Donald Trump’s Tax-Return Dodge

[Pop23]

Yawn, libs think tradition equals law, except when that tradition is marriage.

Thats a poor defense

There is no defense needed.

I think you meant you have no defense and thought attacking was defending

No, when there is no obligation there is no reason to defend.

And......

You must have a low self esteem if you found my earlier post an attack.

If there was no reason to defend it then why did you feel compelled to deflect? Feeling guilty or something?

Who deflected?

Because libs don't understand the difference between an obligation and a requirement, that's on you, not me.

 

[Pop23]

Poor Donald.... it's amusing how his trumpsters don't care. if it were Hillary Clinton, they'd be foaming at the mouth.



Unlike every major-party Presidential candidate since 1976, Donald Trump will not release his tax returns. He’s being audited by the Internal Revenue Service, he has said, and so he will not release any return, for any year, until the audit is complete. Beyond that, his campaign has made it clear that, regardless of the status of the audit, Trump will not be releasing the returns before November.

In March, two of Trump’s tax lawyers, Sheri Dillon and William Nelson, of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, released a letter to Trump that said the candidate had interests in roughly five hundred business entities and, thus, “your personal federal income tax returns are inordinately large and complex for an individual.” The lawyers said, further, that prior I.R.S. examinations of his taxes over the previous decade had produced no net deficiency. The letter said that the returns had been under “continuous examination” by the I.R.S. but, curiously, said nothing about how or why that might affect the disclosure of the returns. (When I contacted the firm, Dillon declined to speak to me.)

The law is clear about publicly releasing tax returns. The I.R.S. is prohibited from doing so, but taxpayers themselves have every right to disclose their own returns. Does the existence of an audit change the legal status of public disclosure? The answer is no; Trump can release the returns if he wants to. “He filed these tax returns under penalty of perjury with the I.R.S.,” Scott Michel, a partner at Caplin & Drysdale, a leading tax-law firm, said. “If he were to disclose the returns publicly, he’s not disclosing anything that the I.R.S. doesn’t already know about. A disclosure in and of itself cannot possibly prejudice or hurt him with his audit.”

The main risk of disclosure is political rather than legal. Trump’s returns may show that he pays a very low effective tax rate. They may also show that he gives very little to charity, or show foreign financial entanglements. But there is another, less obvious risk of disclosure, according to Michel. “He knows that if he discloses his tax returns, there will be thousands of tax professionals in this country going over them with a fine-tooth comb,” he said. “And, in the public discussion of the returns, there may be issues in his audit that might not yet have arisen, and the I.R.S. hasn’t found them. The auditing agent may get the idea to ask about something he hasn’t thought about. That’s probably one reason why he may be reluctant to turn them over.” Again, though, this possibility is a personal financial risk for the candidate, not a legal barrier to disclosure.

If Trump were interested in allowing the public to learn something about his finances, he might, Michel suggested, find a middle ground between total nondisclosure (Trump’s current position) and release of the full tax return. (Hillary and Bill Clinton have released their complete tax returns going back several years.) “There are any number of questions that could be asked about what’s on his tax returns that wouldn’t require him to disclose the returns themselves,” Michel said. “How much did he report giving to charity? How much tax have you paid in dollars? What’s the effective tax rate that he paid? Do you have any foreign trusts? Foreign bank accounts? How big is your I.R.A.? This is all stuff that is on the face of a tax return”—that is, the form presented to the I.R.S. “There are many facts that he could disclose without going back on his position of not disclosing the full return because he is under audit,” Michel said.

Trump has said that he seeks to pay as little tax as possible under the law. That’s his right, of course. As Judge Learned Hand observed in 1934, “Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.” The question is not what the law requires but what politics demands. In this and so many other ways, Trump has so far defied Presidential electoral tradition by keeping his returns to himself. And if he continues to stonewall it’s clear that he’s doing so because that’s his choice, not his obligation.

Donald Trump’s Tax-Return Dodge - The New Yorker

Yawn, libs think tradition equals law, except when that tradition is marriage.

no...it's like what it is....rightwingnuts only care when it's not from their anointed hero

I've never paid any attention to any candidates tax return.

Color me........

Not caring

 

[Wry Catcher]

I bet there isn't a libtard on this forum who pays more taxes than he has to. Amiright?

Deflection

Truth.

Still...Deflection

Still truth.

I don't know about any mythical libtard, those who exist in that great empty cavern between the ears of crazy right wingers

Thats a poor defense

There is no defense needed.

