8 Years of Trump Tax Returns Are Subpoenaed by Manhattan D.A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tax returns are confidential. Even if the authorities are successful in getting them, they won't be able to disseminate them to use against Trump for political purposes without exposing themselves to harsh sanctions. Presumably they are extremely complex and prepared by a team of lawyers and accountants for Trump. If errors were made for example the payment to Stormy was listed incorrectly as a business expense, Trump May incur civil tax liabilities and penalties, but could never be held criminally liable. Presumably his accountants had at least a good faith basis for preparing his tax returns in whatever manner that they did, but if not, it would be the tax preparers but not Trump who might be criminally responsible.

I don't think this is true.

It's why you have to sign your tax return even if someone else prepares it.

There is no magic bullett for the Democrats here via Trump's tax returns. Remember, the IRS has had access to all of Trump's federal returns for many many years. And, in New York State, while the NYS taxation authorities may not have direct access to his full federal returns, they do have complete and direct access to Trump's New York State tax returns, which undoubtedly contain a great deal of the same information in terms of business expensing and deductions as do the federal returns.

Clearly, the path of least resistance for NY State authorities to demonstrate criminal tax fraud would be to start with an investigation of Trump's NY State tax returns, and not with the federal returns.

As far as disagreement about the details, tax returns are and should remain confidential, for all of us. If the authorities can gain unfettered access to a President's tax returns, they can justify doing the same for the common citizen. I don't want to live in that world, and neither should you. Our affairs are already being heavily monitored not only by government but by large private corporations, many of which do not seem to have much respect for our personal privacy.

Even if the authorities gain access to Trump's tax returns, they will remain confidential and usable only within the context of the criminal investigation. Anyone who leaks them to say, Adam Schiff, or Rachel Maddow, wil be exposing themselves to harsh criminal and certainly career-ending penalties.

My tax returns are no one else's business, neither are yours, neither are Trumps, neither are Biden's, neither are Schiff's, neither are Pelosi's.

....not a lawyer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michael Cohen was Trumps legal counsel for the Stormy Daniels transaction and has admitted responsibility for any criminal campaign finance violations. That is a complete defense for Trump as to any criminal charges which is why he wasn't charged by the feds. Cohen did not implicate Trump in Cohen's own criminal activity. To prove a.criminal charge of campaign finance violation they have to show specific intent to break campaign finance law on the part of Trump. Cohen never said that Trump ever directed him to violate the campaign finance laws. That was Cohen's own idea.

And to think of all of the politicians that were brought down by simply having a hooker, regardless of how it was financed. Seems so quaint now.

Stormy did not receive 130K in exchange for sex, which is illegal in most places. She received the money in exchange for a non disclosure agreement, which are legal everywhere although sometimes deemed unenforceable. In this case, Trump paid 130K for an NDA which Stormy claimed was unenforceable and as a result Trump released her from it. In other words Trump received nothing of value in exchange for what he paid. Thus he committed no criminal campaign finance violation.

The State of New York’s point is that the Trump Organization didn’t call that payoff what it was and called its reimbursement of Michael Cohen for that payoff legal services or something else that was totally false.

To unpack this, non disclosure agreements are pefectly legal in NYS although in this case perhaps legally unenforceable. In this case the Trump Organization, which is a separate legal entity from Donald J. Trump, the individual, reimbursed Michael Cohen for his payment to Stormy Daniels on behalf of Donald J. Trump.

The only real issue from a taxation standpoint would be whether or not the Trump Organization improperly (or properly?) deducted the payment (not "payoff", it was completely legal for Stormy Daniels to accept that payment; she was never charged with a crime nor should she be for accepting that money to remain silent) as a "business expense" and as a result paid a lesser amount of taxes than it otherwise would have.

If the payment (not "payoff) was miscategorized as a "legal expense", that does not necessarily mean the Trump Organization underpaid its tax liability as a consequence of the miscategorization of the payment. And it certainly does not imply that anyone in the Trump Organization responsible for preparation of its tax returns (probably the CFO or comptroller) committed a crime.

Since Donald J. Trump is a key figure in the Trump Organization, the payment could legitimately be deducted as a business expense to the organization for the preservation of the organization's intangible good will value. There is at least a good faith argument to be made there.

Alternatively, the Trump Organization could recategorize the payment as "other compensation" or "income" to Donald J. Trump, if it is deemed reimbursement of a purely personal expense of Donald J. Trump. This would be analagous to using a corporate credit card on a business trip for some personal expenses (with permission of the employer of course) and then having the corporation count that as part of the employee's income (rather than as reimbursement of a business expense). If so, the Trump Organization might have to send Donald J. Trump a 1099 form to correct the error, and Donald J. Trump might have an additional tax liability due to the Organization's error in failing to properly account for the payment as income to Trump.

Regardless, it doesn't constitute criminal fraud or criminal tax evasion.

Oh, well, then - I guess this case is closed. Thanks for clearing up this totally simple and straightforward case, Attorney at Internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michael Cohen was Trumps legal counsel for the Stormy Daniels transaction and has admitted responsibility for any criminal campaign finance violations. That is a complete defense for Trump as to any criminal charges which is why he wasn't charged by the feds. Cohen did not implicate Trump in Cohen's own criminal activity. To prove a.criminal charge of campaign finance violation they have to show specific intent to break campaign finance law on the part of Trump. Cohen never said that Trump ever directed him to violate the campaign finance laws. That was Cohen's own idea.

And to think of all of the politicians that were brought down by simply having a hooker, regardless of how it was financed. Seems so quaint now.

