omg he cut the check on 9/11
Nothing like using other people's money to make your problems go away.
I can see Trump thinking "thanks for the donations, suckers."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses, according to interviews and a review of legal do ents.
Those cases, which together used $258,000 from Trump’s charity, were among four newly do ented expenditures in which Trump may have violated laws against “self-dealing” — which prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to benefit themselves or their businesses.
In one case, from 2007, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club faced $120,000 in unpaid fines from the town of Palm Beach, Fla., resulting from a dispute over the height of a flagpole.
In a settlement, Palm Beach agreed to waive those fines — if Trump’s club made a $100,000 donation to a specific charity for veterans. Instead, Trump sent a check from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a charity funded almost entirely by other people’s money, according to tax records.
The check to charity from the Trump Foundation.
In another case, court papers say one of Trump’s golf courses in New York agreed to settle a lawsuit by making a donation to the plaintiff’s chosen charity. A $158,000 donation was made by the Trump Foundation, according to tax records.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...dc7_story.html
omg he cut the check on 9/11
Damn, that's enough for one Hillary speech to Goldman Sachs.
Several tax experts said that the two cases* appeared to be clear examples of self-dealing, as defined by the tax code.
The Trump Foundation had made a donation, it seemed, so that a Trump business did not have to.
I'm sure he said to "pull it" out of his charity account. Probably meant to pay off the people who demolished building 7.
Here is a quick guide to the specific law that Trump appears to have broken.
https://www.irs.gov/irm/part7/irm_07-027-015.html
7.27.15.1.2 (04-26-1999)
Statute
Reasonably sure that is the part.the transfer or use of the foundation’s income or assets by or for the benefit of a disqualified person; and
The term "disqualified person" as defined in IRC 4946 for purposes of IRC 4941 means:
A substantial contributor to the foundation (as defined in IRC 507(d)(2));
A foundation manager;
An owner of more than 20 percent of the voting power of a corporation, or of the profits interest of a partnership or unincorporated enterprise, which is a substantial contributor to the foundation;
Certain members of the family of any individual described in a., b. or c. above;
His foundation for sending money to charities wrote a check to a charity?
Scandalous.
This is exactly as bad as donating to the Clinton Foundation getting you access to the Secretary of State. Maybe worse.
Go cash your DNC check, and bring better game than this.
From what you posted, the transfers made by the Trump Foundation were sent to other charities. It looks like the Donald was a "third party beneficiary" of sorts of those transfers. However, the charity-to-charity transfer does not seem to fall within the scope of the tax code snippets you posted. I also wonder whether these taxing provisions necessarily make the transfers illegal (as opposed to taxable), but I'm no tax attorney. That said, do you have any authority that prohibits (or even taxes) a charity-to-charity transfer made for the purpose of settling claims that do not involve either charity? What you posted doesn't seem to get there.
Also, what's the point of this thread? I don't think anyone, aside from Hater, actually supports or likes the Donald. I don't think we need a reminder that the guy is a total piece of .
IRC 4941 imposes an excise tax on any direct or indirect act of self-dealing between a private foundation and a disqualified person. Self-dealing transactions described under IRC 4941(d) are:
What a got. He's lucky his supporters can't read that number without saying it out loud
OK Fine. If/when the government brings charges against Trump for this, we'll all get upset and outraged. Why should we hold him to a different standard than Hillary. Lots of people have posted why what she did with her emails was illegal, but the FBI says "No". If there's nothing to see there, there's nothing to see here.
They both suck. They are both dirty. This amounts to a quarter of million dollars. Dude is (allegedly) a BILLIONAIRE!! Of ALL the things to condemn Trump for, this is about the weakest.
That quote supported your take that charity-to-charity transfers aren't penalized.
ducks would be incredibly offended about this, if he could spell offended.
Clinton broke the law several times on classified email she sent
law said do not delete email she did
Clinton is by far more of a criminal then trump
Is that what I said? I said something more akin to "Who Cares"? I didn't say it couldn't be penalized. I, however, suspect it won't be, will it? So am I right, or are you? Was this illegal? Was Hillary with the email? Probably "Yes" and "Yes". However, neither will be charged with anything. So, again, "Who Cares". If he sold babies fed a diet of boiled kittens to fund a dog fighting business, you might get people's interest. But his foundation giving checks to charities, for whatever reason, doesn't exactly rile the les.
Bro, I'm agreeing with you.
I actually figured that out after I typed that. Just a little salty today.
Tempest in a teacup. The person responsible for cutting the check was sloppy.
Fun to post the headline though.
The donation was required as part of a legal settlement. Read the article.
Palm Beach agreed to waive those fines — if Trump’s club made a $100,000 donation to a specific charity for veterans.
His charity was not established for the purpose of paying Donald Trump's legal responsibilities. The donation was in lieu of a fine, which would not be the legal responsibility of the charity.
You have to actually read the whole thing to get into the meat of it, not just what I posted, which was just the most relevant bits.
Not according to the FBI.
All those investigations driven by partisan politics produced what exactly in terms of convictions?
Pretty much agree. As noted, fun to tweak people like ducks and hater though.
What we should be talking about is Trumps inability to grasp that the President shouldn't be giving orders that make the soldiers he is responsible for into war criminals.
"take their oil"
"kill their families".
That is much more important, IMO.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)