International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Criminal Charges Against Trump (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=347810)

Thermal 12th November 2020 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski (Post 13292740)
"Golf Club Arrest"

Tweeting in Bathroom arrest

blutoski 12th November 2020 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13292743)
Well I think the point is that they turn everything into a business expense to avoid paying taxes, and I'm sure when Ivanka got the money it was funneled into some other business that lost a bunch of money paying for her new shoes and travel or whatever they're doing with it. Donald Trump goes golfing in different states hundreds of times per year, flying on personal jets, eating at upscale restaurants in new suits and spending thousands of hair cuts for his full retinue of servants, taking family vacations on his business properties that's sole business is being a vacation home, but does all of this on a $0 per year salary. In fact, he's losing billions.

How does a guy who has lost hundreds of millions of dollars per year for decades purchase 5 new golf courses that are somehow also losing money? It's a bunch of BS

Yes, they also loot shareowners and stiff lenders, there's lots of scams, so I was mostly trying to figure out why this one in particular was being thrown out as a tax thing.

Cutting her a dividend would be simpler, the invoicing seems unnecessarily elaborate, so I'm smelling something more complicated is going on.

dirtywick 12th November 2020 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski (Post 13292757)
Yes, they also loot shareowners and stiff lenders, there's lots of scams, so I was mostly trying to figure out why this one in particular was being thrown out as a tax thing.

Cutting her a dividend would be simpler, the invoicing seems unnecessarily elaborate, so I'm smelling something more complicated is going on.

It’s possible. I assume they’re using every tax cheat trick in the book, and this was one of them.

Emily's Cat 12th November 2020 04:26 PM

Tax-related investigations, got that. Are there other criminal charges in there?

quadraginta 12th November 2020 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13292725)
The difference is that Trump is already famous and would likely be respected by the other cons and even the guards, who are likely to be Trumpers. Gang bosses are reportedly pampered when they go to prison. And he'd probably keep his Secret Service protection, which is guaranteed by law. If Trump was ever incarcerated, it would probably be to something like house arrest at a secure property.


Well, the white ones ... maybe.

Segnosaur 12th November 2020 06:38 PM

Re: Trump's taxes and possible tax fraud involving consulting payments to Ivanka...
Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski (Post 13292737)
OK, so the last one is connecting dots a bit... that the invoice was bogus and there was no consulting work done, it was transferring money to his daughter as a gift, *claiming* it was a consulting expense, because the Trump Org can expense it instead of paying personal gift tax.

Well, she was an employee... It is not normal for someone to both draw a salary AND get paid as a consultant, since whatever was done under the guise of being a consultant could probably be done under the person's regular work as an employee.

Quote:

Meanwhile, Ivanka paid corporate income tax on it on the receiving end and/or personal income tax if she passed it out of the corporate entity into her personal ownership (salary in the consultancy firm, or special dividends?)
And the Trump organization was likely able to claim it as a business expense, so he benefits (either a reduction in taxes in a successful year, or a bigger refund/greater loss to offset in a bad year).

Now, I assume there are various loopholes and deductions, so there is no guarantee that the 2 will be evenly balanced. It is possible that, given the nature of the 2 businesses involved (real estate vs. consulting), that it might end up being a tax benefit for Trump and his spawn, based on whatever loopholes exist.
Quote:

The theory works if we assume the goal is net overall taxes, and the combined corporate and personal income tax on Ivanka's end is less than the gift tax, and that she's already exceeded her lifetime exemption of $11MM.
If I understand correctly, the lifetime exemption applies to the donor, not the recipient.

Could Trump have exceeded $11 million total for his life? Well, he has 4 adult children, 3 of whom he has relatively close business ties to, and they've been adults for at least a decade and a half each. While I doubt Trump would be that generous (even with his children), its possible he has used the 'gift' scenario as a way to shuffle money between his spawn for quite a few years.
Quote:

It still feels... highly speculative.
You are right, it is speculative. We don't yet have all of Trump's financial information, and there is still the chance of an alternative explanation. (I even suggested it could have just been a coincidence that the amounts paid by Trump match the amounts received by Ivanka.)

