(03-21-2023 08:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Serious question...
If someone accuses a company of doing something and they decide to 'write a check' rather than to have it adjudicated, is that not a deductible business expense?

Shtuffing a porn star is a business activity? Hot damn -- show me how to change careers to *that*.

Sorry, paying off Stormy doesnt fall *anywhere* near a business activity, let alone qualifying for a business claim. Might as well try to fold in your personal hooker costs to your business.....

Quote:Edwards was charged, but iirc, not convicted... even of a Misdemeanor.

Edwards attempts to kill the prosecution as a matter of law failed. There is a difference between actions being chargeable as a crime, and being found guilty of that charge.

Felonies and misdemeanors.

(03-21-2023 09:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 07:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 05:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  OTOH, if he misused campaign funds to pay her off, then he should receive the same punishment that any non-Trump politician would get for the same offense. Would that warrant an actual arrest? I have no clue.

no arrest here

or here

Edwards was charged for a similar campaign violation.

Also the campaign issue isn’t the main charge. The main charge is a ‘lying in a business record’ —- trying to claim it as a business expense. The campaign violation nature of the payment boosts the ‘lying in a business record’ into ‘lying in business record to further another criminal act’ —- the difference between a NY state misdemeanor and a NY state felony charge.

So, fudging his taxes. The difference is, this is Trump, and he is not to be treated like any run of the mill Democrat. His head needs to be on a wall. Dems have been hunting this elusive yeti-like monster so long that perhaps there tunnel vision does not permit them to see that the hunt has failed.

I hear all the Dems and many Republicans wailing that nobody is above the law. B-effing-S. I think many people are treated to a better version of the law - ever hear of white privilege or noticed that rich people seem to get better outcomes than average or poor people? Isn't that basically what BLM is burning drug stores over?

This is political prosecution of the third world variety. It is not the way a transgression by a Clinton, AOC, or especially, a Biden would be treated. Reminds me of the way Teddy K was treated when he killed that girl - in reverse.

So your solution is to keep the Teddy K treatment as the norm. Sounds fun.

(03-21-2023 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 08:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Probably more like oranges to tangerines. I looked hard for a case involving a Republican ex-President, a Soros DA, a porn queen, and a Republican. Think they will let Trump off with a tiny fine? Would that be another difference?

The comparison to what Trump is accused of and the AOC article isn't even close.

So, the other one?

See Tanq's post about the steps that Trump took that escalated his issue above what the Clinton campaign apparently did.

I have seen Tanq's post. Quite a twisted trail of logic. But in effect, he deducted the payoff as a business expense.

*And* violated campaign finance law. All in one swoop.

The 'lying on business records' is generally tied to a misdemeanor to keep it palatable for 'innocent transgressions'.

The making it a felony while doing so in the course of another crime makes sense to me -- think money laundering operations or Mafia shell out corporations. Nigerian auto accident fraud rings. Embezzlement. Fraud.

Has some nice teeth.

My view is that too fing bad that Trump, supposedly the smartest person ever, got caught in a pickle because of that cuteness. Bummer.

Quote:Thats why we have auditors. Quite a leap from that to creating a false dossier for election purposes and using it to falsify testimony before the FISA court.

The campaign finance issue in the dossier was just that -- a campaign finance problem.

And yes, the fker that used it and falsified testimony before the FISA *should* be
charged.

But then your analogy falls flat because Perkins Coie (the campaign fincnace violator) was not the Federal agent who lied to the court.

Here, Trump sits in both seats. A putative slap on the wrist false records, which his dumb*** self-serving actions elevated it to another crime, and elevated the false records. Brilliant.

And, on top of it, he rat fked his bagman. Double brilliant.

Quote:At least I think it a big leap. But nobody has been indicted for that falsity.

The felony NY business records act? Sure they have. Absolutely they have.

(03-21-2023 10:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 08:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Serious question...
If someone accuses a company of doing something and they decide to 'write a check' rather than to have it adjudicated, is that not a deductible business expense?

Shtuffing a porn star is a business activity? Hot damn -- show me how to change careers to *that*.

