[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance


View post   

File: 112 KB, 828x779, 30DA14D9-5E79-4310-BB7C-87A2D47268EF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22877465 No.22877465[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

When they realized he actually paid them HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHA

Trumps gonna win again.

>> No.22877555

>>22877465
i like the guys who know how to minimize their taxes

>> No.22877564

Go back

>> No.22877750
File: 211 KB, 590x334, bb69fb1d-40fb-448a-9035-98e6b67beb8e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22877750

>>22877465
Didn't this guy get his hands on Trump's tax returns years ago?
And it turned out to be a huge nothingburger?

>> No.22877755

if he owes $100m to the IRS how is he going to win?

>> No.22877783

>>22877750
it always is
these idiot "journalists" don't even understand how real estate produces massive depreciation. besides that, they are just disingenuous, hoping to spin something to deceive simple people. the funny thing is nobody gives a shit; it's "red meat" for liberals who already hate him, and trump supporters are loyal as ever.

>> No.22877787

>>22877755
he doesnt owe $100m yet, he got a $70m tax refund that was shady and the IRS is now challenging that refund, if they win in court then he has to pay back the $70m plus the interest piled on since then which comes out to about $100m

>> No.22877806
File: 145 KB, 564x619, nyt trump tax return.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22877806

>losses that he aggressively employs to avoid paying taxes
Well yeah, that's what you do with losses.

That's like saying Trump is "aggressively sucking in ambient air to avoid asphyxiation".

>and hundreds of millions in debt coming due
Like any financial giant, especially in real estate.

>> No.22877829

>>22877806
yup. these stories are little more than propaganda meant to confuse simpletons

>> No.22877845

>>22877783
all true

the only real problems I'm seeing are:
1. he inflates his worth to banks and minimizes it to the IRS which is common practice but also felony bank and tax fraud
2. he writes off literally everything as a business expense, which might be kosher but the IRS is going to argue he does things other than business 24/7

>> No.22877870

>>22877783
Only boomers still like jew boy

>> No.22877873

>>22877845
>the IRS is going to argue he does things other than business 24/7
Nah.
He's been a huge public figure since the 80s, his appearance and lifestyle are themselves part of his brand.

>> No.22877876

>>22877845
interesting timing of the release, a couple days ahead of the first debate

>> No.22877882

He bought $COOM

>> No.22877887

>>22877873
but that means anything I do is also a business expense because I also have a brand, even if it's not as successful as his.

that's the problem

>> No.22877890

>>22877787
I find it very shady that the IRS would not audit someone as important as Trump when random nobodies get audited for smaller amounts of bullshit. My intuition tells me he has already been scrutinized because how the fuck wouldn't he by this point?

>> No.22877896

tl;dr
>He did literally nothing illegal.
>zero traces of anything Russian ties
>He paid a company that also does Goldman Sach's taxes and walked away

Trump is literally going to win again.

>> No.22877897

>>22877876
I think if they were trying to time it right it would come out closer to the election.

but I doubt it's going to change anyone's opinion anyways.

>> No.22877901

>>22877890
of course. i think i've heard him say that he's audited every year.

>> No.22877905

>>22877890
you are retarded as fuck

you don’t get audited when you are clever

>> No.22877913

>>22877896
they've got nothing, as usual
but the cynic in me thinks they drop this a couple days before the debate so that they can put him on the spot about it

>> No.22877914

>>22877896
I'm really tired of this shit, nov 3 can't come soon enough. Voting Trump because Biden fucking picked Kamala.

>> No.22877915

>>22877905
you automatically get audited at that level of wealth

>> No.22877923

So his taxes are this weeks distraction?

>> No.22877932
File: 18 KB, 367x388, 1596526497119.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22877932

>>22877465
>posting literal reddit

>> No.22877962

>>22877913
>explains it away succinctly
>legacy media bungles it up

>> No.22877979
File: 128 KB, 750x920, flat,750x1000,075,f.u2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22877979

>>22877932
and he's the guy always telling people to go back
fucking lmao

>> No.22877991

>>22877887
>I also have a brand
Unless you're a public figure with iconic features like Trump, not the same.

>> No.22878107

>>22877991
my brand differs only in amount of recognition. Since there's no legal line where I become a public figure, it is the same.

the IRS has to legally define who is or isn't a public figure otherwise I'm allowed the same deductions and so are you.

>> No.22878117

>>22878107
>Since there's no legal line where I become a public figure, it is the same.
>the IRS has to legally define who is or isn't a public figure
lel, good luck in court.

>> No.22878119

>>22878107
you don't decide, they do. you've obviously never dealt with the irs. go hire lawyers who will rack up hundreds of billable hours litigating your stupid little argument.

>> No.22878130

>>22878117
I'm not deducting everything, he is.
so he's the one in court, not me.

>> No.22878144

>>22878119
>you don't decide, they do.
they don't make that decision, there's no 'public figure' clause in the tax laws
>you've obviously never dealt with the irs
I deal with them every year, just like he does

>> No.22878148

>>22878130
If the IRS is dumb enough to consider Trump's hair expenses as "not a business expense" even though his hair has been an iconic trait of his as a public figure since forever, then Trump will absolutely demolish the IRS in court.
If the IRS goes after you, you will get assreamed.

>> No.22878161

>>22878148
his hair styling for a TV show or business meeting is probably a legal deduction

his hair styling for anything else isn't. And the IRS is going to argue that not every styling he got done was entirely for business purposes. And they're right.

>> No.22878174

>>22878161
>his hair styling for a TV show or business meeting is probably a legal deduction
>his hair styling for anything else isn't
Trump is constantly in the public eye.
Everywhere he goes he is photographed, and he is constantly meeting and networking.
That's the whole point of him being a public figure.

>> No.22878183

>>22878174
yet none of that is business.

appearing in public is not a business.

>> No.22878195

>>22878183

Every picture taken of him in public is part of his business of presenting his brand to the public.

>> No.22878198

Guys, don't go on r/politics...it would only make you angry. It really makes me believe there are people getting paid to spread trash about trump and Republicans. Sometimes when i feel like being angry I go on there and read as much as i can. It reinforces my viewpoints on democrats

>> No.22878220

>>22878195
>Every picture taken of him in public is part of his business of presenting his brand to the public.
the IRS doesn't see it that way. Otherwise everyone here could claim the same thing and write of their clothes and haircuts and pets and jewelry as business expenses.

>> No.22878230

>>22878220
>the IRS doesn't see it that way
Maybe not, but any court will.

>Otherwise everyone here could claim the same thing
"Everyone here" isn't a public figure with iconic traits like Trump.

>> No.22878245

>>22878230
>Maybe not, but any court will.
that's not how the IRS works.
>"Everyone here" isn't a public figure with iconic traits like Trump.
there's no such law on the books, so it doesn't matter. Public figures don't get special tax breaks. Maybe they should, but the law doesn't exist.

>> No.22878262

>>22877783
they didnt find anything that colluded with russia so thats there way of coping

>> No.22878272

>>22878245
>that's not how the IRS works.
lel but of course it is

>there's no such law on the books
There are tons of such laws on the books.

>> No.22878274

>>22878198
You think thats bad? Twitter is worse. Luckily these places aren't used by a majority of real people anyway(even here lol)

>> No.22878275

>>22877465
It’s pretty simple.
No dividends -> no personal income -> no taxes

It doesn’t surprise me that reddit doesn’t understand how this works. They think if someone has a high net worth it instantly means they should pay 50 trillion in taxes

>> No.22878284

>>22878262
it's fun watching them drop recycled turds that they think are bombs. they've got nothing, and the october surprise on biden will be sensational. wait for the durham report, it might be that

>> No.22878289

>>22878262
They also don't have any examples of right-wing death squads roaming the streets like left-wing activists have been doing these past four years, so they tend to cling to that guy in Charlottesville who killed a fat chick by scaring her into a heart attack with his car.

>> No.22878313

>>22878272
>lel but of course it is
they can only enforce laws that exist in real life, not in your head.
>There are tons of such laws on the books.
I'd be amazed if you found even one.

>> No.22878316

>>22877887
Kek no dude nobody gives a fuck about who you are or what you are.

>> No.22878322

>>22878117
>but sir I'm famous to 2 people who are you to define
Anon needs to stick to Mario Kart.

>> No.22878327

>>22878316
>Kek no dude nobody gives a fuck about who you are or what you are.
true, but even if they did that doesn't change the tax laws.

>> No.22878343

>>22878313
>they can only enforce laws that exist in real life
The IRS isn't part of "law enforcement" or the judicial system.

>I'd be amazed if you found even one.
You yourself said you can write off hair, clothes, make-up, ... you use for "work".
As a public figure, appearing in public is part of your "work".

>>22878322
lel exactly

>> No.22878351

>>22878327
you are really fucking annoying. you don't have a brand. shut up

>> No.22878367

>>22878343
>As a public figure, appearing in public is part of your "work".
it is not. You still haven't explained what you mean by 'public figure' and you haven't shown a single law that agrees with you.
>>22878351
I do have a brand. I own a business.

>> No.22878378

>>22878367
>it is not
But it is.
Hence the term "public figure".

>You still haven't explained what you mean by 'public figure'
Jesus Christ, anon.

>> No.22878420

>>22878367
>I do have a brand. I own a business.
But you’re not a public figure.

>> No.22878421

>>22878378
>Jesus Christ, anon.
this is why you're retarded

you don't understand. You may know what you mean but the law doesn't. The law has to define who is or isn't a public figure if public figures are getting special tax breaks. You're not smart enough to understand this.

>> No.22878435

>>22878421
>The law has to define who is or isn't a public figure
"The law", or legal precedent, sure.
And why is this a problem?

>> No.22878440

>>22878420
>But you’re not a public figure.
why not?
where's the law saying I'm not? Where's the cutoff?

>> No.22878449

>>22878421
the most you've ever been a public figure is from the attention you're getting by not letting this thread die

>> No.22878453

>>22878435
>And why is this a problem?
because fame is a spectrum, not a dichotomy.

who's famous enough to write off their haircuts and who isn't? Who decides this? To be legal it has to be defined. Otherwise you can't enforce it.

>> No.22878458

>>22878440
Are you banned from using internet search engines or something?

>> No.22878461

>>22878453
speaking of the spectrum

>> No.22878466

>>22878449
Why? How much attention do I need before I'm a public figure under US tax law?

don't answer, there's no special law for public figures so you just look stupid when you respond.

>> No.22878469

>>22878453
>because fame is a spectrum, not a dichotomy.
Wait, so which is it?
1) the law has to define "public figure"
or
2) you can't define "public figure" because it's a spectrum
?

>> No.22878475

>>22878458
I already know what I can legally deduct, and it's exactly the same things Trump can.

>> No.22878484

>>22878469
both are true.
to be legal it must be defined
it can't be defined.

>> No.22878491

>>22878475
Delusions of grandeur.

There are many laws that apply differently to public figures, like privacy and libel laws.

>> No.22878496

>>22878491
>There are many laws that apply differently to public figures, like privacy and libel laws.
but not tax laws

>> No.22878497

>>22878484
>to be legal it must be defined
And somehow you are under the impression that no legal entity has ever based rulings on public figure status?

>> No.22878499
File: 153 KB, 839x882, 1598849734451.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22878499

>>22878107

>> No.22878516

>>22878497
>And somehow you are under the impression that no legal entity has ever based rulings on public figure status?
show me a precedent in tax law.

>> No.22878522

>>22877845
>>22877887
>>22877897
>>22877915
>>22878107
>>22878130
>>22878144
>>22878161
>>22878183
>>22878220
>>22878245
>>22878313
>>22878327
>>22878367
>>22878421
>>22878440
>>22878453
>>22878466
>>22878475
>>22878484
>>22878496
Seething leftist reddit fag that needs to go back.

>> No.22878532

>>22878516
Google it.

>> No.22878534

>>22878522
>takes 5 minutes to tag my posts
thanks for the (You)'s I guess
here, have one back for your time

>> No.22878538

>>22878275
Yeah lol they think it should be half your net worth every year lol

>> No.22878539
File: 219 KB, 1109x683, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22878539

>>22877465
remember to buy your goy badge

>> No.22878545

>>22878532
I don't need to, I know it doesn't exist.

>> No.22878554

>>22878516
>>22878545

you:
>hurrr the law has to define who is a public figure, and it can't

also you:
>durrrrrrrr so what if the law defines who is a public figure, it doesn't for "tax law"

Burden of proof is on you.
Prove that "the law" doesn't distinguish public figures in the context of tax law.

>> No.22878568

>>22878496
>but not tax laws
Why not?

>> No.22878575

>>22878554
Juries decide who is or isn't a public figure, the law doesn't.

the IRS doesn't employ juries to audit your taxes

>> No.22878586

>>22878575
>Juries decide who is or isn't a public figure, the law doesn't.
lel, I didn't know the supreme court is a "jury".

>> No.22878600

>>22878539
>I bowled more guac than Jeb Bush

>> No.22878616
File: 130 KB, 1024x1021, 1544978582624.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22878616

So many MIGA good goyim ITT, truly disgusting...
It's true the eternal zogmutts can't go against their (((overlords))), programmed to remain obedient toward the talmudic master. lmao

>> No.22878717

>>22878586
>lel, I didn't know the supreme court is a "jury"
again, feel free to cite any precedent where the SCOTUS ruled on special deductions for public figures.

you can't because no such law exists to rule on.

>> No.22878733

>>22878717
>again, feel free to cite any precedent where the SCOTUS ruled on special deductions for public figures.
Anon, you're pivoting.

You said "Juries decide who is or isn't a public figure, the law doesn't".
But many courts (including SCOTUS) have made rulings based on public figure status without any juries.

You have been BTFO.

>> No.22878773

>>22877914
Interesting. So you dont really like trump yet you're voting for him?

>> No.22878777

>>22878733
>But many courts (including SCOTUS) have made rulings based on public figure status without any juries.
incorrect

they only heard cases based on public figure status decided by juries in lower courts, and didn't dispute the finding of public figure status.

you're not smart enough to be having this conversation.

>> No.22878787

>>22878198
Shills are a very real thing anon. Reddits parent company is owned by china.

>> No.22878799

>>22877905
Classic trumptard here

>> No.22878800

>>22878616
what is the top right and middle right pictures about?

>> No.22878817

>>22878777
SCOTUS does not have a jury, yet they ruled based on public figure status.
The fact that the case was tried in a lower court has no bearing on this.

>> No.22878836

>/pol/ incels on maximum damage control
no one gives a fuck about burger "politics", go back so we can get back to stuff that really matters - like shitcoins.

>> No.22878843

>>22878817
>The fact that the case was tried in a lower court has no bearing on this.
the matter of public figure status was decided in the lower courts and SCOTUS is extremely unlikely to dispute the jury's findings because there is no law defining public figures.

and we're wandering away from the topic so I assume you agree that there is no tax law granting public figures special deductions.

>> No.22878844

>>22878183
If you own a local grocery in a town of50 people do you think your haircuts and clothing purchases, vacations and pretty much everything you buy should be tax deductible? If anything your image and way you present yourself are probably more important to your livelihood in that case than for someone like Trump. His persona wasn’t his business until he became President, before that he was just another faux rich retard who liked being in the public eye. And as other anon said, IRS doesn’t give a shit about this anyway, but just to prove your point inane.

>> No.22878846

>>22877845
>1. he inflates his worth to banks and minimizes it to the IRS which is common practice but also felony bank and tax fraud
Non-burger here. How bad is this in practice? Assuming it's something all rich people do, does anyone ever actually go to jail or get fined for it?

>> No.22878885

>>22878522
>butthurt retard getting BTFO’s best defensive measure
Sad

>> No.22878896

>>22878843
>the matter of public figure status was decided in the lower courts and SCOTUS is extremely unlikely to dispute the jury's findings
lmao

Here's a huge landmark decision by SCOTUS regarding "public figure" status: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

The lower courts (county court, then state court) ruled that a publication was defamation, and then SCOTUS unanimously overturned it BECAUSE of the public figure status.
This decision was pivotal case law, the start of why it's so hard for "public figures" to win defamation cases.

In other words: SCOTUS took it upon itself to drive a legal wedge between public figures and the rest of the population.

>> No.22878902

>>22878846
Fined yes all the time. Jail pretty infrequently, most of these guys can find the money to buy out of jail.

>> No.22878907

>>22878844
I don't really care. I deduct any business expense allowed by law. That can include things like haircuts, clothing, and vacations if they're for a demonstrable business purpose, but only at 50% deduction for most of it.
Even then the IRS will want to see proof of business purpose.

but I'm not engaged in business every time I take a shit or walk out in public, and neither is Trump.
>>22878846
it's not common to get a conviction because most of those assets are valued on arbitrary and subjective scales.

but if say a person claimed to the bank their house was worth a million dollars and the same week told the IRS it was worth two hundred thousand, they'll probably go to prison because there wasn't enough time for the value to change that much. So it's possible to be convicted.

>> No.22878919

>>22878896
>In other words: SCOTUS took it upon itself to drive a legal wedge between public figures and the rest of the population
you found a precedent for that point so you already know I'm right and there is no precedent or law applying to taxes

>> No.22878922

>>22878844
>His persona wasn’t his business until he became President
He was in tv shows before he was president
go back

>> No.22878926

>>22878836
Politics matter. Enjoy paying 45% capital gains tax if biden/kamala wins

>> No.22878934

>>22878926
>politics matter
they literally do not

>> No.22878946

>>22878919
>you found a precedent for that point so you already know I'm right
You have a mental disorder.

You said "only juries can decide on public figure status".
I then proved to you that SCOTUS took it upon itself to attach legal importance to "public figure" status, IN SPITE of low court (jury) decisions.