However, that doesn't mean that it is impossible that they are avoiding taxes by using false "consulting" fees. And as I pointed out before, actual, real life accountants (you know, experts... the type of people we should be listening to) have said that it is potential tax fraud. And, to be honest, I trust their opinions more than I trust yours or mine.

Quote:

Versus, it's perfectly legal for the Trump Org to issue a special dividend to Ivanka's shares, which has almost exactly the same effect, her taxes from dividends would be much lower than from consulting income. So why not do that instead?
I think the Trump organization is a privately held company, and as such does not have shares. So if they want to give money to Ivanka, its either direct donation (gift tax), salary (payroll tax), or consulting fees (business tax to the consulting company, deduction to the Trump organization.)
Quote:

Again, not defending their business practices, the Trumps have a lot of crooked schemes, but this one sounds kinda improbable. My interpretation right now is that these 'quotes from experts' are very shoot from the hip, because at first glance, this is puzzling behavior, and this is the best they could come up with on short notice.
They are experts. I suspect they have seen all sorts of tax avoidance schemes, both during their education and in their professional lives.... as such, I doubt whether they would give an explanation which is completely bogus just because they want to "shoot from the hip".

Segnosaur 12th November 2020 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 13292836)
Tax-related investigations, got that. Are there other criminal charges in there?

Yes, quite a few.

Myself and another poster provided lists of potential charges in earlier posts.

We have bank/insurance fraud (over-estimating the value of properties when obtaining loans), perjury (lying to the Mueller investigation), obstruction of justice (Russia investigation), campaign finance violations (payments to Stormy Daniels), possible money laundering (selling properties at above-market values), giving false weather statements (yes, its actually a crime).

We know one person (Cohen) who has gone to jail because he was personally involved in one of the crimes, so in theory, if all other charges fell through, the campaign finance violations would still probably stick, if they decided to pursue them.

ISF (post 1)
ISF (post 2)

Segnosaur 12th November 2020 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski (Post 13292718)
Quote:

Just to update this - Segnosaur said the transfers were from the Trump Foundation, but this is incorrect, they were from the Trump Organization. So my above does not apply, my suggested motive to hide overcompensation of a director of a charity doesn't make sense, since the Trump Org is not a charity.
Quote:

I did? Where? I thought I was always quite clear that the payments were from the Trump organization.
Post #214.

It's not a big deal, I made the same error, I just wanted to explain why I revised my analysis.

I stand corrected.

In my defense I did use Trump organization almost everywhere else. Guess I overlooked one.

smartcooky 12th November 2020 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13292995)
I stand corrected.

In my defense I did use Trump organization almost everywhere else. Guess I overlooked one.


Meh. Trump's mob-like family have been involved in numerous corrupt ventures such as casinos, organizations, foundations and universities. It can be really hard to keep track and keep up.

slyjoe 13th November 2020 11:20 AM

Looks like Scotland is investigating now. There are some specific crimes (money laundering and fraud) in there.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/trump...142551543.html

eerok 13th November 2020 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 13293748)
Looks like Scotland is investigating now. There are some specific crimes (money laundering and fraud) in there.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/trump...142551543.html

With any luck, this is the beginning of a global trend.

The Great Zaganza 13th November 2020 11:33 AM

If anyone wanted to put a bit of effort into it, Trump would certainly be found guilty of money laundering.
But it would take some international cooperation.

The Great Zaganza 13th November 2020 11:35 AM

And then there is of course the goldie when Trump worked for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to build a hotel in Azerbaijan.


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...mps-worst-deal

blutoski 17th November 2020 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13292980)
Re: Trump's taxes and possible tax fraud involving consulting payments to Ivanka...

Well, she was an employee... It is not normal for someone to both draw a salary AND get paid as a consultant, since whatever was done under the guise of being a consultant could probably be done under the person's regular work as an employee.

I agreed this is unusual, but my question is specifically why jump to one specific answer, that being tax fraud.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13292980)
And the Trump organization was likely able to claim it as a business expense, so he benefits (either a reduction in taxes in a successful year, or a bigger refund/greater loss to offset in a bad year).

