The logical conclusion is this:

If Romney is telling the truth that Reid's charge is wrong, but is unwilling to prove it by making his returns public, then not only is what he is hiding more damaging than being secretive, but it's more damaging than leaving voters believing that Reid is correct.

Anonymous wrote:It is the silly season. Reid is a loon. Doesn't matter.

Romney realizes that he needs to make this issue go away fast. Unfortunately, the only sure way to make it go away is to release his tax returns, which he doesn't want to do. It would be handy if he could (quickly!) show these claims to have originated from the White House. It's not enough to show Reid made them up, he needs to actually prove that this comes from Obama's camp. I'm sure his advisers are having some late nights.

Of course, the follow up question is "when did you stop beating your wife."

I thought he was being crazy about this. He now has pointedly insisted that he has a reliable source from Bain capital, and that the person is clear. So the claims did not come from the White House.

I have to chuckle at your last comment. Because of course the level of invasiveness in political campaigns has been set by conservatives. That said,

Concern over tax returns is not new
Remember Nixon's "I am not a crook speech"? You young people probably think that was Watergate. Nope, there was an outcry over Nixon' tax returns.

providing tax returns is not unreasonable
*Politicians have been providing this for decades, and yet Romney has resisted providing them, even in the days when he ran for Governor.
*Ordinary people routinely give up our tax returns for basic things like mortgages, and of course everything gets scrutinized for a clearance.

Tax returns are directly relevant to ethics
We all know about the politicians who have been censured / convicted for financial misdealings. The President is the person in charge of enforcing the tax code. It would be uncomfortable at best if this person was later found to have played fast and loose with tax law - especially if it involves offshore tax shelters which proved to be questionable or illegal.

The fairness of the tax code is a current political issue. The public deserves to know how much of a personal interest the President has in future tax policy
This applies to the tax rate paid by the President as well as the type of vehicles he has used in order to reduce his tax liability. It is not wrong for him to avail himself of legal techniques, but many people feel that the tax code has too many loopholes. It is reasonable to know how much of a vested interest he has in these.

This is not a witch hunt on a rich man Other wealthy candidates, Republican and Democrat, have run before, they have satisfied the public's need to know without all of this drama. This is relatively unique to Mitt Romney.

It is the silly season. Reid is a loon. Doesn't matter.

Romney realizes that he needs to make this issue go away fast. Unfortunately, the only sure way to make it go away is to release his tax returns, which he doesn't want to do. It would be handy if he could (quickly!) show these claims to have originated from the White House. It's not enough to show Reid made them up, he needs to actually prove that this comes from Obama's camp. I'm sure his advisers are having some late nights.

Of course, the follow up question is "when did you stop beating your wife."

Romney told Reid "put up or shut up". I think he is confused about who actually has the tax returns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After bashing Romney for a week (and oh boy did you deserve it, Mittens), I'm going to go sympathetic on him for a minute.

I bet that it's true, but not for dishonest reasons. He could be holding a lot of loss carryforwards, which would be totally legitimate tax-wise but hard to explain to a bunch of people who have no idea what they are.

If this is true, it makes me sympathetic to him. His tax bill could be zero for justifiable reasons that would nevertheless lose him a lot of trust and that would be unfair.

So I might blame him for using foreign tax shelters. I might despise him and his hedge fund supporters for buying off the politicians to ensure they get a 15% rate on carried interest. But I can't say a word about NOL carryforwards. That's just basic fairness.

It may be legitimate, although aggressive, tax strategy for an individual filer. But it's fair game for scrutiny if you seriously want to be President of the United States.

As Truman said, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." (As if Romney knows his way around a kitchen....)

NOL carryforwards are not aggressive. Turbotax will calculate them for you. You may have them and not even realize it. Schedule D, line 14.

WHAT ARE YOU HIDING, MITT? FOLLOW YOUR DAD'S EXAMPLE -- JUST RELEASE THE RETURNS ALREADY!

Anonymous wrote:After bashing Romney for a week (and oh boy did you deserve it, Mittens), I'm going to go sympathetic on him for a minute.

I bet that it's true, but not for dishonest reasons. He could be holding a lot of loss carryforwards, which would be totally legitimate tax-wise but hard to explain to a bunch of people who have no idea what they are.

If this is true, it makes me sympathetic to him. His tax bill could be zero for justifiable reasons that would nevertheless lose him a lot of trust and that would be unfair.

So I might blame him for using foreign tax shelters. I might despise him and his hedge fund supporters for buying off the politicians to ensure they get a 15% rate on carried interest. But I can't say a word about NOL carryforwards. That's just basic fairness.

It may be legitimate, although aggressive, tax strategy for an individual filer. But it's fair game for scrutiny if you seriously want to be President of the United States.

