(03-15-2017 03:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 03:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  the left claimed trump paid no taxes or at least not his fair share with zero evidence to back it up

Now they've found some evidence and they thought they could use it to 'injure' him....
The problem is, it completely refutes their contention...

so now they claim 'it's only one year and that means nothing'...

Yes, but THEY chose to produce that one year.


If this is what hey had, they probably should have kept their mouths shut about it

That's not true. They have his 1995 tax return showing the massive massive 900 million dollar loss. Again, that loss can be used partially for 1995, then carried back two years, then carried forward up to another 15 years or until it runs out.

That is pretty substantial evidence that Trump would have paid no taxes while he was carrying forward that loss.

And with the release of this 2005 return, we see he still had 100 million of that NOL that he used. So either it wasn't fully used up from 1996 to 2004, or he had another huge loss in those years that wiped out his tax liability.

What's not true? That this refutes their contention? Of course it does. obviously he paid taxes in 2005. That proves he didn't 'not pay any taxes'... and at 25%, he certainly paid his 'fair share' that year.

So what you're engaging in is precisely what i said you would... and claim that it is only one year... again, without any proof.

Yet despite having enough carry forward to shelter almost all of his income for that year, he couldn't use it all.

and you're right... you're not a tax professional. I'm not either, but I certainly advised wealthy clients on tax strategies in consultation with them. you don't pay 25% of your income in taxes when you have huge carry forward available unless you can't utilize that carry forward to shelter the income.

AMT is what did him in, and would have similarly done so in other years... Why would he 'allow' himself to be subject to AMT in 2005 if he could get around it; especially in that he obviously still had the losses with which to do so? hint... there are limits on such things. I can't tell you what they are as the rules are complex, but I know they exist. It's what AMT is all about.

I have no idea what he paid over the past 20 years and neither do you. What we know is that the left has been DESPERATE to try and claim that he's paid none... and yet in the only year they can find... he paid 25% on $150mm. 25% is a LARGE figure for someone earning $150mm in a year. MOST wealthy people pay far less than that on average.

As I said, if this is all they had, they should have kept it to themselves.