Sorry, paying off Stormy doesnt fall *anywhere* near a business activity, let alone qualifying for a business claim. Might as well try to fold in your personal hooker costs to your business.....

You've got your facts wrong.

The payment wasn't for her 'services'... the payment was for her silence afterwards. If the joke about that is true, she was paid twice for her silence.

As I asked... if a company is accused of something and they pay to make the story go away/keep it quiet so that it doesn't damage their business, is that a business expense? Certainly hiring another company to 'shoot holes' in the complaint about you would be... including damaging the reputation of the accuser in order to protect your own. In this case, the 'business' was getting Trump elected. I am 100% certain that he could make this argument... and I'm suggesting that although it may not win, it isn't without any merit.

I mean you yourself spoke about him pissing off his 'bag man', implying that the man's job is to (in one way or another) keep people quiet... and I'm 100% certain that his salary, his expenses for lunches, dinners, gifts, what have you to BE the bag man... would be deductible business expenses. Other than the salacious nature of the silence, what is the difference?

Quote:

Quote:Edwards was charged, but iirc, not convicted... even of a Misdemeanor.

Edwards attempts to kill the prosecution as a matter of law failed. There is a difference between actions being chargeable as a crime, and being found guilty of that charge.

Felonies and misdemeanors.

I'm not following you. Of course there is a difference between being charged and being found guilty. The same would be true for Trump. My point was that Edwards got away with what seemed obvious to most of us to be a campaign finance violation. Trump may or may not be, but my point is that is more likely to be determined by whom his judge and jury are, and not whether or not he is actually guilty.

Rules for thee, not for me.

(03-21-2023 10:50 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 10:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 08:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Serious question...
If someone accuses a company of doing something and they decide to 'write a check' rather than to have it adjudicated, is that not a deductible business expense?

Shtuffing a porn star is a business activity? Hot damn -- show me how to change careers to *that*.

Sorry, paying off Stormy doesnt fall *anywhere* near a business activity, let alone qualifying for a business claim. Might as well try to fold in your personal hooker costs to your business.....

You've got your facts wrong.

The payment wasn't for her 'services'... the payment was for her silence afterwards. If the joke about that is true, she was paid twice for her silence.

As I asked... if a company is accused of something and they pay to make the story go away/keep it quiet so that it doesn't damage their business, is that a business expense?

Certainly hiring another company to 'shoot holes' in the complaint about you would be... including damaging the reputation of the accuser in order to protect your own. In this case, the 'business' was getting Trump elected.

In that case the Trump campaign would be the 'person' being charged. There is a distinct difference between the Trump organization and the Trump campaign.

And, per the paragraph below, it still wouldnt make a difference.

And I would hazard a guess that paying hush money for a personal matter does not qualify as a 'business expense'. I had a discussion with a partner at a national accounting firm when this first hit in 2018 --- no matter if you’re trying to protect the business, if the genesis is personal and you can’t deduct it.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Edwards was charged, but iirc, not convicted... even of a Misdemeanor.

Edwards attempts to kill the prosecution as a matter of law failed. There is a difference between actions being chargeable as a crime, and being found guilty of that charge.

Felonies and misdemeanors.

I'm not following you. Of course there is a difference between being charged and being found guilty. The same would be true for Trump. My point was that Edwards got away with what seemed obvious to most of us to be a campaign finance violation. Trump may or may not be, but my point is that is more likely to be determined by whom his judge and jury are, and not whether or not he is actually guilty.

Rules for thee, not for me.

You seemingly made an implied assertion that the jury verdict in Edwards was dispositive of the ability to charge.

There is nothing in the Edwards trial that can be used legally (or factually) to 'tamper down' the ability to charge Trump.

Now, if it is tried, I would tell you that 99% almost certainty that Trump does *not* get finding of guilty. There is no way to screen all the MAGA types out of a jury whom might blindly vote for acquittal. And it only takes one to hang a jury.

(03-21-2023 10:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The comparison to what Trump is accused of and the AOC article isn't even close.

So, the other one?

See Tanq's post about the steps that Trump took that escalated his issue above what the Clinton campaign apparently did.

