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.

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.

Except that here, there is fraud. This has been known for some time already, in part due to excellent NYT reporting last year, but now there is easy-to-understand, analyzed proof.

You cannot deny it. Stop deflecting.

No surprises here to anyone who paid attention.

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.

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.”

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.

Sweetie, you're confused. I'm neither a liberal give-away the store or a right-wing nut job. But keep believing that there are only two groups of people who follow politics and vote. We are growing in numbers. The fact of the matter is you support a crook.

Liberal or not, it's not convincing for you to charge me as supporting a crook when you have demonstrated a shameless willingness to have a strong opinion on a topic you are ignorant about.

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.

DRINK!

(Not you pp)

Well, certainly explains a lot when liberals have to turn to drinking whenever confronted with reality.

Drink again!

Next drink comes when Obama comes up

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.

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.

Sweetie, you're confused. I'm neither a liberal give-away the store or a right-wing nut job. But keep believing that there are only two groups of people who follow politics and vote. We are growing in numbers. The fact of the matter is you support a crook.

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.

Tell me again how global warming isn’t real because 3% of engineers say it isn’t and how an embryo is the exact same thing as a term fetus.

There are just so many ways the Drumpfs commit crime.

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.

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.

DRINK!

(Not you pp)

Well, certainly explains a lot when liberals have to turn to drinking whenever confronted with reality.

Drink again!

Next drink comes when Obama comes up

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?

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.

DRINK!

(Not you pp)

Well, certainly explains a lot when liberals have to turn to drinking whenever confronted with reality.

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.