(03-21-2023 03:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(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.

Its directly on point. Im sorry you misunderstand.

Quote:The event in question... the Genesis... was in 2006... long before Trump ran for office.... long before the business existed... and not a crime.

correct.

Quote: The payment in question was literally months before the election.

The timing of the payment doesnt matter. The root cause of the payment is the germane issue.

Quote: 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.

Again doesnt matter, no matter how many times you repeat it.

What does matter is whether the underlying activity that is the root matter of a payment was personal or business in nature.

A high profile CEO divorce is a personal activity. While it may impact a business, the activity that is the genesis of the payment is absolutely rooted in a personal issue, not a business issue.

You conflate 'affecting the business' as the exact same thing as 'based on an action of the business'. They are not equivalent.

Again, a high profile executive, having 'Grand Prix' sex in a car while going very fast. Lights appear, brakes get shoved -- insto presto the lady is injured.

Company picks up the excess legal expenses and a very hefty extra settlement to the lady. The payment is described as 'affecting the business' because of the profile of the exec. Doesnt matter if the issue would 'affect the business' -- that base action causing the matter was purely personal in nature.

Quote:

(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...

It *can* encompass a crime. Not all sexual harassment is a crime.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

You are mixing and matching a slew of tax laws and regulations willy nilly. Yay.

First, the laws *used* to allow that for sexual discrimination. That is, the role of the 'harasser' typically involved some issue in the employer-employee context, or in the role of the company and its attitude to the work environment. It is an important exception to the general rule of 'must involve business activity', but the situations in harassment automatically bring into focus 'involving business activity' by the very nature of the victim is an employee, being harassed typically another employee or multiples of employees.

That exception doe not obviate the third party case. Which is the case for Trump here. Boning a porn star has zero to do with the business activity of the bon-er.

Yes, it might 'affect' the company. You keep banging that drum well. But the genesis action still has zero to do with the business activity taking the deduction. No matter how much it affects the business.

Stepped away for a while, just now catching up.

Seems like we have a mini-drama, starring Tanq as the crusading for justice D.A. Alvin Bragg, and Ham as the foreman of the jury.

Just my humble impression.

(03-21-2023 01:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

Is it normal to use an unadjudicated Federal statute to enhance a state misdemeanor charge? Do we really know if there was a Federal crime committed without a trial?

Also, aren't there some statute of limitations problems, too?

You know, regardless of whether Trump is technically guilty of this or anything else, it seems to me the Democrats are twisting themselves into pretzels to try to get him on something, anything, and that in and of itself makes this a political prosecution. It seems they are frustrated by the 7 years of failure in trying to get him on something, anything, and are so ready to take any small win they can get.

the seven years of failure also seem to me to point to one of two things:
Either Trump is an innocent man bedeviled with false charges, or he is a criminal genius like we see on TV - a true Raymond Reddington (The Blacklist).

What precisely do you mean as 'unadjudicated' statute?

The campaign finance law in question seemingly has been used.

Do you mean 'has that law been used against Trump' in this manner? No.

And NY has used Federal law as the enhancing violations more than a few times. I seem to remember reading a few days ago having a Federal law being used with some sort of fraud ring as a kicker to the NY records law. And has used a Federal crime as the enhancer even when the Feds havent pressed it. In that case, they have to show the elements and prove to a jury the records law, but show the elements of the Fed law, and prove to the jury that the law would be violated.

But Im not sure what you are asking.

(03-21-2023 05:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Stepped away for a while, just now catching up.

Seems like we have a mini-drama, starring Tanq as the crusading for justice D.A. Alvin Bragg, and Ham as the foreman of the jury.

Just my humble impression.

Im just trying to explain the background OO. If you think that crusading ala Alvin Bragg, oh well.

(03-21-2023 04:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

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.

Of course Trump/his people/whatever paid her to be quiet, but that is not an admission of guilt... especially as there is no crime... it is merely an admission that her accusation is believable enough to have potentially cost them the election.

