Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 53,063
- 15,830
- 2,180
You continually make the claim that nobody has been charged for failing to report employee compensation properly, and yet thousands of indictments are handed out every year by the IRS and almost all involve the non-reporting of income. You are just spouting off what Trump's lawyers said, which doesn't amount to a hill of beans. While I will agree, most of the time it is just a fine, but in this particular case it was particular egregious. There very well be some jail time involved, and rightfully so. I mean there are simple solutions to every one of the scenarios listed, from the rental property, the car leases, and even the grandkid's tuition to private school. If a simple ass redneck hillbilly like myself knows what those solutions are, why does not a super badass businessman like Trump know them. If nothing else, this is a reflection of Trump's sheer ineptness as a businessman. I mean I would love to see his grades in college. Not likely that is ever going to be revealed.
I agree. There are so many judgements in accounting. If you don't press then you are WAY overpaying taxes. It's a stupid system.
One question every business owner has with our accountant is how aggressive we want to be. I told my accountant that my standard is if worse case is back interest, then I want to take it. If it could be a fine then I don't. Back interest is what the IRS charges you when even they admit it's a judgement call. They charge fines they are saying you should have known better. My accountant agreed with that standard.
I do believe that Trump is more aggressive, he pushes into the fine territory. Paying the tuition is a you should have known better choice, definite fine territory. But it's the Trump rules. It's not about consistency, it's just get Trump at any cost.
In the past it has not been criminal prosecution EVER. This is the first time. And of course that happens with Trump. It's absurd
Note how you conflated not reporting income with not properly reporting the value of benefits as income, two completely different things. Reject ...
Says the poor, hapless soul that;
1) refuses to read the indictment and thus has no clue what he's talking about
2) has yet to factually establish that no one has ever been charged with the crimes that Weisselberg and the Trump org have been charged with.
Given that you have no ide what you're talking about, why would we accept your unfounded assumption as anything more than the same ignorant babble you've offered up to this point?
Um ... when did I "refuse" to read the indictment? You haven't given me a reason to since you aren't raising any facts that change anything of what I said.
When you made claims that were explicitly and obviously contradicted by the indictment. For example, that our mention of the 'two sets of books' was a lie.
It wasn't. There was the general ledger and the internal spreadsheet....which gave completely different categorization for the payments in question. One taxable, the other not.
So you either read the indictment and then lied your ass off about it. Or you never read it and were babbling ignorantly about a topic you know jackshit about.
Your options are 'liar' or 'rube'.