(03-21-2023 08:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (03-21-2023 05:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: No... I'm asking if it has been proven that Stormy's allegation is true. If its not, and I don't believe he has admitted that, then there IS no genesis.
The NDA between Stormy and Trump (well... "Peggy Peterson" and "David Dennison") specifically references a number of things that must be turned over by "Peggy". Seems to be overkill for a settlement where 'nothing happened' or was 'untrue'.
So the answer is 'no'. The 'Genesis' you're referring to is an allegation and assumption, not a fact.
Quote:Quote:it is merely an admission that her accusation is believable enough to have potentially cost them the election.
The terms of the NDA strongly suggest otherwise.
Which is proof of nothing
You can't argue all this legalese and then ignore the lack of LEGAL FACTS that underlie all of your argument.
As you mentioned, all it takes is for one person to NOTICE that they haven't proven that ANYTHING happened. All they've proven is that 'whatever she was going to claim' would have been damaging to the election, just two months prior.
The timing is key here... she had a DECADE to report it and profit from it or whatever else her purpose was. She CHOSE to wait until the last minute.
Quote:Id suggest reading the NDA before engaging in raw speculation about it never happening.
I don't need to prove it never happened. You need to prove it did. Otherwise, there IS no 'Genesis'.
(03-21-2023 04:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Quote:So why is it an allowable business expense if a company 'settles' a sexual harassment lawsuit?
Because the tax code and the caselaw *very narrowly* considers harassment *in* the work place as 'in conjunction with profit-seeking activities'. Outside of that context, that exception obviously doesnt apply to the normal rule.
Sexual harassment does not need to happen IN the workplace. Any corporate training on this issue would make that very clear.
Quote:Quote:The misdemeanor doesn't matter. Nobody cares; especially not Trump...
But again, you keep talking about blind MAGAts, and either ignoring my beliefs or painting me with that brush; which is demnstrably untrue.
The only people whom I have painted as such are people who would vote for a Trump acquittal no matter what was presented. I hope you dont fall into that category --- I would assume you would not knee jerk your way into that style of vote.
I'm already clearly and repeatedly telling you that based on what's been presented, even by you... I would not vote to convict. Now, perhaps it would be presented differently to me and I would... I mean, if that is what the law says then that is what the law says. If trying to deduct something that is allowable in some instances but not in others is a CRIME rather than something that is simply disallowed and corrected, then I would argue that the law is just flat wrong there.
If NYC or any other jurisdiction can classify a 'difference of accounting opinion' (which is why I brought up the 'loads of case law') as a criminal act, then I don't see any business (nor individual) EVER accepting that. Talk about 'weaponizing the IRS'.
Quote:Quote:Lad presented a case where settling a criminal allegation without a court finding of fact is a deductible business expense... pretty much in conflict with every specific you gave.
Settled an allegation -- not necessarily criminal.
C'mon Tanq... That's precisely what has happened here. Settling an allegation - not AT ALL an accusation of a crime.
Quote:Sexual harassment *very narrowly* considered to be within the confines of the general rule I laid out. It is one of the extremely few exceptions to the broad rule, mind you. To the extent if harassment takes place in a setting outside work, such settlements are *not* allowable deductions.
Can you please show me where it says that in Lad's link? I didn't see anything like that.
Quote:See: https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-reso...enses.html
The example given here is a non-employee wife and a divorce case against a 'controlling interest' husband. Not REMOTELY on point. I mean, that's not even close.
Quote:So I'm having trouble just taking your word for something that I've also personally witnessed happen.... or at least be attempted and not disallowed.
What you stated wasnt an allowance of an item. What you stated was an accounting making a false characterization to something that *would* be allowed.
Specifically and literally, you said that they characterized it as something completely and different as what the purpose of the payment was.[/quote]
No I did not. They characterized it as just what it was... a business decision to pay $X to avoid losing out on 5$X in profit because of an accusation.
Quote: Literally, you said in your example they lied about it, and insto presto it was allowed.
No I did not.
Quote:Your example only points out that it can be effective to falsely state the settlement as 'marketing cost.'
Positive PR and suppression of negative PR are essentially the same. I didn't provide an 'accountants designation'... I merely spoke about what group of people would most likely be tasked to carry out the activity.
Quote:Again -- there is a very limited basis on allowing the deductibility of sexual harassment settlements, crafted as to eke *into* the view of 'in connection with .... profit seeking activities'. Which was then changed statutorily to make settlements with NDAs wholly unallowable.
