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.

Maybe, but they are 100% your theories, they have no basis in reality, and that's the way it is. I can see where you have a point as to a contingency that would work to the benefit of a POTUS and the detriment of the USA, but it's still a made up issue.

Not sure a straight flat tax really does anything here. As a flat tax is just present on income, which rich people typically don't have a lot of. At least like, ordinary income that is produced from working a job. Most rich people are making money from their stock investments. If you want to increase the amount of capital gains for richer people, that's totally possible, though it's not as easy as saying 'tax the rich'

Making income taxes more for rich people will just shift more high earners at companies to receiving more stock incentives rather then regular income. Now if you want to tackle that, then it makes sense.

I think you could gas light people much more effectively if you mixed it up a little.  The TDS + vague comment is so 2018.

Really?

A case of TDS creates interesting conspiracy theories.

The only problem is, what you assert hasn't actually happened.

Or you negotiate a deal that doesn't involve paying the debt directly but benefits the creditors in other ways.  Like, for example, allowing Turkey to steamroll the Kurds even though they were our close allies in taking out ISIS in exchange for writing off a few hundred million in personal debt.

Creditors are not "benefactors." Not in the least. What you do with creditors is pay the payments and adhere to the terms of the loan.

It's been pointed out to you before ... several times ... that 400M is small compared to the asset values.

It's like having a $1000 loan on a $10,000 car.

When it becomes known who Trump is in personal debt to the tune of $400 million, a connection will be made between him and his creditors to some action he took which might have benefited his benefactors. The whole thing looks like it will be published before the election.

Anyway, what would happen to the Trump family if Trump dies before repaying his debt? His kids would inherit nothing because everything would be sold off to pay his debts and we all know he is not worth anywhere near what he claims.

Yes, that's quite obvious, and she would likely be paying tax on the consulting fee. It's laughable to suggest such a thing is somehow illegal.

Be that as it may, the little guy has the best deal ever under the recent Trump tax reforms.

If Trump's taxes are under audit, wouldn't Ivanka Trump receiving a consulting fee from a company that she is an employee of turn up (if it's even against the law)?

All this tax loophole bullshit just outlines the case for a flat tax. Billionaires will pay the best accountants and tax attorney's in the world to take advantage of all the loopholes while some waiter is stuck paying 20 percent of their paycheck away.

Buttigieg was about the only sane voice in that primary. I didn't study him in depth, knowing he'd be kicked out early. So I don't even know his inclinations re issues, just my impression from watching a couple of those stupid debates.

No, I wasn't referring to the Trump signs, but the Demo ones. It's curious that there are a lot for local and state candidates, but not very many at all for Biden.

RE TDS Trump's never been the "likable" candidate. In the business world that's the way it is, but in politics there's a lot of pretty faces and resonating, captivating voices. Often completely empty upstairs behind the voice and face.

You mean like yard signs and Trump flags?  That means there are a lot of Trump supporters in the area that want other people to know who they support.

I'm not a Bernie bro, I just have TDS.  If it were up to me I would've gone with Buttigieg.  

Okay, nice that you get to vent a bit I guess.

But what I'm seeing is lots of Trump signs, and where there's a Demo sign in a yard? 4/5 times it's some local or state candidate. The 5th time it's a Biden/C sign.

Why would that be, do you think? You're a Sanders advocate, Biden can't be that interesting to you. You weren't a Sanders advocate from Trump hate, I'm sure.

I mean obviously these things are coming out in October.

By the way people, this whole Ivanka Trump SCANDAL is the same one that the NYTIMES released relating to Trump, nothing new is there. This post in particular is just talking about how the Trump scandal (the one where he only paid $750 in taxes) relates to his children, who are receiving consulting fees for (maybe nothing) some reason.

I'd be fine with a law that requires a full, public financial disclosure in order to be considered for POTUS.

All the evidence pointing to Trump being a criminal is not that big of a deal when you consider we don't know who owns his debt worth hundreds of millions (which he may not be able to repay) that will be due about 4 years from now.  It could very easily be Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia or some other foreign actor - and he's already proven he sees nothing wrong with abusing his power as president for personal gain.  

Perhaps you should propose a new law, that capitalists cannot run for the job of POTUS?