I think you meant you have no defense and thought attacking was defending

No, when there is no obligation there is no reason to defend.

And......

You must have a low self esteem if you found my earlier post an attack.

If there was no reason to defend it then why did you feel compelled to deflect? Feeling guilty or something?

Who deflected?

Because libs don't understand the difference between an obligation and a requirement, that's on you, not me.

I'm a lib and I fully understand the difference, an obligation is something one is morally duty bound to fulfill. A requirement is a rule one must comply with or suffer the consequences. Of course one's obligation once breached has consequences too, a blemish on their character. Trump has a back full of blemishes, and adds to them each time he speaks, as shown when his handlers need to edit, spin or reiterate his comments out of the context in which they were spoken.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thats a poor defense

There is no defense needed.

I think you meant you have no defense and thought attacking was defending

No, when there is no obligation there is no reason to defend.

And......

You must have a low self esteem if you found my earlier post an attack.

If there was no reason to defend it then why did you feel compelled to deflect? Feeling guilty or something?

Who deflected?

Because libs don't understand the difference between an obligation and a requirement, that's on you, not me.

Understand either of those have nothing to do with him hiding them goof troop

 

[Pop23]

I bet there isn't a libtard on this forum who pays more taxes than he has to. Amiright?

Deflection

Truth.

Still...Deflection

Still truth.

I don't know about any mythical libtard, those who exist in that great empty cavern between the ears of crazy right wingers

There is no defense needed.

I think you meant you have no defense and thought attacking was defending

No, when there is no obligation there is no reason to defend.

And......

You must have a low self esteem if you found my earlier post an attack.

If there was no reason to defend it then why did you feel compelled to deflect? Feeling guilty or something?

Who deflected?

Because libs don't understand the difference between an obligation and a requirement, that's on you, not me.

I'm a lib and I fully understand the difference, an obligation is something one is morally duty bound to fulfill. A requirement is a rule one must comply with or suffer the consequences. Of course one's obligation once breached has consequences too, a blemish on their character. Trump has a back full of blemishes, and adds to them each time he speaks, as shown when his handlers need to edit, spin or reiterate his comments out of the context in which they were spoken.

Releasing your taxes is neither a requirement, nor an obligation. It has been a tradition and nothing more.

You want to make it more than that? Contact your local law makers

 

[Pop23]

There is no defense needed.

I think you meant you have no defense and thought attacking was defending

No, when there is no obligation there is no reason to defend.

And......

You must have a low self esteem if you found my earlier post an attack.

If there was no reason to defend it then why did you feel compelled to deflect? Feeling guilty or something?

Who deflected?

Because libs don't understand the difference between an obligation and a requirement, that's on you, not me.

Understand either of those have nothing to do with him hiding them goof troop

He is of no requirement of making them public.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I think you meant you have no defense and thought attacking was defending

No, when there is no obligation there is no reason to defend.

And......

You must have a low self esteem if you found my earlier post an attack.

If there was no reason to defend it then why did you feel compelled to deflect? Feeling guilty or something?

Who deflected?

Because libs don't understand the difference between an obligation and a requirement, that's on you, not me.

Understand either of those have nothing to do with him hiding them goof troop

He is of no requirement of making them public.

Being required or not is not the answer to WHY he will not

 

[Wry Catcher]

Deflection

Truth.

Still...Deflection

Still truth.

I don't know about any mythical libtard, those who exist in that great empty cavern between the ears of crazy right wingers

I think you meant you have no defense and thought attacking was defending

No, when there is no obligation there is no reason to defend.

And......

You must have a low self esteem if you found my earlier post an attack.

If there was no reason to defend it then why did you feel compelled to deflect? Feeling guilty or something?

Who deflected?

Because libs don't understand the difference between an obligation and a requirement, that's on you, not me.

I'm a lib and I fully understand the difference, an obligation is something one is morally duty bound to fulfill. A requirement is a rule one must comply with or suffer the consequences. Of course one's obligation once breached has consequences too, a blemish on their character. Trump has a back full of blemishes, and adds to them each time he speaks, as shown when his handlers need to edit, spin or reiterate his comments out of the context in which they were spoken.

Releasing your taxes is neither a requirement, nor an obligation. It has been a tradition and nothing more.

