cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
hardnox
Advisor

It's not really a loophole

Just a little Joe the Plumber clarification.

 

NOL carry forward is a longstanding and logical feature of the tax code.

 

If he's still working through a $1B loss in '95 it would imply that he hasn't made a great deal of money in the past 20 years, or he's really been working the loopholes in addition.

 

Also would make it even harder to believe that he has the net worth he claims.

 

At the coffee shop you can claim that your land is worth $20K or your 3 year old combine $300K but the only thing that really matters is what the bank thinks or what you can get, after taxes, if you sold out.

 

The bank also has to think in terms of what can actually be recovered after selling you out, because the IRS gets first dibs.

12 Replies
bruce MN
Advisor

Re: It's not really a loophole

Josh Marshall does some decent explaining and furthers the questions.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/just-a-hunch--2

 

Interesting stuff in there about debt forgiveness and income tax liability.  Might be a good investigative dig to go back and round up some former FCS staff and ag bankers from that era and find out how their written down clients were able to avoid them.

Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: It's not really a loophole

If a good deal making bussiness man can lose 1B$ then I am left wondering just how good the bussiness man is?

Edmund55
Senior Contributor

Re: It's not really a loophole

(If a good deal making bussiness man can lose 1B$ then I am left wondering just how good the bussiness man is?)

 

I was thinking how good of a business man you have to be to make it all back and then some, and 20 years later be worth $10 Billion.

 

Hate to see what you would say about a guy that lost $10 Trillion over 8 years using other people's money.

 

 

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: It's not really a loophole

 

 

snip-

Well this is a little awkward. With the leaked 1995 Trump tax returns 'scandal' focused on the billionaire's yuuge "net operating loss" and how it might have 'legally' enabled him to pay no taxes for years, we now discover none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton utilized a $700,000 "loss" to avoid paying some taxes in 2015.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/clinton-campaign-admits-hillary-used-same-tax-avoidance-sch...

hardnox
Advisor

Re: It's not really a loophole

Seems more likely that he had already paid taxes on a similar amount that he'd ransacked from those companies, assuming he didn't have losses from elsewhere to offset.

 

Then when he left lenders and investors holding the bag was able to show the loss on the entity and carry it forward, avoiding taxes for some time to come.

 

But probably fair to say that the headline "evaded taxes"  doesn't really capture it but fair to speculate given his lack of transparency and history of dodgy business practices.

 

BTW, "Obama's" ZIRP probably does make him a billionaire, marked to market. 6% probably makes him broke.

As far as your reference to the machinations of the farm crisis, I don't hear a lot of sniping about some of the folks who played the system back then any more. More likely admiration of their wealth, or envy.

 

And I guess there is a point where descendants get some immunity from the past. Never thought that the fact that the Trump fortune began with brothels mattered a lot, other than to be amusing given then source of some of his support.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3479129/How-Donald-Trump-s-tax-dodging-migrant-grandpa-went-...

 

 

hardnox
Advisor

Re: It's not really a loophole

As I'd said before, it was well nigh impossible that some stuff relating to Trump's finances wasn't laying around here and there and wouldn't begin to leak out.

 

BTW, nobody understands the persistence of family culture across generations than farm folks.

 

I don't know if anybody cares but obviously a lot of Old Drumpf and Fred in The Donald.

hardnox
Advisor

Re: It's not really a loophole

I happen to know some descendants of the particular German diaspora that brought Old Drumpf to our blessed land. When Bismarck decreed universal military service, some didn't see the profit in it and took off. It seems mostly a practical matter, unlike the Mennonites of an earier time, but also mattered where you came from. My Alsatian ancestors left then but they were French and I could understand their lack of enthusiasm for serving in the Kaiser's army.

 

But as far as the persistence of family culture, I'd say that is true of some of the folks of whom I speak. Like one family who I've spoken of that has a big US flag flying over the million bushel grain complex at the heart of the empire that is in place because grandpa got to second base in WWII when everybody else was otherwise disposed, heck yeah it is a great country.

hardnox
Advisor

Re: It's not really a loophole

And without really knowing I'd guess that for most all of those descendants, the suggestion that the purpose of our country is anything other than to maintain the priveleges that they've earned would be like talking Swahili to them.

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: It's not really a loophole

Here is why I don't care about Trump's taxes. No amount will ever be enough. Now we cram it down other holes that aren't made by rats.

 

snip-

Starting today, the U.S. military will pay  for gender reassignment surgery for transgender soldiers, a program that could cost up to $8.4 million a year. 

The Defense Department's policy states that if a soldier's ability to serve is "adversely affected by a medical condition or medical treatment related to their gender identity," they are eligible for reassignment surgery or hormone therapy, subject to a commander's approval for the timing. 

 

http://circa.com/politics/issues/us-government-will-pay-for-soldiers-gender-reassignment-surgery