Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he has been audited for the last 15 years, clearly there are some concerns about irregularities in the taxes by the USG... with details perhaps he could be identified as a tax cheater.

That said, he lost almost a billion dollars in a year. Great business man

The great icon of the left, George Soros, lost $1.5 billion in just 6 months.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he has been audited for the last 15 years, clearly there are some concerns about irregularities in the taxes by the USG... with details perhaps he could be identified as a tax cheater.

That said, he lost almost a billion dollars in a year. Great business man

The great icon of the left, George Soros, lost $1.5 billion in just 6 months.

Anonymous wrote:If he has been audited for the last 15 years, clearly there are some concerns about irregularities in the taxes by the USG... with details perhaps he could be identified as a tax cheater.

That said, he lost almost a billion dollars in a year. Great business man

Anonymous wrote:If he has been audited for the last 15 years, clearly there are some concerns about irregularities in the taxes by the USG... with details perhaps he could be identified as a tax cheater.

That said, he lost almost a billion dollars in a year. Great business man

Anonymous wrote:Will we ever know who the leaker is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Different PP. By your logic, the burden of proof is on Hillary to release her wall street transcripts and deleted emails. The burden of proof is on State department to release her schedule. She bleatchbit her emails so it is reasonable to believe she committed corruption and treason.

We don't need to see Trump's tax return to prove anything. He has been following the tax law that the clintons were partly responsible for. End of story. For Clinton, at a minimum she lied under oath. She is a criminal.

You realize that in recent history, every major presidential candidate, including Richard Nixon, has release their tax forms for pubic scrutiny. Conflaging the issue with Hillary's email is not a rational argument, because he has said numerous times that he would release his taxes, and yet he lied, he hasn't.

So, when Marla or whomever share the forms with the NY Times, the public is exposed to a snippet of the so-called Trump empire. Yes, the public is left to guess because the candidate hasn't released his forms. The burden is on the candidate to honor the tradition and the word he gave months ago that he would release his tax forms.

If he didn't want to do it, he shouldn't have run for Presidents. So yes, the public can make whatever allegations and presumptions it wishes against Trump because he has the obligation to come clean.

Isn't it telling that he isn't coming clean?

If it's such a big deal, make it a mandatory requirement then.

This whole tax thing is a designed plot to pander low information voters. With the dishonest media we have, he would be a fool to release his tax return to invite distortion and unfair attack.

Anonymous wrote:
If it's such a big deal, make it a mandatory requirement then.

This whole tax thing is a designed plot to pander low information voters. With the dishonest media we have, he would be a fool to release his tax return to invite distortion and unfair attack.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Different PP. By your logic, the burden of proof is on Hillary to release her wall street transcripts and deleted emails. The burden of proof is on State department to release her schedule. She bleatchbit her emails so it is reasonable to believe she committed corruption and treason.

We don't need to see Trump's tax return to prove anything. He has been following the tax law that the clintons were partly responsible for. End of story. For Clinton, at a minimum she lied under oath. She is a criminal.

You realize that in recent history, every major presidential candidate, including Richard Nixon, has release their tax forms for pubic scrutiny. Conflaging the issue with Hillary's email is not a rational argument, because he has said numerous times that he would release his taxes, and yet he lied, he hasn't.

So, when Marla or whomever share the forms with the NY Times, the public is exposed to a snippet of the so-called Trump empire. Yes, the public is left to guess because the candidate hasn't released his forms. The burden is on the candidate to honor the tradition and the word he gave months ago that he would release his tax forms.

If he didn't want to do it, he shouldn't have run for Presidents. So yes, the public can make whatever allegations and presumptions it wishes against Trump because he has the obligation to come clean.

Isn't it telling that he isn't coming clean?

If it's such a big deal, make it a mandatory requirement then.

This whole tax thing is a designed plot to pander low information voters. With the dishonest media we have, he would be a fool to release his tax return to invite distortion and unfair attack.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Different PP. By your logic, the burden of proof is on Hillary to release her wall street transcripts and deleted emails. The burden of proof is on State department to release her schedule. She bleatchbit her emails so it is reasonable to believe she committed corruption and treason.

We don't need to see Trump's tax return to prove anything. He has been following the tax law that the clintons were partly responsible for. End of story. For Clinton, at a minimum she lied under oath. She is a criminal.

You realize that in recent history, every major presidential candidate, including Richard Nixon, has release their tax forms for pubic scrutiny. Conflaging the issue with Hillary's email is not a rational argument, because he has said numerous times that he would release his taxes, and yet he lied, he hasn't.

So, when Marla or whomever share the forms with the NY Times, the public is exposed to a snippet of the so-called Trump empire. Yes, the public is left to guess because the candidate hasn't released his forms. The burden is on the candidate to honor the tradition and the word he gave months ago that he would release his tax forms.

If he didn't want to do it, he shouldn't have run for Presidents. So yes, the public can make whatever allegations and presumptions it wishes against Trump because he has the obligation to come clean.

Isn't it telling that he isn't coming clean?

Anonymous wrote:

Different PP. By your logic, the burden of proof is on Hillary to release her wall street transcripts and deleted emails. The burden of proof is on State department to release her schedule. She bleatchbit her emails so it is reasonable to believe she committed corruption and treason.

We don't need to see Trump's tax return to prove anything. He has been following the tax law that the clintons were partly responsible for. End of story. For Clinton, at a minimum she lied under oath. She is a criminal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Different PP. By your logic, the burden of proof is on Hillary to release her wall street transcripts and deleted emails. The burden of proof is on State department to release her schedule. She bleatchbit her emails so it is reasonable to believe she committed corruption and treason.

We don't need to see Trump's tax return to prove anything. He has been following the tax law that the clintons were partly responsible for. End of story. For Clinton, at a minimum she lied under oath. She is a criminal.

Anonymous wrote:

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/