You want to make it more than that? Contact your local law makers

Every nominee for the past 40 years has done so, it may not be obligatory but it is not transparent. The only consequence we can expect is a lack of trust in Trump by the voting public. at least that part of the voting public who pay attention and wonder what he is hiding.

Notice. We have not seen dozens of posts calling Trump a scofflaw, one can easily surmise if HRC had not released her taxes, she would be accused nefarious deeds - example, she is accused of much worse than being a scofflaw by the Right Wingers who find her guilty of imaginary wrongs / torts on the e-mail issue. The nicest thing I can think of in describing the set of trumpets who engage in the character assassination of HRC is they are hypocrites.

 

[kaz]

Poor Donald.... it's amusing how his trumpsters don't care. if it were Hillary Clinton, they'd be foaming at the mouth.



Unlike every major-party Presidential candidate since 1976, Donald Trump will not release his tax returns. He’s being audited by the Internal Revenue Service, he has said, and so he will not release any return, for any year, until the audit is complete. Beyond that, his campaign has made it clear that, regardless of the status of the audit, Trump will not be releasing the returns before November.

In March, two of Trump’s tax lawyers, Sheri Dillon and William Nelson, of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, released a letter to Trump that said the candidate had interests in roughly five hundred business entities and, thus, “your personal federal income tax returns are inordinately large and complex for an individual.” The lawyers said, further, that prior I.R.S. examinations of his taxes over the previous decade had produced no net deficiency. The letter said that the returns had been under “continuous examination” by the I.R.S. but, curiously, said nothing about how or why that might affect the disclosure of the returns. (When I contacted the firm, Dillon declined to speak to me.)

The law is clear about publicly releasing tax returns. The I.R.S. is prohibited from doing so, but taxpayers themselves have every right to disclose their own returns. Does the existence of an audit change the legal status of public disclosure? The answer is no; Trump can release the returns if he wants to. “He filed these tax returns under penalty of perjury with the I.R.S.,” Scott Michel, a partner at Caplin & Drysdale, a leading tax-law firm, said. “If he were to disclose the returns publicly, he’s not disclosing anything that the I.R.S. doesn’t already know about. A disclosure in and of itself cannot possibly prejudice or hurt him with his audit.”

The main risk of disclosure is political rather than legal. Trump’s returns may show that he pays a very low effective tax rate. They may also show that he gives very little to charity, or show foreign financial entanglements. But there is another, less obvious risk of disclosure, according to Michel. “He knows that if he discloses his tax returns, there will be thousands of tax professionals in this country going over them with a fine-tooth comb,” he said. “And, in the public discussion of the returns, there may be issues in his audit that might not yet have arisen, and the I.R.S. hasn’t found them. The auditing agent may get the idea to ask about something he hasn’t thought about. That’s probably one reason why he may be reluctant to turn them over.” Again, though, this possibility is a personal financial risk for the candidate, not a legal barrier to disclosure.

If Trump were interested in allowing the public to learn something about his finances, he might, Michel suggested, find a middle ground between total nondisclosure (Trump’s current position) and release of the full tax return. (Hillary and Bill Clinton have released their complete tax returns going back several years.) “There are any number of questions that could be asked about what’s on his tax returns that wouldn’t require him to disclose the returns themselves,” Michel said. “How much did he report giving to charity? How much tax have you paid in dollars? What’s the effective tax rate that he paid? Do you have any foreign trusts? Foreign bank accounts? How big is your I.R.A.? This is all stuff that is on the face of a tax return”—that is, the form presented to the I.R.S. “There are many facts that he could disclose without going back on his position of not disclosing the full return because he is under audit,” Michel said.

Trump has said that he seeks to pay as little tax as possible under the law. That’s his right, of course. As Judge Learned Hand observed in 1934, “Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.” The question is not what the law requires but what politics demands. In this and so many other ways, Trump has so far defied Presidential electoral tradition by keeping his returns to himself. And if he continues to stonewall it’s clear that he’s doing so because that’s his choice, not his obligation.

Donald Trump’s Tax-Return Dodge - The New Yorker

Trumps tax returns. Filed under don't give a shit.

His tax returns aren't going to change anyone's vote. Including yours. Go play with your dolls

of course you don't care. why would you? if it were Hillary's tax returns you'd be frothing at the mouth

I'm not voting for Trump, I don't care about his tax returns

I'm not voting for Hillary, I ....

... do care? What a dumb ass. You heard that from your teachers a lot before you dropped out to earn a living on your back, didn't you?

