Trump paid no income taxes in 10 of last 15 years - New York Times

[Chomper Higgot]

29 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

 

(a) General rule Returns and return information shall be confidential, and except as authorized by this title —...

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103

 

The U.S. Code states that "[federal tax] returns and return information shall be confidential." This extends to any of the information related to the returns, such as reviews, audits, and any effort to collect unpaid taxes.

 

Violation of IRS tax return confidentiality law may be charged as a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. Additionally, the victim of an unlawful disclosure may sue for damages of $1,000 or more for each act. Any federal employee who's convicted of this crime must be fired (in addition to criminal charges and potential civil liability).

 

https://tax.findlaw.com/federal-taxes/tax-return-confidentiality-and-disclosure-laws.html

 

Attorney General Barr, the FBI, Treasury Police, and Trump's private attorneys get to work!

 

AG Barr and Trump’s private attorneys are increasingly indistinguishable.

 

 

[Average man]

Me and Trump are like peas in a pod (I wish). I have paid no income tax in 10 of the last 15years , and in the last 10years have paid more for pussy than in taxes . And according to the talking heads we are both broke . It is a great life , ain’t it buddy .

[olfu]

Trump this Trump that--world doesn't rotate around Trump.

guys--relax--I even dont vote and it doesn't matter either.  

[coolhand555]

1 hour ago, Average man said:

Me and Trump are like peas in a pod (I wish). I have paid no income tax in 10 of the last 15years , and in the last 10years have paid more for pussy than in taxes . And according to the talking heads we are both broke . It is a great life , ain’t it buddy .

Unlike Trump, you own up to the fact. He criticized many, including Obama, for not paying their fair share of taxes. Maybe you should give him a talking-to.

[coolhand555]

2 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

 

(a) General rule Returns and return information shall be confidential, and except as authorized by this title —...

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103

 

The U.S. Code states that "[federal tax] returns and return information shall be confidential." This extends to any of the information related to the returns, such as reviews, audits, and any effort to collect unpaid taxes.

 

Violation of IRS tax return confidentiality law may be charged as a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. Additionally, the victim of an unlawful disclosure may sue for damages of $1,000 or more for each act. Any federal employee who's convicted of this crime must be fired (in addition to criminal charges and potential civil liability).

 

https://tax.findlaw.com/federal-taxes/tax-return-confidentiality-and-disclosure-laws.html

 

Attorney General Barr, the FBI, Treasury Police, and Trump's private attorneys get to work!

 

That law applies to government employees. 

[Tippaporn]

On 9/28/2020 at 7:01 AM, Tippaporn said:

It will be once again humourous to see all the posters come out and uncritically treat this news as "truth."  Is this another hit piece in the vein of Trump calling vets losers and suckers or the Russians paying the Taliban a bounty to kill U.S. troops?  Seems all of these unfounded accusations experience shorter and shorter shelf lives.

 

Let's see how long the "veracity" of this hit piece lasts.

Well, that didn't last long.  LOL

 

On 9/28/2020 at 5:18 AM, webfact said:

The Times reported that Trump, who is seeking re-election in November, paid just $750 (588.47 pounds) in federal income taxes in both 2016 and 2017, and paid no income taxes in 10 of the last 15 years, despite receiving $427.4 million through 2018 from his reality television program and other endorsement and licensing deals.

 

Trump paid, as in transferred to the US Treasury, $1 million in 2016 and $4.2 million in 2017. Most of the overpayment was rolled forward, not refunded. The $750 figure is an additional $750. This information is gleaned directly from the NYT article itself.  Thus every single story saying he paid $750 is a lie.  Would love to copy and paste from the article but it would violate the Fair Use policy.

[coolhand555]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

Well, that didn't last long.  LOL

 

 

Trump paid, as in transferred to the US Treasury, $1 million in 2016 and $4.2 million in 2017. Most of the overpayment was rolled forward, not refunded. The $750 figure is an additional $750. This information is gleaned directly from the NYT article itself.  Thus every single story saying he paid $750 is a lie.  Would love to copy and paste from the article but it would violate the Fair Use policy.

And what's stopping you from linking to it?

[shdmn]

38 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Well, that didn't last long.  LOL

 

 

Trump paid, as in transferred to the US Treasury, $1 million in 2016 and $4.2 million in 2017. Most of the overpayment was rolled forward, not refunded. The $750 figure is an additional $750. This information is gleaned directly from the NYT article itself.  Thus every single story saying he paid $750 is a lie.  Would love to copy and paste from the article but it would violate the Fair Use policy.