Well... her salary would also be a business expense that would do exactly the same thing. So this was why I was not understanding the leap to tax fraud. It felt more like they were trying to hide it rather than expense it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13292980)
Now, I assume there are various loopholes and deductions, so there is no guarantee that the 2 will be evenly balanced. It is possible that, given the nature of the 2 businesses involved (real estate vs. consulting), that it might end up being a tax benefit for Trump and his spawn, based on whatever loopholes exist.

You are right, it is speculative. We don't yet have all of Trump's financial information, and there is still the chance of an alternative explanation. (I even suggested it could have just been a coincidence that the amounts paid by Trump match the amounts received by Ivanka.)

However, that doesn't mean that it is impossible that they are avoiding taxes by using false "consulting" fees. And as I pointed out before, actual, real life accountants (you know, experts... the type of people we should be listening to) have said that it is potential tax fraud. And, to be honest, I trust their opinions more than I trust yours or mine.

I never said it's impossible. Just that the mechanism looks like obfuscation rather than tax avoidance in this specific scenario, so not sure why the leap to one explanation out of many.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13292980)
I think the Trump organization is a privately held company, and as such does not have shares.

Privately held companies have shares. Private means not issued to a secondary market. You're thinking of sole proprietorships, which have no shares (the legal entity is a person).



Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13292980)
So if they want to give money to Ivanka, its either direct donation (gift tax), salary (payroll tax), or consulting fees (business tax to the consulting company, deduction to the Trump organization.)

No, private companies SOP is to issue dividends to owners, if the taxes work out better. Dividends are taxed differently than earned income, is the rationale.

Just as an example, here in Canada, my wife's company has 10,000 shares, and her parents have a minority stake. The sole reason for this was to issue them dividends to supplement their income. (The expression is "income sprinkling") - this was disallowed 2 years ago and we no longer do this.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13292980)
They are experts. I suspect they have seen all sorts of tax avoidance schemes, both during their education and in their professional lives.... as such, I doubt whether they would give an explanation which is completely bogus just because they want to "shoot from the hip".

I akin it more to when a scientist is asked about a paper that hasn't been published yet, they can give their best guess, but it's different than making an actual claim. "It's weird, and given the limited information, maybe this, maybe that... when we find out more we'll have a better picture," is the level I'm seeing. They're not being jerks, they're just aware that it's important to say *something* to get media attention.

We do this all the time as skeptics when we should have actually said, "I don't know, there's not enough information."

smartcooky 17th November 2020 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski (Post 13298061)
Just as an example, here in Canada, my wife's company has 10,000 shares, and her parents have a minority stake. The sole reason for this was to issue them dividends to supplement their income. (The expression is "income sprinkling") - this was disallowed 2 years ago and we no longer do this.

Wait! Your family is not allowed to have a stake in your business? How do farmers get on?

blutoski 18th November 2020 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13298488)
Wait! Your family is not allowed to have a stake in your business? How do farmers get on?

The regulations just affect my wife's business, because it's what's called a 'professional corporation' - it's a special type of corp for doctors, lawyers, veterinarians, &c. As such, it can't be transferred and is entirely dependent on one person's performance. There's no capital required, it's mostly for legal protection. The only reason to have shareowners was to distribute dividends to people in lower income brackets, and the CRA felt that was pushing it so they asked the government to update the tax code to disallow it.

In contrast, I have 'normal' corporations for my software IP licensing and writing brands, which still allow income sprinkling via special dividends.

As for farmers, I can't say. All the farmers I know operate as sole props.

Segnosaur 20th November 2020 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski (Post 13298061)
I agreed this is unusual, but my question is specifically why jump to one specific answer, that being tax fraud.

Probably because tax fraud is a common reason why people falsely claim to be a 'consultant'.

