Anonymous wrote:I am with the cautious and patient accountant here.

Prop Publica's investigation seems to have consisted of showing the documents to "a dozen real estate professionals." Not one appears to have been an accountant. Rather, they all seem to be lawyers, real estate finance professors, and even, for some reason an appraiser/paralegal.

The one accountant quoted appears to have been interviewed by Pro Publica and does not seem to have seen the underlying documents.

Investigating these documents would be a job for a forensic accountant, a somewhat rare specialty among accountants. No accountant I know, and I work closely with a number of accountants, would put any stock whatsoever in this article. It simply is not convincing from an accounting point of view and raises more questions than it answers.

This is not to say there is no fraud as accounting PP keeps insisting to resistant DCUM ears. There may well be, but this article is all innuendo and should not be viewed as based on solid accounting fact finding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of this is surprising. Remember reporting about a deposition Trump had to do (don't recall what the litigation was about) where he said he had majority ownership in some enterprise even though he actually had 30% and how his view was totally based on how he personally looked at things. Remember the NYT investigation into Trump family finances where the same property had one value reported to the IRS (typically because it was transferred to kids) and another value--like 10x higher--when it was sold or otherwise valued after the transfer. Or Trump's snits any time Fortune didn't rate his net worth as high as he wanted.

The "two sets of books" is not really what it s about. Shady financial dealings is.

Well, that's fine that we shine a light on Trump's shady dealings. But it does not help this process to make a big deal out of different tax filing vs lender submission figures, and certainly not a conclusion of fraud. This type of analysis makes it all too easy for Trump to dismiss the inquiry as a witch hunt.

Anonymous wrote:None of this is surprising. Remember reporting about a deposition Trump had to do (don't recall what the litigation was about) where he said he had majority ownership in some enterprise even though he actually had 30% and how his view was totally based on how he personally looked at things. Remember the NYT investigation into Trump family finances where the same property had one value reported to the IRS (typically because it was transferred to kids) and another value--like 10x higher--when it was sold or otherwise valued after the transfer. Or Trump's snits any time Fortune didn't rate his net worth as high as he wanted.

The "two sets of books" is not really what it s about. Shady financial dealings is.

Anonymous wrote:So which legal entity is investigating this now? Someone from the Manhattan DA's office?

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.

Oh, Please, Boris!!

Repeating lies does not make them true, at least not in Amerika.

The Orange Crook is headed for jail the second he leaves office.

I am perplexed by this attitude. It is excusable if you didn't know before it was revealed to you that it is normal to have two sets of books due to different accounting standards in the US for tax and business accounting. But then to call these simple facts as lies? This must be how it feels to confront flat earthers.

That’s not the only thing that is going on. The Trump Organization is assigning different values and rental rate percentages to assets depending on who they’re talking to - lenders or tax assessors.

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.

Oh, Please, Boris!!

Repeating lies does not make them true, at least not in Amerika.

The Orange Crook is headed for jail the second he leaves office.

I am perplexed by this attitude. It is excusable if you didn't know before it was revealed to you that it is normal to have two sets of books due to different accounting standards in the US for tax and business accounting. But then to call these simple facts as lies? This must be how it feels to confront flat earthers.

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.

Oh, Please, Boris!!

Repeating lies does not make them true, at least not in Amerika.

The Orange Crook is headed for jail the second he leaves office.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Read what you quoted yourself. Mr. Wilkes does not seem to have the same level of certainty as some here do.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Read what you quoted yourself. Mr. Wilkes does not seem to have the same level of certainty as some here do.

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.