I understand what you mean but even if the timing of these informations being released by the media bit by bit is questionable, the fact remains the incidents did take place and nothing can negate that. Even if there is a conspiracy theory which relates to these stories being released in the run up to the election to cause maximum damage to the incumbent they deserve for their taxation details to be scrutinised by citizens so the average general voter can decide on whether candidates are worthy of their votes.

Even disregarding whatever tax scheme was happening here (if there was one) I truly don't think that the rest of the Trumps are going to have a career in politics. Some people may joke about how there is going to be a Trump dynasty for the next 10 years or whatever, but no.

I don't think the rest of the Trumps have it in them to be as likable as Donald Trump is for one of the parties. Plus they're got all the power and access for these 4 years (maybe another 4) highly doubt it's really needed to go for another 4.

Don't know why that'll be the case, but I just see them going back into real estate stuff and other ventures - nothing else IMO.

Such news has been coming out pretty steadily since Trump was elected.  The reason is he is the president.

In 2018 the NY Times won a Pulitzer for their massive report (basically a book) on how the Trump family fraudulently avoided tens of millions in taxes when, and how after receiving a massive salary from the age of two years old, Donald Trump basically just helped himself to his fathers fortune and proceeded to lose more money than any other American during the 80s.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

@JollyGood whether Ivanka is guilty or not, how come such news comes out only during the election year, and most notably just a month before the elections are supposed to take place. Also I’ll second that line Android husband is actually good, but coming back to the topic now Trumps will claim that it’s a witch-hunt against them, and they’ll escape like they usually don’t you’ll think so?.

Eg: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/02/trump-coronavirus-briefing-jared-kushner-witch-hunt something like this is going to come soon.

It just goes to show even an alleged billionaire tries his best to avoid paying taxes which would otherwise help the very country which he was then not President of. How could Ivanka be listed as an employee with a salary then also be paid a sum of $750,000 for no reason other than to avoid paying taxes? This is completely undignified conduct by both of them.

The payment went to a company owned by Ivanka dummy.

Read the NY Times report so you don't need to invent things in your head that don't make sense in the real world anymore.

Would you please look up some facts before posting obligatory left think?

The corporate tax rate is way, WAY lower than the personal tax rate, so the US gets more income from taxing Ivanka than the corporate entity.

I did not say that. But another aspect of this is inconsistent with the narrative, and you might just find it amusing.

Trump, paying 750$ only, gives Ivanka a consulting job and she gets 3/4 a million, and almost certainly pays tax on it. (Unless she has some partial ownership of the hotel empire, that's where the big tax deductions from depreciation and section 179 come which can easily shelter high income....but I have never heard that to be so.)

So tax is paid... that's the way the system works...

Yeah, in this case there is. If there were nothing wrong with it then there would be no reason for any company to pay any taxes ever.

You're only saying that because it was Trump who did it.




The fact that they make more than ~$550k/year (which puts them in the highest tax bracket) doesn't mean the tax laws don't apply to them.  What a silly idea.

Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/02/ivanka-trump-donald-trump-tax-affairs


Rick Wilson, co-founder of the Lincoln Project, a group led by anti-Trump Republican consultants, dismissed the idea of Ivanka running for president in 2024 or beyond. “She and her bizarre android husband are planning great things for their future, but it doesn’t mean they’re gonna be viable in terms of winning and holding higher office,” he said.

Other commentators suggest that, while Ivanka will follow her father’s example by shrugging off this latest political controversy, the legal implications could be more damaging.

Michael D’Antonio, a political analyst and author of The Truth About Trump, said: “I think that she has ambition, period, so there’s no doubt that she imagines herself to be a prominent figure indefinitely. I don’t know Trumps believe that anything that comes out about them is significantly troublesome; they feel that they can talk their way out of anything where their base is concerned.

“But this payment may have criminal repercussions that are more significant. If she knowingly accepted this money and did it with any understanding that it was in order to evade taxes, and then her father signed the tax returns knowingly, both of them could have criminal liability. So I don’t think it’s a small thing that can just be written off as: “Oh well, it’s too bad that she made this mistake.’”


-----------------


The word going round in Washington seems that both Donald and Ivanka might be in trouble. It seems to be brewing....

By the way that bizarre android husband line mentioned above by Rick Wilson is just pure gold