Topic: Ivanka Trump Implicated in NY Times Published Tax Scandal (Read 395 times)

I really have no clue whether what you are saying might be true. The IRS doesn't really need "Lots of funding" to go against someone with the money to fight them. The case just gets settled informally, or like I mentioned, it goes to tax court and the judges decide.

If there's fraud on a billionaire's tax return, I would be very surprised to hear of cases where it was discovered and let go. The exception would be something like law enforcement wanted to let the guy run around for a couple years before roping him in, and so by agreement the return is processed normally. Maybe LEO wants to learn the entire network of drug dealers, then capture them all at once. Cases involving national security, you could expect that.

Oh yeah, totally not saying that it is BAD that wealthy clients have more resources to defend themselves, more so just bringing it up. It wasn't even a jab at Trump, moreso just saying that the IRS doesn't really have the funding to go against someone with the money to back themselves up.

If ya send a notice to someone who is poor and then force them to pay, they're going to do so.

If you try that same thing with someone who is wealthier, it's not going to fly.

People could debate if the IRS is always truly forthcoming about what you owe them, but that's for another time.

But at that point, it's his legal team against their legal team, and the most likely outcome of that is a negotiated settlement rather than a court. There's nothing wrong with that - the Gov might get half plus penalties. That's particularly okay if the dispute is over a vague point of tax code, subject to multiple interpretations.

When I say that no one is going to audit him, I'm saying that typically when you appoint the commissioner of the IRS they're not going to let their agency embarrass you with a scandal like this. I'm not saying that the IRS is internally stopping an audit from happening, just saying that there is probably a less then zero chance that it ever be allowed to go public. So yeah, just saying there's the IRS wouldn't have the political power to do this if they wanted to and if there was enough evidence to pounce.

I'm also talking about auditing him for the big stuff and going after him for all of what is alleged in the NYTimes report. Routine stuff isn't going to be blocked just cause you're the President.

Wealthy clients, like Trump, make it hard for the IRS as they can also employ fat cat tax lawyers to protect them.

I disagree with that, because a lot of audits are a routine request for info or correction. Computer generated, seemingly. Others are a valid question on the appropriateness of a certain tactic.

Just don't really see why this would all stop if someone was president.

Another issue would be the nature of the deduction.

Say a taxpayer was wealthy and did a totally inappropriate deduction.

Let's say the fat cat deducted a 100M yacht, expensed it. He's got a dozen girls and ample supplies of various chemicals those his "customers" would like.

We know they'd pounce on you or I if small guys tried to deduce a boat for entertainment expense.

I can't imagine them not going after this clown. Maybe there's a loophole, but I have not ever heard of it. Granted there are explicit loopholes for aircraft, that's a different issue. So this guy tries to deduct his pleasure palace, and the IRS objects. He says I'm deducting it, take me to court if you like. I double dare you.

That guy is going down and going down hard. He's not criminal, mind you. This is just a dispute about money. He's moving in the direction of criminal if he listed the boat expenses fraudulently say as cost of goods sold. But even then, they'd want their money and penalties, more than to get him in jail. Now if the clown was a drug dealer, they'd want jail.

Oh yeah I understand that, I'm just kinda pointing out the fact that the IRS could go after this if they wanted to, doesn't seem to be anything stopping them in regards to the state of limiations and such. Maybe they can't go after them criminally, but civilly they can recoup whatever money they want.

Fair to point out from an earlier discussion that the IRS does not have the proper funding to audit rich people due to budgetary cuts over the past decade or so. Plus the fact that Trump is the president. No one is going to try to audit him.

I'll agree with you in saying that this is all pre election smear, nothing else.

What you see in this thread is anti-trumpers attempting to argue that Trump can/should be proscecuted criminally for imagined tax issues.
(A) The actual facts don't matter as this is a pre election smear campaign
(B) Criminal prosecution has a statute of limitations, 6 years.
(C) Tax collection has a primary goal of COLLECTING MONEY, not putting people in jail.

(C) is really important. It's literally the case that the IRS can triple their money by waiting a couple years and going after someone that tried to deceive them. What maximizes collection of tax, should be their standard policy. Anything that tries to jail people instead of collect tax is contrary to the goal of collecting tax revenue. Anti-Trumpers would like a weaponized IRS that did their bidding, criminally charging Trump and totally ignoring Pelosi, Biden, etc. 

Where did you come up with that idea? That would be okay or not based on the employee agreement terms and conditions. Are you not in the US and just don't know the law and practice here?

Whether someone under investigation is a sitting President or the average citizen, it should not affect the course of any investigation or outcome because the law really should be the same for all. Yes it will be difficult for the IRS to their job if it is related to a sitting President because of the political pressures from all sides but they should have concluded all their investigations long ago and allowed the Courts to conclude whether Trump was guilty of anything or not.

Now his daughter it seems has been on the payroll as an employee in one case and as a contractor in another with the allegation being made this was done to stop paying the appropriate tax. Whether that is legal or not I think it is clear it is morally wrong for someone trying to make it to the White House to be conducting in those types of behaviours.

