong.

Please don't play with money you're likely to get burned. And don't give tax advice. You'll definitely get sued

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically because he was a horrible businessman, he took a 900 Million loss and has been amortizing it for decades in tax avoidance.

So we are all chumps for paying our 30% or whatever while he freeloads on the government and then bases his campaign on poor government and his business acumen.

Ya, he's smart.

Asshole.

Where's your outrage for the TRILLIONS Google, Facebook, Exxon, Amazon, General Electric, etc. dodge? Trump is small potatoes.

Those are ALL corps. Trump's PERSONAL deduction in 1995 was 1.9% of NATIONWIDE total.

I don't think Trumpsters understand the difference between personal and corporate tax returns. If Trumpsters want to talk about corporate tax returns, then by all means, let's drudge up the Trump organization tax returns and see how much that organization actually paid. And btw, those other corporations are all public, meaning they answer to shareholders, and shareholders, including individuals who own shares through mutual funds, make money off of those companies. Trump Org. is private. Only the Trump family really makes money off of those loopholes.

Do you know Jeff Bezos owns a big chunk of Amazon, Mark Zukerberg owns a big chunk of facebook and so on .... When the companies owned by Jeff Bezos and Mark Zukerburg take the exact same type of losses to minimize their companies' taxes, who benefited the most? Jeff Bezos and Mark Zukerburg the persons.

Wrong. Publicly traded companies.

Now if they sell stock at a loss, they can take a $3,000/year carry over against future capital gains.

Which part is wrong? Who is the largest shareholder of Amazon or facebook? It's not you, it's not even some large mutual fund. Jeff Bezos, the individual owns a large chunk of the company. Whether the company is publicly traded or not is irrelevant. Their fortunes tied with their companies. Jeff Bezos or Mark Zukerberg's net worth fluctuates in the amount of billions on a day-to-day basis.

Are you seriously this obtuse?

Yes each of the individuals own significant amount of stock - as individuals. If the company takes a loss, those individuals cannot carry those losses onto their personal tax returns. They cannot do what Trump did with his Sub-Chapter S Corporation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically because he was a horrible businessman, he took a 900 Million loss and has been amortizing it for decades in tax avoidance.

So we are all chumps for paying our 30% or whatever while he freeloads on the government and then bases his campaign on poor government and his business acumen.

Ya, he's smart.

Asshole.

Where's your outrage for the TRILLIONS Google, Facebook, Exxon, Amazon, General Electric, etc. dodge? Trump is small potatoes.

Those are ALL corps. Trump's PERSONAL deduction in 1995 was 1.9% of NATIONWIDE total.

I don't think Trumpsters understand the difference between personal and corporate tax returns. If Trumpsters want to talk about corporate tax returns, then by all means, let's drudge up the Trump organization tax returns and see how much that organization actually paid. And btw, those other corporations are all public, meaning they answer to shareholders, and shareholders, including individuals who own shares through mutual funds, make money off of those companies. Trump Org. is private. Only the Trump family really makes money off of those loopholes.

Do you know Jeff Bezos owns a big chunk of Amazon, Mark Zukerberg owns a big chunk of facebook and so on .... When the companies owned by Jeff Bezos and Mark Zukerburg take the exact same type of losses to minimize their companies' taxes, who benefited the most? Jeff Bezos and Mark Zukerburg the persons.

Wrong. Publicly traded companies.

Now if they sell stock at a loss, they can take a $3,000/year carry over against future capital gains.

Which part is wrong? Who is the largest shareholder of Amazon or facebook? It's not you, it's not even some large mutual fund. Jeff Bezos, the individual owns a large chunk of the company. Whether the company is publicly traded or not is irrelevant. Their fortunes tied with their companies. Jeff Bezos or Mark Zukerberg's net worth fluctuates in the amount of billions on a day-to-day basis.

Are you seriously this obtuse?

Yes each of the individuals own significant amount of stock - as individuals. If the company takes a loss, those individuals cannot carry those losses onto their personal tax returns. They cannot do what Trump did with his Sub-Chapter S Corporation.

You are really stupid. What's the point of your babbling about $3000 capital loss? Bezo's cost basis of his stocks is probably near zero. He also gets free options. If the option is not in the money, he just won't exercise. He started the company and owned it 100% at the beginning. Over the years, he has been taking huge losses and selling pieces of the company to investors and to the public. But he still owns a significant chunk. The tax saving doesn't just disappear. It stays in his company's bank account, which he is entitled to a big percentage. The tax saving also boosts the share price and increases his wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically because he was a horrible businessman, he took a 900 Million loss and has been amortizing it for decades in tax avoidance.

So we are all chumps for paying our 30% or whatever while he freeloads on the government and then bases his campaign on poor government and his business acumen.

Ya, he's smart.

Asshole.

Where's your outrage for the TRILLIONS Google, Facebook, Exxon, Amazon, General Electric, etc. dodge? Trump is small potatoes.

Those are ALL corps. Trump's PERSONAL deduction in 1995 was 1.9% of NATIONWIDE total.

I don't think Trumpsters understand the difference between personal and corporate tax returns. If Trumpsters want to talk about corporate tax returns, then by all means, let's drudge up the Trump organization tax returns and see how much that organization actually paid. And btw, those other corporations are all public, meaning they answer to shareholders, and shareholders, including individuals who own shares through mutual funds, make money off of those companies. Trump Org. is private. Only the Trump family really makes money off of those loopholes.

Do you know Jeff Bezos owns a big chunk of Amazon, Mark Zukerberg owns a big chunk of facebook and so on .... When the companies owned by Jeff Bezos and Mark Zukerburg take the exact same type of losses to minimize their companies' taxes, who benefited the most? Jeff Bezos and Mark Zukerburg the persons.

