Weisselberg Indicted

[colfax_m]

He doesn't live in New York, asshole. If he lives further than the minimum distance, then his traveling expenses are deductible. That's the law.

No. He WORKS in New York. That means the IRS won’t let you have tax free rent just because you decide to live far away.

Again, this is about rent, not travel expenses.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He doesn't live in New York, asshole. If he lives further than the minimum distance, then his traveling expenses are deductible. That's the law.

No. He WORKS in New York. That means the IRS won’t let you have tax free rent just because you decide to live far away.

Again, this is about rent, not travel expenses.

But he is indeed alleged to have lived there and to have lied about not living there, in order to evade new york city income tax.

 

[struth]

Entirely possible if you live over the minimum distance for your traveling expenses to be deductible.

Nope. Weisselberg works in New York City. He couldn’t possibly qualify for a tax free apartment in New York City.

There are no circumstances that would change that.

the issue isn’t if it’s deductible for him. It’s not his property to deduct. It’s the company’s property. Always was and will be. The question is if he has to add the value of when he stays there to his income, when he stayed there

seriously you literally have no clue about this topic and continue to push debunked propaganda talking points

 

[colfax_m]

the issue isn’t if it’s deductible for him. It’s not his property to deduct. It’s the company’s property. Always was and will be. The question is if he has to add the value of when he stays there to his income, when he stayed there

If you look at my actual post, I wasn’t the one saying “deductible”, that would be the other poster who does indeed have no clue about the topic. I was consistent in saying whether it was a tax free benefit.

But the question about is actually a bit relevant. If someone can deduct lodging as a business expense on their taxes, generally a business can provide it without it being considered taxable wages, so there is a relation.

It wasn’t the company property, they leased it from another company. The company did not own the apartment. That matters a little bit since providing lodging generally requires it to be in company property.

There’s really no circumstances that would make this arrangement okay.

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t it you that tried to claim my lunches were taxable benefit? I’m pretty well informed on the topic. Are you?

 

[bripat9643]

He doesn't live in New York

If he stays there for 183 days out of the year, he does. That is why we have rules: so that things like this are not decided on what whiny little bitch yells the loudest for the longest. A simple rule, well known to the man who apparently broke it. Surely you don't think screaming " I DID NOT LIVE IN NEW YORK CITY ASSHOLE!" will be a valid defense in court, right? Of course not.

It's pointless to debate this topic when neither of us know all the fact nor all the laws.

 

[bripat9643]

I know you're stupid, but you can't be this stupid.

Then go ahead and explain it like I am 5. Explain to me what your imaginary friends' arrangements have to do with Wesisselberg. Be very specific. Pretend for a second you know what you are talking about, maybe.

<YAWN!>

Go play in the freeway, shortbus.

 

[bripat9643]

He doesn't live in New York, asshole. If he lives further than the minimum distance, then his traveling expenses are deductible. That's the law.

No. He WORKS in New York. That means the IRS won’t let you have tax free rent just because you decide to live far away.

Again, this is about rent, not travel expenses.

Rent can be a travel expense, moron.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's pointless to debate this topic when neither of us know all the fact nor all the laws.

Frankly, there isn't much debate to be had. One can only try to dispute the alleged facts of the indictment (which are all completely based on documents that the prosecution will have to show in court). If the alleged facts are true, Wesselberg and Trump Org are guilty of the crimes of which they are charged. This isnt a set of charges case built on circumstantial evidence or testimony. They built the charges on documents whose contents spell ou fraud.

that's why the right wing noise machine is focused on silly red herrings, like "I knew a guy with an apartment for work once" and "These are just fringe benefits" and " this is a political witchhunt".

this is because there really is no debate about the indictment, regarding its allegations or evidentiary support. If the prosecution has the documents it claims to have and they include the data the prosecution claims they contain, it is then definitively shown that Weisselberg and the Trump Org committed those felonies. All that is left to him is to cooperate with the prosecution to reduce his penalty, or try to argue a technical violation by investigators or the prosecution. or he can suck it up and take his prison time, taking the fall for everyone else involved in the criminal conspiracy.

So really, all that is left for all of us observers at this time is to claim "The prosecution lied and does not have that spreadsheet", or something similar, if we wish to undermine the indictment. I would say it is a very safe bet that the prosecution has all the documents they say they have, and that the data on the documents is what they say it is. The crap Rudy tried to pull in a Pennsylvania courtroom ended in total embarrassment for him, for Trump, and for their entire legal team. Rudy had to quickly withdraw his unevidenced claims, lest he be sanctioned by the court. I would not bet on a repeat of that incident, in this case.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I know you're stupid, but you can't be this stupid.

