Clinton foundation amended returns back to 2010?

Clinton foundation amended returns back to 2010?

Notices

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Clinton foundation amended returns back to 2010?
  #1  
Old 10-03-2016, 01:20 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clinton foundation amended returns back to 2010?

Forbes Welcome


"Starting in 2010, the Foundation reported on its IRS tax return for three consecutive years that it received no donations from foreign government sources. It wasn't as if they didn't know how to report them. In prior years, the Foundation reported tens of millions of dollars in such donations. Then, after Mrs. Clinton resigned as Secretary of State, the Foundation again began accepting donations from foreign governments. Of course, it has now once again pledged to stop accepting them. This time do they mean it? Does Mrs. Clinton?

The Foundation is now worrying over the accuracy of the IRS returns from 2010, 2011 and 2012."

  #2  
Old 10-03-2016, 01:22 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Big GD surprise!

However it will not get any press from the Clinton medaia sucksters.
Sponsored Links
  #3  
Old 10-03-2016, 01:22 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Forbes Welcome


"Starting in 2010, the Foundation reported on its IRS tax return for three consecutive years that it received no donations from foreign government sources. It wasn't as if they didn't know how to report them. In prior years, the Foundation reported tens of millions of dollars in such donations. Then, after Mrs. Clinton resigned as Secretary of State, the Foundation again began accepting donations from foreign governments. Of course, it has now once again pledged to stop accepting them. This time do they mean it? Does Mrs. Clinton?

The Foundation is now worrying over the accuracy of the IRS returns from 2010, 2011 and 2012."
So, they amended them and paid the taxes, and that angers you...why ?
  #4  
Old 10-03-2016, 01:27 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No surprise. The Clintons did the same thing as Trump on last year's personal income tax return. They claimed a loss of $699,540 on their return. But, as long as no one brings it up, they can keep screaming at Trump that he is a cheater.
  #5  
Old 10-03-2016, 01:32 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
So, they amended them and paid the taxes, and that angers you...why ?
Did they? Did they pay any taxes?

You seem to miss the point so I will type real slowly for you.

The Clintons are living in a glass house and throwing stones. Let me know if I need to explain that to you.

It's OK for them to cheat, as shown in the article where Hillary signed an agreement with the president about not taking foreign donations while SecState, and then disregarding this agreement. But, it is not OK for Trump to take legal deductions on his tax return. But, that's OK, because they will just go back and amend their tax returns now that they were caught.
  #6  
Old 10-03-2016, 01:35 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
No surprise. The Clintons did the same thing as Trump on last year's personal income tax return. They claimed a loss of $699,540 on their return. But, as long as no one brings it up, they can keep screaming at Trump that he is a cheater.

"After hammering Donald Trump on the campaign trail for refusing to reveal his tax returns, Hillary Clinton released her latest federal income tax return Friday, showing she and Bill paid roughly a third of their multi-million dollar income to Uncle Sam.
The Clintons pulled in $10.6 million in 2015, much less than the nearly $28 million they made the year before."

"Their tax return showed that they paid $3.24 million in federal income taxes.
That means their effective tax rate -- a measure of their income tax burden -- was 30.6% based on their adjusted gross income. That's on par with their 32% effective rate in 2014."

Hillary Clinton's 2015 tax return shows $10.6 million in income, 31% rate -- and puts pressure on Donald Trump - Aug. 12, 2016"
  #7  
Old 10-03-2016, 02:32 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
"After hammering Donald Trump on the campaign trail for refusing to reveal his tax returns, Hillary Clinton released her latest federal income tax return Friday, showing she and Bill paid roughly a third of their multi-million dollar income to Uncle Sam.
The Clintons pulled in $10.6 million in 2015, much less than the nearly $28 million they made the year before."

"Their tax return showed that they paid $3.24 million in federal income taxes.
That means their effective tax rate -- a measure of their income tax burden -- was 30.6% based on their adjusted gross income. That's on par with their 32% effective rate in 2014."

Hillary Clinton's 2015 tax return shows $10.6 million in income, 31% rate -- and puts pressure on Donald Trump - Aug. 12, 2016"
That was not the point, was it? She did the same thing that Trump did, deducted a loss of $699,000+. It's all legal but since his loss was more than hers, she is screaming bloody murder.

Personally, I am surprised anyone listens to her. No telling how many of their kids have died as a result of her mishandling classified information by putting it on the Internet. Of course, maybe liberals don't have family serving their country. Maybe that is just a patriotic conservative thing.
  #8  
Old 10-03-2016, 02:48 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
That was not the point, was it? She did the same thing that Trump did, deducted a loss of $699,000+. It's all legal but since his loss was more than hers, she is screaming bloody murder.

Personally, I am surprised anyone listens to her. No telling how many of their kids have died as a result of her mishandling classified information by putting it on the Internet. Of course, maybe liberals don't have family serving their country. Maybe that is just a patriotic conservative thing.
Well, we now know your choice in websites.

This HEADLINE is showing on a few far right wing radical websites, but nothing but a HEADLINE.

It seems to have a source of ZEROHEDGE.COM, a site began by a Bulgarian hedge fund guy who was fined for insider trading.

I investigated as far as I could. Seems a couple sites refer to page 17, which I found impossible to find.

So, unless you can supply something credible, it is just more bunk from these extreme sites.

One advantage of candidates making returns public is they are there. Everyone has them, but all I see are these Headlines from the crazy websites, with ZERO credibility.
  #9  
Old 10-03-2016, 02:57 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I might add that you are pretty much missing one of the major issues here.

Trump has a history of tweeting about paying taxes...

"@BarackObama who wants to raise all our taxes, only pays 20.5% on $790k salary. 1.usa.gov/HFZJKH Do as I say not as I do."

This was in 2012

I suggest you begin to read REAL NEWS ON REAL WEBSITES, unless of course you are looking for UFOs
  #10  
Old 10-03-2016, 03:10 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Well, we now know your choice in websites.

This HEADLINE is showing on a few far right wing radical websites, but nothing but a HEADLINE.

It seems to have a source of ZEROHEDGE.COM, a site began by a Bulgarian hedge fund guy who was fined for insider trading.

I investigated as far as I could. Seems a couple sites refer to page 17, which I found impossible to find.

So, unless you can supply something credible, it is just more bunk from these extreme sites.

One advantage of candidates making returns public is they are there. Everyone has them, but all I see are these Headlines from the crazy websites, with ZERO credibility.
FORBES has zero credibility?

The figure of loss the CLinton's claimed was taken directly off of their 2015 Tax Return that I downloaded. The figure comes from the Capital Gaines work sheet and then transferred to the Tax Form. The copy of their tax forms is legit. And they do have a pretty lengthy tax return.

I did not say anything about their return being wrong. I was comparing the fact that they also made a loss claim and deducted the half million dollar loss from the income reported.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with their accountant.
 

Tags
foundation, years, back, returns, amended

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:08 PM.