 

[kaz]

Poor Donald.... it's amusing how his trumpsters don't care. if it were Hillary Clinton, they'd be foaming at the mouth.



Unlike every major-party Presidential candidate since 1976, Donald Trump will not release his tax returns. He’s being audited by the Internal Revenue Service, he has said, and so he will not release any return, for any year, until the audit is complete. Beyond that, his campaign has made it clear that, regardless of the status of the audit, Trump will not be releasing the returns before November.

In March, two of Trump’s tax lawyers, Sheri Dillon and William Nelson, of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, released a letter to Trump that said the candidate had interests in roughly five hundred business entities and, thus, “your personal federal income tax returns are inordinately large and complex for an individual.” The lawyers said, further, that prior I.R.S. examinations of his taxes over the previous decade had produced no net deficiency. The letter said that the returns had been under “continuous examination” by the I.R.S. but, curiously, said nothing about how or why that might affect the disclosure of the returns. (When I contacted the firm, Dillon declined to speak to me.)

The law is clear about publicly releasing tax returns. The I.R.S. is prohibited from doing so, but taxpayers themselves have every right to disclose their own returns. Does the existence of an audit change the legal status of public disclosure? The answer is no; Trump can release the returns if he wants to. “He filed these tax returns under penalty of perjury with the I.R.S.,” Scott Michel, a partner at Caplin & Drysdale, a leading tax-law firm, said. “If he were to disclose the returns publicly, he’s not disclosing anything that the I.R.S. doesn’t already know about. A disclosure in and of itself cannot possibly prejudice or hurt him with his audit.”

The main risk of disclosure is political rather than legal. Trump’s returns may show that he pays a very low effective tax rate. They may also show that he gives very little to charity, or show foreign financial entanglements. But there is another, less obvious risk of disclosure, according to Michel. “He knows that if he discloses his tax returns, there will be thousands of tax professionals in this country going over them with a fine-tooth comb,” he said. “And, in the public discussion of the returns, there may be issues in his audit that might not yet have arisen, and the I.R.S. hasn’t found them. The auditing agent may get the idea to ask about something he hasn’t thought about. That’s probably one reason why he may be reluctant to turn them over.” Again, though, this possibility is a personal financial risk for the candidate, not a legal barrier to disclosure.

If Trump were interested in allowing the public to learn something about his finances, he might, Michel suggested, find a middle ground between total nondisclosure (Trump’s current position) and release of the full tax return. (Hillary and Bill Clinton have released their complete tax returns going back several years.) “There are any number of questions that could be asked about what’s on his tax returns that wouldn’t require him to disclose the returns themselves,” Michel said. “How much did he report giving to charity? How much tax have you paid in dollars? What’s the effective tax rate that he paid? Do you have any foreign trusts? Foreign bank accounts? How big is your I.R.A.? This is all stuff that is on the face of a tax return”—that is, the form presented to the I.R.S. “There are many facts that he could disclose without going back on his position of not disclosing the full return because he is under audit,” Michel said.

Trump has said that he seeks to pay as little tax as possible under the law. That’s his right, of course. As Judge Learned Hand observed in 1934, “Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.” The question is not what the law requires but what politics demands. In this and so many other ways, Trump has so far defied Presidential electoral tradition by keeping his returns to himself. And if he continues to stonewall it’s clear that he’s doing so because that’s his choice, not his obligation.

Donald Trump’s Tax-Return Dodge - The New Yorker

Trumps tax returns. Filed under don't give a shit.

His tax returns aren't going to change anyone's vote. Including yours. Go play with your dolls

of course you don't care. why would you? if it were Hillary's tax returns you'd be frothing at the mouth

So True ^^^, and that's not just Kaz, every one of the crazy right wing are members of the Hypocrite Society, some like Kaz are too dumb to know it, the rest are too dishonest to admit it.

Another genius who can't follow simple logic from I'm not voting for Trump or Hillary and you conclude I want her tax returns and not his.

I don't give a shit about her tax returns. There is nothing in them that would make me vote for her. Just like there's nothing in Trump's tax returns that would make me vote for him.

This reminds me of the thread you started blasting me for like ten of my positions, and you got every position wrong ...

 

[kaz]

Truth.

Still...Deflection

Still truth.

I don't know about any mythical libtard, those who exist in that great empty cavern between the ears of crazy right wingers

No, when there is no obligation there is no reason to defend.

And......

You must have a low self esteem if you found my earlier post an attack.