I have seen Tanq's post. Quite a twisted trail of logic. But in effect, he deducted the payoff as a business expense. Thats why we have auditors. Quite a leap from that to creating a false dossier for election purposes and using it to falsify testimony before the FISA court.

At least I think it a big leap. But nobody has been indicted for that falsity.

I think the goal here is the arrest and perp walk. Drag it out a year and thwart the nomination. Then drop it it. Mission accomplished.

Does anybody think that Trump has a better chance of defeating Biden than Desantis does? Do you think the Democrats believe that? If I were a Democratic strategist, I would be salivating at the idea of Trump being the Republican nominee.

I don't think Trump has a better chance, but I'm also not salivating at the idea of Trump being the Republican nominee.

To the back and forth between you and OO, the arguments by him (and many others) that Democrats are trying to do anything to put Trump away are, IMO, projections. They all ignore the fact that Trump not only has a long history of questionable moral practices in his personal and business life, but he has a laundry list of questionably legal practices as well. If Trump was squeaky clean and there were this many lawsuits against him, I think the criticism of a persecuted man would have merit. But he ain't a saint. There is an argument about the potential legality of expensing the pay off of a pornstar...

Seriously Tanq.... you seem so invested in just watching Trump burn.... I think your judgement is being clouded.

(03-21-2023 11:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In that case the Trump campaign would be the 'person' being charged. There is a distinct difference between the Trump organization and the Trump campaign.

And, per the paragraph below, it still wouldnt make a difference.

And I would hazard a guess that paying hush money for a personal matter does not qualify as a 'business expense'. I had a discussion with a partner at a national accounting firm when this first hit in 2018 --- no matter if you’re trying to protect the business, if the genesis is personal and you can’t deduct it.

But the 'business' is getting Trump elected. As the parent of a media person, I can tell you that 'brand management' is a deductible expense, including covering up things that damage the brand.

Trump is not in any way being prosecuted for his personal actions with Stormy. He's being charged with using campaign funds to cover up something that would have been damaging to the campaign. Again, I'm not claiming this is a lay down my direction either... its just not the slam dunk you seem to see.

He may well lose I admit 110%, especially given the environment and jurisdiction.... and I'm sure he'll argue for a change of venue etc etc...

Question... what will the penalty be? I understand he may not be able to run for President, but I'm not sure that wouldn't be worth it to him either way.

Quote:You seemingly made an implied assertion that the jury verdict in Edwards was dispositive of the ability to charge.

Not at all. My point was simply that even 'guilty' people often walk... if they're 'important' enough. As you note, charging him is the EASY part. Convicting him, even in a friendly environment is another issue. My question is, should it be that way??

Quote:Now, if it is tried, I would tell you that 99% almost certainty that Trump does *not* get finding of guilty. There is no way to screen all the MAGA types out of a jury whom might blindly vote for acquittal. And it only takes one to hang a jury.

So there you go. My point entirely.

Don't you see that as a problem?? I mean, if he's so clearly guilty... shouldn't he 'go down', regardless of how popular he is? They often don't you seem to agree......

and yet when people talk about people being 'above the law', we are almost always dismissed. Trump LITERALLY said this during an early debate and Hillary (and the moderator) all but laughed at him.



ETA: This isn't a Trump issue.... much like he spoke about with the taxes etc... Sure, he takes advantage of it, but so do hundreds or thousands of others...

but the difference is, THESE ARE THE RULE MAKERS!!! Its clear that we shouldn't support those who use campaign funds to hide illicit affairs, but shouldn't we ALSO (and perhaps more importantly) not support the people who by their knowledge and action of these things (and often their use) ALLOW it to happen??

Quote:But the 'business' is getting Trump elected.

The base maxim is --

no matter if you’re trying to protect the business, if the genesis is personal and you can’t deduct it. Period.

No matter how many 'what ifs' you want to place in front of it.

Quote:Trump is not in any way being prosecuted for his personal actions with Stormy.

You are conflating items. The *payment* is based in a personal action. The payment is not allowable as a business expense. Cant get much simpler than that.