But Trump said the returns that NYTimes got/reported on were fake, the story was fake.  It was all fake according to him.  All of it.  Everything that makes him look bad is fake always and forever.

 

So are you saying Trump lied and that the returns are real?  You can't have it both ways so which is it?

Edited September 29, 2020 by shdmn

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, xylophone said:

I applaud him for not caving to the left's demands.

 

You mean, living up to the promise he made, but then again he has made so many and broken them, that this is "par for course"!

 

But-but-but that broken promise didn't cost me nearly as much as thinking I could keep my plan did.

 

I thought Trump said he would release them when the audit was over. In any event, I think he knew after a month in office he would never get any kind of fair treatment in the press and figured turning anything over to them would be foolish. The Times has done nothing but prove him right. 

 

He could well be a criminal, but I can wait and for him to be prosecuted before I call him guilty.

 

I like most of what he is trying to do in office and  hope he gets another four years to try and do more.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Just in time for the debate...curious the Biden campaign had their Trump tax ads ready to roll minutes after the Times story was public.

Surely that's just a coincidence...

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, because what's important is what's good for Trump. Not minor stuff like the nation, the status of the office he holds and so on. I wonder why you keep banging on about irrelevant details and splitting hairs on each and every 'discussion' involving Trump.

 

How does Trump releasing his tax returns benefit the country? 

 

I believe that he hasn't turned them over is benefiting the county.

 

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I wonder what does it have to do with the topic at hand.

 

Yeah you never do huh? 

 

Some people think the timing is suspect, you don't, whatever.

[Opl]

Watchdog Report Cites 3,400 Conflicts Of Interest During Trump Presidency

“The extraordinary numbers in this report paint a picture of a president who is fixated on the personal financial benefits he might derive from his public service—and a whole ecosystem of officials, special interests and governments that exploit that fixation in order to curry favor and advance their own interests,”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/09/24/watchdog-report-cites-3400-conflicts-of-interest-during-trump-presidency/#462033a6226e

https://www.citizensforethics.org/president-trumps-3400-conflicts-of-interest/

 

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

How does Trump releasing his tax returns benefit the country? 

 

I believe that he hasn't turned them over is benefiting the county.

 

 

Look up the word 'transparency'. Then consult the many posts on this topic and others relating possible security and conflict of interests issues. Then. there's this thing about the President maybe setting a better example, and less doubts as to whether some dodgy issues are involved. Doubt you weren't aware of all these.

 

Your auto-contrarianism is duly noted.

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Yeah you never do huh? 

 

Some people think the timing is suspect, you don't, whatever.

 

My comment was with regard to this part of your post: "I wonder how much tax the Times pays...".

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Look up the word 'transparency'. Then consult the many posts on this topic and others relating possible security and conflict of interests issues. Then. there's this thing about the President maybe setting a better example, and less doubts as to whether some dodgy issues are involved. Doubt you weren't aware of all these.

 

Your auto-contrarianism is duly noted.

Yes, I just saw that there have been 3,400 conflicts of interest in the Trump presidency. 

 

I'm sure there was zero during the Obama administration, but I wonder how many there were in the Bush administration. 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, I just saw that there have been 3,400 conflicts of interest in the Trump presidency. 

 

I'm sure there was zero during the Obama administration, but I wonder how many there were in the Bush administration. 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, you just saw. Like this wasn't discussed, mentioned, analyzed and whatnot since Trump became a candidate, never mind after he won the election.

 

As for your whataboutist deflection - there were, are and twill be conflict of interest issues with regard to any administration. The questions are to what a degree, and how they are addressed. On both counts, doubt you have much of leg to stand on defending Trump.

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

My comment was with regard to this part of your post: "I wonder how much tax the Times pays...".

 

So you do see the relevance of the articles timing, and how some might find it suspect, yes?

 

What the Times pays was meant as a joke, but dang, it got more hits than a bong at at Bernie Sanders rally. I think what the times pays is public information and while I haven't checked, I'd bet it's nothing or close to it.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Oh, you just saw. Like this wasn't discussed, mentioned, analyzed and whatnot since Trump became a candidate, never mind after he won the election.

 

As for your whataboutist deflection - there were, are and twill be conflict of interest issues with regard to any administration. The questions are to what a degree, and how they are addressed. On both counts, doubt you have much of leg to stand on defending Trump.

 

You discount what is said as whataboutism and deflection, but clearly there should be some kind of a reference. When did this watch-dog start watching? Who was counting before that? 