That is why I said you are mixing and matching taxing rules and statutes.
Because you're acting like there is no gray area of any laws... and of course not every situation is 'on point' with every other one... so an interpretation must be made, and you're making yours and acting as if it is the ONLY one possible. I don't agree.
I believe that the business of getting someone elected or crafting a for-profit 'image' is ABSOLUTELY a 'profit-seeking activity'. You don't, but that isn't in evidence that you are right and I am wrong. Every example you've given has NOT involved a situation where the purpose of the business was to promote an individual for profit/gain.
The NDA may be the deciding factor, but again, so too may be a criminal accusation. You're right that not all sexual harassment is criminal, but the statute Lad mentioned isn't deciding whether or not a crime occurred... it is merely the accusation of a crime. Stormy didn't accuse him of a crime (as she was seeking profit herself). Stormy merely offered a potentially embarassing story to a third party. Trump the individual wouldn't be harmed by the story. Trump the political candidate would be.
Quote:Ham -- you are mixing and matching stuff.
Yeah, like I said there.
Quote:Quote: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.
Depending on the specifics, Lad's link seems to demonstrate that it may not be a false business record.
Again, no. Stormy was never an employee. Nor was the settlement for sexual harassment -- an item that only barely ekes into consideration for being allowed. Nor was the affair one that was in connection with any profit seeking activity.
[/quote]
Technically it wasn't an affair, but a business transaction for Stormy. You may not agree with that, but it is not an unreasonable argument. Also, I don't see that it has been proven/decided by a court or by a criminal accusation that the event even happened exactly as she said it.
I'm tired of disagreeing with you that 'protecting the candidate from an embarassing story' isn't a profit seeking activity.
Quote:Quote:You are throwing everything into a pot and stirring it in a mishmash manner.
Not at all. You seem to be assuming facts not in evidence... the first of which is 'was the allegation actually true'.
Funny, the NDA isnt drafted to support a 'it isnt true' scenario. I suggest *you* read it. In all honesty, you seem to be not considering the full suite of items.
[/quote]
from 2018 ABC news
The statement, filed in Central California federal court, says that Trump has
"never taken the position that he was a party" to the NDA with Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. All of the parties agree that
Trump never signed the settlement agreement, according to the filing, which Daniels is seeking to invalidate.
“Mr. Trump
does not, and will not, contest Ms. Clifford’s assertion that the settlement agreement was never formed, or in the alternative, should be rescinded,” the filing says. “Moreover, Mr. Trump covenants that he will not bring any action, proceeding or claim against Ms. Clifford to enforce any of the terms of the settlement agreement.”
That sort of circumvents the idea that there was a valid NDA in place, making the expense fit more closely Lad's exception that you seem to support.
Thank you for making me search for it. I couldn't find the text of it, but I did find this.
Quote:Its possible they did nothing. 18 pages of NDA referring to numerous specific tangible items, photos, and communications tend to indicate the opposite of the case that you have latched onto.
'seems to indicate' is proof of nothing.
Quote:And if they didnt do anything -- it doesnt matter. The settlement was based on a claim that it *did* happen. The focus is on the action that germinates the settlement, or the alleged action. You keep trying to focus on 'but it *could* affect the company. It could, no doubt. But that isnt the focus of what makes a settlement by a company a business expense or not.
No. The fact that there was no valid NDA is the focus... as is the fact that ALL SORTS OF THINGS could
She wasn't merely accusing him of an affair. Nobody saw Trump as some sort of bastion of virtue. The salaciousness of the accusations, of which no proof has been shown that I'm aware of... I've heard rumors of golden showers and all sorts of other things was the focus. Trump paid a porn star for sex in 2006 wouldn't have moved the needle for anyone.
Quote:And, at the very end, the company tried to cover it up --- just like your movie folks did. They hopped and skipped and said it was payment for legal services. They not only lied about it being a proper deductible expense, they explicitly lied about what it was.
Your 'hop and skip' is your interpretation of what my movie people did. I never said that... and again, you may be satisfied that it is not a proper business expense, but you aren't the judge nor jury in this action. I disagree, and I am not a Trumpist.
Quote:Again, rule #1 -- Dont. Ratfk. The. Bagman. Literally the only person that could seriously harm Trump in this manner. And Trump tossed him under the bus. Ooops. Not the smartest thing in the world to do.... kind of laughably stupid.....