The issue isnt 'Trump is being/ not being prosecuted for his personal actions with Stormy'. The issue is the properness of classifying the payment to Stormy. For the third time -- if the genesis of the payment is based in a person matter, it isnt deductible. Shitloads of tax caselaw on that.

The genesis of the payment is a personal matter. No matter how much you want/ wish to recharacterize it.

I cant emphasize how much this is black letter. And this fits that black letter like a glove.

Quote:Question... what will the penalty be? I understand he may not be able to run for President, but I'm not sure that wouldn't be worth it to him either way.

My reading of the issue is that the only thing that could bar him from running would be a conviction on impeachment. That is a black letter bar for eligibility for office (like 43(?) years, natural-born citizen (whatever the fk that is), etc.)

Quote:Don't you see that as a problem?? I mean, if he's so clearly guilty... shouldn't he 'go down', regardless of how popular he is? They often don't you seem to agree......

When people arent punished for transgressions, it simply leads to a whole slew of crybabies who then do the same **** and scream 'whadabout'. Or 'my riot was far less worse than your riot'. We see that in spades these days. That route is toxic -- and we are way down that path right now, imo.

And no -- I dont think my viewpoint on equal application of the law is at a threshold of failure is clouded by Trump.

(03-21-2023 12:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:But the 'business' is getting Trump elected.

The base maxim is --

no matter if you’re trying to protect the business, if the genesis is personal and you can’t deduct it. Period.

No matter how many 'what ifs' you want to place in front of it.

Quote:Trump is not in any way being prosecuted for his personal actions with Stormy.

You are conflating items. The *payment* is based in a personal action. The payment is not allowable as a business expense. Cant get much simpler than that.

The issue isnt 'Trump is being/ not being prosecuted for his personal actions with Stormy'. The issue is the properness of classifying the payment to Stormy. For the third time -- if the genesis of the payment is based in a person matter, it isnt deductible. Shitloads of tax caselaw on that.

The genesis of the payment is a personal matter. No matter how much you want/ wish to recharacterize it.

I cant emphasize how much this is black letter. And this fits that black letter like a glove.

Quote:Question... what will the penalty be? I understand he may not be able to run for President, but I'm not sure that wouldn't be worth it to him either way.

My reading of the issue is that the only thing that could bar him from running would be a conviction on impeachment. That is a black letter bar for eligibility for office (like 43(?) years, natural-born citizen (whatever the fk that is), etc.)

Quote:Don't you see that as a problem?? I mean, if he's so clearly guilty... shouldn't he 'go down', regardless of how popular he is? They often don't you seem to agree......

When people arent punished for transgressions, it simply leads to a whole slew of crybabies who then do the same **** and scream 'whadabout'. Or 'my riot was far less worse than your riot'. We see that in spades these days. That route is toxic -- and we are way down that path right now, imo.

And no -- I dont think my viewpoint on equal application of the law is at a threshold of failure is clouded by Trump.

To the comment on "genesis of the payment is a personal matter." Am I correct in understanding that you're saying that the act that created the need for the payment was not done in the duty of furthering the business, and the purpose of the act is THE crux?

As in, Trump boning Stormy wasn't an action taken to further the business. So therefore, it doesn't matter if paying to cover up the personal action was business related (i.e., to protect his image), since the act the birthed the need for payment was personal in nature, the "genesis of the payment is a personal matter."

I think I'm just restating what you said, but in a way that I can confirm I understand it. And if so, does that mean that, if Trump could find a way to argue that boning Stormy was part of his business, the payment would be copacetic?

(03-21-2023 10:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The comparison to what Trump is accused of and the AOC article isn't even close.

So, the other one?

See Tanq's post about the steps that Trump took that escalated his issue above what the Clinton campaign apparently did.

I have seen Tanq's post. Quite a twisted trail of logic. But in effect, he deducted the payoff as a business expense. Thats why we have auditors. Quite a leap from that to creating a false dossier for election purposes and using it to falsify testimony before the FISA court.

At least I think it a big leap. But nobody has been indicted for that falsity.

I think the goal here is the arrest and perp walk. Drag it out a year and thwart the nomination. Then drop it it. Mission accomplished.

