Trump's IRS Audit

[Guest]

has never been confirmed by any news source. He has never shown the IRS form letter indicating that his returns are being audited. Finally, the news media is starting to ask for confirmation of the audit. Want to bet it's all a lie?

[Guest]

Yes put me down for $100

[Guest]

has never been confirmed by any news source. He has never shown the IRS form letter indicating that his returns are being audited. Finally, the news media is starting to ask for confirmation of the audit. Want to bet it's all a lie?

Regardless, he is committing no crime by not releasing his taxr return to the public. It's really no one's business. Sorry, but that's how it is. If I was him, I would tell everyone to kiss my ***.

[Guest]

I don't think too many CPA's would find it easy to review his complex returns.

what page would you want to start on?

https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/05/11/National-Politics/Images/trump-taxes1462989001.jpg


PS not the short form!


about 500 corps in that stack

[Guest]

It may not be against the law for him not to release his tax returns but what may be in there could be and some of his business deals he has made with people that are high up in other countries could have a influence on some of the things a President has to do.

[Guest]

I don't think too many CPA's would find it easy to review his complex returns.

what page would you want to start on?

https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/05/11/National-Politics/Images/trump-taxes1462989001.jpg


PS not the short form!


about 500 corps in that stackThey are too hard for us to understand. He hasn't made that argument.

[Guest]

It may not be against the law for him not to release his tax returns but what may be in there could be and some of his business deals he has made with people that are high up in other countries could have a influence on some of the things a President has to do.

Why Assume negative?

there may be nothing

[Guest]

Why Assume negative?

there may be nothing

You people have stockholm syndrome

[Guest]

It may not be against the law for him not to release his tax returns but what may be in there could be and some of his business deals he has made with people that are high up in other countries could have a influence on some of the things a President has to do.

That is EXACTLY the reason he is petrified to do what every other GOP POTUS candidate (except Ford)...has done since Nixon. :ohdear:

Most GOP nominees since 1970s have released their tax returns, Fox's Chris Wallace says | PunditFact (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/may/18/chris-wallace/most-gop-nominees-1970s-have-released-their-tax-re/)

Each Republican nominee in the past nine presidential elections has released his tax returns: Ronald Reagan (1980, 1984), George H. W. Bush (1988, 1992), Bob Dole (1996), George W. Bush (2000, 2004), John McCain (2008) and Mitt Romney (2012).


In the long run it really doesn't matter however, since Trump's rabid followers wouldn't give a $hit if he personally owed money....to someone like Putin or even al-Qaeda. :oops:





:wave:

CNM

[Guest]

That is EXACTLY the reason he is petrified to do what every other GOP POTUS candidate (except Ford)...has done since Nixon. :ohdear:

Most GOP nominees since 1970s have released their tax returns, Fox's Chris Wallace says | PunditFact (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/may/18/chris-wallace/most-gop-nominees-1970s-have-released-their-tax-re/)




In the long run it really doesn't matter however, since Trump's rabid followers wouldn't give a $hit if he personally owed money....to someone like Putin or even al-Qaeda. :oops:





:wave:

CNM

Whats the tune the piped piper played?

[Guest]

That is EXACTLY the reason he is petrified to do what every other GOP POTUS candidate (except Ford)...has done since Nixon. :ohdear:

Most GOP nominees since 1970s have released their tax returns, Fox's Chris Wallace says | PunditFact (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/may/18/chris-wallace/most-gop-nominees-1970s-have-released-their-tax-re/)




In the long run it really doesn't matter however, since Trump's rabid followers wouldn't give a $hit if he personally owed money....to someone like Putin or even al-Qaeda. :oops:





:wave:

CNM

Most of us will take what he says, like it or not VS ANYTHING Clinton has said and done and not done......

anyday.

[Guest]

Most of us will take what he says, like it or not VS ANYTHING Clinton has said and done and not done......

anyday.

Too funny! :1rotfl:

Thanks for so quickly proving...EXACTLY what I said. :coolsmiley:


In the long run it really doesn't matter however, since Trump's rabid followers wouldn't give a $hit if he personally owed money....to someone like Putin or even al-Qaeda.


BTW, voting for a POTUS who could easily be blackmailed by our enemies...IS deplorable. :ohdear:




:wave:

CNM

[Guest]

Too funny! :1rotfl:

Thanks for so quickly proving...EXACTLY what I said. :coolsmiley:




BTW, voting for a POTUS who could easily be blackmailed by our enemies...IS deplorable. :ohdear:




:wave:

CNM

OK, I'll agree with your statement dealing with blackmail. So, show us how he could be blackmailed. One can only be blackmailed if you are trying to keep something a secret. Since you brought up blackmail, show us what he would be blackmailed on. Just a discussion, not the snide girly remarks.

[Guest]

OK, I'll agree with your statement dealing with blackmail. So, show us how he could be blackmailed. One can only be blackmailed if you are trying to keep something a secret. Since you brought up blackmail, show us what he would be blackmailed on.