If there was no reason to defend it then why did you feel compelled to deflect? Feeling guilty or something?

Who deflected?

Because libs don't understand the difference between an obligation and a requirement, that's on you, not me.

I'm a lib and I fully understand the difference, an obligation is something one is morally duty bound to fulfill. A requirement is a rule one must comply with or suffer the consequences. Of course one's obligation once breached has consequences too, a blemish on their character. Trump has a back full of blemishes, and adds to them each time he speaks, as shown when his handlers need to edit, spin or reiterate his comments out of the context in which they were spoken.

Releasing your taxes is neither a requirement, nor an obligation. It has been a tradition and nothing more.

You want to make it more than that? Contact your local law makers

Every nominee for the past 40 years has done so, it may not be obligatory but it is not transparent. The only consequence we can expect is a lack of trust in Trump by the voting public. at least that part of the voting public who pay attention and wonder what he is hiding.

Notice. We have not seen dozens of posts calling Trump a scofflaw, one can easily surmise if HRC had not released her taxes, she would be accused nefarious deeds - example, she is accused of much worse than being a scofflaw by the Right Wingers who find her guilty of imaginary wrongs / torts on the e-mail issue. The nicest thing I can think of in describing the set of trumpets who engage in the character assassination of HRC is they are hypocrites.

So what were Kerry and Obama hiding when they wouldn't release their grades? Your ass has to be absolutely flaming from the hypocrisy

 

[kaz]

Poor Donald.... it's amusing how his trumpsters don't care. if it were Hillary Clinton, they'd be foaming at the mouth.



Unlike every major-party Presidential candidate since 1976, Donald Trump will not release his tax returns. He’s being audited by the Internal Revenue Service, he has said, and so he will not release any return, for any year, until the audit is complete. Beyond that, his campaign has made it clear that, regardless of the status of the audit, Trump will not be releasing the returns before November.

In March, two of Trump’s tax lawyers, Sheri Dillon and William Nelson, of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, released a letter to Trump that said the candidate had interests in roughly five hundred business entities and, thus, “your personal federal income tax returns are inordinately large and complex for an individual.” The lawyers said, further, that prior I.R.S. examinations of his taxes over the previous decade had produced no net deficiency. The letter said that the returns had been under “continuous examination” by the I.R.S. but, curiously, said nothing about how or why that might affect the disclosure of the returns. (When I contacted the firm, Dillon declined to speak to me.)

The law is clear about publicly releasing tax returns. The I.R.S. is prohibited from doing so, but taxpayers themselves have every right to disclose their own returns. Does the existence of an audit change the legal status of public disclosure? The answer is no; Trump can release the returns if he wants to. “He filed these tax returns under penalty of perjury with the I.R.S.,” Scott Michel, a partner at Caplin & Drysdale, a leading tax-law firm, said. “If he were to disclose the returns publicly, he’s not disclosing anything that the I.R.S. doesn’t already know about. A disclosure in and of itself cannot possibly prejudice or hurt him with his audit.”

The main risk of disclosure is political rather than legal. Trump’s returns may show that he pays a very low effective tax rate. They may also show that he gives very little to charity, or show foreign financial entanglements. But there is another, less obvious risk of disclosure, according to Michel. “He knows that if he discloses his tax returns, there will be thousands of tax professionals in this country going over them with a fine-tooth comb,” he said. “And, in the public discussion of the returns, there may be issues in his audit that might not yet have arisen, and the I.R.S. hasn’t found them. The auditing agent may get the idea to ask about something he hasn’t thought about. That’s probably one reason why he may be reluctant to turn them over.” Again, though, this possibility is a personal financial risk for the candidate, not a legal barrier to disclosure.

If Trump were interested in allowing the public to learn something about his finances, he might, Michel suggested, find a middle ground between total nondisclosure (Trump’s current position) and release of the full tax return. (Hillary and Bill Clinton have released their complete tax returns going back several years.) “There are any number of questions that could be asked about what’s on his tax returns that wouldn’t require him to disclose the returns themselves,” Michel said. “How much did he report giving to charity? How much tax have you paid in dollars? What’s the effective tax rate that he paid? Do you have any foreign trusts? Foreign bank accounts? How big is your I.R.A.? This is all stuff that is on the face of a tax return”—that is, the form presented to the I.R.S. “There are many facts that he could disclose without going back on his position of not disclosing the full return because he is under audit,” Michel said.

