Are You Guys Trying to Avoid That Pesky New York Times Article?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

I'm not going to bad mouth the man for taking advantage of the many tax loopholes because as a CPA, I do it all of the time for my wealthy family members. The only time I work as an accountant is for them because those fuckers are too cheap to hire full time tax accountants and they know I won't charge them.

That NYT article is hardly surprising. Only idiots actually believe that Trump is as wealthy as he claims and that he is a great businessman. He is way too fucking stupid to be either of those things. But as far as taxes, he's just gaming the system like many people do... he is a complete fool to me, but at least he is smart enough to hire a good tax team.

Interesting strategy of berating people. So you agree that smart people take advantages of tax loopholes but Trump is stupid for doing that. And that the NYT article is a hitjob even though you describe it as "hardly surprising."

So how much do you think I think Trump says he's worth since we're in the mindreading and guessing motives game?

Hint: all I know is he has a plane with his name on it.

[Lucas McCain]

Originally Posted by Tsmokies

As an old senior citizen with no dept I have no loopholes any more. I might try claiming $70k on fake hair next year tho. What good go wrong lol. I get a massive refund and then maybe pay it back after an audit 6

Trust me, there are always advantageous loopholes to exploit when it comes to taxes regardless of age.

[Tsmokies]

I know Lucas. It's fun to fk with the irs of stupid. I've always done the 1040 long form and attachments in pencil. I make a copy for me and mail that biotch. It's worked really well for me . On the few times I got "caught"...i met with a gvnt employee and admitted ignorance. I would write a check with No fines no interest. Just free $ for a few years

[sportfisherman]

The problem is that as a private citizen it is ok to aggressively minimize taxes.

But as a president it doesn't look good.

You guys keep focusing on whether actionable legal issues are involved and in a way that is immaterial.

Plus the main thing is it totally dispels Trump's marketing spin regarding himself as a big businessman.He's a loser.

His whole persona is a lie.Just like his covid virus bullshit was a lie.

It's a joke that his followers always absolve him of any wrongdoing after these episodes come out about him.They will post things like "we know Trump is this or that" and they don't care.About this they have already posted "everybody knows Trump is not as rich as he claims".

His whole scene is predicated on spin and hype. Bullshit !!

He is a shyster !!

[Yssup Rider]

+1

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by sportfisherman

...He's a loser....

So now you are saying that he makes a gazillion dollars yet pays less taxes than you. So who is the real loser there?

[oeb11]

Go ahead - fake your taxes - just like DPST's want to get rid of cops and first responders ts
See where it lands U - LOL
Leavenworth can be nice in the fall and spring.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

...How is the NYT story fake? ...

You do not seem to have the slightest grasp of Real Estate holdings, i.e. hard assets, let alone taxes. It's a multi-step process that I will share with you:

• Step #1 - Get a clue
• Step #2 - Proceed no further until you accomplish task #1 (You end here)

How the New York Times Misread Trump’s Tax Bills

Tax records showing that Donald Trump told the IRS that he lost nearly $1 billion over the course of a decade starting in the mid-1980s highlight the complexity of how the tax code treats real estate investments, but they do not tell us much about the president’s business prowess.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that tax transcripts revealing Trump’s tax filings in the years 1985 through 1994 show the president lost nearly $1 billion, with big losses concentrated in the years 1990 and 1991.

“Mr. Trump lost so much money that he was able to avoid paying income taxes for eight of the 10 years,” the Times reported.

That may be true, although White House spokespeople have said the report is not accurate, and the Times has not released the underlying documents or explained the sources of its information. But the bigger contention of the article–that the tax records show Trump is not the artful dealmaker he purports to be–is not supported by the evidence presented.

The article’s most basic problem is that it assumes that the losses Trump reported on his taxes are actual economic losses. But that’s highly unlikely due to the nature of his business. As a real estate investor, Trump was not in a position of a store owner selling inventory below cost and incurring operating losses. Instead, he would have been reducing his reported income by the amount of his interest payments on loans and the depreciation of the property he owned.

This can be a powerful combination that can create what are, essentially, illusionary losses that reduce taxes but inflate an owner’s bank account. What’s more, the bigger the portfolio is of assets owned, the larger the write-offs will be for interest and depreciation.

Take the simplest example. A guy buys an apartment building worth $10 million. For simplicity’s sake, let’s say he bought it with cash. Each and every year for the next 27.5 years he will get to write-down his income by around $370,000. If his tenants pay him $300,000 in rent after basic expenses, he’ll declare a loss of $70,000 on his taxes. His net worth has declined on paper, but he has $300,000 more in cash every year. And if the rent payments ever exceed the depreciation amount, he’ll get to use those old accumulated losses to offset the new income.