This throws out your entire argument about the genesis of the event being a private matter.

(03-21-2023 04:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

So why is it an allowable business expense if a company 'settles' a sexual harassment lawsuit?

Quote:

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.

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.

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

Morals have nothing to do with this.

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. 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. No the case is not 100% on point, but it absolutely is in conflict with your numerous 'period' comments.

(03-21-2023 04:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

Lad's link disputes this directly.... in very clear wording. Sexual Harassment is clearly personal... and criminal.... and it is deductible as long as there isn't an NDA. Reporting that as a business expense would be allowable and not a falsification of records.

Quote: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.

Depending on the specifics, Lad's link seems to demonstrate that it may not be a false business record.

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'. The timing of it is certainly suspicious.

Quote: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.

Again to lad's link... but also to the demonstration of the CLAIM that this happened. Hence my still unanswered question. Best I can tell, it is also possible that they never did anything, or that they did something, but vastly less than what she alleged or would have alleged. I recall all sorts of allegations flying around.

And its not illegal, so how is it the core action?

Let's use a better example... Let's say that Ru Paul was about to announce that (s)he had once slept with Trump... and there was a time when this was possible in terms of them meeting and timing. The campaign decided that this allegation, whether true or not would have supressed 'the religious right' enough to cost them the election... and given the close numbers, this would not have been an unreasonable conclusion... but with only a short time until the election, there was not time to get out in front of this or investigate it. An October Surprise.

I'm having trouble understanding how this is a 'core action', especially (but not exclusively) if we haven't even established the FACT that what (s)he is saying it true. Not the payment from the campaign, but the sex. If they slept together but (s)he was going to allege that it also included a 14 yr old boy on Epstien's Island, the same conversation would apply.

In this event, the FIRST important question to me is... did it happen as she apparently alleged... and Second would be for me, was the decision to pay for her silence done to protect Trump from personal loss/charges, or to protect the campaign/business? Since there was no crime, I see no personal risk to Trump. I see OBVIOUS risk to the 'business' of getting him elected.

THAT is what my defense of him in this instance is based on... and nothing more.

That also (at least based on Lad's link, which may not specifically apply but makes sense to me) seems to make sense that businesses apparently have the CHOICE to use after-tax money to settle a sexual harassment claim and keep it quiet, or to use pre-tax money to settle it and make it public. I mean, I'm no lawyer, but that's what it clearly says to me.... and yes to OO's comment earlier... misclassifying something like that seems an audit and correct sort of issue, not a crime... not even a misdemeanor... unless we're saying they intentionally tried to falsify records of something that was so prominent in the press and everyone already knew about it... and if they did... wouldn't that be an issue for the accountants and not the individual??

Quote: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 back to Lad's link and my experience. It shows that doing something like this ABSOLUTELY CAN BE a business expense.... so how is it not a business related action if there is ANY way that it can be deducted??

Quote: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.

Again, that isn't what she was paid by the campaign for.... and Lad's link causes me to question your conclusion.

Is it a simple matter of NY and Lad's jurisdiction are not the same? It doesn't really change my argument as I'd agree with the logic behind Lad's link... especially as it might apply to a campaign... but it could be like pot laws where things that make sense to some people and are illegal are legal in other places.

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]

Then please tell me how companies in Lad's link can deduct settlements from 'personal' sexual harassment?

Quote:

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 allowed. 999 times out of 1000 that item based in a personal incident will *not* be allowed in 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.

Where is it said that the true nature of the payment was not disclosed? I've not read that.

Quote: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.

So why is Trump personally culpable for the actions/classifications of what should be his accountant?? I'm confident that Trump didn't personally do his taxes. Even if he told them to do it, you can't use the excuse that your boss told you to shoplift a candy bar (a similar misdemeanor) so you did.

Quote:

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.

