Times Report : Romney silver bullet lies in 08/09 tax year. Must keep it secret.

[User157088589849]

This is an article from The Times webiste which has a paywall. Its specifically looking at the 2008/09 tax year and written by David Robertson with comments from Lee Sheppard from Tax Notes, Rebecca Wilkins, senior counsel at Citizens for Tax Justice....

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/

 

[後援会]

If he made a lot of money, he'd be attacked as a recession profiteer/corrupt. If he loses money, he'd be attacked for not paying enough taxes and not making enough money to be a "real businessman".

There's no real way to convince the far-left. Better not to even engage.

[The Mikado]

Yeah, this is weak stuff.  There's no shame in being wiped out in 2008.  The stock market lost a third of its value.

[Torie]

This really is in the LOL category, and to me reveals the profound financial ignorance of the media slug or slugs who are hawking it. 

Mittens has say a 200 million net worth, and recognized  during the Lehman collapse period capital losses of about say 5 million that can be carried forward against future recognized capital gains - less than 3% of his total net worth. Anybody in his position that did not recognize capital losses in that range (or more frankly - say up to double that), is just not managing their money properly. They either were all in Treasuries (dumb), or failed to harvest capital losses (that is just good tax planning), or both.

I didn't recognize much in capital losses during that period, because despite the declines, I have owned most of my real estate and equities a long time, and thus they still had gains associated with them from their cost basis, or depreciated cost basis (recognizing capital losses is good, and recognizing capital gains is bad from a tax planning standpoint). The one piece of property that did have substantial losses, I did not want to sell for psychological reasons. I just spent too much time of my own creative energy on the place, and like to keep such things in my portfolio. It was, as it were, a kind of consumption decision, rather than an investing decision, which I made with no illusions as to what I was doing.   I also invest relatively conservatively. I go for consistent singles, rather than swing for the fences - to wit, the Roberto Clemente style of investing.

Yes, I know, most of you are too young to remember Roberto Clemente. He was a baseball player who for many years had say like a 320 batting average of better, but rarely hit anything more than singles. He just mastered contacting the ball with a precise but not overly fast or muscled swing.

[You kip if you want to...]

Bet he's tried to make a quick buck on the back of the collapse.

[Bacon King]

I do believe that the 2009 records are the precise year Romney doesn't want released, but for much bigger reasons than simply being in the red.

[後援会]

More realistically, Romney probably didn't pay a high tax rate in 2009 because he probably didn't make any actual money. And it would us towards BS irrelevant issues like this, another distraction that nobody needs (except for Axelrod).

[Likely Voter]

I do believe that the 2009 records are the precise year Romney doesn't want released, but for much bigger reasons than simply being in the red.

Of any of the theories of what's in Mitt's returns, that is the most plausible. Mitt was running for pres in 2008 so there was no way his 2007 and 2006 returns werent already set up to be scrutinized. He has shown his 2010 and will show his 2011 returns so something clearly happened with his 2008 and/or 2009 returns that was probably not planned. Losing a bunch of money isn't a big deal and would be expected, even if he used the loses in a way to minimize his tax liability. The swiss thing makes more sense.

[Torie]

I do believe that the 2009 records are the precise year Romney doesn't want released, but for much bigger reasons than simply being in the red.

If a hidden Swiss bank account, which Mittens used to commit tax evasion is the reason, and it can be confirmed, his campaign will effectively be over. He will be politically dead. In fact, I would not vote for him, and I am very, very angry at Obama (I actually feel somewhat betrayed actually). But I really can't stand tax cheats. They in a word - are scum - scum!

[Torie]

I do believe that the 2009 records are the precise year Romney doesn't want released, but for much bigger reasons than simply being in the red.

Of any of the theories of what's in Mitt's returns, that is the most plausible. Mitt was running for pres in 2008 so there was no way his 2007 and 2006 returns werent already set up to be scrutinized. He has shown his 2010 and will show his 2011 returns so something clearly happened with his 2008 and/or 2009 returns that was probably not planned. Losing a bunch of money isn't a big deal and would be expected, even if he used the loses in a way to minimize his tax liability. The swiss thing makes more sense.

Why would Mittens commit tax fraud, assuming he is otherwise for close to sociopathic reasons inclined to do so (since it is not as if he "needs" the money), when at that time he was planning to run for POTUS again? That makes zero sense to me.

[patrick1]

^Couldn't Mitt have been hiding money in Swiss accounts for decades and only took amnesty when DOJ had forced the banks hands with deals on revealing names?