Does anybody think that Trump has a better chance of defeating Biden than Desantis does? Do you think the Democrats believe that? If I were a Democratic strategist, I would be salivating at the idea of Trump being the Republican nominee.

Lots of people on both sides seem to think Trump would win a rematch with Biden, especially since Biden has revealed himself to NOT be a moderate and both Biden and Harris have proven to be incompetent in various ways. I don't know if Trump would fare better than DeSantis or Haley or Scott or most of the other Republican hopefuls. But I do know this: it doesn't matter if Trump is on the ballot, the Dems will be running against Trump, just like last year.

(03-21-2023 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the comment on "genesis of the payment is a personal matter." Am I correct in understanding that you're saying that the act that created the need for the payment was not done in the duty of furthering the business, and the purpose of the act is THE crux?

As in, Trump boning Stormy wasn't an action taken to further the business. So therefore, it doesn't matter if paying to cover up the personal action was business related (i.e., to protect his image), since the act the birthed the need for payment was personal in nature, the "genesis of the payment is a personal matter."

I think I'm just restating what you said, but in a way that I can confirm I understand it. And if so, does that mean that, if Trump could find a way to argue that boning Stormy was part of his business, the payment would be copacetic?

Pretty much.

For example

-- company helps high profile CEO resolve divorce. Company cant deduct as business expense.

-- company helps executive in pre-lawsuit phase where executive was doing high speed, exotic car stuff on highway and injures passenger. Again, company cant deduct as business expense.

Black law.

Hypo -- I accidentally have a fender bender with a client in downtown Johnson City while attending a farmer's market, just happens that the client was there. My settlement, even though I am self-employed in numerous ventures, is not deductible as a business expense.

A company’s payment to settle a lawsuit in which it was actually the named defendant is not deductible when the lawsuit stemmed from an incident that occurred during a personal vacation taken by the CEO and other employees.

In order for settlement costs to be deductible business expenses, the origin of the claim must arise from a profit-seeking business activity. Had the CEO and employees been away for a board meeting, the outcome may have been different.

Still sounds like a tax matter. Most tax matters would be resolved by disallowing the deduction and assessing the extra taxes, plus penalties and interest.

(03-21-2023 01:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Still sounds like a tax matter. Most tax matters would be resolved by disallowing the deduction and assessing the extra taxes, plus penalties and interest.

In isolation you would be right on point.

Here, the DA seems to be taking the position that the classification is a prima facie violation of the statute. Normally a misdemeanor. Since the payment was also, in his mind, itself a criminal violation w/o the application of the business records statute --- you get the felony upgrade special for the count.

That is --- couple it with the payment being itself a criminal act, and voila, you get the misdemeanor to felony upgrade for the business records violation. Again, the felony upgrade of the NY statute has been used in number of settings by the State of NY -- like that I named before.

That is the tack the DA seems to be taking.

(03-21-2023 12:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:But the 'business' is getting Trump elected.

The base maxim is --

no matter if you’re trying to protect the business, if the genesis is personal and you can’t deduct it. Period.

No matter how many 'what ifs' you want to place in front of it.

Again, he's not being prosecuted for that act, which best I know isn't even criminal. There is no duty nor obligation to 'defend' that act. It is instead a 'business decision' to do so to protect the 'brand'.

I suspect it would be different if the action were criminal.... because then the business would be covering up a crime.

Quote:

Quote:Trump is not in any way being prosecuted for his personal actions with Stormy.

You are conflating items. The *payment* is based in a personal action. The payment is not allowable as a business expense. Cant get much simpler than that.

But it isn't. Sorry, but I'm fairly confident that you're not correct here.... going to try and walk a fine line here... a movie was about to come out.. and one of the actors 'did something'... and the producer paid for an NDA as part of the 'marketing' campaign. This was numerous years ago and while the person I know well connected to the issue is no longer associated with that producer, (s)he handled the books.

Quote:The issue isnt 'Trump is being/ not being prosecuted for his personal actions with Stormy'. The issue is the properness of classifying the payment to Stormy. For the third time -- if the genesis of the payment is based in a person matter, it isnt deductible. Shitloads of tax caselaw on that.

The genesis of the payment is a personal matter. No matter how much you want/ wish to recharacterize it.

I cant emphasize how much this is black letter. And this fits that black letter like a glove.

I'll say it just as simply. Trump's actions with Stormy aren't the Genesis of this payment, no matter how hard you want to recharacterize it. If he'd done as you suggested and paid her for 'sex', then it would be.... but he didn't (or at least that hasn't been alleged). If this had been some underling of Trump's, the organization would distance themselves from him and/or his actions and do nothing... but because he IS the 'brand', they made a business decision not to.

Its funny that you mention 'tons of caselaw', which at the very least shows that despite what you claim is overwhelming evidence, people keep getting 'heard' on it. I wonder how many of those were situations where the person WAS the brand? Not as in say Mike Lindell or Mattress Mack... but as in the entire PURPOSE of the business is dependent upon keeping 'bad news' about him to a minimum.

Paying someone to keep quiet about a personal matter is not a crime.

I mean, I'm a fairly educated and informed person who worked in finance for a very long time... and I pretty clearly disagree with you. If I'm on that jury, I don't convict. You can believe that I'm some MAGA Trumpian (not saying you believe that) despite never having once voted for him, but that simply isn't the case. So yeah... get one of those guys, or just someone like me on there and you've lost the case.

Quote:

Quote:Question... what will the penalty be? I understand he may not be able to run for President, but I'm not sure that wouldn't be worth it to him either way.

My reading of the issue is that the only thing that could bar him from running would be a conviction on impeachment. That is a black letter bar for eligibility for office (like 43(?) years, natural-born citizen (whatever the fk that is), etc.)

Maybe I should have said, kept him from winning... but you didn't answer the question... What will the penalty likely be if he is convicted? Part of my point included below is that the 'charge' may be worth the risk. If the worst case is that he doesn't get elected again, maybe he doesn't care? If a felony conviction isn't a disqualifying event then he may not care...

IN PART because I think most people who think like I do (not to mention 'Maga trumpians) think that Biden and CLinton and all sorts of other people have ALSO committed numerous felonies, and just gotten away with them because of who they are.

Quote:

Quote:Don't you see that as a problem?? I mean, if he's so clearly guilty... shouldn't he 'go down', regardless of how popular he is? They often don't you seem to agree......

When people arent punished for transgressions, it simply leads to a whole slew of crybabies who then do the same **** and scream 'whadabout'. Or 'my riot was far less worse than your riot'. We see that in spades these days. That route is toxic -- and we are way down that path right now, imo.

And no -- I dont think my viewpoint on equal application of the law is at a threshold of failure is clouded by Trump.

I agree we are way down that road. Why aren't we trying to fix it? 'Charging' Trump (whether or not he is convicted) doesn't change the calculus. The only way you change the calculus is to change the rules of the game. Instead, we seem intent on just continuing further down this road of 'whatabout' and capricious enforcement.

To me, as I've repeatedly said... Trump is just vastly less polished and (mostly) concerned about the public perception if he gets caught than Biden and Pelosi and all of these other 'polished' politicians are... but he's playing the same game.

Rather than be satisfied with 'taking down' the guy who FLAUNTS his abuse of the system, we need to do that AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, FIX THE SYSTEM. Make it so I CAN'T acquit him... and so there ISN'T 'tons' of caselaw on the matter, but instead people don't feel like challenging the law is even worth filing suit.

ETA:

Think about it, Tanq.... you have said yourself here (paraphrasing) that this is a lay-down case with tons of evidence and caselaw that he is absolutely and in your mind, not even debatable, guilty.... Yet you are 99% certain he will not be convicted.

And you seem more interested in arguing with me about whether or not he's actually guilty, and not interested at all in making it so that his obvious guilt leads to conviction... not just for him, but for anyone who follows him.

Relevant: https://www.bricker.com/people/justin-co...ct-to-ndas

(03-21-2023 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Hypo -- I accidentally have a fender bender with a client in downtown Johnson City while attending a farmer's market, just happens that the client was there. My settlement, even though I am self-employed in numerous ventures, is not deductible as a business expense.