In the real world, of course, things are more complicated than our simple example. Buildings are bought with loans, which require interest payments that count as business expenses and reduce both actual income and taxable income. And there are other operating expenses associated with upkeep and maintenance.

So imagine our guy took out an $8 million mortgage at five percent, paying $2 million cash. Now he’s got to pay $400,000 in mortgage payments. He wants to make at least that much so he charges tenants an aggregate of $425,000, which after upkeep comes out to $410,000 of net income. (Remember, if the bank didn’t think he could make more in rent than the mortgage payment, it probably wouldn’t have lent him the money.) The interest payment on the loan–let’s call it $390,000–is deductible from his income, leaving him with $20,000 in net income. He gets to keep that and pay no taxes on it, however, because he still gets to apply the $370,000 depreciation charge. He tells the IRS he lost $350,000.

Under our tax code, ordinary business expenses can be deducted in the year they are incurred. But when a business pays for a long-lasting item expected to produce income–like machinery, vehicles, or an apartment building–it is considered a capital investment. Instead of getting to write-off the cost all at once, the business is required to write it off over the course of decades. After the 1986 tax code, this was set at 27.5 years for residential real estate.

The combination of depreciation and interest deduction was so powerful an engine for creating paper losses that this became one of the most popular tax shelters in the 1980s, in part because the early Reagan tax cuts dramatically slashed the depreciation timeline, which allowed for bigger deductions. It was so popular and drove so much money into U.S. real estate that prices exploded higher–with dire results when the bubble burst in the late 1980s. In the 1986 tax overhaul, Congress sought to limit the ability for outside investors in real estate deals to set off income from their other businesses with losses in real estate. Doctors couldn’t reduce their reported medical income with losses from real estate.

But that reform would have had very little direct effect on Trump, whose primary income was from the real estate that generated the losses. He would have been using depreciation and deductions from real estate to offset income from real estate, which is perfectly fine and not a questionable tax shelter at all...

Pro Tip: Even though he had deductible (paper) losses, he retains ownership of the property, which tends to increase in value.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

You do not seem to have the slightest grasp of Real Estate holdings, i.e. hard assets, let alone taxes. It's a multi-step process that I will share with you:

• Step #1 - Get a clue
• Step #2 - Proceed no further until you accomplish task #1 (You end here)

How the New York Times Misread Trump’s Tax Bills

Tax records showing that Donald Trump told the IRS that he lost nearly $1 billion over the course of a decade starting in the mid-1980s highlight the complexity of how the tax code treats real estate investments, but they do not tell us much about the president’s business prowess.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that tax transcripts revealing Trump’s tax filings in the years 1985 through 1994 show the president lost nearly $1 billion, with big losses concentrated in the years 1990 and 1991.

“Mr. Trump lost so much money that he was able to avoid paying income taxes for eight of the 10 years,” the Times reported.

That may be true, although White House spokespeople have said the report is not accurate, and the Times has not released the underlying documents or explained the sources of its information. But the bigger contention of the article–that the tax records show Trump is not the artful dealmaker he purports to be–is not supported by the evidence presented.

The article’s most basic problem is that it assumes that the losses Trump reported on his taxes are actual economic losses. But that’s highly unlikely due to the nature of his business. As a real estate investor, Trump was not in a position of a store owner selling inventory below cost and incurring operating losses. Instead, he would have been reducing his reported income by the amount of his interest payments on loans and the depreciation of the property he owned.

This can be a powerful combination that can create what are, essentially, illusionary losses that reduce taxes but inflate an owner’s bank account. What’s more, the bigger the portfolio is of assets owned, the larger the write-offs will be for interest and depreciation.

Take the simplest example. A guy buys an apartment building worth $10 million. For simplicity’s sake, let’s say he bought it with cash. Each and every year for the next 27.5 years he will get to write-down his income by around $370,000. If his tenants pay him $300,000 in rent after basic expenses, he’ll declare a loss of $70,000 on his taxes. His net worth has declined on paper, but he has $300,000 more in cash every year. And if the rent payments ever exceed the depreciation amount, he’ll get to use those old accumulated losses to offset the new income.

In the real world, of course, things are more complicated than our simple example. Buildings are bought with loans, which require interest payments that count as business expenses and reduce both actual income and taxable income. And there are other operating expenses associated with upkeep and maintenance.