[後援会]

I do believe that the 2009 records are the precise year Romney doesn't want released, but for much bigger reasons than simply being in the red.

Of any of the theories of what's in Mitt's returns, that is the most plausible. Mitt was running for pres in 2008 so there was no way his 2007 and 2006 returns werent already set up to be scrutinized. He has shown his 2010 and will show his 2011 returns so something clearly happened with his 2008 and/or 2009 returns that was probably not planned. Losing a bunch of money isn't a big deal and would be expected, even if he used the loses in a way to minimize his tax liability. The swiss thing makes more sense.

Not really. It could hurt. Even though his joke was kinda gaffey, it's true. Romney doesn't actually have an income. He's living off of money he's made in the past and capital gains from that money. IF he lost A LOT of money, it's possible he could have paid almost no taxes at all, ala Jeffrey Immelt. True, most of us, being rational people, I think wouldn't really be outraged.

But that's not how all voters think.

[Likely Voter]

The bottom line is something happened between 2008 and 2010 that he clearly doesn't want exposed. And being that he knew he was running again in 2012, it has to be something he didn't anticipate.

My best bet has always been that he had to pay some penalty or fine after being audited. He admitted he was audited (although he didnt say what year) and the same thing happened with Marriot and "Son of BOSS". Romney clearly likes to go out to the bleeding edge of minimizing his taxes and it wouldnt be shocking if he stepped over the line and got his hand slapped. It happens all the time, but would just look bad politically.  The swiss thing fits into that but it could have been something else too.


We may never know what it is, but it is something embarrassing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My thinking is the most likely reason for those years to be embarrassing is that they show Mitt paid much more in foreign income taxes in those years than in Federal income taxes.

[J. J.]

You do not commit tax fraud and run for president.  You wait until you're elected, like Nixon did.

[Likely Voter]

You dont commit obvious tax fraud, but you might continue to do something that people were always able to get away with.

Again it is the simplest answer.

Why else refuse to release?

Occums razor says something went wrong with his taxes between the last time he ran (2008) and this year. Something that he thought wasn't going to be a big deal but clearly now is something he doesn't want to reveal. There is no other logical solution. He has taken a hit by not releasing years before 2010, so there is obvious something more damaging than the hit he has already taken.

And his line about how Dems will find something is true. But that means it is something worse than paying an abnormally low rate and using foreign tax shelters, which he is already being hit for. 

[Stranger in a strange land]

My thinking is the most likely reason for those years to be embarrassing is that they show Mitt paid much more in foreign income taxes in those years than in Federal income taxes.

Even if that's the case, I don't see how it would be particularly embarrassing.

You do not commit tax fraud and run for president.  You wait until you're elected, like Nixon did.

I very much doubt Romney actually did anything illegal. I think the most likely reasons he's refusing to release the tax returns are that: 1) they confirm that he stayed at Bain after he said he'd left, or 2) they show ties to or investments in impolitic and deeply unpopular companies, or 3) they show that Romney isn't as good a businessman as he says he is.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My thinking is the most likely reason for those years to be embarrassing is that they show Mitt paid much more in foreign income taxes in those years than in Federal income taxes.

Even if that's the case, I don't see how it would be particularly embarrassing.

If 90% or so of the taxes he paid in 2009 went to foreign governments, you don't see how that would be embarrassing to someone running on a jingoistic American Exceptionalism agenda?

Not that we're ever likely to know unless he includes those returns in his memoirs after he finally retires from politics.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

His pre-1994 returns must be clean. He demanded to see Ted Kennedy's taxes.

[J. J.]

You dont commit obvious tax fraud, but you might continue to do something that people were always able to get away with.

Again it is the simplest answer.

Why else refuse to release?

Occums razor says something went wrong with his taxes between the last time he ran (2008) and this year. Something that he thought wasn't going to be a big deal but clearly now is something he doesn't want to reveal. There is no other logical solution. He has taken a hit by not releasing years before 2010, so there is obvious something more damaging than the hit he has already taken.

And his line about how Dems will find something is true. But that means it is something worse than paying an abnormally low rate and using foreign tax shelters, which he is already being hit for. 

Or, that he had a huge loss, and paid very little or nothing.

Or, that he's playing Br'er Rabbit. 

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

If there is nothing to hide release a few more years of tax returns.  It would be to the GOP benefits

1.  It would prove there is no tax hiding
2.  It would make the Democrats look like idiots for constantly bringing up the issue

So with a win win scenario why not release them?