Then go ahead and explain it like I am 5. Explain to me what your imaginary friends' arrangements have to do with Wesisselberg. Be very specific. Pretend for a second you know what you are talking about, maybe.

<YAWN!>

Go play in the freeway, shortbus.

You didn't think that far into it, did ya? You honestly thought just sating that your imaginary friends had apartments provided for them for out of town work made the point that Weisselberg did not commit tax fraud.

 

[colfax_m]

Rent can be a travel expense, moron.

He works in New York City. You don’t get to claim rent as a travel expense (whatever the hell that means) when it’s where you work.

 

[lantern2814]

Barry ignored subpoenas from Congress, douchebag. You had no problem with that.

You realize that has nothing to do with the topic, right?

This isn't a thread about Congressional oversight of the executive.

Those subpoenas came about from a criminal act (supplying guns to Mexican drug cartels without informing the Mexican government) resulting in the murder of an American border agent. That seems like a criminal act.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Those subpoenas came about from a criminal act (supplying guns to Mexican drug cartels without informing the Mexican government) resulting in the murder of an American border agent. That seems like a criminal act.

Well, I mean, if it kinda, sorta feels like a criminal subpoena, then hey...

 

[lantern2814]

no it’s plain English. They fully cooperated on everything, but on the issues that they believed Vance was going to far and fought those issues. Not sure how clearer that can be.

I love this line.

Trump was fully faithful to his wife, except when he believed he really wanted to have sex with someone else.

With this kind of doublespeak, anything is possible.

Just because you don’t understand people using their LEGAL rights doesn’t mean they did anything wrong. Complete bullshit comparison. But bullshit is all you and flaming fart have.

 

[lantern2814]

Those subpoenas came about from a criminal act (supplying guns to Mexican drug cartels without informing the Mexican government) resulting in the murder of an American border agent. That seems like a criminal act.

Well, I mean, if it kinda, sorta feels like a criminal subpoena, then hey...

Your support of criminal Dems is noted. Now link to where Trump people stated they would not cooperate with LEGAL inquiries. See you never.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just because you don’t understand people using their LEGEAL rights doesn’t mean they did anything wrong.

Haha, someone has run out of things to say.

 

[lantern2814]

no it’s plain English. They fully cooperated on everything, but on the issues that they believed Vance was going to far and fought those issues. Not sure how clearer that can be.

I love this line.

Trump was fully faithful to his wife, except when he believed he really wanted to have sex with someone else.

With this kind of doublespeak, anything is possible.

that’s not doublespeak, in your hypo is was until he wasn’t.

but that’s not the same comparison either. the question is of really three different things/people , the CFO, Trump and the Trump Org. and numerous issues

Trump personally didn’t cooperate with turning his personal private federal tax returns over

the CFO cooperated fully and has since 2018.

The trump org fully cooperated but on specific issues when they thought the Vance was going to far in his obvious witch hunt and exercised their rights on those issues

with that said nobody is required to cooperate. Vance was given a gift when the CFO did as far back as 2018

Yes. It’s doublespeak. Fully cooperating means fully. If you go to the Supreme Court to block a subpoena, that’s not fully cooperating.

Furthermore, there’s nothing about Weisselberg that indicates he’s cooperating fully. You know he appeared in front of the grand jury. Beyond that, you have no idea about whether he did anything requested beyond that.

Of course, how DARE Trump people use LEGAL remedies. According to you, only Dems get legal protection.

 

[lantern2814]

Just because you don’t understand people using their LEGEAL rights doesn’t mean they did anything wrong.

Haha, someone has run out of things to say.

That would be you flaming fart. Still waiting on those links.

 

[colfax_m]

Of course, how DARE Trump people use LEGAL remedies. According to you, only Dems get legal protection.

Vance’s actions are equally legal but that doesn’t stop y’all from wailing and moaning about it.

 

[Nostra]

colfax_m But Al Sharpton gets a pass for screwing the Gubmint out of $4.5 million.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

colfax_m But Al Sharpton gets a pass for screwing the Gubmint out of $4.5 million.

yep. And OJ and Cosby go free. Bummer.