As Truman said, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." (As if Romney knows his way around a kitchen....)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the zeroed-out grat:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2012/03/07/facebook-billionaires-shifted-more-than-200-million-gift-tax-free/

This avoids gift taxes but I think you still pay income tax. The trust has to file a return like everyone else and the annuity stream would probably be taxable as well.

I think the annuity stream may take the character of capital gains though. Not sure about that.

Annuity streams are income. The gains would have to be taken inside of the trust.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the zeroed-out grat:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2012/03/07/facebook-billionaires-shifted-more-than-200-million-gift-tax-free/

This avoids gift taxes but I think you still pay income tax. The trust has to file a return like everyone else and the annuity stream would probably be taxable as well.

I think the annuity stream may take the character of capital gains though. Not sure about that.

Anonymous wrote:More on the zeroed-out grat:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2012/03/07/facebook-billionaires-shifted-more-than-200-million-gift-tax-free/

This avoids gift taxes but I think you still pay income tax. The trust has to file a return like everyone else and the annuity stream would probably be taxable as well.

You people Don't Get It.
You're as tone deaf as Romney.
Who is going to vote for a millionaire who pays no taxes ( all legit) and then has the gall to promote a tax plan that will cut taxes for millionaires.
He avoided Vietnam Nan by going to France, He avoid taxs by moving money off-shore in "exotic" trusts and other legal tax moves. a real AMERICAN.

More on the zeroed-out grat:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2012/03/07/facebook-billionaires-shifted-more-than-200-million-gift-tax-free/

We're talking about a zeroed-out GRAT.

http://www.aaepa.com/blog/2010/05/shortterm-zeroedout-grats/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After bashing Romney for a week (and oh boy did you deserve it, Mittens), I'm going to go sympathetic on him for a minute.

I bet that it's true, but not for dishonest reasons. He could be holding a lot of loss carryforwards, which would be totally legitimate tax-wise but hard to explain to a bunch of people who have no idea what they are.

If this is true, it makes me sympathetic to him. His tax bill could be zero for justifiable reasons that would nevertheless lose him a lot of trust and that would be unfair.

So I might blame him for using foreign tax shelters. I might despise him and his hedge fund supporters for buying off the politicians to ensure they get a 15% rate on carried interest. But I can't say a word about NOL carryforwards. That's just basic fairness.

I am a tax lawyer and I am having problems conceiving of a situation where someone would have millions and millions of dollars of NOLs on their personal income tax return (absent some sort of disaster, like maybe a set of tornados wiped out all his mansions, or someone stole the Hope diamond from him). What sort of deductible business expenses do you think he incurred while running Bain?

I'm not talking about business expenses. I'm saying that he realized lots and lots of capital losses on his portfolio. Not hard to do over the last decade.

I think you should add yourself to the people who don't understand NOLs, at the very least. A capital loss is entirely different from an operating loss. I still think it's very unlikely he realized sufficient capital losses to entirely offset his income tax liability, while making hundreds of millions of dollars.

I would believe he has a GRAT but I am trying to think through how that would help him on income tax-- it's usually used to avoid transfer taxes but I think the recipient/beneficiary would still owe income tax when the appreciation is realized?

That's how the IRS classifies it. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p536/ar02.html. What kind oof tax expert are you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After bashing Romney for a week (and oh boy did you deserve it, Mittens), I'm going to go sympathetic on him for a minute.

I bet that it's true, but not for dishonest reasons. He could be holding a lot of loss carryforwards, which would be totally legitimate tax-wise but hard to explain to a bunch of people who have no idea what they are.

If this is true, it makes me sympathetic to him. His tax bill could be zero for justifiable reasons that would nevertheless lose him a lot of trust and that would be unfair.

So I might blame him for using foreign tax shelters. I might despise him and his hedge fund supporters for buying off the politicians to ensure they get a 15% rate on carried interest. But I can't say a word about NOL carryforwards. That's just basic fairness.

I am a tax lawyer and I am having problems conceiving of a situation where someone would have millions and millions of dollars of NOLs on their personal income tax return (absent some sort of disaster, like maybe a set of tornados wiped out all his mansions, or someone stole the Hope diamond from him). What sort of deductible business expenses do you think he incurred while running Bain?

I'm not talking about business expenses. I'm saying that he realized lots and lots of capital losses on his portfolio. Not hard to do over the last decade.

I think you should add yourself to the people who don't understand NOLs, at the very least. A capital loss is entirely different from an operating loss. I still think it's very unlikely he realized sufficient capital losses to entirely offset his income tax liability, while making hundreds of millions of dollars.

I would believe he has a GRAT but I am trying to think through how that would help him on income tax-- it's usually used to avoid transfer taxes but I think the recipient/beneficiary would still owe income tax when the appreciation is realized?