And now you're saying this means you're right.

You need to seek help.

>there is no precedent or law applying to taxes
Says you.

>> No.22878957

>>22878946
I assume you looked for the precedent and found it doesn't exist.

proving me right.

>> No.22878960

>>22877806
so in other words, like every other business owner

>> No.22878986

>>22878957
This is some bizarre cope right here.
I proved to you that "the law" does indeed apply differently to public figures than it does to the rest of the population.

The burden of proof is on you if you want to claim this is not true for tax law.

>>22878960
Aside from the "hundreds of millions" thing, absolutely.

>> No.22879007

>>22878986
>I proved to you that "the law" does indeed apply differently to public figures than it does to the rest of the population.
I never disputed that

you moved the goalposts and then failed to prove your original point. Even disproved it by searching related matters and failing to find any proof.

I can't prove a law doesn't exist anon, only you can prove it does.

>> No.22879015

>>22878986
>The burden of proof is on you if you want to claim this is not true for tax law.
not at all.

you were the one claiming it does. So it's yours to prove. But by now we both know you're wrong.

>> No.22879026

>>22878922
I have been in tv shows and interviewed on major news networks. Do I get to skip my taxes for that?

>> No.22879033

>>22879007
>>22879015
>I never disputed that
You spent half this thread claiming that public figures don't get tax breaks because "the law" has to define public figure status first, and "no such law exists".

You also asked "where's the law saying I'm not [a public figure]? Where's the cutoff?" implying there is no legal cutoff between public figure and the rest of the population.

Take more meds.

>> No.22879044

Don't care still biden my time

>> No.22879055

>>22879033
>You also asked "where's the law saying I'm not [a public figure]? Where's the cutoff?" implying there is no legal cutoff between public figure and the rest of the population.
there isn't any legal cutoff

juries decide, not the law

and even in those cases, there's still no tax law for public figures and we both know it.

stop being so stubbornly stupid

>> No.22879064

>>22879055
>there isn't any legal cutoff
Tell that to SCOTUS.

>juries decide, not the law
Tell that to SCOTUS

You're having a mental breakdown.
Step away from the keyboard, you're anonymous, nobody knows it's you. It's ok, really.

>> No.22879076

>>22879064
>doesn't know what a jurist is
I'm finished with you, you can go do whatever morons do when they're not pretending to be tax lawyers on 4chan

>> No.22879111
File: 118 KB, 1108x1080, 1594291887847.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22879111

>>22879076
Imagine seething so hard that your last resort is to claim a "jurist" is part of a "jury".

>> No.22879130
File: 455 KB, 800x534, ridin with biden.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22879130

>>22879044
This
#ridinwithbiden

>> No.22879207

meanwhile biden's son is getting 50M a year for sitting on a Ukrainian oil board

>> No.22879331

>>22879207
meanwhile all politicians and all of politics are corrupt because we let corporations get in bed. That doesn’t make Trump any better. Neither of these people are good for the country.

>> No.22879388
File: 58 KB, 500x498, 1592774052367.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22879388

>>22877806
Pfffff, morons!!! absolute moron!!! HAHAHA!!!!

They don't realize this yet but because they went after trumps taxes, he now has the right to go after all of their taxes in return!

>> No.22879418

>>22877915
No.
People with total wealth under $100k lose to IRS. Everyone else just lawyers up and the IRS actually loses money by the time they collect. so they choose to not really do that.

>> No.22879419

Oh wow! I always knew you guys were retarded, but this's bizarre.

>> No.22879444

>>22878440
I write off my car, computer, internet, haircuts, 50% of restaurants, gas, travel. The 'cut-off' is not being a brainlet and just filing for a business license with the state.

>> No.22879449

>>22877783
>and trump supporters are loyal as ever.
I like the way you casually admit that you lot will simp for him no matter what

>> No.22879451
File: 144 KB, 220x103, tenor.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22879451

>> No.22879459

>>22878907
>Even then the IRS will want to see proof of business purpose.
naw dude. they dont care.

>> No.22879584

>>22879026
on haircuts and makeup, yeah you can. probably travel too.

>> No.22879619

>>22879449
not no matter what. he's objectively been a fantastic president.

>> No.22879719

>>22877465
If he gets re elected the economy will get fucked even more.

>> No.22879729

>>22879719
yeah joe biden he's from scranton like one of us he says trump caused covid he killed grandma and millions of others hes a conman

>> No.22879768

>>22879331
bernie lost. twice. sorry loser, your dreams are never gonna come true