Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 11:19 am
Considering trump paid his son's Boy Scout Dues ($8 yr?) from his charity, I'm going with he paid it out of the company funds.
Tax deductible donnations to the charity, which then goes to the T mafia group. RIIIIICCCCOOOOOOOOOOOO
noblepa wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 11:17 am
In that Fox News clip, Don Jr. says his father paid for his (Senior) grandchildren's school.
Junior doesn't make it clear if the school was paid from senior's personal funds or from the Trump Organization's coffers. I would think that, if it was paid personally, it is probably not taxable. If the organization paid it, then it probably is.
Even if it was paid with personal funds, wouldn't that trigger the gift tax for whatever was above the annual exemption amount at the time on the recipient?
noblepa wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 11:17 am
In that Fox News clip, Don Jr. says his father paid for his (Senior) grandchildren's school.
Junior doesn't make it clear if the school was paid from senior's personal funds or from the Trump Organization's coffers. I would think that, if it was paid personally, it is probably not taxable. If the organization paid it, then it probably is.
Even if it was paid with personal funds, wouldn't that trigger the gift tax for whatever was above the annual exemption amount at the time on the recipient?
The lifetime exclusion of $11+M would probably preclude a gift tax. However, if you give over the annual gift tax exclusion amount of $15K to any one person ($30K if a joint gift from you and your spouse), then you would have to file a gift tax return.
45 had to pardon his campaign manager(manafort), his longstanding political adviser (stone), his national security adviser(flynn), his foreign policy adviser(papadopoulos), his deputy chair of his inaugural committee (broidy).
His deputy campaign manager went to prison, his personal lawyer went to prison(for 45's crimes), and his other personal lawyer is under federal criminal investigations, 45 himself is named by prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in multiple federal felonies.
AND, 45 himself, personally, currently, is under active federal investigation in 2 states.
Accountability can't happen fast enough...
Hillary Clinton Email "Investigation"
2 years(trey Gowdy's committee)gop
0 indictments
0 convictions
Why did GOP lie about this so hard and misrepresent the truth to the public?
Trump-Russia Investigation
15 months
34 Indictments/Charges (Individuals) (and counting)
3 Indictments/Charges (Companies)
5 GUILTY pleas (and counting)
4 CONVICTIONS (and counting)
Indicted: Roger Stone
Indicted: Paul Manafort
Indicted: Rick Gates
Indicted: George Papadopoulos
Indicted: Michael Flynn
Indicted: Michael Cohen
Indicted: Richard Pinedo
Indicted: Alex van der Zwaan
Indicted: Konstantin Kilimnik
Indicted: 12 Russian GRU officers
Indicted: Yevgeny Prigozhin
Indicted: Mikhail Burchik
Indicted: Aleksandra Krylova
Indicted: Anna Bogacheva
Indicted: Sergey Polozov
Indicted: Maria Bovda
Indicted: Dzheykhun Aslanov
Indicted: Vadim Podkopaev
Indicted: Irina Kaverzina
Indicted: Gleb Vasilchenko
Indicted: Internet Research Agency
Indicted: Concord Management
Convicted: Paul Manafort (campaign manager)
Guilty Plea: Michael Flynn(NSA)
Guilty Plea: Michael Cohen(personal attorney)
Guilty Plea: George Papadopolous
Guilty Plea: Richard Pinedo
Guilty Plea: Alex van der Zwaan
Guilty Plea: Rick Gates(asst. Campaign manager)
Over 191 Criminal Charges (and counting):
Conspiracy against the USA (2 counts)
Conspiracy to launder money (2 counts)
Bank fraud (8 counts)
Bank fraud conspiracy (10 counts)
Subscribing to false tax returns (10 counts)
Making false statements (6 counts)
Failure to file reports of foreign bank accounts (14 counts)
Unregistered agent of a foreign principal (2 counts)
False FARA statements (2 counts)
Subscribing to false tax returns (10 counts)
Assisting in preparation of false tax documents (5 counts)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States (13 counts)
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud (2 counts)
Aggravated identity theft (24 counts)
These are his "best" people.
How much more evidence do you need? The ringleader/orchestrator needs to be held accountable
Trump Org/Weisselberg indictment suggests 2 other "Trump employees" at risk of indictment. Who might be so high up in the Organization & so firmly entrenched in Trump's inner circle that they enjoyed the same criminal perks as Weisselberg? via
@YouTube
Hey even I understand that you can’t keep two sets of books and that if your employer covers nearly all of your,your wife, your kid and your grandkids’ living expenses it’s gonna be taxable income so I don’t consider that complex. Will the defense be they only knew the complex tax laws and not the straightforward ones?
filly wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 3:46 pm
Hey even I understand that you can’t keep two sets of books and that if your employer covers nearly all of your,your wife, your kid and your grandkids’ living expenses it’s gonna be taxable income so I don’t consider that complex. Will the defense be they only knew the complex tax laws and not the straightforward ones?
I don't think that ignorance of the law ever works as a defense against criminal charges in a court of law.
much ado wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 4:14 pmI don't think that ignorance of the law ever works as a defense against criminal charges in a court of law.
As always, "it depends."
Some crimes require very demanding standards, i.e., knowledge that the act was illegal. And for others, reliance on a professional's advice can effectively be a defense.
much ado wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 4:14 pmI don't think that ignorance of the law ever works as a defense against criminal charges in a court of law.
