• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Newly Uncovered Tax Documents Could Be Big Trouble for the Trump Organization

apdst said:
Yeah, they will do exactly that. Here in the states, they will, anyway. I don't know what kinda ****ed up system y'all got in Canada.
Click to expand...

Considering that I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that you know "what kinda ****ed up system y'all got (in the US)", I don't have to tell you that it doesn't surprise me that you don't know "what kinda ****ed up system y'all got in Canada" - do I?

PS - Of the top 40 "World's Safest Banks" (2018 rating my "Global Finance") would you like to take a guess (before Googling) at how many are Canadian and how many are American and would you like to take a guess (also before Googling) at how many of those Canadian banks are outranked by American banks?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From The New York Magazine

Newly Uncovered Tax Documents Could Be Big Trouble for the Trump Organization
​

The Trump Organization fudged financial figures related to the profitability of some of its buildings in a move resulting in allegations of fraud, according to new tax documents obtained by ProPublica. The documents support previous claims that Trump lies to lenders and tax officials, while also suggesting that potential fraud was committed while Trump was in the White House.

In one instance, the Trump Organization reported different occupancy rates for his building at 40 Wall Street depending on the audience. When trying to convince a lender to give him a loan, Trump reported higher figures. When reporting the occupancy to property-tax officials, the number was lower.

Other discrepancies surfaced when comparing the documents submitted to lenders to those submitted for tax purposes. For example, ProPublica says that at 40 Wall Street, “insurance costs in 2017 were listed as $744,521 in tax documents and $457,414 in loan records.”
There are also discrepancies in the numbers reported for the Trump International Hotel and Tower:

Trump’s company told New York City tax officials it made about $822,000 renting space to commercial tenants there in 2017, records show. The company told loan officials it took in $1.67 million that year — more than twice as much. In eight years of data ProPublica examined for the Columbus Circle property, Trump’s company reported gross income to tax authorities that was typically only about 81% of what it reported to the lender.
​

COMMENT:-

And someone is going to surprised to learn that "some juniour clerk at one of Mr. Trump's accounting firms 'accidentally fumbled some figures'"?

Not me.
​
Click to expand...

I'm getting so sick of all the could's, maybe's, possiblies, might's, and everything else the left constantly hurl about Trump.
 
apdst said:
You might be thinking of something else...
Click to expand...

That is ONE of the definitions of "imputed income".

Other types of "imputed income" include the amount of income which a person must logically have had in order to make the expenditures that they made. If you purchased a $1,000,000 yacht (for cash) while only making $20,000 per year the IRS is going to reassess your income at a level sufficient for you to have earned that $1,000,000 and it will be up to you to prove that you never actually earned the money required to pay for the yacht. This is also known as "deemed income", "implied income", and "assessed income".

PLEASE NOTE - "Stops" (of which quotation marks [""] are one) are frequently used to indicate that the term inside the "stops" does not necessarily mean what you think it means and/or that it is being used in a way somewhat different than ordinary.
 
JasperL said:
Yeah, but the key word there in the U.S. is "audited" which is a CPA attesting to their accuracy, in accordance with GAAP. If they are merely "compiled" financial statements, we more or less ignored them in favor of tax returns. If you're a CPA, the client prepares the "compiled" financials, and you put them in the proper form and that's pretty much it. There are no procedures done to check the accuracy, at all. So from Trump.... :roll:

You'd think for the kind of money at stake, the lenders would require audited financials, but I've come to expect that when it comes to banks incompetence is often the rule, and from what I've read lenders did accept compiled financials for Trump, for some crazy reason.

FWIW, a 'review' is in between but I don't know why anyone gets a review. It's not enough to give someone any real assurance, and it's more expensive than a compilation. To me the reader needs assurance, or not, and if they do, an audit is the only way to get it.
Click to expand...

I always went with "reviews" because they appeared to give the banks some confidence that you were not simply making the numbers up as you went along.

Of course I had one hell of a competent accountant who managed to get me down into the x<5% tax bracket every year but the one when things REALLY went well and I had to pay income tax at 7%. (My real tax rate was actually lower than 3% because we managed to "reassign" several payments from "income" to "repayment of shareholder loan" when I shut up shop.) Considering that my "real tax rate" (if I had been employed by someone else and receiving the same amount of income) would have likely been in excess of 30%, I don't begrudge my accountant a dime of what I paid him.
 
Moderate Right said:
I'm getting so sick of all the could's, maybe's, possiblies, might's, and everything else the left constantly hurl about Trump.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should stop supporting the lying tax evader and join the side of reason.
 
Obscurity said:
Maybe you should stop supporting the lying tax evader and join the side of reason.
Click to expand...

Well, there is no proof that he is a tax evader and, if he is, that is something the IRS deals with. You guys have just come up with the one millionth thing that Trump COULD have done. Could is in the damn title of the thread!
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I always went with "reviews" because they appeared to give the banks some confidence that you were not simply making the numbers up as you went along.
Click to expand...

"Appeared to give" is the operative phrase there. I've done a bunch of reviews and any confidence in the numbers is IMO misplaced. They're as good as the client is honest, in which case compilations should work fine. Basically all a review says is, "I've looked at the numbers and they don't appear to be totally absurd!"

Of course I had one hell of a competent accountant who managed to get me down into the x<5% tax bracket every year but the one when things REALLY went well and I had to pay income tax at 7%. (My real tax rate was actually lower than 3% because we managed to "reassign" several payments from "income" to "repayment of shareholder loan" when I shut up shop.) Considering that my "real tax rate" (if I had been employed by someone else and receiving the same amount of income) would have likely been in excess of 30%, I don't begrudge my accountant a dime of what I paid him.
Click to expand...

Can't speak to your personal situation, but I guess to close out the though, if a bank lending Trump money accepted less than an audit, all I'll say is I guess they got what they deserved....
 
Moderate Right said:
Well, there is no proof that he is a tax evader and, if he is, that is something the IRS deals with. You guys have just come up with the one millionth thing that Trump COULD have done. Could is in the damn title of the thread!
Click to expand...

Trump HAS done plenty. Leave him aside. He is a waste and a clown. The man soils the office and has destroyed your ideology.
 
JasperL said:
"Appeared to give" is the operative phrase there. I've done a bunch of reviews and any confidence in the numbers is IMO misplaced. They're as good as the client is honest, in which case compilations should work fine. Basically all a review says is, "I've looked at the numbers and they don't appear to be totally absurd!"



Can't speak to your personal situation, but I guess to close out the though, if a bank lending Trump money accepted less than an audit, all I'll say is I guess they got what they deserved....
Click to expand...

Can't argue with the last bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom