If you read the article, you'd see that there is a critical thing where he got a 70 million dollar refund, in a manner which probably violated IRS Guidelines. This has been debated since 2011, and has still not reached a decision. If the IRS (and Congress, since they need to sign off on all refunds for individuals > 2 million) declare that he was not entitled to that refund (which from the article seems like the way that it ought to go) he will owe back that 70 million with interest, putting it close to 100 million today.

No conflict of interest there. Nothing to see folks. This is total BS. At this point I am about to cut ties with my family that supports Trump. This is beyond anything approaching reason.

Why? Are they bad people?

Cutting ties due to flavor of political leanings sounds very short sighted.

My parents are religious I am not, catholic church was actively protecting pedophiles.

Should I cut ties to my family??

Are they actively supporting the church in gaining power to continue the abuse? Then, yes, cut ties. It's the active support of someone damaging the world that was my point. Trump has A HALF BILLION in PERSONAL liability... that is fundamentally disqualifying from holding office because it presents a profound national security risk. At this point anyone that supports him is risking the existence of our country. Just pick another republican at this point, enough is enough.

> Trump has A HALF BILLION in PERSONAL liability... that is fundamentally disqualifying from holding office because it presents a profound national security risk.

Yes, so what?

I am not going to stop talking to my mom because of that. It's not like 'she' votes trump cuz hates my country or goes to church cuz she hates children.

People are idiosyncratic and act like it. We live in the world of shades of gray. Good luck living with black and white standards.

Have you ever eaten KitKat? Well you support child slavery. Have you driven volkswagen well you drive a car from ex-nazi company, Apple phone, nike shoes... I can go on and on.

I really hope you are just hotheaded teen angry with how unjust the world is, then you are justified to feel like it :)

The direct harm Trump can do is clear and present in a way that eating a Kit Kat could never be. The office of president has access to ALL US intelligence and vast international intelligence. He could literally sell that after he leaves office. The harm a conflicted president could do is as greater than anyone on earth so all your examples pale in comparison.

I am not a hot headed teen. That’s an ad hominem attack meant to paint my position as childish and silly. You probably would have said the same thing before the American revolution, or the rise of Hitler.

At some point we need to draw a line between right and wrong. This is a very black and white situation. The government draws a very clear line when someone has debt that could be used to extort or manipulate them. Security clearance Ian it granted when that risk exists so you can attempt to muddy the waters and wave your hand that “morality is full of gray area” but this is not one of them.

Anyone that enables Trump after he says he won’t leave office or may run for a third term. Or support him after these financial disclosures would enable him to hold power under any circumstances and for any length of time.

O.K.

The article lists several examples of things that go beyond avoidance. He paid millions in mysterious ‘consulting’ fees that appear to have gone to his kids, despite them being employees. He declared that he had no financial benefit in a business he walked away from despite still owning 5 percent of it. ...

Again, a lot of these things are pretty common in business.

My Dad has a business, and pays me a consultancy fee. I pay consultancy fees to my wife.

None of this is unusual for a family business.

Do the regulations require that such fees must be ‘honest’ ie be for actual work and proportional to the market value of that work?

Are the fees declared to the IRS and all relevant taxes paid?

No need to answer (it’s your private business), but just because petty abuses are common and rarely caught doesn’t mean they’re legitimate business practices.

It is unusual to pay your children as regular employees and also pay them as consultants, tho.

If they are employees, and you are doing that, it is actually illegal.

You are either a consultant, or an employee.

You can’t do that while also being an employee.

Sure, but what's being implied in the article, and the years-long IRS investigation/battle, is that the constant declared losses were indeed tax fraud.

I think one of the issues is that he has simultaneously told the opposite story to his lenders, making himself look wealthier than he is in order to score loans. This, is fraud.

When I bought my house (borrowing roughly 200K) the bank wanted several years of tax returns and basically put my finances under a microscope. Pretty much everything except the anal probe.

So, you think a bank that's going to lend Trump 100 Million isn't going to examine his finances in greater detail?

Bold of you to assume the same rules apply to you and him. It's not even the same group of people evaluating your loan vs. his. Then they're going to evaluate his differently. Nobody's going to get promoted for landing your deal, but someone very well might for landing his. Yes, they'll look into his finances some, but they couldn't possibly probe every nook and cranny of such a large and complex empire where the dirty bits might be hidden. With greed nipping at their heels, they'll quickly convince themselves it's good enough. In short, not the same process or standards at all.

Yes.

> In 2003, Deutsche Bank helped Mr. Trump’s casino company sell hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds.