A company’s payment to settle a lawsuit in which it was actually the named defendant is not deductible when the lawsuit stemmed from an incident that occurred during a personal vacation taken by the CEO and other employees.

In order for settlement costs to be deductible business expenses, the origin of the claim must arise from a profit-seeking business activity. Had the CEO and employees been away for a board meeting, the outcome may have been different.

Not on point. The event in question... the Genesis... was in 2006... long before Trump ran for office.... long before the business existed... and not a crime. The payment in question was literally months before the election. And that company isn't in the business of getting that CEO elected to public office. The purpose of keeping the story out of the papers absolutely was for the purpose of a profit-seeking business activity. The acts that she's being asked to keep quiet about wouldn't even have to be true.... just believable

(03-21-2023 02:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Relevant: https://www.bricker.com/people/justin-co...ct-to-ndas

except that sexual harassment as described there is a crime... and involves an employee of the company... and if I'm reading it correctly... your story only applies if the settlement includes an NDA... meaning they CAN deduct it if there is no NDA.... for a CRIMINAL act... a violation of Federal law against an employee.

Stromy wasn't an employee. The event wasn't a crime... certainly not a federal one... AND... without an NDA, the company CAN deduct even that.

Your own link sort of throws a kink in Tanq's comment that they can't be deducted, since it clearly says they CAN under some circumstances.

So the legal argument at hand is clear... because SOMETIMES, even CRIMINAL acts by a company employee against another employee can be deducted... much less a non-criminal act by a 'person' who is a celebrity of sorts against another 'person' could just as easily be deductible.

Question... I honestly don't know... Has it even been demonstrated in a court that the 'genesis' even happened? Wouldn't that be necessary to support the claim? I mean, if all you're doing is paying someone to not say something bad that may not be true, that's like a company paying to suppress bad google reviews.

(03-21-2023 02:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 12:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:But the 'business' is getting Trump elected.

The base maxim is --

no matter if you’re trying to protect the business, if the genesis is personal and you can’t deduct it. Period.

No matter how many 'what ifs' you want to place in front of it.

Again, he's not being prosecuted for that act, which best I know isn't even criminal. There is no duty nor obligation to 'defend' that act. It is instead a 'business decision' to do so to protect the 'brand'.

Ham -- you are mixing and matching stuff.

Step 1. Is the payment a false business record when it is recorded as a business expense. If so, the issue is a misdemeanor under the NY Biz records act.

Step 2. Is the payment in fact a step in another crime. if so, a violation is a felony.

You are throwing everything into a pot and stirring it in a mishmash manner.

Turning to Step 1. The payment to Daniels.

The settlement is in relation to Trump fking Daniels. No Trump fking Daniels, no issue. That is the core action.

Trump fking Daniels is not an action that is geared towards a profit making end. Thus a payment of any settlement for that is not a business expense.

You keep throwing out the red herring that the 'person is the business'. That isnt the focus. The focus on whether a biz expense or not isnt 'whether the person is the business', but on whether the root action that is the root cause of the expense is a business-related action.

Again, Trump butt-humping Daniels really in no sane world could ever be labeled as a business-related action. No matter the celebrity status of Donald Trump.

End of story.

Quote:I suspect it would be different if the action were criminal.... because then the business would be covering up a crime.

Distinction with zero difference. Case law is clear on that as well.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Trump is not in any way being prosecuted for his personal actions with Stormy.

You are conflating items. The *payment* is based in a personal action. The payment is not allowable as a business expense. Cant get much simpler than that.

But it isn't. Sorry, but I'm fairly confident that you're not correct here....

Im fairly confident I am.

Quote:a movie was about to come out.. and one of the actors 'did something'... and the producer paid for an NDA as part of the 'marketing' campaign. This was numerous years ago and while the person I know well connected to the issue is no longer associated with that producer, (s)he handled the books.

That they too it as a business expense, does not mean it was allowable as such. 999 times out of 1000 that item based in a personal incident will *not* be allowed by a court. The issue you defend with is based on 'not finding out the true nature' of the payment. You admit the 'not the true nature' when you say that it was on the books as something else.

