Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Frank Underwood, Oct 7, 2018.

  1. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat TV Fanatic

    Message Count:
    Trophy Points:
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    • The New York Times on Tuesday released an extensive investigation focused on President Donald Trump's fortune.
    • The Times reported that the president and his family engaged in "instances of outright fraud" to enhance their wealth.
    • The story also runs counter to Trump's narrative that he is a self-made billionaire.

    The New York Times reported in an extensive investigation published Tuesday that President Donald Trump engaged in what it described as "dubious tax schemes" in the 1990s that even included "instances of outright fraud" that enhanced the fortune that his parents — mainly his father — passed on to him.

    What The Times reported runs counter to Trump's oft-repeated narrative: that he is a self-made billionaire who built his own empire.

    While The Times was not able to review Trump's personal tax returns — which he has refused to release, breaking with decades of precedent for presidential nominees — it said it examined a "trove of confidential tax returns and financial records" showing that Trump received at least $413 million in today's dollars from when he was a child through the present day.

    The Times reported that this money was passed on to Trump because he assisted his parents in dodging taxes, setting up a sham corporation and helping his father take millions in improper tax deductions.

    The IRS apparently did not offer much "resistance" to the schemes, The Times said.

    The Times reported that Trump's parents transferred in total more than $1 billion in wealth to their kids, an amount that could've produced as much as $550 million in tax revenue. Instead, the newspaper said, the Trumps paid just north of $50 million in taxes.

    Charles Harder, an attorney for the president, told The Times in a statement that the report was "100% false and highly defamatory."

    Robert Trump, the president's brother, also issued a statement to The Times, saying that "all appropriate gift and estate tax returns were filed, and the required taxes were paid" following their parents' deaths.

    "Our father's estate was closed in 2001 by both the Internal Revenue Service and the New York State tax authorities, and our mother's estate was closed in 2004," he continued.

    Harder, the White House, and the Trump Organization did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

    Here are the key points from The Times' report:
    • Tax experts told The Times it was unlikely these findings would open Trump up to criminal prosecution, because the actions happened too long ago.
    • He could, however, still face civil fines.
    • The Times said it reviewed more than 100,000 pages of documents.
    • By the time he was 3 years old, Trump was earning $200,000 a year in today's dollars. By the time he was 8, he was a millionaire.
    • Soon after graduating from college, Trump was receiving the equivalent in today's dollars of $1 million annually from his father, Fred Trump.
    • That increased to more than $5 million annually when Donald Trump was in his 40s and 50s.
    • Fred Trump gave millions to his kids in a way that was structured to sidestep taxes on gifts and inheritances. Experts told The Times the methods were suspect, possibly even illegal.
    • When Donald Trump and his siblings gained ownership of their father's real-estate empire in 1997, they dodged hundreds of millions in taxes by undervaluing the properties at just north of $41 million.
    • The properties were later sold for 16 times that amount.
    • The Trump family in 1992 formed what The Times described as "the most overt fraud," a company called All County Building Supply & Maintenance.
    • Its purpose was to be a purchasing agent for Fred Trump's buildings, but it did not function in that manner, The Times said.
    • The company instead was used to siphon millions from Fred Trump's empire by marking up purchases that were already made.
    • The Times said it found 295 revenue streams Fred Trump created over 50 years to enrich his son.
    • In 2004, the Trumps sold off Fred's empire. Donald Trump made $177.3 million off the sale.
    • By 1990, Fred Trump had transferred today's equivalent of at least $46.2 million to Donald Trump.
    • Donald Trump said his father gave him a $1 million loan, but Fred Trump actually lent him at least $60.7 million, or $140 million in today's dollars, The Times found.

  2. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat TV Fanatic

    Message Count:
    Trophy Points:
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    How State Officials and Unpaid Taxes Could Force Trump to Liquidate Part of His Family Fortune

    Sean Shaw, the Democratic candidate for state attorney general in Florida, has a message for Donald Trump. If elected, Shaw will investigate the President’s financial activities across the Sunshine State. “We’ll pursue any area that is worthy of pursuit,” Shaw told me in an interview this week. “The charity not being charitable. Trump Mar-a-Lago and emoluments.” Shaw told me he would go “where the law takes me.” He plans to investigate whether “the President of the United States is personally profiting from the Presidency in Florida.”

    Trump, of course, has several properties in Florida, including Mar-a-Lago, a private club that doubled its initiation fee after Trump was elected. Since Trump took office, three of its members have exerted sweeping influence on the Department of Veterans Affairs. Another member was named the U.S. Ambassador to the Dominican Republic. Shaw also said that he will investigate reports that a Trump-branded development project in Sunny Isles, Florida, bears hallmarks of possible money laundering. Shaw made clear that his investigations would be broad and open-ended: “They may lead you to tax returns, financial records. I don’t know where they lead. No one is above the law in Florida. No one. We are going to make it such that if I find bad stuff going on, we’re going to go where it takes us, no matter how big.”