Ok, so what? This is the sort of comment that makes me wonder if you can be objective as it has nothing to do with anything I've seen... other than you suggesting that there was an easier way to 'cover it up'.
Quote:Why dont you read the NDA and come back to us on this point. As opposed to throwing out the 'maybe it didnt happen' without looking at what is available to ascertain that.
Because the NDA was apparently rendered moot, making it allowable if that was the burden that needed to be cleared... not only that, but it isn't my or the juries job to prove that it didn't happen... It's the prosecution's job to prove that it did.
THAT is what my defense of him in this instance is based on... and nothing more.
Quote:Then please tell me how companies in Lad's link can deduct settlements from 'personal' sexual harassment?
Because of the fing specific issue in the tax code and the very narrow fitting of *some* sexual harassment issues into 'in connection with profit seeking activity.'
[/quote]
There is nothing in lad's link that says anything about the sexual harassment being connected to a profit seeking activity. I can't even imagine how that would be the case in any regular company. 'I had to objectify my secretary in order to sell more widgets, your honor.'
Quote:The same tax code that says 'generally speaking, settlements that do not have a genesis in an activity of the business are not deductible.' In that sense, when a CEO gropes his admin in the office -- it has a tie to the workplace.
Your 'in that sense' is not what any HR person has ever told me or anything I've learned through my training.... and I agree... settlements (not activities, but the settlements of that activity) that do not have a genesis in an activity of the business are not deductible. The activity of this business is getting him elected... and an activity of that business would be to fight, downplay and correct allegations that would be damaging to that activity... as they deem necessary. Some rumors and accusations, they did nothing about.
Quote:If Marty goes to the park and sees Melba there, where Marty and Melba are in different parts of the business, and Marty proceeds to rub her leg while at the park -- no connection to profit making activity implicated at all. Settlement is not deductible.
Because marty is not a representative of the company. The accusation is not in any way a threat to the business.
I guarantee that Subway was able to deduct the expenses they incurred in firing, downplaying and disassociating themselves from Jared... whose actions had nothing to do with the business... but absolutely were an embarassment to them. And Jared was only the 'face' of Subway... he wasn't the 'product' that was being 'sold'.
Quote:You said above it was part of a 'marketing campaign'. That is not the same as a settlement for the 'actor "doing something" '. JFC.
Technically I said 'marketing' campaign... meaning that it was a version of 'marketing'... something 'marketing' people would most likely engage in.... and not some sort of 'let's just call it marketing' attempt to hide.
Quote:I dont understand your fixation with 'disallowed and criminal'. Why do you seemingly feel the need to inject 'criminal' into every aspect of the question of an allowable or non-allowable payment. Its a non-sequitor. I dont have a fing clue what you are trying to make a point of here.
Because criminal is obviously worse than non-criminal... and if they allow it AT ALL for criminal acts, then it isn't unreasonable to expect that they allow it EVEN MORE for NON criminal acts.
The 'deductible' comment is alluding to something OO said. Why is 'being wrong' about how something should be classified a crime and not merely a disallowed deduction. Put the number back in and charge him the taxes plus interest and penalty. Tying it to a crime that then becomes a misdemeanor seems a GROSS over-reach.
Quote:Do you have a clue where the payment deduction even occurred? You seemingly mix and match Trump campaign with the Trump organization. Cohen never received funds from the campaign. That is, the funds to pay Stormy as the strawman payor. Please stop your mixing and matching issues.
While this may invalidate something I postulated, it is NOT my job to disprove this case. It is their job (and you have mostly taken up the mantle) to prove it.
Quote: And the tax courts have roundly rejected your 'well the reputation of the company is a stake that allows any and all settlements to be allowable.'
I don't appreciate you putting something I never said... 'any and all settlements' in quotes and attributing that to me. I don't think that is fair nor constructive. Its an argument in the absurd.
Quote:For the umpteenth time -- if the 'base action' of a claim, or a settlement of a claim, is 'in connection with profit seeking activity', it is allowable. Full stop. There is no flipping way that Trump porking Stormy is 'in connection with profit seeking activity.' And the basis of the action for the settlement resides *solely* with the allegation that Trump porked Stormy.
I disagree with you... and you haven't proven your case, counselor. The basis of the action for the settlement in MY opinion resides *solely* in the timing and damage that the allegation would have done to the election.... which is absolutely a profit seeking activity.
Quote:The campaign finance brouhaha with Cohen. On this transaction. The one where Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator. Ham, literally and respectfully, you are now making arguments where you admittedly know few of the facts.