Pretty sure there is no statue of limitations on tax fraud / tax evasion. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Maybe the criminal side of things is differently, but I think the IRS can come after you for the money you owe them (civil) at any point.

Source on that: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a0899314-b701-49b5-a695-d69896261788

Pretty moot point though, as the IRS does not have the funding or the political independence to just go after the sitting president and his family. LOL.

I already explained:

It's not me that is confused. It's always been you.

Your confusion is that you want a criminal investigation, and to get that, you need to get any matter related to Trump OUT of the US Tax Courts. To do that you pre-define Trump tax activities as "Criminal," because ORANGEMANBAD.

I am genuinely curious, why would you think that Trump, in having a dispute with the IRS, would have done something criminal in nature? I understand that slinging around "criminal" furthers your and Twitch's Trump Derangement Syndrome monomania.

But almost all tax disputes are resolved by the taxpayer paying the disputed amount, or a negotiated settlement such as half the disputed amount. That would be a "civil" issue, not a "criminal" issue.

Of course, I understand that you and Twitch would love to have a weaponized IRS, that could be used for political targeting of your enemies of the moment. Let's set, that's pretty much what Lori Lerner when she headed the IRS under Obama, right?

Wasn't she given immunity from prosecution to tell all the bad bad things she did?

I hope all tax related issues are in the open before the election so ordinary citizens can make up their minds about which candidate to vote for and whether they will be voting for the right reasons.

All of this confusion and questions after question has been asked simply because Trump did not release his tax returns before he was elected and following that he is hiding behind a ridiculous excuse that his tax returns are being auditied and he will release them as soon as they are audited - but there is no reason he should wait, there is nothing stopping him. Even if after the audit it showed there is a small + or - it makes no difference to the overall openness he should have towards the American people.

If the IRS decide there are sufficient grounds for a criminal investigation then it really makes things interesting from a political perspective.

I think you're confused.  The IRS conducts criminal investigations. If they build a strong enough case they refer it to the DOJ or District attorney for prosecution.

The bolded above is incorrect, the primary court would be the IRS tax court, which is neither state or federal district court, but a "US Tax Court." The typical four and seven year statutes of limitations apply, and the typical exceptions. Because it's a tax court, it operates somewhat differently than you may think. But none of the discussion in this thread has been fact based, it's been all innuendo.

Actually, I've been convinced for decades that powerful creatures in DC got treated differently. This has certainly been obvious to pro-Trump people the last couple of years.  

Here's what you didn't address.

Has it occurred to you that your complaint, if it has any merit, should be with the IRS?

Really, what you want is more partisian, political weaponizing of the IRS. A continuation of the Chicago Way, as OBAMA USED IT. GO AFTER THOSE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOU!

And Trump is just one of your targets, right? Why don't you give us the full list?

You should read the NY Times reports (including the one that won a Pulitzer for investigative journalism in 2018) (It's clear you haven't).

It's true most of the stuff can't be prosecuted in criminal court due to statute of limitations.  I'm surprised in your seemingly new found faith in the IRS' ability to audit and prosecute the wealthy and lack of faith in Trumps capability of getting away with crimes.

Clearly you and your biased, lying cunt friends at the NYT know more and better than the IRS. Even though the IRS routinely brings criminal cases for tax fraud.

If the IRS chose not to bring a case, after either four or seven years have passed, the individual cannot be prosecuted.

With very rare exceptions, in the case of federal tax, it is the IRS who brings the case. However, they are a tax collection agency, not a vindictive, partisian prosecutor. Unless we are referring to the IRS under Obama, of course. They weaponized the IRS. A tax collection agency might wait a couple years on a suspect, then bring an audit, with the intention of maximizing tax collected through higher interest and penalties.

"we have documents..." You mean you've got documents that TRUMP GAVE TO THE IRS, which resulted in discussions, audits, corrections, tax paid.

Has it occurred to you that your complaint if it has any merit, should be with the IRS?

Really what you want is more of the partisian, political weaponizing of the IRS. A continuation of the Chicago Way, as OBAMA USED IT. GO AFTER THOSE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOU!

And Trump is just one of your targets, right? Why don't you give us the full list?

It's pretty irrational to assume that Trump isn't guilty of Bank and Tax Fraud or that there's 'zero proof'.  We have the NYTimes reports (including the one that won a Pulitzer for investigative journalism in 2018), we have documents, we know his personal lawyer and campaign chairman both went to prison for Bank and Tax Fraud.

Here's the problem with your assertion. (one problem... there are others)

You've been non-stop slamming Trump's financial activities with zero proof, and very, very limited facts, because of your obvious political inclinations.

Your own actions are the proof that such data should not be made public.

If something like that were the case and it were proven in future, it would ensure that no other President would ever be allowed to take office until their financial history were properly looked in to (far more than before) and candidate should ever be considered by any party until every single aspect of their financial dealing are laid out for all to see in order to ensure no conflict of interest and no corruption.

Trump did not even publish his tax returns, he should never have been allowed to stand as a candidate for any party.