Multiple articles I have read all say that the IRS (you know, the people that deal with taxes) consider it a "red flag", which suggests that they find it a fairly common tax issue.
Quote:

Quote:

And the Trump organization was likely able to claim it as a business expense, so he benefits (either a reduction in taxes in a successful year, or a bigger refund/greater loss to offset in a bad year).
Well... her salary would also be a business expense that would do exactly the same thing.
I am pretty sure something like consulting fees would have different tax implications than salary. But even if Trump had the option of giving the money to Ivanka as salary, that would not necessarily have gotten them off the hook.... One of the things the IRS looks at when it comes to pay is whether the compensation is "reasonable". (i.e. they are not trying to avoid 'gift' taxes by paying someone unreasonably high salaries.) For example, if I wanted to give you $1 million, I could not hire you (as either a consultant or a salaried employee) and pay you $1 million to sharpen a pencil, because the IRS would consider that to be excessive pay for the work that was being done. (At best, sharpening a pencil is at most a $500,000 expense.)

From: Bizfilings (Its a business website... not easy finding information about tax implications, so I take what I can get.)
Reasonable compensation is a "hot button" issue with the IRS--particularly with small, family-owned businesses. Ordinarily, the IRS will not challenge the amount of the compensation as unreasonable unless the employee has some control over the employer (e.g., is a large stockholder) or has some personal relationship with the owners....In deciding whether compensation is reasonable, the IRS uses the following definition: compensation is reasonable if that amount "would ordinarily be paid for like services by like enterprises under like circumstances."

Given the fact that Ivanka had a relationship with Donald Trump (i.e. he wanted to bang her), and the supposed work that was done appears to be minimal at best, and could probably have been done as part of her regular employment, then it certainly LOOKS like a gift.

And of course you also have the tax implications on Ivanka's side....

If Trump had decided to give Ivanka the money as salary (or dividends, as you suggested), she would have to claim it all as income tax. But if she is acting as a "consultant", she can start to claim all sorts of things that she would otherwise not be able to... transportation, office infrastructure.

Quote:

Privately held companies have shares. Private means not issued to a secondary market. You're thinking of sole proprietorships, which have no shares (the legal entity is a person).
I was unaware that Ivanka Trump had any shares of the Trump organization.

Quote:

Quote:

They are experts. I suspect they have seen all sorts of tax avoidance schemes, both during their education and in their professional lives.... as such, I doubt whether they would give an explanation which is completely bogus just because they want to "shoot from the hip".
I akin it more to when a scientist is asked about a paper that hasn't been published yet, they can give their best guess, but it's different than making an actual claim.
Bad analogy. If its a scientific paper, its about some new area of science that hasn't really been explored yet.

A better analogy here would be a doctor who is told of a patient who shows up at the hospital with lower abdominal pain. The doctor might guess "appendix", because it is a common medical condition discussed at medical school, and one the doctor probably dealt with before.

If you really think that "obfuscation" is the overwhelming reason why Ivanka was compensated this way, then why haven't financial experts said the same thing? If "obfuscation" is so much more common, why is it that you seem to be the only one that is making the claim that that is the likely reason? You are like the doctor who, when presented with someone with abdominal pain, claims "why are you assuming it is the appendix? It could very well be a jagged Krusty metal O".

In any case, it does appear that there is more evidence that there were tax fraud implications... (This was mentioned in one of the generic Trump threads...)

From: CTV News
New York's attorney general has sent a subpoena to the Trump Organization for records related to consulting fees paid to Ivanka Trump as part of a broad civil investigation into the president's business dealings, a law enforcement official said Thursday....It could, however, raise questions about whether the Trump Organization's related tax deductions were allowable. The Internal Revenue Service has, in the past, pursued civil penalties over large consulting fee write-offs it found were made to dodge tax liability.

Of course, a legal investigation is not proof that tax fraud existed. But, it does show that it is reasonable to have guessed that the payments were done to avoid taxes.

Modified 20th November 2020 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13301003)
I am pretty sure something like consulting fees would have different tax implications than salary.

Previously they were not that different as far as the total taxes, but the tax changes made a few years ago are very beneficial to the self-employed. Administratively, paying a fake consultant requires much less planning and paperwork than creating and paying a fake employee. You just write a check and send a 1099 at the end of the year. In this case I guess it would have been increasing the salary of a semi-fake employee, but that would still be more difficult.