Trump has said that he seeks to pay as little tax as possible under the law. That’s his right, of course. As Judge Learned Hand observed in 1934, “Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.” The question is not what the law requires but what politics demands. In this and so many other ways, Trump has so far defied Presidential electoral tradition by keeping his returns to himself. And if he continues to stonewall it’s clear that he’s doing so because that’s his choice, not his obligation.

Donald Trump’s Tax-Return Dodge - The New Yorker

Trumps tax returns. Filed under don't give a shit.

His tax returns aren't going to change anyone's vote. Including yours. Go play with your dolls

So you don’t want to know if he’s been lying to you and playing you for the 24karat moron that you are?

rhetorical question

Then what's your answer?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Poor Donald.... it's amusing how his trumpsters don't care. if it were Hillary Clinton, they'd be foaming at the mouth.



Unlike every major-party Presidential candidate since 1976, Donald Trump will not release his tax returns. He’s being audited by the Internal Revenue Service, he has said, and so he will not release any return, for any year, until the audit is complete. Beyond that, his campaign has made it clear that, regardless of the status of the audit, Trump will not be releasing the returns before November.

In March, two of Trump’s tax lawyers, Sheri Dillon and William Nelson, of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, released a letter to Trump that said the candidate had interests in roughly five hundred business entities and, thus, “your personal federal income tax returns are inordinately large and complex for an individual.” The lawyers said, further, that prior I.R.S. examinations of his taxes over the previous decade had produced no net deficiency. The letter said that the returns had been under “continuous examination” by the I.R.S. but, curiously, said nothing about how or why that might affect the disclosure of the returns. (When I contacted the firm, Dillon declined to speak to me.)

The law is clear about publicly releasing tax returns. The I.R.S. is prohibited from doing so, but taxpayers themselves have every right to disclose their own returns. Does the existence of an audit change the legal status of public disclosure? The answer is no; Trump can release the returns if he wants to. “He filed these tax returns under penalty of perjury with the I.R.S.,” Scott Michel, a partner at Caplin & Drysdale, a leading tax-law firm, said. “If he were to disclose the returns publicly, he’s not disclosing anything that the I.R.S. doesn’t already know about. A disclosure in and of itself cannot possibly prejudice or hurt him with his audit.”

The main risk of disclosure is political rather than legal. Trump’s returns may show that he pays a very low effective tax rate. They may also show that he gives very little to charity, or show foreign financial entanglements. But there is another, less obvious risk of disclosure, according to Michel. “He knows that if he discloses his tax returns, there will be thousands of tax professionals in this country going over them with a fine-tooth comb,” he said. “And, in the public discussion of the returns, there may be issues in his audit that might not yet have arisen, and the I.R.S. hasn’t found them. The auditing agent may get the idea to ask about something he hasn’t thought about. That’s probably one reason why he may be reluctant to turn them over.” Again, though, this possibility is a personal financial risk for the candidate, not a legal barrier to disclosure.

If Trump were interested in allowing the public to learn something about his finances, he might, Michel suggested, find a middle ground between total nondisclosure (Trump’s current position) and release of the full tax return. (Hillary and Bill Clinton have released their complete tax returns going back several years.) “There are any number of questions that could be asked about what’s on his tax returns that wouldn’t require him to disclose the returns themselves,” Michel said. “How much did he report giving to charity? How much tax have you paid in dollars? What’s the effective tax rate that he paid? Do you have any foreign trusts? Foreign bank accounts? How big is your I.R.A.? This is all stuff that is on the face of a tax return”—that is, the form presented to the I.R.S. “There are many facts that he could disclose without going back on his position of not disclosing the full return because he is under audit,” Michel said.

Trump has said that he seeks to pay as little tax as possible under the law. That’s his right, of course. As Judge Learned Hand observed in 1934, “Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.” The question is not what the law requires but what politics demands. In this and so many other ways, Trump has so far defied Presidential electoral tradition by keeping his returns to himself. And if he continues to stonewall it’s clear that he’s doing so because that’s his choice, not his obligation.

Donald Trump’s Tax-Return Dodge - The New Yorker

He should release just the short form

 

[WillowTree]

Truth.

Still...Deflection

Still truth.

I don't know about any mythical libtard, those who exist in that great empty cavern between the ears of crazy right wingers

No, when there is no obligation there is no reason to defend.

And......

You must have a low self esteem if you found my earlier post an attack.