B) disallowed and criminal, even a misdemeanor are not the same thing... at all.
A) I said that I disagree with you that Trumps actions with Stormy (sex) aren't the genesis of this action... and you respond that you didn't say that... and then you say it. My Ru Paul example. You could easily have a payment made to someone without any actual actions.... hence I asked you if it was proven that they had sex... and I believe you said... yes, its a fact that he paid for her silence.

Quote:

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.

High visibility is not the issue. The issue is the purpose of the company. Mike Lindell's company sells pillows. If he dies or goes to jail, the business goes on. Troubling allegations about Mike Lindell might make them sell fewer pillows, but the company can still continue and likely still has orders to fill for years to come. If Trump loses the election because of an unsubstantiated allegation, the business is closed. Their job is done. Even if he runs again in 2024, I'm pretty sure that's a different tax ID/entity. It makes sense to me that you can't deduct criminal activity.

Quote:

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.

Quote: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.

You and I might fill out our own business records, but I'm confident that Trump doesn't. I suppose one can argue that as the head of the organization, he's ultimately responsible for everything, but that seems like a ridiculous way of trying to thread a needle.... since they would never apply that to anyone else.

Quote: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.

I don't know what 'other one' you're talking about... and if it was found to be criminal, why hasn't he already been arrested?

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. Again, you can argue that I'm a Trumpbot, but that would only demonstrate to me that you too would be leaving off a lot of pertinent and not so favorable facts to your set conclusion to buttress it.

Quote:

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

Potentially four years.

Thank you

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. We're friends so that bothers me. If you consider actually trying to solve a problem as opposed to continuing down a 'route that is toxic' (your words) to be polished whatabout then what is the point of anything? We're apparently stuck here and the only thing we can do is continue down a toxic path. May as well nuke China and put us out of our misery. /sarcasm

(03-21-2023 05:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What precisely do you mean as 'unadjudicated' statute?

The campaign finance law in question seemingly has been used.

Do you mean 'has that law been used against Trump' in this manner? No.

And NY has used Federal law as the enhancing violations more than a few times. I seem to remember reading a few days ago having a Federal law being used with some sort of fraud ring as a kicker to the NY records law. And has used a Federal crime as the enhancer even when the Feds havent pressed it. In that case, they have to show the elements and prove to a jury the records law, but show the elements of the Fed law, and prove to the jury that the law would be violated.

But Im not sure what you are asking.

If the enhancement of the misdemeanor to a felony depends on the use of the payment in association with a crime, does the crime have to be proved in a court or just alleged?

It seems as though Bragg has to prove the Federal crime to prove the felony enhancement.

Tanq... let me sum this all up in much simpler terms....

The fact that it takes someone as RECKLESSLY bad as Trump to finally get charged with a misdemeanor that if you hold just right, can actually have some impact is an incredible indictment of our system. I want to fix that system.... and while certainly, Trump would go down more easily/never rise to power in the first place under a better system, I'd make sure that people like Pelosi, Biden and dozens of others on both sides of the aisle never did either.

(03-21-2023 05:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 04:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

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'.

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.

Quote:This throws out your entire argument about the genesis of the event being a private matter.

Id suggest reading the NDA before engaging in raw speculation about it never happening.

(03-21-2023 04:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

See: https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-reso...enses.html

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.

Im sure that happens all the time. It doesnt change the general rule that only settlements that are geared at activity that is business in nature will be treated as an allowable deduction. Literally, you said in your example they lied about it, and insto presto it was allowed.

Quote: No the case is not 100% on point, but it absolutely is in conflict with your numerous 'period' comments.

Your example only points out that it can be effective to falsely state the settlement as 'marketing cost.'

Quote:

(03-21-2023 04:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

Lad's link disputes this directly.... in very clear wording. Sexual Harassment is clearly personal... and criminal.... and it is deductible as long as there isn't an NDA. Reporting that as a business expense would be allowable and not a falsification of records.

Sexual harassment may or may not be criminal.

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.

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.