So imagine our guy took out an $8 million mortgage at five percent, paying $2 million cash. Now he’s got to pay $400,000 in mortgage payments. He wants to make at least that much so he charges tenants an aggregate of $425,000, which after upkeep comes out to $410,000 of net income. (Remember, if the bank didn’t think he could make more in rent than the mortgage payment, it probably wouldn’t have lent him the money.) The interest payment on the loan–let’s call it $390,000–is deductible from his income, leaving him with $20,000 in net income. He gets to keep that and pay no taxes on it, however, because he still gets to apply the $370,000 depreciation charge. He tells the IRS he lost $350,000.

Under our tax code, ordinary business expenses can be deducted in the year they are incurred. But when a business pays for a long-lasting item expected to produce income–like machinery, vehicles, or an apartment building–it is considered a capital investment. Instead of getting to write-off the cost all at once, the business is required to write it off over the course of decades. After the 1986 tax code, this was set at 27.5 years for residential real estate.

The combination of depreciation and interest deduction was so powerful an engine for creating paper losses that this became one of the most popular tax shelters in the 1980s, in part because the early Reagan tax cuts dramatically slashed the depreciation timeline, which allowed for bigger deductions. It was so popular and drove so much money into U.S. real estate that prices exploded higher–with dire results when the bubble burst in the late 1980s. In the 1986 tax overhaul, Congress sought to limit the ability for outside investors in real estate deals to set off income from their other businesses with losses in real estate. Doctors couldn’t reduce their reported medical income with losses from real estate.

But that reform would have had very little direct effect on Trump, whose primary income was from the real estate that generated the losses. He would have been using depreciation and deductions from real estate to offset income from real estate, which is perfectly fine and not a questionable tax shelter at all...

Pro Tip: Even though he had deductible (paper) losses, he retains ownership of the property, which tends to increase in value.

What you fail to note is that the majority of that $1 billion he lost was other peoples money. He borrowed it and didn't pay it back.

There's some wisdom in your "Pro Tip." However it often doesn't work well when it's married to debt. I've had someone who does the same thing with rental real estate as Trump give me that lecture. He can gear up (borrow lots of money), be happy with returns on invested capital that I'd laugh at, and increasing property values will bail him out and all will be hunky dory. He's on the verge of bankruptcy right now and has been before. These guys may build "great fortunes," but then get wiped out when there's a downturn in rents and occupancy.

Trump didn't get where he is by genius. He did it through self promotion and taking advantage of his partners, creditors, suppliers, and in a few cases like Trump University his customers. That airplane Gnadfly's talking about is probably owned by the bank, or more accurately it's property used to secure a loan.

Fred Trump was the real genius. Donald's screwed up too many times to merit being called the same.

[Strokey_McDingDong]

the fact of the matter is that people who support T R U M P, support H I M for what H E stands for, and probably care less about the most recent scandal pumped out of the media on a weekly basis. I doubt this will influence many T R U M P supporters, who support H I M for other reasons than H I S TV personality, supposed business success or lack of controversy.

For me, it's either T R U M P, or I'm going to opt out of voting. I may be dissuaded to vote for T R U M P, but nothing will convince me to vote for Biden.

[smokedog01]

As usual the Trumpers in here deflect or are just too stupid to see the forest through the trees. The small amount Trump paid in taxes is utterly inconsequential. Anyone with a decent accountant or even rudimentary search engine skills can find tax loopholes. As usual ignore Lucas the larper. It is what everyone does and it doesnt take three ivy league degrees (lmao) to do it.



Chung is right. When Trump does yet another indefensible thing and there is a post about it that fucking thing falls off the first page almost instantly. You guys are funny. Doddering old men but funny.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by smokedog01

As usual the Trumpers in here deflect or are just too stupid to see the forest through the trees. The small amount Trump paid in taxes is utterly inconsequential. Anyone with a decent accountant or even rudimentary search engine skills can find tax loopholes. As usual ignore Lucas the larper. It is what everyone does and it doesnt take three ivy league degrees (lmao) to do it.



Chung is right. When Trump does yet another indefensible thing and there is a post about it that fucking thing falls off the first page almost instantly. You guys are funny. Doddering old men but funny.

so .. you are saying the trump hating trolls aren't spamming the forum enough with garbage replies and threads. or that no one replies to them? which is it?


BAHHAHAAAAAAA

[smokedog01]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

so .. you are saying the trump hating trolls aren't spamming the forum enough with garbage threads. or that no one replies to them? which is it?


BAHHAHAAAAAAA

You have no thoughts on Trump being outed as a complete and abject failure as a businessman?

[pleasurem]

Really? Biden’s son is all I have to say!

[winn dixie]

The anti Trump folks are doing a lot of yapping. Like a pack of ferocious poodles.