If there was no reason to defend it then why did you feel compelled to deflect? Feeling guilty or something?

Who deflected?

Because libs don't understand the difference between an obligation and a requirement, that's on you, not me.

I'm a lib and I fully understand the difference, an obligation is something one is morally duty bound to fulfill. A requirement is a rule one must comply with or suffer the consequences. Of course one's obligation once breached has consequences too, a blemish on their character. Trump has a back full of blemishes, and adds to them each time he speaks, as shown when his handlers need to edit, spin or reiterate his comments out of the context in which they were spoken.

Releasing your taxes is neither a requirement, nor an obligation. It has been a tradition and nothing more.

You want to make it more than that? Contact your local law makers

Every nominee for the past 40 years has done so, it may not be obligatory but it is not transparent. The only consequence we can expect is a lack of trust in Trump by the voting public. at least that part of the voting public who pay attention and wonder what he is hiding.

Notice. We have not seen dozens of posts calling Trump a scofflaw, one can easily surmise if HRC had not released her taxes, she would be accused nefarious deeds - example, she is accused of much worse than being a scofflaw by the Right Wingers who find her guilty of imaginary wrongs / torts on the e-mail issue. The nicest thing I can think of in describing the set of trumpets who engage in the character assassination of HRC is they are hypocrites.

So, why won't Hillary release her speeches to Wall Street? We won't trust her til she does.

 

[Pop23]

No, when there is no obligation there is no reason to defend.

And......

You must have a low self esteem if you found my earlier post an attack.

If there was no reason to defend it then why did you feel compelled to deflect? Feeling guilty or something?

Who deflected?

Because libs don't understand the difference between an obligation and a requirement, that's on you, not me.

Understand either of those have nothing to do with him hiding them goof troop

He is of no requirement of making them public.

Being required or not is not the answer to WHY he will not

Yes it most definately is

 

[Pop23]

Still...Deflection

Still truth.

I don't know about any mythical libtard, those who exist in that great empty cavern between the ears of crazy right wingers

If there was no reason to defend it then why did you feel compelled to deflect? Feeling guilty or something?

Who deflected?

Because libs don't understand the difference between an obligation and a requirement, that's on you, not me.

I'm a lib and I fully understand the difference, an obligation is something one is morally duty bound to fulfill. A requirement is a rule one must comply with or suffer the consequences. Of course one's obligation once breached has consequences too, a blemish on their character. Trump has a back full of blemishes, and adds to them each time he speaks, as shown when his handlers need to edit, spin or reiterate his comments out of the context in which they were spoken.

Releasing your taxes is neither a requirement, nor an obligation. It has been a tradition and nothing more.

You want to make it more than that? Contact your local law makers

Every nominee for the past 40 years has done so, it may not be obligatory but it is not transparent. The only consequence we can expect is a lack of trust in Trump by the voting public. at least that part of the voting public who pay attention and wonder what he is hiding.

Notice. We have not seen dozens of posts calling Trump a scofflaw, one can easily surmise if HRC had not released her taxes, she would be accused nefarious deeds - example, she is accused of much worse than being a scofflaw by the Right Wingers who find her guilty of imaginary wrongs / torts on the e-mail issue. The nicest thing I can think of in describing the set of trumpets who engage in the character assassination of HRC is they are hypocrites.

So what were Kerry and Obama hiding when they wouldn't release their grades? Your ass has to be absolutely flaming from the hypocrisy

Is there a point here?

They are of no obligation to

 

[g5000]

Trump also lies about when Romney released his tax returns, claiming Romney didn't release them until September 2012. A total lie. Romney released them in February 2012.

Trump is pathological.

 

[Pop23]

Poor Donald.... it's amusing how his trumpsters don't care. if it were Hillary Clinton, they'd be foaming at the mouth.



Unlike every major-party Presidential candidate since 1976, Donald Trump will not release his tax returns. He’s being audited by the Internal Revenue Service, he has said, and so he will not release any return, for any year, until the audit is complete. Beyond that, his campaign has made it clear that, regardless of the status of the audit, Trump will not be releasing the returns before November.

In March, two of Trump’s tax lawyers, Sheri Dillon and William Nelson, of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, released a letter to Trump that said the candidate had interests in roughly five hundred business entities and, thus, “your personal federal income tax returns are inordinately large and complex for an individual.” The lawyers said, further, that prior I.R.S. examinations of his taxes over the previous decade had produced no net deficiency. The letter said that the returns had been under “continuous examination” by the I.R.S. but, curiously, said nothing about how or why that might affect the disclosure of the returns. (When I contacted the firm, Dillon declined to speak to me.)