And I would hazard a guess (a pretty good guess) that the 'wow this might be damaging to our CEO even if false' wouldnt fly there either when the action or alleged action at the root isnt 'in connection with profit-seeking activity'. That last quote is a big one in deduction determination, mind you. It kind of crops up in every case on the subject.

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:

Quote: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.

Again to lad's link... but also to the demonstration of the CLAIM that this happened. Hence my still unanswered question. Best I can tell, it is also possible that they never did anything, or that they did something, but vastly less than what she alleged or would have alleged. I recall all sorts of allegations flying around.

Again -- to the fact that lad's link means nothing. It is directed specifically to an exception in the tax practice that allows *only* sexual harassment write offs. because they found a way to stuff it into the rubric of 'in connection with profit-seeking activity'.

"Best I can tell" --- best I can tell is you yourself are making assumptions without reading or looking at the NDA. Or being aware of the importance of a base action being 'in connection with profit-seeking activity'.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

Quote:In this event, the FIRST important question to me is... did it happen as she apparently alleged...

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.

THAT is what my defense of him in this instance is based on... and nothing more.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

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.'

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.

If he calls here up at hours and recites his fantasies to her, then even outside the office it is in the sphere of boss / employee conduct. Again, implicating work related activity.

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.

Quote:

Quote:

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 allowed. 999 times out of 1000 that item based in a personal incident will *not* be allowed in 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.

Where is it said that the true nature of the payment was not disclosed? I've not read that.

You said above it was part of a 'marketing campaign'. That is not the same as a settlement for the 'actor "doing something" '. JFC.

Quote:B) disallowed and criminal, even a misdemeanor are not the same thing... at all.

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.

Quote:High visibility is not the issue. The issue is the purpose of the company. Mike Lindell's company sells pillows. If he dies or goes to jail, the business goes on. Troubling allegations about Mike Lindell might make them sell fewer pillows, but the company can still continue and likely still has orders to fill for years to come. If Trump loses the election because of an unsubstantiated allegation, the business is closed. Their job is done. Even if he runs again in 2024, I'm pretty sure that's a different tax ID/entity. It makes sense to me that you can't deduct criminal activity.

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.

And, for the umpteenth time, when it comes to the deductibility of settlements, the key issue is whether the claimed action was somehow 'in connection with profit seeking activity.' 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.'

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.

Quote:

Quote: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.

I don't know what 'other one' you're talking about... and if it was found to be criminal, why hasn't he already been arrested?

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.

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. Nor did you happen to know about the relationship between the two sets of charges -- just a lot of 'what ifs'. 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'.

Quote:Again, you can argue that I'm a Trumpbot, but that would only demonstrate to me that you too would be leaving off a lot of pertinent and not so favorable facts to your set conclusion to buttress it.

I havent said you are a Trumpbot, nor implied it.

What facts am I leaving off?

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.

My solution is to charge all of them. Not wave a flag of rationale that 'they did it too', or 'their riot was worse'.

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.

(03-21-2023 05:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 05:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What precisely do you mean as 'unadjudicated' statute?

The campaign finance law in question seemingly has been used.

Do you mean 'has that law been used against Trump' in this manner? No.

And NY has used Federal law as the enhancing violations more than a few times. I seem to remember reading a few days ago having a Federal law being used with some sort of fraud ring as a kicker to the NY records law. And has used a Federal crime as the enhancer even when the Feds havent pressed it. In that case, they have to show the elements and prove to a jury the records law, but show the elements of the Fed law, and prove to the jury that the law would be violated.

But Im not sure what you are asking.

If the enhancement of the misdemeanor to a felony depends on the use of the payment in association with a crime, does the crime have to be proved in a court or just alleged?

It seems as though Bragg has to prove the Federal crime to prove the felony enhancement.

Correct, Bragg has to prove that crime (although not being charged in this proceeding) in the same manner as it would have to be if charged.

Kingpin statutes, and RICO predicates operate the same way with included crimes.