Bob001 20th November 2020 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski (Post 13298061)
....
Privately held companies have shares. Private means not issued to a secondary market. You're thinking of sole proprietorships, which have no shares (the legal entity is a person).
.....

If they're not corporations, private companies don't have to have shares. It depends on how they're organized. The Trump Organization is an entity that in turn owns or controls hundreds of private companies and partnerships. There's no reason to think the kids own any shares.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tr...on#cite_note-5
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Tax_Doc.pdf

blutoski 20th November 2020 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13301150)
If they're not corporations, private companies don't have to have shares.

Maybe it's a terminology thing, but in Canada the word 'company' means incorporated. (It's a legally protected title like 'Society'). And all for-profit corporations here have shares. Not-for-profits have memberships (which act as shares in terms of voting mechanics).



Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13301150)
It depends on how they're organized. The Trump Organization is an entity that in turn owns or controls hundreds of private companies and partnerships. There's no reason to think the kids own any shares.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tr...on#cite_note-5
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Tax_Doc.pdf

Thanks for the refs.

So, based on these, it looks like the Trump Organization isn't an actual entity. It's just the high level description for the stable of companies DJT owns. They are mostly Sole Proprietorships, which as you indicate would not have shares, but some are partnerships. Ivanka could be a part owner via partnership, for example. So it's not clear what her actual relationship was, which makes the implications of also being a consultant unclear. If she was an uncompensated advisor or silent partner, then being a paid consultant doesn't seem like much of a conflict of interest.

Basically all I'm saying is that outsiders don't seem to know much, and I'd like to cast a wider net than just taxes.

Segnosaur 20th November 2020 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski (Post 13301281)
Quote:

If they're not corporations, private companies don't have to have shares.
Maybe it's a terminology thing, but in Canada the word 'company' means incorporated.

I think the problem is, most people (even Canadians) are using the term 'company' in a more vernacular way, rather than following the official "legal" definition.

Quote:

...it looks like the Trump Organization isn't an actual entity. It's just the high level description for the stable of companies DJT owns.
I think there actually is a legal entity called "The Trump Organization", even if most of its holdings and the work it does are done by subsidiaries and partnerships. Its got a chief financial officer and a chief operating officer.
Quote:

They are mostly Sole Proprietorships, which as you indicate would not have shares, but some are partnerships. Ivanka could be a part owner via partnership, for example. So it's not clear what her actual relationship was, which makes the implications of also being a consultant unclear. If she was an uncompensated advisor or silent partner, then being a paid consultant doesn't seem like much of a conflict of interest.
I believe she was an employee of the Trump organization, which is one of the reasons her getting paid as a consultant raises red flags.
Quote:

Basically all I'm saying is that outsiders don't seem to know much, and I'd like to cast a wider net than just taxes.
I am sure there are plenty of other things that can be investigated and a lot of potential fraud that can be uncovered.

I think the tax thing probably gets a lot of play is because people can understand the repercussions better, and it hits closer to home. "Trump is a tax cheat... yet I pay my taxes regularly" means a bit more than "Trump may have inflated the value of his property to secure a loan", which is also a crime, but harder for people to understand what it means.

Segnosaur 20th November 2020 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Modified (Post 13301148)
Quote:

I am pretty sure something like consulting fees would have different tax implications than salary.
Previously they were not that different as far as the total taxes, but the tax changes made a few years ago are very beneficial to the self-employed.

I am not a tax expert, and I am not American, but I did work as a consultant a few years back, and I was able to claim certain things that I could not as an employee. It didn't make a huge difference, but then I didn't exactly have an army of accountants to find every loophole.

Quote:

Administratively, paying a fake consultant requires much less planning and paperwork than creating and paying a fake employee. You just write a check and send a 1099 at the end of the year. In this case I guess it would have been increasing the salary of a semi-fake employee, but that would still be more difficult.
I think Ivanka was already an employee of the Trump organization when she got paid as a consultant, so they wouldn't have to create a 'fake' employee.