Wrong. Publicly traded companies.

Now if they sell stock at a loss, they can take a $3,000/year carry over against future capital gains.

Which part is wrong? Who is the largest shareholder of Amazon or facebook? It's not you, it's not even some large mutual fund. Jeff Bezos, the individual owns a large chunk of the company. Whether the company is publicly traded or not is irrelevant. Their fortunes tied with their companies. Jeff Bezos or Mark Zukerberg's net worth fluctuates in the amount of billions on a day-to-day basis.

Are you seriously this obtuse?

Yes each of the individuals own significant amount of stock - as individuals. If the company takes a loss, those individuals cannot carry those losses onto their personal tax returns. They cannot do what Trump did with his Sub-Chapter S Corporation.

You are really stupid. What's the point of your babbling about $3000 capital loss? Bezo's cost basis of his stocks is probably near zero. He also gets free options. If the option is not in the money, he just won't exercise. He started the company and owned it 100% at the beginning. Over the years, he has been taking huge losses and selling pieces of the company to investors and to the public. But he still owns a significant chunk. The tax saving doesn't just disappear. It stays in his company's bank account, which he is entitled to a big percentage. The tax saving also boosts the share price and increases his wealth.

And absolutely none of that has anything to do with the type of NOL trump took. So yes, you are that stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:His only error was talking shit about non tax payers on twitter. Pretty hypocritical.

This. I mean cmon, did y'all think Trump was paying taxes?? It didn't surprise me at all. The tax code was written for people like him, he was taking advantage of it like most others would if they could. The hypocrisy bothers me though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically because he was a horrible businessman, he took a 900 Million loss and has been amortizing it for decades in tax avoidance.

So we are all chumps for paying our 30% or whatever while he freeloads on the government and then bases his campaign on poor government and his business acumen.

Ya, he's smart.

Asshole.

Where's your outrage for the TRILLIONS Google, Facebook, Exxon, Amazon, General Electric, etc. dodge? Trump is small potatoes.

Those are ALL corps. Trump's PERSONAL deduction in 1995 was 1.9% of NATIONWIDE total.

I don't think Trumpsters understand the difference between personal and corporate tax returns. If Trumpsters want to talk about corporate tax returns, then by all means, let's drudge up the Trump organization tax returns and see how much that organization actually paid. And btw, those other corporations are all public, meaning they answer to shareholders, and shareholders, including individuals who own shares through mutual funds, make money off of those companies. Trump Org. is private. Only the Trump family really makes money off of those loopholes.

Do you know Jeff Bezos owns a big chunk of Amazon, Mark Zukerberg owns a big chunk of facebook and so on .... When the companies owned by Jeff Bezos and Mark Zukerburg take the exact same type of losses to minimize their companies' taxes, who benefited the most? Jeff Bezos and Mark Zukerburg the persons.

Wrong. Publicly traded companies.

Now if they sell stock at a loss, they can take a $3,000/year carry over against future capital gains.

Which part is wrong? Who is the largest shareholder of Amazon or facebook? It's not you, it's not even some large mutual fund. Jeff Bezos, the individual owns a large chunk of the company. Whether the company is publicly traded or not is irrelevant. Their fortunes tied with their companies. Jeff Bezos or Mark Zukerberg's net worth fluctuates in the amount of billions on a day-to-day basis.

That part is wrong.

Please don't play with money you're likely to get burned. And don't give tax advice. You'll definitely get sued

You highlighted something that the PP accused me to be wrong said. Thanks for confirming that he has no clue about our tax code.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump runs his business as S-Corp. checkout S-Corp rules wrt to this situation. http://tax.cchgroup.com/images/fot/JPTE_10-03_Fellows.pdf

Upon what do you base this assertion? I did a brief search. Found a bunch of LLCs, LPs, C corporations, some GPs and no indication of a single solitary S corp. of course that would make total sense as a subchapter S corporation would be a wildly inappropriate vehicle for him to use given the nature of his business and his partners.

Perhaps you'd like to explain to our audience why that is as you seem to be the S corp guru?

We both are speculating. That is the issue here. A person running a private enterprise UNWILLING to come out clean and transparent by releasing tax returns and other company financials is not the right person to lead a country. For all we know he can run for presidency so he can get a foot into Russia by changing laws here that will make it easy to get Russian investors. Or he may be easing up on Russian atrocities so Putin gives tax free protection for Trump organization.

It is also so difficult to separate himself from the company. So there is no way to eliminate conflict of interest. Plus the company is run by his own children WITHOUT other professionals in executive or board having real control. This is unprecedented and it will end up really bad for the USA.

It is different in a public company where there is so much more transparency and it is easy to separate the company and the individual because it will be professionally run without KIDS playing active role. Very different animals. I would prefer someone running a public company to run for office than a close and controversial private company owner.

"We are speculation" is not an excuse for pulling something out of thin air and offering it as an argument. Why don't you speculate that Trump operates all of his companies as non-for-profits?

You are pulling something out of the thin air that Trump is keeping everything clean when he is under multi-year audit according to him. That is the point here. EVERYTHING IS WHAT HE SAYS.WE HAVE TO BELIEVE HIM. There is nothing that has to be verified. This coming from a guy who has a history of cheating, not paying taxes, discrimination, swindling from charity money given by others. And you want to believe his word. Only the stupids and conned Trumpkins will believe him.

Yeah you can assume whatever, I will believe data and if nothing is forthcoming, I have all the right to believe he is a fraud because the burden of proof is on the candidate NOT on the people. And most people are with me as can be seen that 62% of republicans want him to release his tax return.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/20/news/economy/donald-trump-tax-returns/