> Mr. Trump’s company defaulted in 2004, leaving Deutsche Bank’s clients with deep losses. The bank’s investment division that sold the bonds vowed to not do business again with Mr. Trump

> A year later, though, Mr. Trump approached another part of the investment division for a $640 million loan to build a skyscraper in Chicago. It made the loan — and in 2008, Mr. Trump defaulted and sued Deutsche Bank. That prompted the whole investment division to sever ties with Mr. Trump.

> And then, three years after his previous default, Deutsche Bank started lending to him again, this time through the private-banking division that catered to the superrich. In fact, it lent Mr. Trump money that he used to repay what he still owed Deutsche Bank’s investment division for the Chicago loan.

> In 2016, the board of directors commissioned a report into how the bank had become so enmeshed with Mr. Trump

> The report, prepared by the board’s integrity committee, concluded that Deutsche’s private-banking division, which catered to very rich individuals, was so determined to win business from big-name clients that its executives had looked past Mr. Trump’s history of stiffing his lenders

So, try this: default on your ~200k mortgage. take out another, larger mortgage with the same bank. default on that one too, and then sue the bank for damages. then get a loan from the same bank to pay back your remaining debt from the second mortgage.

I'm skeptical that you could pull this off, and yet Donald Trump somehow managed to get comparable loans from Deutsche Bank.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/business/deutsche-bank-do...

my mind is blown by this

For celebrities, and especially those with lots of properties in their name, it makes sense for a bank to give a huge loan and be assured that at the worst, properties will be attached.

Loans for a house are completely different from, say, loans for a commercial high rise, smack in the middle of New York.

The banks that originated his loans stood to make a percent profit when they resold them as securities on a secondary market. The bank probably did Less diligence on him than on your mortgage because they’re not regulated on such loans.

It is quite possible that the loans were underwritten by other parties.

The fact that Trump is at least 300-400 million dollars in debt to unknown parties is a huge national security risk.

Commercial real estate is a completely different category from personal real estate.

Trump specifically has a long record of lying to commercial lenders and then daring them to foreclose. This was covered in his ghost-written book. It did not make Chase Bank look wise.

Counter-reminder: tax fraud /= tax avoidance. The IRS, and Congress through the Tax committee, will judge that.

Right. I’m sure he, as POTUS, and his political appointees haven’t done anything to interfere with the decade-long IRS audit into his refund.

This is an absolutely critical point. Trump appears to be subverting institutions ranging from inspector generals to the military to the post office. I bet the IRS is his prime target.

There’s quite a large grey area between the two, to the extent that anyone who aggressively avoids tax using ‘state of the art’ accounting schemes is well aware that they’re on legal thin ice.

TL;DR: Think “Schrödinger's Criminality”.

Not a crime != not an absolutely shitty thing to do

No person has an obligation, legal or moral, to pay a cent more in taxes than what they owe under the tax code. If you have a problem with people avoiding taxes, you can endeavour to change the tax code and plug those loopholes.

Otherwise, you’re really trying to solve a legal problem by social means. You’re perfectly in your right to do so, but plenty of people will disagree with you.

We're talking about a public servant. It just highlights a cutthroat selfishness in past actions and current politics.

>No person has an obligation, legal or moral, to pay a cent more in taxes than what they owe under the tax code.

But let me ask you something. Do you believe there is zero moral obligation or simply that the current tax code is at the absolute pinnacle of moral balance?

Does that mean that every government employee should not be allowed to avoid taxes?

They're allowed. It's not illegal to act in a singular self interest. That doesn't mean everyone wants to elect someone who only works for their own self interest. We're talking about a public figure and that means they're subject to public opinion beyond the low bar of legality.

However, at this point this sort of thing is baked in to opinions of the president. I don't think anyone is surprised.

I’m of the opinion that no one should avoid taxes, so if you’re asking just about government employees, then the answer is still yes, they shouldn’t be allowed to.

What does that mean though? If the government introduces a new tax credit for home renovations that increase the energy efficiency of the home, are you saying no one should take advantage of that?

The problem I have with the word “tax avoidance” is that it carries negative connotations (which of course the media leap on in order to attack their preferred bogeyman). In reality, all that’s happening is that people are following the law and taking advantage of loopholes and tax credits to reduce their tax obligation.

If you think these loopholes and tax credits are unfair, then focus on fixing that. If you think the tax code is so enormous that it’s hopeless to fix it, then say that and offer an alternative. Otherwise you’re not really offering people an objective measure to live by.

That statement is meaningless. The government provides incentives and deductions for certain reasons (e.g. buying electric cars, home offices, charity contributions, etc.). It's put into law by the lawmakers.

Explain the difference between tax "avoidance" and tax "evasion."

How much do you choose to pay in taxes? How much do you think others should choose to? All discretionary income? All charitable giving? Some fixed percentage?

> Otherwise, you’re really trying to solve a legal problem by social means.