If I have to explain why someone who is personally indebted to another can potentially be blackmailed...you're too ignorant to understand. :ohdear:




Just a discussion, not the snide girly remarks.

:1rotfl:

I'll bet you don't even see the flaming hypocrisy in what you wrote...do you? :oops:

I'm betting you're the Queen 'B' twit. ;)




:wave:

CNM

[Guest]

It may not be against the law for him not to release his tax returns but what may be in there could be and some of his business deals he has made with people that are high up in other countries could have a influence on some of the things a President has to do.

You mean like the monies the Clinton foundation has taken from foreign countries?

[Guest]

If I have to explain why someone who is personally indebted to another can potentially be blackmailed...you're too ignorant to understand. :ohdear:






:1rotfl:

I'll bet you don't even see the flaming hypocrisy in what you wrote...do you? :oops:

I'm betting you're the Queen 'B' twit. ;)




:wave:

CNM

You mean you aren't the Queen Bee Twit? :swear:

[Guest]

If I have to explain why someone who is personally indebted to another can potentially be blackmailed...you're too ignorant to understand. :ohdear:






:1rotfl:

I'll bet you don't even see the flaming hypocrisy in what you wrote...do you? :oops:

I'm betting you're the Queen 'B' twit. ;)




:wave:

CNM

So, as usual you have accusations with no evidence of maleficence. Got it. And yet, you are in complete denial of obvious evidence of corruption by the Clintons. You are a typical liberal.

[Guest]

If I have to explain why someone who is personally indebted to another can potentially be blackmailed...you're too ignorant to understand. :ohdear:






:1rotfl:

I'll bet you don't even see the flaming hypocrisy in what you wrote...do you? :oops:

I'm betting you're the Queen 'B' twit. ;)




:wave:

CNM

Just another Dumb A$$ troll. Not even civil enough to have a decent discussion. Might as well ignore you like your other half, the racist.

[Guest]

You mean like the monies the Clinton foundation has taken from foreign countries?

:agree:

[Guest]

Trumps IRS audit is the topic and far too many posters here default once again to their moral equivalencies.

I believe it is in the best interests of voters to have every presidential candidate release both their tax returns and their medical history. I suspect that if there were concerns by a candidate for either they would skirt the issue and /or modify the reports they are sending and/or close the books placing them off limits including other information concerning their bona fides college thesis etc.

On the other hand I can see that perhaps someone as wealthy as Trump would be concerned that the liberal media would use his complicated tax situation that certainly carried his business transactions worldwide as a distraction attempting to throw Trump off his game by defending their allegations

Anyone with knowledge knows that the business dealings of Trump in places like New York or Nevada were going to have overlapped with the mob because the mob is heavily embedded in areas such as this. SO is it any different than the worker who joins a union that is mobbed control. Is that worker a part of the mob? of course not but you can see where the progressive public relation terms such as New York times would make hay of it

So I can see why Trump may not want to avoid that trap

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

You mean like the monies the Clinton foundation has taken from foreign countries?

In that case they would not have the same leverage over her as they would trump.
She has nothing to loose like he does, and even for him if he is going to loose something like 500,000,000 he may be persuaded:a040:

[Guest]

Most of us will take what he says, like it or not VS ANYTHING Clinton has said and done and not done......

anyday.And what if Hillary wasn't running--would you still consider Trump trustworthy?

[Guest]

You mean like the monies the Clinton foundation has taken from foreign countries?In their foundation all the money goes to charity. They do not get anything. Trump has a foundation. Have you looked at that one? And see how they spent the money?

[Guest]

In their foundation all the money goes to charity. They do not get anything. Trump has a foundation. Have you looked at that one? And see how they spent the money?

You are not very well informed. You are WRONG.

Not even ten percent of the money goes to charity. The rest is used for Administration, such as air transportation for the Clintons, as well as very high paychecks for the Clintons (including Chelsea) hotel and meals, laundry, etc. They have a very nice expense account. How else did they make millions without a job?

[Guest]

You are not very well informed. You are WRONG.

Not even ten percent of the money goes to charity. The rest is used for Administration, such as air transportation for the Clintons, as well as very high paychecks for the Clintons (including Chelsea) hotel and meals, laundry, etc. They have a very nice expense account. How else did they make millions without a job?

that is an absolute fact well defined in all media


Pay for play

[Guest]

that is an absolute fact well defined in all media


Pay for playShow me where you read that. You should have many links if it's all over.

[Guest]

that is an absolute fact well defined in all media


Pay for play

That is absolute BS.

[Guest]

You are not very well informed. You are WRONG.

Not even ten percent of the money goes to charity. The rest is used for Administration, such as air transportation for the Clintons, as well as very high paychecks for the Clintons (including Chelsea) hotel and meals, laundry, etc. They have a very nice expense account. How else did they make millions without a job?
Look at her tax return.
Hillary for America (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/page/tax-returns/)

[Guest]

Show me where you read that. You should have many links if it's all over.


Sorry, you don't know how to use google.