Your last sentence is dead on correct.

(03-21-2023 06:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Tanq... let me sum this all up in much simpler terms....

The fact that it takes someone as RECKLESSLY bad as Trump to finally get charged with a misdemeanor that if you hold just right, can actually have some impact is an incredible indictment of our system. I want to fix that system.... and while certainly, Trump would go down more easily/never rise to power in the first place under a better system, I'd make sure that people like Pelosi, Biden and dozens of others on both sides of the aisle never did either.

I have zero issue with the above.

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

"Parts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that took effect January 1, 2018"

So this would not have been law at the time the alleged acts occurred.

I still don't see a crime here, and certainly nothing that rises to the level of a felony.

But I'm beginning to see this as the democrats' plan. They don't want to convict Donald Trump of anything, this stack up a bunch of indictments. A conviction takes him out of the picture for 2024 and afterwards, and thus solves the republican Trump problem--they can't win with him, and they can't win without him. A stack of indictments makes powerful talking points, while not letting republicans get rid of their problem.

(03-22-2023 12:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

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

"Parts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that took effect January 1, 2018"

So this would not have been law at the time the alleged acts occurred.

Its not relevant simply because the issue is not sexual harassment in the workplace.

Prior to that time, sexual harassment suits with or without an NDA could potentially be deducted as an allowable expense. After, if you have an NDA with the settlement -- no deduction. The 'potentially' is because the harassment had to have some relation to a business activity -- that is harassment at the workplace, at company sponsored event, etc. When the harassment has a tie to business activity of the entity, for some godawful reason the courts have defined this as 'in connection with profit seeking activity.'

But again -- not applicable, before *or* after. Because the issue is *not* a sexual harassment issue.

What is the flipping fixation on 'sexual harassment' suits having *any* bearing in the slightest on Stormy Daniels?

The *only* issue is whether Trump fking Stormy was done in the course of business. And the terminology isnt whether 'it happened or not', the issue looks at whether the action involved in the 'claim' or settlement is related to business activity.

If Trump shtuffing her (whether he did or not) is related to business activity, the NY records case falls on its own accord and weight.

I cant think of a god-forsaken reason why Trump getting his sausage wet would ever be related to a business activity, and I am a fairly decent attorney.

Tanq, I think the fixation was due to the link I added earlier. I was doing some internet sleuthing to understand others’ perspectives on how similar payoffs are managed under our tax code. This article tackles the issue head on, and is in line with what you’re saying: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/...-shhh/amp/

Another relevant link, focused this time on the profit motive: https://www.orba.com/the-tax-importance-...it-motive/

(03-21-2023 08:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 06:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Tanq... let me sum this all up in much simpler terms....

The fact that it takes someone as RECKLESSLY bad as Trump to finally get charged with a misdemeanor that if you hold just right, can actually have some impact is an incredible indictment of our system. I want to fix that system.... and while certainly, Trump would go down more easily/never rise to power in the first place under a better system, I'd make sure that people like Pelosi, Biden and dozens of others on both sides of the aisle never did either.

I have zero issue with the above.

Then quit arguing the case for 'the system'

If EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS TRUE then EVERYTHING YOU"RE DEFENDING NEEDS TO BE CHANGED

(03-22-2023 09:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 08:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 06:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Tanq... let me sum this all up in much simpler terms....

The fact that it takes someone as RECKLESSLY bad as Trump to finally get charged with a misdemeanor that if you hold just right, can actually have some impact is an incredible indictment of our system. I want to fix that system.... and while certainly, Trump would go down more easily/never rise to power in the first place under a better system, I'd make sure that people like Pelosi, Biden and dozens of others on both sides of the aisle never did either.

I have zero issue with the above.

Then quit arguing the case for 'the system'

If EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS TRUE then EVERYTHING YOU"RE DEFENDING NEEDS TO BE CHANGED

I am asking for change. Im one of the few people here that think Hillary should have been charged, Hunter seriously investigated, and Trump should have been impeached then charged with a variety of 1/6 issues.