If the real reason is made known --- nope, not allowable.

All you are demonstrating with your example is that you should be good at covering up the truth of the payment, not whether the payment is allowable.

Quote:I'll say it just as simply. Trump's actions with Stormy aren't the Genesis of this payment, no matter how hard you want to recharacterize it. If he'd done as you suggested and paid her for 'sex', then it would be....

I didnt say that. The base action that was the genesis of the payment is sex. One looks at the base action that resulted in a payment -- divorce, car 'mishaps', and driving Miss Stormy are not business related actions. Payments emanating from such actions are not allowable as business expense. One might take them, and one might mischaracterize them (as Trump did, and as your example did).

But, if found out, they would undoubtedly be disallowed as such.

Quote:Its funny that you mention 'tons of caselaw', which at the very least shows that despite what you claim is overwhelming evidence, people keep getting 'heard' on it. I wonder how many of those were situations where the person WAS the brand? Not as in say Mike Lindell or Mattress Mack... but as in the entire PURPOSE of the business is dependent upon keeping 'bad news' about him to a minimum.

Enough high visibility people to make the point.

Quote:Paying someone to keep quiet about a personal matter is not a crime.

Classifying "[p]aying someone to keep quiet about a personal matter" as a business expense very much leads to some culpability. In the NY sense -- typically a misdemeanor. But, still a crime.

If and when the payment itself is a prong of another crime, that gets bootstrapped to a felony. Again, I see the rationale.

Quote:I mean, I'm a fairly educated and informed person who worked in finance for a very long time... and I pretty clearly disagree with you.

I agree that paying someone to keep quiet about a personal matter isnt a crime. But, that isnt the issue. The issue is lying about it on a business record. The second issue is whether the payment itself might violate another law. In the case of Trump - Cohen - Stormy -- yes, it implicates another law. A fact reiterated by people in that transaction being criminally culpable. And a fact reiterated when his other one that was 'quashed' by the tabloid was similarly found to be criminal in nature.

Granted, my payment to Stormy would be perfectly legal. The problem is that to come to your conclusion you have seemingly left off a lot of pertinent and not so favorable facts to your set conclusion to buttress it.

If I'm on that jury, I don't convict. You can believe that I'm some MAGA Trumpian (not saying you believe that) despite never having once voted for him, but that simply isn't the case. So yeah... get one of those guys, or just someone like me on there and you've lost the case.

Quote:Question... what will the penalty be?

Potentially four years.

Quote:IN PART because I think most people who think like I do (not to mention 'Maga trumpians) think that Biden and CLinton and all sorts of other people have ALSO committed numerous felonies, and just gotten away with them because of who they are.

Got it. Just a more polished way of saying 'whadabout'.

(03-21-2023 03:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Question... I honestly don't know... Has it even been demonstrated in a court that the 'genesis' even happened? Wouldn't that be necessary to support the claim? I mean, if all you're doing is paying someone to not say something bad that may not be true, that's like a company paying to suppress bad google reviews.

I dont quite get what you are asking here.

Are you asking whether Trump indirectly shoveled money to Stormy for her not to say anything about him shtuffing her? Absolutely that has been demonstrated.

(03-21-2023 02:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ETA:

Think about it, Tanq.... you have said yourself here (paraphrasing) that this is a lay-down case with tons of evidence and caselaw that he is absolutely and in your mind, not even debatable, guilty....

Actually I havent. I have said that the payment to her as a business expense *is* a lie about it being a business expense. A violation of the NY business records act. The second portion, that is extending it to a felony, based on the campaign finance angle, is a large load to carry.

Quote:Yet you are 99% certain he will not be convicted.

Too many politically blind MAGAts out there. He wont be convicted. It doesnt alter the fact that the misdemeanor aspect of the biz records is a layup. The felony extension ---- not such a layup.

Quote:And you seem more interested in arguing with me about whether or not he's actually guilty, and not interested at all in making it so that his obvious guilt leads to conviction... not just for him, but for anyone who follows him.

Im arguing with you because you seemingly mischaracterize the legal aspects into something that you like and can make a better moral case for.