[Guest]

Sorry, you don't know how to use google.
Program Percentage : 88 % [goes to the charity]

Clinton Foundation
Clinton Global Initiative
Clinton Health Access Initiative
William J. Clinton Foundation
Charities often solicit donors under multiple names. CharityWatch is aware of this charity soliciting donors using the above names.
RATING: A
Is this rating different than what you expected based on what the charity reports about itself or what other raters report about this charity? Read about what makes CharityWatch's independent ratings different from other sources of information.

Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation | Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch (https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478)


your turn

[Guest]

http://cdn.thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Foundation-2013-Breakdown.jpg


claim to be even remotely close to the truth, the words “directly” and “life-changing” have to mean something other than “directly” and “life-changing.” For example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers “life-changing” commodities?

Those two categories alone comprise over 15 percent of all Clinton Foundation expenses in 2013, and we haven’t even examined other spending categories like employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million). Yet, the tax-exempt organization claimed in its tweet that no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to these overhead expenses.

How can both claims be true? Easy: they’re not. The claim from the Clinton Foundation that 88 percent of all expenditures go directly to life-changing work is demonstrably false. Office chairs do not directly save lives. The internet connection for the group’s headquarters does not directly change lives.

http://cdn.thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Foundation-Overhead-2013-990.jpg

But what if those employees and those IT costs and those travel expenses indirectly save lives, you might ask. Sure, it’s overhead, but what if it’s overhead in the service of a larger mission? Fair question. Even using the broadest definition of “program expenses” possible, however, the 88 percent claim is still false. How do we know? Because the IRS 990 forms submitted by the Clinton Foundation include a specific and detailed accounting of these programmatic expenses. And even using extremely broad definitions–definitions that allow office supply, rent, travel, and IT costs to be counted as programmatic costs–the Clinton Foundation fails its own test.

According to 2013 tax forms filed by the Clinton Foundation, a mere 80 percent of the organization’s expenditures were characterized as functional programmatic expenses. That’s a far cry from the 88 percent claimed by the organization just last week.

http://cdn.thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Foundation-Programmatic-Breakdown-2013.jpg

If you take a narrower, and more realistic, view of the tax-exempt group’s expenditures by excluding obvious overhead expenses and focusing on direct grants to charities and governments, the numbers look much worse. In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.

While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project
transitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.




your lesson is complete for today


The Clinton's are CROOKS they netted on the books 100 million after leaving the WH in debt to the tune of 14Million, then buying two houses for almost 6 million

[Guest]

I think that's called CheckMate

[Guest]

http://cdn.thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Foundation-2013-Breakdown.jpg


claim to be even remotely close to the truth, the words “directly” and “life-changing” have to mean something other than “directly” and “life-changing.” For example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers “life-changing” commodities?

Those two categories alone comprise over 15 percent of all Clinton Foundation expenses in 2013, and we haven’t even examined other spending categories like employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million). Yet, the tax-exempt organization claimed in its tweet that no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to these overhead expenses.

How can both claims be true? Easy: they’re not. The claim from the Clinton Foundation that 88 percent of all expenditures go directly to life-changing work is demonstrably false. Office chairs do not directly save lives. The internet connection for the group’s headquarters does not directly change lives.

http://cdn.thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Foundation-Overhead-2013-990.jpg

But what if those employees and those IT costs and those travel expenses indirectly save lives, you might ask. Sure, it’s overhead, but what if it’s overhead in the service of a larger mission? Fair question. Even using the broadest definition of “program expenses” possible, however, the 88 percent claim is still false. How do we know? Because the IRS 990 forms submitted by the Clinton Foundation include a specific and detailed accounting of these programmatic expenses. And even using extremely broad definitions–definitions that allow office supply, rent, travel, and IT costs to be counted as programmatic costs–the Clinton Foundation fails its own test.

According to 2013 tax forms filed by the Clinton Foundation, a mere 80 percent of the organization’s expenditures were characterized as functional programmatic expenses. That’s a far cry from the 88 percent claimed by the organization just last week.

http://cdn.thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Foundation-Programmatic-Breakdown-2013.jpg

If you take a narrower, and more realistic, view of the tax-exempt group’s expenditures by excluding obvious overhead expenses and focusing on direct grants to charities and governments, the numbers look much worse. In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.

While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project
transitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.




your lesson is complete for today


The Clinton's are CROOKS they netted on the books 100 million after leaving the WH in debt to the tune of 14Million, then buying two houses for almost 6 million
Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go? (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/)

"By only looking at the amount the Clinton Foundation doled out in grants, Fiorina “is showing her lack of understanding of charitable organizations,” Borochoff said. “She’s thinking of the Clinton Foundation as a private foundation.” Those kinds of foundations are typically supported by money from a few people, and the money is then distributed to various charities. The Clinton Foundation, however, is a public charity, he said. It mostly does its own charitable work. It has over 2,000 employees worldwide.
“What she’s doing is looking at how many grants they write to other groups,” Borochoff said. “If you are going to look at it that way, you may as well criticize every other operating charity on the planet.”
In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, he said, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health Access Initiative.
“Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.”