Haven't you noticed how over the past decade activists have started to bypass this whole democracy thing and instead legislate via Twitter mob? Plenty of people, many very influential, think we can shame our way to a better world --- their better world, of course, not yours or mine.

Sure but we're talking about tax avoidance here.

Yeah, which IMO is a shitty thing to do at this scale

To play devil's advocate, at what scale should I instruct my CPA not to take every deduction I'm entitled to?

When you’re portraying yourself as a billionaire you can afford to pay for your own hair stylist.

In my opinion: when you could be paying tens of thousands or more to support others, instead you are paying $0, and you know other people who barely make half the median household income are paying 20–30% of their total income.

Do these rules exist for other people? Yes! Is he possibly only taking advantage of what others allow him to do? Sure! Is it still selfish and trivially anti-social? Yes.

If they made it legal for billionaires to steal cars off the street, it would still be shitty for them to steal cars.

If you make half the median national household income, you’re making about $30K, and your effective federal tax rate is barely over 14%. Your 20%-30% scenario doesn’t seem to add up.

The evidence indicates that Trump is literally inventing fake deductions.

I think journalists will hesitate to equate sketchiness to crime as the latter is a legal finding after a formal investigation. They will tend to just point to sketchiness in suggestive language.

There are markers of tax fraud here.

This is the more important part IMO:

"Mr. Trump’s businesses appear to have benefited from his position, and his far-flung holdings have created potential conflicts between his own financial interests and the nation’s diplomatic interests"

Unfortunately, this lacks specifics. WHICH assets? Which conflict? Which diplomatic effort?

I honestly don't understand why “tax avoidance” is meant to sound so naughty. Almost everyone avoids taxes, almost every time they might be subject to a tax; some people are just better at it.

When you fail to collect taxes from somebody who is following the law, that is a matter for your tax code, not a moral failing of the filer.

Judge Learned Hand (not the Supreme Court, but often quoted; I'm sure partly for the name):

"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes" (Gregory v. Helvering, 1934)

"Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions" (Commissioner v. Newman, 1947).

People can lower their taxes by buying alternative fuel vehicles, renovating historic properties, donating to charities, etc. Those laws are meant to encourage that behavior. But somebody using them to lower their taxes is engaged in tax avoidance. Is that wrong?

Many states have business tax laws that aren't as noble-minded but are meant to encourage businesses to hire people (e.g., no income tax) or operate from those states (e.g., favorable treatment of inventory). Is it wrong to take advantage of those tax laws?

In my opinion, the alternative minimum tax ( https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc556 ) is proof that the United States has given up on creating a system where tax deductions and tax credits always give a reasonable outcome.

Most of that was before the two tier tax system emerged, on for labor—which can not be avoided under any circumstances—and one for business owners which can actually result in negative tax rates.

I’d be interested in better understanding why Trump didn’t owe more under AM, since most regular deductions don’t apply in that case.

Upon reading the story again, I realize they literally tell you he paid over four million dollars despite only owing about 1500 bucks. I don't know why people are so upset when he literally paid 2000x more tax than he owed.

Exactly. I think there’s something being left out of the story.

As a normal American citizen, I often overpay taxes and then collect the amount I overpaid in my return. I certainty don't cook up elaborate schemes to avoid paying taxes. Does that make me stupid?

I consider it a moral responsibility to pay back the community college and state university system, as well as the state and country that gave me access to the infrastructure and opportunity to earn that taxable income.

You overpay during the year, but when you file your returns, do you intentionally deduct less than you’re allowed, or intentionally skip tax credits? I personally would prefer to have the government owe me money than owe the government money, but I do my best to make sure my taxes are accurate and I’m not in the hook for any more than I truly owe.

Things like the child tax credit aren’t really meant to encourage particular behavior, but others are. I have a 401(k) to save for retirement, but it also lowers my taxes (in my case, it lowers my future taxes). The tax break is meant to encourage me to get the 401(k). Am I a bad person for taking advantage of the tax break?

I'm thinking more in the category of buying a failing company in anticipation of using it's annual losses to create tax benefits.

The level at which you and I are engineering this stuff is kid's play. But that's kind of the idea. If you have extensive amounts of money, you hire a team to engineer getting you out of paying your fair share, I think the average person has the right to be upset about that, since all of that profit is earned on the backs of ordinary folks.

If someone wants to disagree, fair enough, but I'd be mainly interested in hearing from folks who can't afford to hire a team to engineer their way out of paying taxes.

I wouldn’t claim to be a tax expert. I was responding to a comment that used the term “overpay taxes” differently from how I would. Sure, if you overpay your estimated tax during the year, that’s overpaying. So is failing to use deductions and credits that you qualify for. I only wanted to clarify the distinction.