Overall though, I think the argument between employee and consultant tax situations is less important that the issue of whether the payments to Ivanka were the result of actual work done at a fair labor market rate, or should have been considered a gift (subject to gift taxes).

Emily's Cat 20th November 2020 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski (Post 13301281)
Maybe it's a terminology thing, but in Canada the word 'company' means incorporated. (It's a legally protected title like 'Society'). And all for-profit corporations here have shares. Not-for-profits have memberships (which act as shares in terms of voting mechanics).

Total derail here... and I'm really simplifying this a lot.

In the US, corporations have shares, and have limited liabilities. The corporation takes on the debt, and shields the shareholders and employees of that corporation from asset forfeiture in the case of the business going under. The shares don't have to be publicly traded. They don't have to be traded at all. A privately held corporation can have a very limited set of shareholders and be in a position where none of the shares are ever traded. Corporations can also be mutually held, in which case the employees or the customers (depending on how it is organized) are entitled to shares of the corporation; this used to be pretty common for insurance companies, where the policyholders were the mutual holders of the company, but that's a lot less common now. It's also a pretty common structure for credit unions as opposed to banks. In all cases, either the shareholders themselves, or proxies in the form of a board of directors, oversee some elements of the company.

Companies can also operated without being incorporated, as sole proprietorships or as private partnerships. In those cases, there's no obligation on the company with respect to how they make decisions and govern the business.

In the US, non-profit and not-for-profit get a but more confusing. Generally speaking, "non-profit" indicates a charitable organization, where the incomes are used for charitable ventures once operating expenses are paid out. It's a bit loose though, and a lot of "non-profits" end up paying their employees pretty substantial salaries and have rather high operating costs, leaving very little left for the actual charitable aspect of the concern, even though they often make use of a lot of volunteers.

Not-for-profits are even stranger. They're not charitable organizations, they aren't giving stuff away or advancing a cause or raising awareness. They exist in a strange limbo state, where they don't have shareholders, but still have limited liability as a corporation. They have boards of directors who govern the company as well. Many local and regional health insurance companies are not-for-profit, as are a bunch of hospitals and provider groups (but definitely not all of them). A lot of clubs are not-for-profits.

In both cases, non-profits and not-for-profits actually do earn profits, it's just not their primary objective as a company. Any profits earned are reinvested in the business or used in other ways that support the primary (non-financial) mission of the company.

I can speak to some of the oddities in my industry, but not for any others. In health insurance, not-for-profits corporations are frequently "held in trust" by the state in which they are sitused. So, for example, a Blue Cross company that I am familiar with is a not-for-profit. If things were to go south for that company, and they entered receivership with the state insurance department, then after liquidation of assets and paying off outstanding commitments, anything left over would go to the state itself, earmarked to be used for the health of the residents of that state.

Emily's Cat 20th November 2020 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13301316)
I think there actually is a legal entity called "The Trump Organization", even if most of its holdings and the work it does are done by subsidiaries and partnerships. Its got a chief financial officer and a chief operating officer.

I would suspect that The Trump Organization is a holding company. That would probably mean that it generates no revenue of its own, its revenue is generated by its subsidiary companies.

Here's some US weirdness for you: A holding company can be classified as not-for-profit, even if several of its subsidiaries are for-profit companies. Those subsidiaries can be set up so that they're privately held by the holding company rather than by proprietors or partners. Essentially the holding company owns all of the shares of that subsidiary and makes governing decisions as the sole shareholder. Usually, the board of directors of the holding company makes decisions with respect to the wholly owned subsidiaries.

:boggled: I am not certain I have all of my terminology correct. But I'll be damned if I pull out that much-hated Corporate Finance textbook!

Bob001 20th November 2020 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski (Post 13301281)
Maybe it's a terminology thing, but in Canada the word 'company' means incorporated. (It's a legally protected title like 'Society'). And all for-profit corporations here have shares. Not-for-profits have memberships (which act as shares in terms of voting mechanics).


Different in the U.S.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski (Post 13301281)
......
Basically all I'm saying is that outsiders don't seem to know much, and I'd like to cast a wider net than just taxes.