I think I am the only rightie here that says 1/6 and the summer of 2020 were both riots, and the only rightie here that doesnt excuse the 1/6 riot because it was smaller, less destructive, more people taking selfies, or whatever the fing metric is of a riot.

I think I am the only rightie here to both agree that Hilalry, Steele dossier, and Mueller were despicable -- and dont use that as a justification for Trump's horrendous actions prior to 1/6 and his despicable nonfeasance during the 'not so many fires, less violent, more people taking selfies' riot of 1/6.

The message that seems to emanate from the right here is how horrible it is I have the opinion I do when the others havent been charged.

Interesting, isnt it?

(03-22-2023 09:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The message that seems to emanate from the right here is how horrible it is I have the opinion I do when the others havent been charged.

It would seem that in the interest of fair, evenhanded justice, either all should be charged or none.

Differences in how and to whom the law is applied seem to be the crux of the problem.

I am for everybody being treated the same, a policy I am told is racist. I don't see it that way.

On a personal basis, I am OK with your stance on Trump. I don't think he is guilty of the crimes alleged, but from collusion with Putin to inciting a riot, but that's just me.

I would prefer Trump ride off into the sunset. I think the multiple attacks on him preclude that, as he is a fighter. If the Democrats want him out of there, they are pursuing the wrong path. I wonder if they really want him gone.

However wrong you think he is, IMO he's still better than any Democrat likely to have power. Best of a bad lot may be a good description of him. They may be polite, humble, well meaning, etc., - even honest in a couple of cases -but they advocate bad policies. Better a bad man doing good things than a good one doing bad things. In any case the Dems seem loathe to nominate a good man.

He may not be the best Republican that can be nominated. I will cast my vote elsewhere when the Texas primary rolls around.

Until then, my best wishes to you and yours.

Unfortunately, I cannot cast a vote of any sort for someone who, to me, actively tried to derail the Constitutional process of selecting a President simply because their ego could not stand a loss.

With the Eastman crap, it seems pretty obvious that Trump did just that.

His non-feasance and dereliction of his office during the 'event' solidifies that even more for me.

As you, I will cast a vote in the R primary for someone other that the Donald. And, if Donald will be the candidate, I probably will either vote third party, or do a write in with, to be honest, your name comes to mind. I wonder how a e-ballot would barf if/when it sees a vote for Optimistic Owl....

And the best to you good sir, as always -- go win some poker tournaments and have a decent time doing that. Hoping to see your visage accepting the World Series of Poker trophy sometime soon.

(03-22-2023 10:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Unfortunately, I cannot cast a vote of any sort for someone who, to me, actively tried to derail the Constitutional process of selecting a President simply because their ego could not stand a loss.

With the Eastman crap, it seems pretty obvious that Trump did just that.

His non-feasance and dereliction of his office during the 'event' solidifies that even more for me.

And the best to you good sir, as always -- go win some poker tournaments and have a decent time doing that. Hoping to see your visage accepting the World Series of Poker trophy sometime soon.

Your vote is your vote, and I am as OK with that as I am with 93's vote or Number's vote.

My vote, of course, Is mine, and I will, as usual, cast it for the lesser evil.

Won a pretty good sized tournament last night - locally. Feeling the effects this morning. Full day today, followed by another tournament tonight.

I am not sure if I will attend the Series this year. Travel is much more exhausting at 77 years old. A six hour plane trip followed the next day by 14 hours of making decisions every 40 seconds of so can be exhausting. especially if it is followed the next day by the same. I don't handle exhaustion as well as I used to.

BUT...I won two airline tickets in January, so may use those to go. Still discussing with the GF.



Tournament poker is tougher than rodeo, except for the 8 seconds and maybe the hitting the ground. More of a marathon.

If you just want to see my visage, I can refer you to an international poker base.