P.S. Hillary had one, too (but the NYT missed that one).
This would be laughable except it will probably gain more traction with the MSM than Miss Piggy.
Here’s the “smoking gun”:
The New York Times obtained records from 1995 showing that Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss.
The figure is so substantial that it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying federal income tax for 18 years.
Let’s unpack this journalistic gem …
What are they talking about?
First, some basics.
What’s an “NOL” or Net Operating Loss?
A company records an NOL when it loses money … when costs exceed revenues.
In effect, it’s negative income.
Nobody pays income taxes on negative income, right?
In fact, IRS rules allows losses to offset profits … both in the current year, the recently past 2 years and up to 20 future years.
So, income taxes in future profitable years are lower than they would be if no NOL carryforward were to be considered.
Those are the rules.
They apply to anybody who files business income on their 1040s.
Trump didn’t make the rules, he just follows them.
Headline should have read: “Trump followed tax laws and paid all all taxes due”
Even the Times’ sleuths had to admit that:
“The tax experts consulted by The Times said nothing in the 1995 documents suggested any wrongdoing by Mr. Trump.”
So, what’s the Times’ beef?
Apparently, most of the claimed losses came when Trump’s properties cratered along with the rest of Atlantic City gaming industry and hotel industry.
The 1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.
Must be obvious to all but me since the Times doesn’t offer any evidence of that …
The “journalists” didn’t point out that:
(1) Sometimes, boats sink when the overall water level drop
(2) Sometimes, entrepreneurs take risks that don’t pan out.
Look it up on your Apple watch if you don’t believe me.
He reaped a hugh tax benefit available only to the wealthy
Regardless of the fact that Trump followed the law and paid all taxes due , the Times’ shills are still upset:
Mr. Trump derived a “vast benefit from his destruction”.
I’m thinking that he didn’t consider the Atlantic City debacle to be a “vast benefit” … the losses were real losses!
I’m betting he would have preferred profits on his investment … just a guess, though.
So-called “vast benefits from destruction” are more commonly called “government bailouts”
Think, auto industry, solar industry (with panels made in China) and the soon to be dished money to the health insurance companies that ObamaCare is bankrupting.
Trump didn’t get bailed out … he just followed the existing tax code.
Hillary has taken tax loss carryforwards, too.
Great sleuthing by ZeroHedge.com.
Turns out that Bill & Hill carried forward almost $1 million in tax loss carry forwards on their latest tax return.
Harder for Team Clinton to throw stones.
Investment losses offset investment gains in the current year, but the carryforward is limited to $3,000 per year.
So, the Clinton’s carryforward — albeit a fraction of Trump’s — will carryforward for 233 years (versus Trump’s already expired carryforward).
Which brings us to the central issue.
Since the NOL carryforward gets applied as an offset to future earnings:
“The figure is so substantial that it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying federal income tax for 18 years.”
Political translation: the dude’s not paying his “fair share”.
That’s the point that’ll get traction with the unknowing.
I howled when I heard Hillary shriek at a rally: “What does that make the rest of us, chumps, for paying our fair share?”
Why did I howl?
My bet is that more than half of her rally attendees were paying no income taxes … and, maybe running to their mail boxes on the 6th of each month.
Oh yeah, their fair share is zero .. or, a monthly check.
Implied is the feeling that Trump should reach into the vault and pay the Feds more than the tax law requires.
Are you kidding me?
What about the Dem’s favorite billionaire: Warren “Wells Fargo” Buffett?
Does he cut a check to the Feds each year for more than he owes.
I guess it’s way more fun to indignantly whine that his tax rate is lower than his secretary’s.
C’mon Warren … pay your fair share … what about funding our army and our schools and our roads.
Guess that doesn’t apply if you’re “with her”.
I think this is what’s called selective outrage.
Gimme a break.