Stormy did not receive 130K in exchange for sex, which is illegal in most places. She received the money in exchange for a non disclosure agreement, which are legal everywhere although sometimes deemed unenforceable. In this case, Trump paid 130K for an NDA which Stormy claimed was unenforceable and as a result Trump released her from it. In other words Trump received nothing of value in exchange for what he paid. Thus he committed no criminal campaign finance violation.

Except the money that was used was related to the campaign and was not disclosed in FEC filings.

Is that what you read in the Mueller Report? It was "related to the campaign"? What page of the Mueller Report is that on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michael Cohen was Trumps legal counsel for the Stormy Daniels transaction and has admitted responsibility for any criminal campaign finance violations. That is a complete defense for Trump as to any criminal charges which is why he wasn't charged by the feds. Cohen did not implicate Trump in Cohen's own criminal activity. To prove a.criminal charge of campaign finance violation they have to show specific intent to break campaign finance law on the part of Trump. Cohen never said that Trump ever directed him to violate the campaign finance laws. That was Cohen's own idea.

And to think of all of the politicians that were brought down by simply having a hooker, regardless of how it was financed. Seems so quaint now.

Stormy did not receive 130K in exchange for sex, which is illegal in most places. She received the money in exchange for a non disclosure agreement, which are legal everywhere although sometimes deemed unenforceable. In this case, Trump paid 130K for an NDA which Stormy claimed was unenforceable and as a result Trump released her from it. In other words Trump received nothing of value in exchange for what he paid. Thus he committed no criminal campaign finance violation.

Except the money that was used was related to the campaign and was not disclosed in FEC filings.

Is that what you read in the Mueller Report? It was "related to the campaign"? What page of the Mueller Report is that on?

It’s in the indictment of Michael Cohen and Individual 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michael Cohen was Trumps legal counsel for the Stormy Daniels transaction and has admitted responsibility for any criminal campaign finance violations. That is a complete defense for Trump as to any criminal charges which is why he wasn't charged by the feds. Cohen did not implicate Trump in Cohen's own criminal activity. To prove a.criminal charge of campaign finance violation they have to show specific intent to break campaign finance law on the part of Trump. Cohen never said that Trump ever directed him to violate the campaign finance laws. That was Cohen's own idea.

And to think of all of the politicians that were brought down by simply having a hooker, regardless of how it was financed. Seems so quaint now.

Stormy did not receive 130K in exchange for sex, which is illegal in most places. She received the money in exchange for a non disclosure agreement, which are legal everywhere although sometimes deemed unenforceable. In this case, Trump paid 130K for an NDA which Stormy claimed was unenforceable and as a result Trump released her from it. In other words Trump received nothing of value in exchange for what he paid. Thus he committed no criminal campaign finance violation.

Except the money that was used was related to the campaign and was not disclosed in FEC filings.

Is that what you read in the Mueller Report? It was "related to the campaign"? What page of the Mueller Report is that on?

It’s in the indictment of Michael Cohen and Individual 1.

There was no indictment of Individual 1.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t that because won’t indict a sitting potus?

[Anonymous]

Doj won’t *

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Michael Cohen was Trumps legal counsel for the Stormy Daniels transaction and has admitted responsibility for any criminal campaign finance violations. That is a complete defense for Trump as to any criminal charges which is why he wasn't charged by the feds. Cohen did not implicate Trump in Cohen's own criminal activity. To prove a.criminal charge of campaign finance violation they have to show specific intent to break campaign finance law on the part of Trump. Cohen never said that Trump ever directed him to violate the campaign finance laws. That was Cohen's own idea.

This is completely wrong. Cohen’s statements are in no way a defense to Trump if prosecutors can prove Cohen lied.

[Anonymous]

And... DOJ will be participating in this case. Basically defending Trump personally. And his businesses. Not the office of the President.

“The Department of Justice is supporting Trump's side in his subpoena-fight with Manhattan D.A. Vance. Notably, it's a Main Justice attorney on the signature line, alongside SDNY U.S. Attorney Berman.

The DOJ is attempting to block a state prosecutor from investigating the president or any of his businesses/associates.

The chief NY federal prosecutor joined against his local counterpart.

Ex-SDNY prosecutors spoke out against it.”
- Adam Klasfeld, Courthouse News
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6444690-DOJ-VANCE-10-2-19.html

[Anonymous]

Trump’s lawyers told a federal judge that if he doesn’t rule on their motion — to keep the Manhattan District Attorney from getting Trump’s taxes — by Monday, they’ll treat it as denied and appeal to the 2nd Circuit. What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump’s lawyers told a federal judge that if he doesn’t rule on their motion — to keep the Manhattan District Attorney from getting Trump’s taxes — by Monday, they’ll treat it as denied and appeal to the 2nd Circuit. What?

That's adorable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump’s lawyers told a federal judge that if he doesn’t rule on their motion — to keep the Manhattan District Attorney from getting Trump’s taxes — by Monday, they’ll treat it as denied and appeal to the 2nd Circuit. What?

That's adorable.

That's dictatorial/authoritarian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump’s lawyers told a federal judge that if he doesn’t rule on their motion — to keep the Manhattan District Attorney from getting Trump’s taxes — by Monday, they’ll treat it as denied and appeal to the 2nd Circuit. What?

What?!?! That’s nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump’s lawyers told a federal judge that if he doesn’t rule on their motion — to keep the Manhattan District Attorney from getting Trump’s taxes — by Monday, they’ll treat it as denied and appeal to the 2nd Circuit. What?

What?!?! That’s nuts.

Agree, it’s true, though.

[Anonymous]

Is the 2nd Circuit supposed to be friendlier to Trump?