Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump should release his financial info to clear it all up.

They have things called audits. I assume Trump gets audited on the regular.

Why do you assume that? The IRS has stated that they audit poor people more than rich people because it's easier and cheaper.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump should release his financial info to clear it all up.

They have things called audits. I assume Trump gets audited on the regular.

Why do you assume that? The IRS has stated that they audit poor people more than rich people because it's easier and cheaper.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am not a NY state/city tax law expert, so I have no idea what could account for differences. Nor do I normally deal with large commercial real estate operations, especially ones with complex ownership structures, licensing agreements, and easements. I would point you to the experts cited in the article, not one of which concluded that there is fraud, just that is highly suspicious, and warrants a closer look, because any real professional would reserve judgement until they have reviewed all relevant facts. As for professors, it's arguable if they are professionals... Again, I recommend an audit of Trump, but the the mere fact that there is a difference is not proof of fraud.

You’re going to strain something reaching that hard.

The people doing the reaching are the ones concluding that there is fraud. Acknowledging the reality of tax vs GAAP accounting and reserving judgement is a conservative (in accounting parlance) position.

+1. Given that Trumps whole MO has been to push (and maybe surpass) the bounds of what is legal, rather than merely playing within the scope of what is normal/customary/reasonable like most pols, it's not shocking that he would do the same with his accounting practices. Given what's known, cannot claim fraud with any measure of certainty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump should release his financial info to clear it all up.

They have things called audits. I assume Trump gets audited on the regular.

The IRS is currently blocking the audit that is mandated by law for all sitting presidents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump should release his financial info to clear it all up.

They have things called audits. I assume Trump gets audited on the regular.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump should release his financial info to clear it all up.

They have things called audits. I assume Trump gets audited on the regular.

Anonymous wrote:Trump should release his financial info to clear it all up.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am not a NY state/city tax law expert, so I have no idea what could account for differences. Nor do I normally deal with large commercial real estate operations, especially ones with complex ownership structures, licensing agreements, and easements. I would point you to the experts cited in the article, not one of which concluded that there is fraud, just that is highly suspicious, and warrants a closer look, because any real professional would reserve judgement until they have reviewed all relevant facts. As for professors, it's arguable if they are professionals... Again, I recommend an audit of Trump, but the the mere fact that there is a difference is not proof of fraud.

You’re going to strain something reaching that hard.

The people doing the reaching are the ones concluding that there is fraud. Acknowledging the reality of tax vs GAAP accounting and reserving judgement is a conservative (in accounting parlance) position.

+1. Given that Trumps whole MO has been to push (and maybe surpass) the bounds of what is legal, rather than merely playing within the scope of what is normal/customary/reasonable like most pols, it's not shocking that he would do the same with his accounting practices. Given what's known, cannot claim fraud with any measure of certainty.

“While experts who spoke to ProPublica said there can sometimes be legal reasons for numbers to differ on tax and loan documents, they also said some of the discrepancies appeared to have no reasonable justification. “My gut reaction is it seems like there’s something amiss there,” said David Wilkes, a New York City tax lawyer who is chair of the National Association of Property Tax Attorneys.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/trump-organization-tax-fraud

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am not a NY state/city tax law expert, so I have no idea what could account for differences. Nor do I normally deal with large commercial real estate operations, especially ones with complex ownership structures, licensing agreements, and easements. I would point you to the experts cited in the article, not one of which concluded that there is fraud, just that is highly suspicious, and warrants a closer look, because any real professional would reserve judgement until they have reviewed all relevant facts. As for professors, it's arguable if they are professionals... Again, I recommend an audit of Trump, but the the mere fact that there is a difference is not proof of fraud.

You’re going to strain something reaching that hard.

The people doing the reaching are the ones concluding that there is fraud. Acknowledging the reality of tax vs GAAP accounting and reserving judgement is a conservative (in accounting parlance) position.

+1. Given that Trumps whole MO has been to push (and maybe surpass) the bounds of what is legal, rather than merely playing within the scope of what is normal/customary/reasonable like most pols, it's not shocking that he would do the same with his accounting practices. Given what's known, cannot claim fraud with any measure of certainty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am not a NY state/city tax law expert, so I have no idea what could account for differences. Nor do I normally deal with large commercial real estate operations, especially ones with complex ownership structures, licensing agreements, and easements. I would point you to the experts cited in the article, not one of which concluded that there is fraud, just that is highly suspicious, and warrants a closer look, because any real professional would reserve judgement until they have reviewed all relevant facts. As for professors, it's arguable if they are professionals... Again, I recommend an audit of Trump, but the the mere fact that there is a difference is not proof of fraud.

You’re going to strain something reaching that hard.

The people doing the reaching are the ones concluding that there is fraud. Acknowledging the reality of tax vs GAAP accounting and reserving judgement is a conservative (in accounting parlance) position.

+1. Given that Trumps whole MO has been to push (and maybe surpass) the bounds of what is legal, rather than merely playing within the scope of what is normal/customary/reasonable like most pols, it's not shocking that he would do the same with his accounting practices. Given what's known, cannot claim fraud with any measure of certainty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am not a NY state/city tax law expert, so I have no idea what could account for differences. Nor do I normally deal with large commercial real estate operations, especially ones with complex ownership structures, licensing agreements, and easements. I would point you to the experts cited in the article, not one of which concluded that there is fraud, just that is highly suspicious, and warrants a closer look, because any real professional would reserve judgement until they have reviewed all relevant facts. As for professors, it's arguable if they are professionals... Again, I recommend an audit of Trump, but the the mere fact that there is a difference is not proof of fraud.

You’re going to strain something reaching that hard.

The people doing the reaching are the ones concluding that there is fraud. Acknowledging the reality of tax vs GAAP accounting and reserving judgement is a conservative (in accounting parlance) position.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am not a NY state/city tax law expert, so I have no idea what could account for differences. Nor do I normally deal with large commercial real estate operations, especially ones with complex ownership structures, licensing agreements, and easements. I would point you to the experts cited in the article, not one of which concluded that there is fraud, just that is highly suspicious, and warrants a closer look, because any real professional would reserve judgement until they have reviewed all relevant facts. As for professors, it's arguable if they are professionals... Again, I recommend an audit of Trump, but the the mere fact that there is a difference is not proof of fraud.

OMG I need a drink. Please say something about how Obama vacationed all the way in "Hawaii" which is way worse.