This nation … republic was founded on fighting against a dictatorial government and its oppressing taxes. Over these last two centuries the federal government of the USA has grown into a tax monster even King George would cringe at … or be damn proud of. And so, over the decades and decades it has become ‘the American way’ to find and utilized the the tax loops and holes in order to avoid giving the gluttonous and bulging federal government in order to hold onto what belongs to us. Is there an american anywhere who would not take advantage of tax laws to lower their tax bill?
The answer to that is a resounding “No”, and that includes the Clinton’s and their adoring celebrities. Hey, as long as we’re talking about righteous indignation over filthy rich people/businesses not paying taxes **cough** GE **cough**, and we know all those very concerned Hollywood spoiled brats will be hanging on the leaked NYT Trump vs taxes info in order to parade their gal Hillz around as a tax champion, even though the Clintons did the exact same tax dodge, just remember this … Look up Glenn Reynolds Hollywood taxes. He’s written about Hollywood’s tax break that needs rescinded.
Well this is a little awkward. With the leaked 1995 Trump tax returns ‘scandal’ focused on the billionaire’s yuuge “net operating loss” and how it might have ‘legally’ enabled him to pay no taxes for years, we now discover none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton utilized a $700,000 “loss” to avoid paying some taxes in 2015.
Trump "apparently got to avoid paying taxes for nearly two decades—while tens of millions of working families paid theirs." pic.twitter.com/g62jB9fKr5
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 2, 2016
ZH goes on to show where/how the Clintons took full advantage of the same tax laws aand legal loopholes and maneuverings to give themselves tax relief.
As a matter of fact, pretty much the only real and serious legal trouble here is for the New York Times…
The New York Times just published Donald Trump’s tax returns without his “affirmative authorization” as required by law. This violates the plain language of the law, and is considered criminal if “willful.” In tax laws in general, and First Amendment cases as well, courts compel a definition of willful that requires the individual know the law and know the law prohibits them from doing what they did. Here is where The New York Times runs into true trouble.
Prior to receiving or publishing these documents, Executive Editor Dean Baquet acknowledged in a public forum with Bob Woodward and Laura Poitras that “lawyers would say this is crossing a line” and “you know what your lawyers would tell you: if you publish them, you go to jail.” In criminal willfulness prosecutions, this is as close as you get to a “smoking gun” of willful intent to break the law: public admission the person knows they would be breaking the law, but advocating it anyway. Worse yet, because Baquet is a “key employee” with authority to bind the company, this conduct could be considered a crime of The New York Times as a company.
The only defense proffered so far by supporters of The New York Times is the First Amendment. A key Supreme Court constraint on the First Amendment defense is that the newspaper obtain information “lawfully.” A seminal case in this respect is the famous footnote 8 from the Florida Star case in the Supreme Court where the court left open the question whether “in cases where information has been acquired unlawfully by a newspaper or by a source” the government may legally “punish not only the unlawful acquisition, but the ensuing publication as well.”
Shit … Sounds like a pretty big gamble to make/take just to expose your candidate’s political opponent’s legally applied tax returns, eh, NYT?
Wait … What’s this? Shades of Dan Rathergate?
The return address for the person who sent Trump’s tax returns to the New York Times is Trump Tower. pic.twitter.com/GVv8ZgFbc3
— Anthony De Rosa (@Anthony) October 2, 2016
— carolynryan (@carolynryan) October 2, 2016
I will say two words about a mysterious envelope in October before a national election:
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) October 2, 2016
Trump lost so much money that his tax preparer had to use a typewriter to manually add the -91 at the beginning of the -915,729,293. Wow. pic.twitter.com/SbnsEKImnT
— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) October 2, 2016
— Frank Styles (@DJFRANKSTYLES) October 2, 2016
@NumbersMuncher shouldn't negative numbers be within () what tax form uses – to represent loss?
— Sinjun (@Sinjun45) October 2, 2016
Hmmmmmmmmm? “Fake but accurate…”
The Trump campaign didn't deny the substance of the Times report, but it threatened to sue the paper if it published. pic.twitter.com/Pqxs2fKl46
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) October 2, 2016
I’m pretty sure a Trump lawsuit against the NYTimes might just be big and hard enough to nail shut on The Gray Lady’s coffin. And “for the record”, the NYTimes paid no taxes in 2014 … more likely than not because of their financial losses. And like General Electric, who actually makes huge yearly profits but avoids paying taxes with their offshore accounting, it’s okay because they’re democrat allies.
Oh, and NYT, how about looking at this one … It’s not as far back as Trump’s taxes during the Bill Clinton era:
That $6B was tax dollars paid to the federal government, dontcha know. Where is it?
@HillaryClinton UR capitalizing on the general ignorance around money and taxes that much of our country has. NO legs, no logic or intellect
— Peni Basse (@pmbasse) October 2, 2016
Ann Althouse has thoughts on this:
I just watched her [NYT’s Susanne Craig] on George Stephanopoulos’s Sunday morning show, and she could barely suppress her glee at her coup getting these documents. My favorite part was when Stephanopoulos asked her if it was acceptable to reveal these leaked documents, and she relied entirely on what the lawyers told her, which is exactly what Trump says about not releasing his tax returns: I’m going by what my lawyers are telling me.
I’d like to see Trump flip the question back to Hillary skillfully. The real issue is the tax code. Does it need to be reformed or not? If Trump took deductions, it was because the tax code provided for them. Once the deductions are there in the tax code, he pretty much has to take them and would be a fool not to take them. If it looks wrong, what’s really wrong is the tax code. So, is Hillary proposing to take away this deduction? Is Trump? Presumably, the deduction is there because it’s good policy. Will either candidate defend the policy and, if not, promise to change it? I don’t see what else matters here. And I suspect the candidates don’t even disagree about that.