    One recent poll put Shaw just behind his Republican opponent, Ashley Moody, who has expressed support for President Trump. Even if Shaw loses, Trump may be vulnerable in several other states where he has done business. In New York, the Democratic candidate for attorney general, Letitia James, is all but assured a victory. James is promising Democratic voters that she will aggressively investigate the President. After this week’s stunning Times investigation alleged that the Trump Organization’s wealth was built, in large part, on a variety of complex tax schemes, many of which could be illegal, she issued a statement:

    "There must be a full examination of these claims. I welcome the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance’s inquiry, and call on every agency with jurisdiction‚ from the Internal Revenue Service to the New York Attorney General’s Office—to follow the facts wherever they may lead. No stone should be left unturned. Donald Trump’s days of defrauding Americans are coming to an end."

    The current New York attorney general, Barbara Underwood, has already launched an investigation into the Trump family foundation that has revealed questionable accounting practices. The Mayor of New York City similarly promised to pursue any taxes the President may owe.

    In New Jersey, where Trump owns several businesses, the Democratic attorney general, Gurbir Grewal, told Politico in May that he would investigate Trump and, “if there’s any indication of any criminal activity, or anything like that, we’ll use the powers at our disposal to investigate. We have a lot of tools at our disposal.”

    California’s Democratic attorney general, Xavier Becerra, has already filed dozens of lawsuits against the Trump Administration and has made clear that he sees himself as a part of the anti-Trump resistance. (Becerra did not respond to requests for comment.) And if Democrats win a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, they will be able to direct investigations—and issue subpoenas—focussed on a host of potential federal crimes. The House cannot force the Department of Justice to investigate, of course, but congressional investigations can be effective at swaying public opinion and creating political pressure.

    Since the appointment of the special counsel, Robert Mueller, President Trump’s legal team and many Republicans in Congress have employed a “red line” strategy, arguing that Mueller’s investigation should not delve into the Trump Organization’s business conduct and should focus solely on the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with the Russian government. The red-line strategy appears designed to focus Congress and the nation on a narrow question: Did President Trump knowingly collude with the Russian government to sway the 2016 election, and, if so, should he be impeached? Mueller’s investigation has so far revealed much illegal activity by high-ranking members of the Trump campaign, but no final answer regarding collusion. Many in Trump’s orbit have expressed confidence that there will be no definitive proof that could justify impeachment and removal from office. In seeking to keep the legal, political, and public discussions focused on whether Trump colluded, the President’s team likely hopes to reach a post-investigation phase of Trump’s Presidency.

    That no longer seems possible. There will be no post-investigation phase of this Presidency; there will be no narrow conversation limited to collusion. Rather, new Trump Presidency battlegrounds will open as attorneys general in several states examine nearly every aspect of the President’s business practices and finances. President Trump has done business in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Virginia, Washington, D.C., California, Arizona, and several other states. Nearly all of his companies are registered in Delaware. The Times investigation suggests he may owe taxes in all of these states and others, so attorneys general may investigate whether his tax schemes affected the amount he owes.

    Perhaps the single most striking fact in the Times investigation is that even now, after so many investigations over so many years, there is much to learn about the Trump family’s business operations. Since the investigation focused on Fred Trump’s papers, its information ends long before Donald Trump sought the Presidency. In 2019, with investigations occurring in New York and, potentially, several other states, it seems all but certain that we will learn more about how Trump made and spent money over the past decade. With every new disclosure so far, Trump’s business practices have been revealed to be even sloppier and more unethical and possibly illegal than I and others who have investigated Trump’s finances imagined.

    Next year, Charles (Chip) Irby, Jr., may become famous. Irby is expected to be released after serving several years in federal prison. His obscure criminal case could be a flashpoint in American politics. Irby, from Laurel, Mississippi, was a stockbroker who viewed taxation as unconstitutional. He used a complex set of shell companies to hide his income so that he could avoid paying taxes. He was indicted in 2011, found guilty, and sentenced to prison. Soon after, he filed an appeal, arguing that his conviction was illegal because the taxes he owed were due in 2001. The statute of limitations for tax fraud is six years. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against Irby, “because we hold that the statute of limitations accrues from the last evasive act.” In other words, the clock on the statute of limitations would only start when he ceased all evasive activity.

    It now seems that a previously obscure ruling about how long after an alleged crime a person can be indicted for tax fraud could become central to a new set of legal issues that will cloud the Trump Administration, roil Republicans against Democrats, and test the Constitution. What happens when a state attorney general investigates and potentially seeks to indict a sitting U.S. President? Whatever the legal battles, of course, the likelihood of Trump’s removal from office seems remote. Republicans are likely to maintain their majority in the Senate and continue to embrace Trump enthusiastically. The likelihood that a sitting President or an immediate ex-President will be arrested by a state is remote.

    Trump, though, has made clear throughout his life that his core goal is not political power; it is money. Or, more accurately, creating the public perception that he has a great amount of it. The Times investigation revealed that his wealth has been far more dependent on his father’s largesse and potential fraud than on Trump’s own business savvy. But 2019 could bring far worse news for Trump. Crain’s has reported that, based on the Times investigation, Trump and his siblings could owe four hundred millions dollars in taxes, interest, and penalties in New York State alone. His exposure to comparable tax bills at the federal level and in several other states could force the liquidation of parts of his family fortune. For Trump, the fear of losing money could be more terrifying than the fear of losing his office. He should be afraid.


Users Who Have Read This Thread (Total: 3)

Share This Page