Sure, we need to know a lot more. There are credible allegations that Trump has been laundering money for Russian gangsters for decades through complicated loan and real estate deals. We need to know who has their hooks in him. But the tax returns would be a good start.

After Jan. 20, I hope the House requests 40 years of Trump's tax returns, and that Biden orders them released the same day.

Modified 21st November 2020 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski (Post 13301281)
Maybe it's a terminology thing, but in Canada the word 'company' means incorporated. (It's a legally protected title like 'Society'). And all for-profit corporations here have shares. Not-for-profits have memberships (which act as shares in terms of voting mechanics).

Is there no equivalent of a US LLC - limited liability with pass-through income, or is such a thing just not called a "company"?

It would certainly be a huge hindrance to small businesses if such a thing did not exist.

abaddon 21st November 2020 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Modified (Post 13302127)
Is there no equivalent of a US LLC - limited liability with pass-through income, or is such a thing just not called a "company"?

It would certainly be a huge hindrance to small businesses if such a thing did not exist.

I had occasion a couple of decades ago to set up a company in Delaware from abroad. What is or is not an LLC is still unclear to me. I simply let the legal eagles do their work.

alfaniner 21st November 2020 05:30 PM

I finished out Season 1 of Lost in Space. I have to say that it far surpassed my expectations with its epicness and danger (Will Robinson!). Season 2 isn't out on disc yet so I guess I'll have to wait to pick up on it.

I contrast this with also having finished the first season of The Expanse, which I've heard nothing but raves about. I did not find it at all compelling. (One interesting aside, the female on the crew is also a featured CGI character in the PS4 Need for Speed Payback game I'm playing right now. It took me a minute to place where I'd seen her recently.) I still don't know the characters' names and have trouble remembering their relationships, not to mention all the political intrigue. But I suppose it's something to tide me over until I can get LIS Season 2.

Squeegee Beckenheim 22nd November 2020 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfaniner (Post 13302352)
I finished out Season 1 of Lost in Space. I have to say that it far surpassed my expectations with its epicness and danger (Will Robinson!). Season 2 isn't out on disc yet so I guess I'll have to wait to pick up on it.

I contrast this with also having finished the first season of The Expanse, which I've heard nothing but raves about. I did not find it at all compelling. (One interesting aside, the female on the crew is also a featured CGI character in the PS4 Need for Speed Payback game I'm playing right now. It took me a minute to place where I'd seen her recently.) I still don't know the characters' names and have trouble remembering their relationships, not to mention all the political intrigue. But I suppose it's something to tide me over until I can get LIS Season 2.

Wrong thread?

alfaniner 22nd November 2020 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 13302591)
Wrong thread?

Yes, definitely...
Comes from having too many tabs open. (post may be deleted)

Squeegee Beckenheim 22nd November 2020 09:40 AM

Both investigations in New York are looking at the consultancy fees the Trump Organisation paid, including those paid to Ivanka despite her being an employee

Modified 23rd November 2020 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 13302318)
I had occasion a couple of decades ago to set up a company in Delaware from abroad. What is or is not an LLC is still unclear to me. I simply let the legal eagles do their work.


It's just a sole proprietorship or partnership where it's significantly more difficult for someone to get at personal assets if they sue.

Emily's Cat 23rd November 2020 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Modified (Post 13303739)
It's just a sole proprietorship or partnership where it's significantly more difficult for someone to get at personal assets if they sue.

One other difference is that a corporation has continuity of its own, as a going concern, regardless of who the holders of its shares are, or who the CEO is, or who works there. That's not the case for a sole proprietorship or a partnership. In those cases, in the US, the business concern doesn't have permanence as an entity in its own right. Changes of ownership can get very complicated. Here's where my lack of specific knowledge becomes a bit of a problem. I think sole proprietorships can be willed to another person and retain their status. They might be sellable, but I'm not certain they retain their entity status in the process. Partnerships can change out partners (including adding or removing), but there are legal hurdles to go through each time.