I’m happy to add that it’s no surprise people consider taxes when they make decisions, and in some cases tax incentives are specifically designed to change people’s behavior. It’s silly to be scandalized when their behavior actually does change. Not everybody agrees on which tax avoidance behaviors are perfectly acceptable (e.g., buying alternative fuels) and which are pure evil.

When people have a lot to lose, it’s no surprise that they hire tax experts. The US government gave up trying to design a system that always gives reasonable outcomes, and instead created the alternative minimum tax specifically for the scenario of rich people getting too creative with credits and deductions. If Trump truly received several million dollars of income in 2016 and legally paid a grand total of $750, then the alternative minimum tax isn’t doing its job and should be reworked.

If I'm understanding the article correctly, the New York Times isn't counting the millions it found that Trump paid in alternative minimum tax over the years when making all its big, attention-grabbing viral claims about how little income tax he paid because technically alternative minimum tax is a different, seperate thing from income tax.

That makes sense.

They make a huge deal about the difference between Trump’s “I paid millions in total taxes” and their “he paid a tiny amount in income taxes,” and I overlooked where AMT would fit in that distinction.

From my experience, there is a lot of anger generated when those who have so much, avoid paying even the bare minimum compared to those who have very little.

The average lower-to-middle-income family with a mortgage and a couple of kids, sure they have a lot to worry about and they really need that money. Pay as little taxes as you can because what you save goes to feeding your kids, paying for college, and putting gas in the minivan.

Someone who is essentially playing a game (Trump) to maximize one number (income) while minimizing another (tax), I don't think a lot of people have a lot of sympathy for. Accumulating wealth really is a game at that point, no different than speedrunning RE2, or trying to YOLO options on Robinhood. It's not like Ivanka is putting the money into diapers, summer camp for the kids, and tires on the minivan.

In that sense, Trump doesn't have a lot to lose (anything to lose, really - just monopoly money). It's just numbers in a spreadsheet, it's not your kid's Christmas presents, or fixing the water heater, or getting a new set of tires on the family car. It's paying off Stormy Daniels who you slept with 4 months after your wife gave birth, Jared getting a fancy new tie, and your son Eric getting to go to Africa to shoot some new animal.

People are pissed. I think they have good reason to be. The system benefits those who are playing a game, and hurts those who are actually playing with real odds.

You don’t buy money losing companies to have a smaller offset from paying taxes.

Where would the money come from to keep the company in business?

Umm. Yes you do, there are literally markets for tax credits that you can buy for pennies on the dollar.

That's one of the main points of the NYT article. That's why Trump is so far in debt.

That’s not exactly a tax dodge strategy to get deeper in debt. More than likely, he just isn’t a good business person and fell for the sunk cost fallacy.

> I certainty don't cook up elaborate schemes to avoid paying taxes. Does that make me stupid?

Tax avoidance is legal, and if you're overpaying, it means you're giving the government money which you could have used in the meantime. I prefer to keep my money.

I put free candy on my porch, anyone can take some, someone take them all, isn't he bad for doing so? I would say kind of ;).

Thing is though, tax avoidance in the level Trump would have done is another layer way crazier. Most people can't take theses candies, but he can. At one point losing that much money over that many year start to be too much.

With tax avoidance on this scale, he had better hope that the records were truthful. If they were fraudulent, the this moves from tax avoidance to tax fraud.

It also shows that Trump is not the fantastic businessman that he has portrayed as his public persona

Tax avoidance that allows somebody to pay $750 tax on multimillion dollar income should, without question, trigger the alternative minimum tax ( https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc556 ).

Which is more likely, (a) that Trump’s accountants are creative enough to get his personal tax bill to $750 without triggering the AMT, that the IRS hasn’t been able to successfully challenge the returns, and the tax experts the New York Times spoke with for this story didn’t comment on that fact, or (b) the Times story is missing key details?

no the tax system is set up to enable more avoidance the greater the sum.

Quite a different thing though if you are head of government which is supposed to collect taxes from people like you, and you see no need to change that.

> Quite a different thing though if you are head of government which is supposed to collect taxes from people like you, and you see no need to change that.

His predecessors/competitors talk a big game, but they were in office for eight years; take a lucky guess whether it got easier or harder, under the Obama-Biden administration, for people in Donald Trump's business to deduct and reclassify almost all of their taxable transfers and incomes.

If there's an improper or unjustifiable deduction in these filings, then complain about that.

Nobody has any obligation, and essentially nobody has any private reason, to pay taxes that they do not owe. If you think they should owe taxes, then complain that they don't owe them, not that they won't pay what they don't owe.

As I recall, the Republican Congress actually cut funding to the IRS for tax enforcement during Obama's second term, so we actually don't know who's committing tax fraud. The audits just aren't being done.