Reply With Quote
Damn, now we have to have yax forms, too? Smh
Trump could dispel this nasty rumor by disclosing his tax returns. What's he got to hide?
Damn, now we have to have yax forms, too? Smh
John Podesta and Marc Rich were good friends. Marc Rich's lawyer was Peter Kadzik. Peter Kadzik was recommended by Podesta because Kadzik kept Podesta out of jail during Lewinsky scandal. Fast forward to Peter Kadzik now working for the DOJ
Peter Kadzik was feeding Podesta information on what was being found on Clinton during initial investigation. When the FBI announced they were starting up investigations again, Peter Kadzik announces to congress he and the DOJ now assist the FBI.
it's not a dodge. That's how he probably did it.
What's your theory?
And why won't Trump put it all to bed by releasing his taxes. If he's on the up and up, there'd be no reason not to.
Uhh, use the existing tax laws?
This is an appeal to emotion. Not even sure what it's trying to accomplish.
real estate professionals can deduct rental losses that others can’t. But there are perfectly reasonable policy reasons for this rule, and it wasn’t placed in the tax law to bestow benefits solely upon wealthy real estate developers; rather, the rule was meant to correct an inequity in the tax law that was preventing hard working real estate brokers and agents — as well as those involved in construction and, yes…real estate development – from receiving equal treatment when compared with taxpayers who don’t ply their trade in the real estate world.
Next, let’s just establish that we don’t know that the $15 million in losses comes from rental losses; it could just as easily have been generated from an operating partnership or S corporation that Trump owned during 1995.
That being said, it’s probably fair to surmise, based on what we know about Trump, that the losses were attributable to rental activities. So let’s move on with that premise. Is that so wrong?
To understand that, no, it’s not so wrong, we’ve got to understand what tax shelter existed before the real estate professional rule came into existence, how Congress’s response to that shelter harmed the hard-working agents, brokers and builders referenced above, and how the real estate professional rules were meant to undo that inequity for a very narrow category of taxpayers.
So let’s hop in the way-back machine and get a little understanding of how the tax law evolved to enable Trump to take a $15 million rental loss in 1995, but to simultaneously (and hopefully) understand that just because Trump benefited from the real estate professional rule does not make it an “outrageous, special tax break.”
Pre-1986: Tax Shelters For Everyone!
Prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, tax shelters were readily available to anyone with disposable income and the patience to be a landlord. Consider the following example:
In 1985, A, a doctor, expects to earn wages of $300,000. On January 1, 1985, in hopes of sheltering his wage income, A purchases a home as a rental property and rents the home at fair market value. The rental is low-maintenance, and A is rarely required to visit the property other than to collect the occasional check. By virtue of large depreciation deductions, the rental generates a sizeable net loss, which A uses to partially offset his wage income, significantly lowering his tax bill. It is a win-win situation for A; he generates losses largely through non-cash depreciation deductions, while all the while, the rental home is appreciating in value.
Post-1986: No Rental Losses for Anyone!
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 put an end to such shelters, however, with the enactment of Section 469. Effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 1986, a taxpayer’s loss from a “passive activity” could only be used to offset income from a “passive activity.” A passive activity is defined in part as:
Any trade or business of the taxpayer in which the taxpayer does not “materially participate,” and
Any rental activity of the taxpayer regardless of the taxpayer’s level of participation.
As a result of the treatment of all rental activities as passive activities, the doctor’s loss in the previous example from his rental home would be treated as a passive loss. And because the doctor’s wages are not treated as passive income, the rental loss could no longer be used to offset the doctor’s wage income. Instead, the loss would be carried forward until the doctor either generated passive income or disposed of the rental property in a fully taxable transaction.
Rental Losses for Some?
Soon after the enactment of Section 469, certain taxpayers felt they were being unfairly punished by the de facto classification of all rental activities as passive. Consider the following example:
B is a real estate developer, specializing in the development of residential homes. B builds two developments; developments 1 and 2. B sells all of the homes in development 1 to customers as part of his ordinary trade or business. The homes in development 2, however, B holds and rents to families.