The law is clear about publicly releasing tax returns. The I.R.S. is prohibited from doing so, but taxpayers themselves have every right to disclose their own returns. Does the existence of an audit change the legal status of public disclosure? The answer is no; Trump can release the returns if he wants to. “He filed these tax returns under penalty of perjury with the I.R.S.,” Scott Michel, a partner at Caplin & Drysdale, a leading tax-law firm, said. “If he were to disclose the returns publicly, he’s not disclosing anything that the I.R.S. doesn’t already know about. A disclosure in and of itself cannot possibly prejudice or hurt him with his audit.”

The main risk of disclosure is political rather than legal. Trump’s returns may show that he pays a very low effective tax rate. They may also show that he gives very little to charity, or show foreign financial entanglements. But there is another, less obvious risk of disclosure, according to Michel. “He knows that if he discloses his tax returns, there will be thousands of tax professionals in this country going over them with a fine-tooth comb,” he said. “And, in the public discussion of the returns, there may be issues in his audit that might not yet have arisen, and the I.R.S. hasn’t found them. The auditing agent may get the idea to ask about something he hasn’t thought about. That’s probably one reason why he may be reluctant to turn them over.” Again, though, this possibility is a personal financial risk for the candidate, not a legal barrier to disclosure.

If Trump were interested in allowing the public to learn something about his finances, he might, Michel suggested, find a middle ground between total nondisclosure (Trump’s current position) and release of the full tax return. (Hillary and Bill Clinton have released their complete tax returns going back several years.) “There are any number of questions that could be asked about what’s on his tax returns that wouldn’t require him to disclose the returns themselves,” Michel said. “How much did he report giving to charity? How much tax have you paid in dollars? What’s the effective tax rate that he paid? Do you have any foreign trusts? Foreign bank accounts? How big is your I.R.A.? This is all stuff that is on the face of a tax return”—that is, the form presented to the I.R.S. “There are many facts that he could disclose without going back on his position of not disclosing the full return because he is under audit,” Michel said.

Trump has said that he seeks to pay as little tax as possible under the law. That’s his right, of course. As Judge Learned Hand observed in 1934, “Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.” The question is not what the law requires but what politics demands. In this and so many other ways, Trump has so far defied Presidential electoral tradition by keeping his returns to himself. And if he continues to stonewall it’s clear that he’s doing so because that’s his choice, not his obligation.

Donald Trump’s Tax-Return Dodge - The New Yorker

He should release just the short form

He should release only what he wants to.

 

[g5000]

People with nothing to hide, hide nothing.

Where is the tax return?

Like medical records?

Has every nominee since Nixon released their medical records?

Didn't think so. FAIL. Go back and try again.

 

[g5000]

Still truth.

I don't know about any mythical libtard, those who exist in that great empty cavern between the ears of crazy right wingers

Who deflected?

Because libs don't understand the difference between an obligation and a requirement, that's on you, not me.

I'm a lib and I fully understand the difference, an obligation is something one is morally duty bound to fulfill. A requirement is a rule one must comply with or suffer the consequences. Of course one's obligation once breached has consequences too, a blemish on their character. Trump has a back full of blemishes, and adds to them each time he speaks, as shown when his handlers need to edit, spin or reiterate his comments out of the context in which they were spoken.

Releasing your taxes is neither a requirement, nor an obligation. It has been a tradition and nothing more.

You want to make it more than that? Contact your local law makers

Every nominee for the past 40 years has done so, it may not be obligatory but it is not transparent. The only consequence we can expect is a lack of trust in Trump by the voting public. at least that part of the voting public who pay attention and wonder what he is hiding.

Notice. We have not seen dozens of posts calling Trump a scofflaw, one can easily surmise if HRC had not released her taxes, she would be accused nefarious deeds - example, she is accused of much worse than being a scofflaw by the Right Wingers who find her guilty of imaginary wrongs / torts on the e-mail issue. The nicest thing I can think of in describing the set of trumpets who engage in the character assassination of HRC is they are hypocrites.

So what were Kerry and Obama hiding when they wouldn't release their grades? Your ass has to be absolutely flaming from the hypocrisy

Is there a point here?

They are of no obligation to

That's the benchmark you want to set? Are you SURE?