 

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

So you do see the relevance of the articles timing, and how some might find it suspect, yes?

 

What the Times pays was meant as a joke, but dang, it got more hits than a bong at at Bernie Sanders rally. I think what the times pays is public information and while I haven't checked, I'd bet it's nothing or close to it.

 

No, ignoring or not responding to a part of your post does not convey agreement or interest in the 'issue' raised. Treating all the things 'suspected' by Trump supporters seriously is a choice. IMO, quite often these are either contrived 'issues' or the stuff covfefe is made from.

 

Given that it (and similar deflection claims) were repeated on these topics, by Trump supporters the replies were in order. I have no idea how much tax the NYT pays, and it still doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Morch

[PattayaJames]

Trump paid ZERO TAX on his presidential salary. 

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You discount what is said as whataboutism and deflection, but clearly there should be some kind of a reference. When did this watch-dog start watching? Who was counting before that? 

 

 

I do not discount reference. I discount your attempt at deflection and whataboutism. Reference would imply some relevant facts. You offer vague insinuations, generalizations and that's about it. It doesn't matter when the this list was complied, or who was counting before that - just more nonsense out of you. The basic issue of Trump's potential conflicts of interests was addressed numerous times during the Republican primaries, his presidential election campaign and during his term. You wish to feign ignorance? Go right ahead.

[nong38]

10 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Well since you are such a fan of free speach, here's mine............you're wrong!

The 'Continuous stream of mud has been thrown at Trump' is no different than the mud that was thrown at Obama with one major difference; ethically, morally and most importantly legaly, Obama did nothing wrong whereas Trump has stumbled from one controversy to another and deserves everything he gets.

From the moment he took office he has made a rod for his own back by surrounding himself with dubious characters, appointing highly unqualified people to key positions in the government and has never truly seperated his business interests from his presidential duties. He promised to reveal his tax returns nearly 4 years ago and we now know why he hasn't done it. He benefitted from Russian interferance in the 2016 election (no collusion but plenty of smoke with that fire) and tried to strong arm a foreign entity into investigating his political opponent. He's backed conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory and besmirched and ridiculed true patriots at every turn. For gods sake he even defrauded his own charity!

How this man is still in office is really the question and I think the media has gone as light/heavy on him as he absolutely deserves.

Anyway, I hope you don't mind being told things you dont want to hear. But it is my right after all.

 

We beg to differ but thats ok we are all different and all entitled to our own view and entitled to others as well.

[Yellowtail]

36 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I do not discount reference. I discount your attempt at deflection and whataboutism. Reference would imply some relevant facts. You offer vague insinuations, generalizations and that's about it. It doesn't matter when the this list was complied, or who was counting before that - just more nonsense out of you. The basic issue of Trump's potential conflicts of interests was addressed numerous times during the Republican primaries, his presidential election campaign and during his term. You wish to feign ignorance? Go right ahead.

 

If we have no idea how many conflicts were counted previously, or who counted them or even if we were counted,  we really have no idea if 3,400 is a lot. We know it sounds like a lot, but that's how it's supposed to sound. 

 

You know this, yet you accuse me of feigning ignorance. 

 

 

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

If we have no idea how many conflicts were counted previously, or who counted them or even if we were counted,  we really have no idea if 3,400 is a lot. We know it sounds like a lot, but that's how it's supposed to sound. 

 

You know this, yet you accuse me of feigning ignorance. 

 

 

 

If you think that's an issue, go ahead an provide the relevant figures. That's how it works. For people not so invested in defending Trump, or trolling, it would be quite obvious that Trump is far more likely to have such conflict of interests issues given he runs an international business. There is a lot of commentary about this, so your pretense of ignorance is disingenuous. Same as your last line in the post above.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

If you think that's an issue, go ahead an provide the relevant figures. That's how it works. For people not so invested in defending Trump, or trolling, it would be quite obvious that Trump is far more likely to have such conflict of interests issues given he runs an international business. There is a lot of commentary about this, so your pretense of ignorance is disingenuous. Same as your last line in the post above.

 

And people not so invested in attacking Trump, some kind of comparison would be nice. For example, I think if we're going to count each time a foreign dignitary stays at a Trump property as a conflict of interest after Trump was elected, I think it would make sense to know how many times foreign dignitaries stayed at Trump properties before he was elected. 

 

If we're going to comment on how much money Trump properties are bring in while Trump is in office, why would it not make sense to provide how much money they were bringing in before Trump was elected. 