That's not the case with a corporation, even an LLC. Pepsi, Co. remains Pepsi, Co. with no interruption and no legal hoops to jump through, even in the unlikely event that the entire employee staff (including executives), the entire board of directors, and every single shareholder gets replaced at the same time.

Stacyhs 23rd November 2020 04:25 PM

The Atlantic has an interesting article on whether or not Trump can pardon himself. They have a pretty good case for not being able to do so looking at the wording of the Constitution: the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” It all boils down to the majority of the Justices being strict Constitutionalists and the meaning of the word "grant" as used at the time the Constitution was written.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...imself/617170/

smartcooky 23rd November 2020 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13301410)
There are credible allegations that Trump has been laundering money for Russian gangsters for decades through complicated loan and real estate deals. We need to know who has their hooks in him. But the tax returns would be a good start.

“I have nothing to do with Russia, John. How many times do I have say that? Are you a smart man? … I have nothing to do with Putin.”

"I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years. Don’t speak to people from Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does.”


...which a we all know, was a complete, demonstrable, pants-on-fire lie. At the time he lied, he was in the midst of a real estate deal with a Russian Oligarch (never actually named, but probably either Dmitry Rybolovlev or Oleg Deripaska) and several other Russian nationals including Dmitry Peskov, Putin's press secretary. This deal, like any deal in Russia involving big money, required Putin's personal approval.

The thing I find most suspicious however, is the failure of his Atlantic City Casino. A casino is almost like a license to print money, and is an excellent way to launder money.

If Cyrus Vance and Letitia James can get their hands on his account and tax records, they could put team of forensic accountants on them. If there is any dirt, they will find it.

marting 23rd November 2020 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13304651)
The thing I find most suspicious however, is the failure of his Atlantic City Casino. A casino is almost like a license to print money, and is an excellent way to launder money.

Trump never understood the casino business. For him it was all about branding and he somehow thought he could just add casinos there and the appeal of his name would draw in gamblers. He should have kept it at one casino. He was also a crappy businessman. Took on major reconstruction that ran way over budget and had to finance it with high interest loans that sucked more than what little profit he generated. He also was sloppy about implementing cage controls. "Trumped" by Jack O'Donnell, an ultimate insider.

Bob001 23rd November 2020 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13304651)
.....
The thing I find most suspicious however, is the failure of his Atlantic City Casino. A casino is almost like a license to print money, and is an excellent way to launder money.
....

The thing about AC is that Trump didn't build one casino, he built three. They competed against each other for a finite amount of business. He also pulled a lot of money out of them, and transferred his debts to investors. If the Russians were involved, the casinos might have been run better.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/n...ntic-city.html

Norman Alexander 23rd November 2020 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13304767)
The thing about AC is that Trump didn't build one casino, he built three. They competed against each other for a finite amount of business. He also pulled a lot of money out of them, and transferred his debts to investors. If the Russians were involved, the casinos might have been run better.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/n...ntic-city.html

The way I have seen it explained, it was actually a "good thing" that they failed and he went bankrupt. That is, it could have been deliberate.

Something along the lines of (1) investing dirty money into a failing business, (2) having it fail and go bankrupt, (3) selling off the business and the building, (4) getting paid out in full or near as dammit with nice clean money because they were a "stockholder" in that business. This from the depths of my porous memory...I'm sure it can be corrected.

Darat 24th November 2020 05:05 AM

(From memory) And he financed it using “junk bonds” but to get permission from the city Atlanta he had claimed he had blue chip investors lining up to give him money. A couple of months later he raised over $600 million in junk bonds with something like a 14% interest rate.

There was no clever scheme, just his usual cack handed way of “doing business”.

No Other 24th November 2020 09:48 AM

Maybe we should put every President on trial after his/her Administration leaves office. This way partisanship (at least at the filing suit level) is minimized. I cannot think of one President (maybe Jimmy Carter... maybe) who did not commit crimes while in office. There is no need for me to delineate each and every President on their offenses, as in some cases it is quite extensive, as this is not a party driven activity... it is a power driven activity that is sanctioned and practiced by the two political parties.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.