BECAUSE ITS NOT MY JOB TO MAKE THE ARGUMENTS YOU'RE DEMANDING I MAKE!!!
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE!!
Quote:Quote:Quote: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.
As IMO have you. When given your facts, I am still not swayed.
Im sorry you did not know about the sexual harassment inclusion to the general rule. Thats your problem, not mine.
Rude, untrue and uncalled for.
Quote:{Nor did you happen to know about the relationship between the two sets of charges -- just a lot of 'what ifs'.
because the second charges that turn this misdemeanor into a felony rely first on the misdemeanor, which IMO has not been proven/there is clear room for people who are NOT Trumpists to find him not guilty and think that the DA has taken something that should have been corrected by a disallowance and interest into a 'crime'.
Quote:Nor have you even considered the contents of the Trump/Stormy NDA, then wave the 'they may not have done anything' card like the ultimate 'gotcha'.
It's not my/the juries job to consider them... It's your/their job to prove it. 'reasonable doubt' doesn't take much.... and thanks to you, I have learned that Trump was not a party to the NDA, did not sign it and had no intention of seeking to enforce it.... so how is it 'personal'??
Again, if you have the nuts then provie it in court and fine, you win. You have suggested that the first part of this is a slam dunk... and I do not see that. CRIME seems to involve PROOF of intent to defraud... and given the public nature of the allegation, the NDA and the payment... even though they TRIED to keep it quiet... sort of makes the 'intent to defraud' claim obviously false.
Quote:I havent said you are a Trumpbot, nor implied it.
Sure you have... by claiming that he might walk because of so many Trumbots. He might ALSO walk by people like me tired of governments being capricious in terms of whom they go after and whom they don't... political enemies, people of color, businesses who engage in LEGAL services that they don't like etc etc etc. I've said that numerous times and you keep ignoring it and repeating that it would be because of Trumpbots.
You sort of even do that here...
Quote:Quote: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'.
Well honestly Tanq... the reason I keep saying that I think your personal opinions are being clouded is because you keep saying things like this and I find it insulting.
You are bringing up Clinton and Biden as an excuse or rationale for letting Trump slide. Apologies for pointing that out. I find that to be a thin rationale. What pertinence is Clinton and Biden, except for the proverbial 'they did it too'? I cant see a reason other than that to include it.[/quote]
I did nothing of the sort. I'm noting the capricious enforcement... Apologies for pointing that out. I find 'Trump is guilty' to be thin rationale for prosecuting HIM, IF the same rationale is not applied to Clinton and Biden. I can't see a reason other than that to exclude it.
Quote:My solution is to charge all of them. Not wave a flag of rationale that 'they did it too', or 'their riot was worse'.
I don't disagree... but that isn't what is happening now, is it.... by your own admission.
You've ASSUMED that I don't want Trump prosecuted... when I've repeatedly said that he's a horrible person and likely stepped across the legal lines thusands of times... and yet BECAUSE of the capricious enforcement and 'them' getting away with it so much.... here we are reduced to having to have a 'perfect prosecutorial storm' in order to get him on 'criminal tax evasion'.
Quote:Edited to add:
Sorry I misinterpreted your 'other one' statement.
Trump had two payoffs. One to Stormy through Cohen. There was another Playboy/Penthouse chick that said shea nd Trump had an affair. Trump paid some tabloid to pay her off. The FEC specifically noted the actions by the tabloid to be criminal. As they did with Cohen. And in the Cohen indictment, Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator.
There is some grounds to try and hang a hat on the campaign finance charge re: Trump with those in mind.
Sure, there is some grounds... as there are here...
My issue isn't that Trump 'didn't do this'.... My issue is that he's done vastly worse and despite spending billions and having an extremely unlikable convict and an extremely politicized prosecution, this is the 'best' they can get him on.
I don't really care if Trump did ot or not... and we've had this discussion before... What I care about is fixing the system where SOME people can get away with this AND VASTLY MORE... while others don't get away with shoplifting a loaf of bread.... and if Trump (and Biden etc etc etc) get(s) to walk in order to fix the system, I'm okay with that. THAT is how important 'fixing the system' is to me... and some others who agree that the system needs to be fixed (on both sides) would only be okay with 'fixing it' if Trump (or Biden or whomever) go down.
Get me or someone like me on that jury and Trump probably walks. NOT because he should win, but because selective prosecutors shouldn't.