 

If no more foreign dignitaries are staying at Trump Properties, and those properties are generating no more revenue than they did prior to Trump taking office that I think the whole Trump is only in office to benefit himself thing is a tough sell.

 

I understand completely that given the nature of Trump's business it is much more likely that he would have many more conflict issues than any other President. I also understand that him bragging about how great his properties are on TV is a conflict of interest. But I don't believe he is intentionally using his Presidency to promote his properties. I do think he is a braggadocios a-hole that has been prompting himself and his businesses his entire life and I would not expect that that would change.

 

My point was that the "relevant figures" seem to be lacking and you recommend I provide the relevant figures, and accuse me of being invested in defending Trump or trolling. 

[johnnybangkok]

12 hours ago, nong38 said:

We beg to differ but thats ok we are all different and all entitled to our own view and entitled to others as well.

You are entitled to to your own view; just not your own facts. 
And the facts are through Trumps duplicity, lying, manipulating, criminal activity and fraud he absolutely deserves the close scrutiny he gets from the media. You should be grateful they are doing their job so well because he's certainly not getting any criticism from the GOP and the sycophants he has surrounded himself with. 

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

And people not so invested in attacking Trump, some kind of comparison would be nice. For example, I think if we're going to count each time a foreign dignitary stays at a Trump property as a conflict of interest after Trump was elected, I think it would make sense to know how many times foreign dignitaries stayed at Trump properties before he was elected. 

 

If we're going to comment on how much money Trump properties are bring in while Trump is in office, why would it not make sense to provide how much money they were bringing in before Trump was elected. 

 

If no more foreign dignitaries are staying at Trump Properties, and those properties are generating no more revenue than they did prior to Trump taking office that I think the whole Trump is only in office to benefit himself thing is a tough sell.

 

I understand completely that given the nature of Trump's business it is much more likely that he would have many more conflict issues than any other President. I also understand that him bragging about how great his properties are on TV is a conflict of interest. But I don't believe he is intentionally using his Presidency to promote his properties. I do think he is a braggadocios a-hole that has been prompting himself and his businesses his entire life and I would not expect that that would change.

 

My point was that the "relevant figures" seem to be lacking and you recommend I provide the relevant figures, and accuse me of being invested in defending Trump or trolling. 

 

Unless you missed it the topic is about Trump. That you try and deflect, derail and go off tangent with largely irrelevant 'issues' doesn't change that.

 

If you have serious doubts as to the information provided, you are more than welcome to counter it. In fact, you do not do so, but expect others to argue against their position for you.

 

You can twist things all you like. It remains a fact that Trump charges government officials and security details for staying on his properties, which they have no choice but doing giving his position and their job description. The bit quoted earlier regarding Pence is another example. Previous reports about prices of membership fees and perks at Mar-a-Lago were discussed on these forums as well.

 

And, of course, you're trying to change the argument into something that I did not claim. Never did I posit that Trump's motivation to become president was about aiming to enrich himself. I was commenting on a view that Trump doesn't earn anything (or draws no salary), and later on his conflicts of interests.

 

As usual, you have no point.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Unless you missed it the topic is about Trump. That you try and deflect, derail and go off tangent with largely irrelevant 'issues' doesn't change that.

 

If you have serious doubts as to the information provided, you are more than welcome to counter it. In fact, you do not do so, but expect others to argue against their position for you.

 

You can twist things all you like. It remains a fact that Trump charges government officials and security details for staying on his properties, which they have no choice but doing giving his position and their job description. The bit quoted earlier regarding Pence is another example. Previous reports about prices of membership fees and perks at Mar-a-Lago were discussed on these forums as well.

 

And, of course, you're trying to change the argument into something that I did not claim. Never did I posit that Trump's motivation to become president was about aiming to enrich himself. I was commenting on a view that Trump doesn't earn anything (or draws no salary), and later on his conflicts of interests.

 

As usual, you have no point.

 

Not one that you willing or able to address anyway.

 

Again, I am not arguing that the facts provided in the article are false, nor am I arguing that Trump does not have conflict issues.

 

Thanks

 

[sucit]

This is normal in the real estate industry, to not pay taxes that is. Anyone has a problem with that, then their problem is with the tax code. 

 

Just because average people don't understand how many rich people pay very little in taxes, that does not make Trump a bad guy. Other things may make him a bad guy, but certainly the fact that he legally manipulates the tax code to his advantage is not one of them. 

Edited October 1, 2020 by sucit