As always, "it depends."
Some crimes require very demanding standards, i.e., knowledge that the act was illegal. And for others, reliance on a professional's advice can effectively be a defense.
Hmmm... So would ignorance be likely to succeed in this case?
Popehat has been his usual annoying self by reminding people that criminal tax evasion -- in common with other "crimes likely to be committed by richer, whiter people" -- has a strict scienter element.
The prosecution will need to prove that Weisselberg (and Trump, if he's eventually indicted) knew that what they were doing was illegal.
Awareness of illegality can and frequently is proved by circumstantial evidence, and with a defendant like Weisselberg it will probably be an easy sell, but the prosecutors will still have to do it and be on their toes to prevent their witnesses from being massacred by defense counsel.
There's also Cheek v. United States, which held that "a genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the Federal tax law based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law is a defense to a charge of 'willfulness,' even though that belief is irrational or unreasonable."
The kinds of defendants who prevail on a Cheek defense are frequently goofballs, and it's hard (although not impossible) to imagine how to present such a defense without putting the defendant on the stand, which Weisselberg's lawyers probably don't want to do and Trump's lawyers would certainly try to prevent. But note that Trump's recent bullshittery about "who could have known it was wrong" is not inconsistent with a Cheek defense.
much ado wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 4:14 pmI don't think that ignorance of the law ever works as a defense against criminal charges in a court of law.
As always, "it depends."
Some crimes require very demanding standards, i.e., knowledge that the act was illegal. And for others, reliance on a professional's advice can effectively be a defense.
Hmmm... So would ignorance be likely to succeed in this case?
I think it could. If the OSG says he delegated responsibility for things like tax calculations to his underlings, and there's no paper trial (and there isn't. Remember he shreds everything), he could have a reasonable excuse. I suspect Beavis and/or Butthead could be held responsible, but the OSG himself might be able to get away with playing stupid. I think that's a big reason for putting pressure on Weisselberg. He can testify to what he did or didn't tell the OSG and be a witness to what he did or didn't know.
Okay, so I see the "who's ever heard of this?" crap as the first step toward throwing Weisselberg under the bus. IOW, not only "I don't know nothing 'bout filin' taxes" but laying the groundwork for "That's Allen's department."
if there are really two books, or spreadsheets, isn't that proof that Weisselberg knew what he was doing was wrong? trump underbusing the guy is a given, but I don't understand how AW can pull off the "I didn't realize what I was doing was wrong," defense if he willfully covered it up with a fake sets of books/spreadsheets.
And are we absolutely sure there are two sets of books, or could that be someone's interpretation/assumption?
noblepa wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 11:17 am
In that Fox News clip, Don Jr. says his father paid for his (Senior) grandchildren's school.
Junior doesn't make it clear if the school was paid from senior's personal funds or from the Trump Organization's coffers. I would think that, if it was paid personally, it is probably not taxable. If the organization paid it, then it probably is.
Even if it was paid with personal funds, wouldn't that trigger the gift tax for whatever was above the annual exemption amount at the time on the recipient?
The lifetime exclusion of $11+M would probably preclude a gift tax. However, if you give over the annual gift tax exclusion amount of $15K to any one person ($30K if a joint gift from you and your spouse), then you would have to file a gift tax return.
Your explanation of the unified exclusion is correct. However, payments made directly to medical providers or to schools for tuition (only) are excludable gifts not subject to gift taxes. In other words, if I give money to the hospital or the school on your behalf, I have not made a taxable gift. If instead I gave you the money to pay the hospital or school, then I have made a taxable gift. I don't recall the code section, but it is somewhere around 2500.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
humblescribe wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:29 pm
Your explanation of the unified exclusion is correct. However, payments made directly to medical providers or to schools for tuition (only) are excludable gifts not subject to gift taxes. In other words, if I give money to the hospital or the school on your behalf, I have not made a taxable gift. If instead I gave you the money to pay the hospital or school, then I have made a taxable gift. I don't recall the code section, but it is somewhere around 2500.
§2503(e). It looks like that got added in the early '80s. That's a good thing to know.
Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:20 pm
if there are really two books, or spreadsheets, isn't that proof that Weisselberg knew what he was doing was wrong? trump underbusing the guy is a given, but I don't understand how AW can pull off the "I didn't realize what I was doing was wrong," defense if he willfully covered it up with a fake sets of books/spreadsheets.
And are we absolutely sure there are two sets of books, or could that be someone's interpretation/assumption?
Yes, we know there were two sets of books. That is where the fraud charge comes from. They knew full well what they were doing. Weisselberg was taking these gifts in lieu of salary so that his taxes would be lower, and Trump kept the second set of books to make certain he didn't accidentally pay Weisselberg too much. The value of the apartment and cars were subtracted from his salary in order to arrive at the amount he would be paid by check. That amount is the only amount that tax was deducted for, and the only amount Wiesselberg declared as income. Oops.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
Yeah, I am fairly certain the Manhattan DA's office is fully aware of the relevant tax laws. I think there is a tendency for guys from the SDNY and people who deal solely with federal courts that people who trudge along in the sewers of the state courts just don't quite have the smarts, the trial skills, etc. Caution is certainly wise but a small company that's been running these schemes for 15 years knew exactly what they were doing.
x4