While B’s development business would generally be considered one trade or business, after the advent of Section 469, B is treated as conducting two separate activities for the purposes of that section. The first activity is B’s development and sale activity, which is nonpassive because it is a trade or business in which B materially participates. The second activity is B’s development and rental activity, which under the rules of Section 469, is treated as per se passive regardless of B’s level of participation because it is a rental activity. Thus, if B generates income from the sale of homes in development 1, and a loss from the rental of homes in development 2, the rules of Section 469 will prohibit B from using the passive rental losses to offset the nonpassive income from the sale of the homes in development 1.
B’s complaint, of course, is that he is engaged in one trade or business that encompasses multiple aspects of the real estate industry: development, sale, and rental. By not allowing B to use the losses from the rental portion of the business against income from the sale portion of the business, the law treats B differently than taxpayers in a non-real estate trade or business who are free to use losses from one aspect of their business against income from another.
Does that sound fair? In any other walk of life, if a taxpayer is engaged in a business with multiple aspects — say a car wash that also sells decorative air fresheners – a loss from one part of the business can offset income from the other. But just because someone who makes their living in the real estate world chooses to hold, as part of that overall business — a rental property or twelve, they should get whip-sawed and be prevented from taking the rental loss against the income from other real estate activities?
It doesn’t sound fair to me, and it didn’t sound fair to Congress, either. By 1993, Congress recognized the inequities wrought by this per se passive treatment of all rental activities, and sought to provide an exception to a narrow category of taxpayers: so-called “real estate professionals.” Added to the Code was subsection 469(c)(7), which provides that a taxpayer who qualifies as a real estate professional overcomes the presumption that all rental activities are passive; instead, if the taxpayer establishes that he or she materially participates in the rental activity, the activity would become nonpassive.
Now, I don’t want to get into detail about how one qualifies as a real estate professional, because I’ve done that here and here. What’s important is that in order to qualify, you must prove to the IRS that you truly, day-in and day-out, make your living in the real estate world, either by selling it, building it, or renting it. Only then — by proving that you’re fully invested in the real estate industry — are you en led to the same treatment that every. other. taxpayer. receives: the ability to offset income from one aspect of the business with losses from another.
And trust me when I say that meeting the real estate professional designation is not an easy task. One could argue that more case law has been devoted to these rules than any other single tax issue since 1993, and the cases rarely go in the favor of the taxpayer. The intent was that the ability to use rental losses against other income be restricted to people who spend every day working the real estate industry, and the IRS and courts have ensured that this is indeed the case.
So rip Trump for any number of things. But leave the real estate professional rules alone. They do not create an inequity in the tax law; they fix one.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonyn.../#78f03b3a73cc
Does it square with your sense of morals or responsibility to claim losses of nearly a billion dollars borne by your lenders to shirk the responsibilty to pay taxes for a decade?
A simple yes or no will do.
"All the President's Men"
Ever seen that movie?
I wish journalists still had that kind of investigative curiosity.
It's not legal to do that anymore. Can you guess why?
That's an answer to what question?
Many of them do. We either (1) don't take the time to read anything beyond a headline, or (2) write them off as shills for the opposition.
, I'd pay no taxes forever if the law allowed. I'm pretty sure most people would. Or, do they get to that section on deductions and say, meh it?
You don't know where the loss came from. Like Boutons, you just claim it's investor losses he took with zero facts to back up your claim. Say it enough times and stupid people might start to believe it.
If a bank or investor lost money with Trump they would be the ones taking the deduction, not Trump. The IRS doesn't let them both take the deduction.
Remember when the press loved Wikileaks?
the rules Trump used were outlawed by Congress.
If it was all proper, why doesn't he prove it by releasing his tax returns like every other person who runs for national office?
This whole guessing thing could be avoided by showing his tax returns...
Good lord...did Bouton's hack your account?
What makes you think they don't?
"If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" doesn't apply to Presidential candidates, you sillies.
Trump could dispel all this rumor-mongering by releasing his taxes. He must have good reasons not to.
You'd be a shirker if the law allowed it.
Nuff said. No reponsibility unless the law commands.
Considering all the bizarre and uninformed claims concerning just the three pages that were released (including some of the assertions made by you in this thread) he probably is better off not releasing highly complicated multi thousand page tax returns.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
