NYT acquires 1995 Trump tax return; he deducted $916 million in business losses

[Nyvin]

While I don't really approve of Trump's tax dodging, finding ways to Keep your own money is different than finding ways to take other people's.

Then why did Romney attack the 47% of Americans who pay no federal taxes?

Once again I'm not saying Trump is doing a good thing only that there is a distinction. Nice attempt at a straw man attack though.

So a billionaire keeping more money for himself is more important to you than having food to give your children...gotcha.

[Nyvin]

If Republicans were truly supporters of capitalism, they would not agree with the government subsidizing a business loss,  the free market thing to do would be to let him fall.

[Classic Conservative]

I don't care who you are or how much money you make or don't make, every should have to pay taxes, no matter what.

[Torie]

Just who is claiming it is "criminal" to take welfare benefits prescribed by law?  You must be using the term in other than a literal sense.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

While I don't really approve of Trump's tax dodging, finding ways to Keep your own money is different than finding ways to take other people's.

Then why did Romney attack the 47% of Americans who pay no federal taxes?

Because Romney is a horrible person who had no business being the nominee of a major party. I was so embarrassed that the Republicans voted for him.

[Sorenroy]

While I don't really approve of Trump's tax dodging, finding ways to Keep your own money is different than finding ways to take other people's.

I can understand the difference, but the amount of money Trump dodges is so ridiculous that it almost baffles the mind. By not paying his taxes, Trump is stiffing the state of money that would be used to counter the amount going to welfare recipients. In a sense, by not paying his taxes he is forcing everyone else to take on what he should have payed.

Also, just to put things into perspective, the CATO Institute looked at the amount of welfare the "average" welfare family (single mother and two children) received in 2013. They found that the amount state by state is very different, but that it goes from a high of $42,952 in Alaska to a low of $27,269 in Mississippi. According to Trump, Trump made $694,000,000 in 2015. Assuming he should have payed the highest tax bracket, 39.6%, on all of that, he should have payed $274,824,000 in taxes. As such, if Trump had payed taxes he would have been able to support 6,398 families in Alaska to 10,078 families in Mississippi.

[Inmate Trump]

While I don't really approve of Trump's tax dodging, finding ways to Keep your own money is different than finding ways to take other people's.

Then why did Romney attack the 47% of Americans who pay no federal taxes?

Because Romney is a horrible person who had no business being the nominee of a major party. I was so embarrassed that the Republicans voted for him.

Just like every sane person is embarrassed the party nominated Orange Hitler.

[Torie]

If Republicans were truly supporters of capitalism, they would not agree with the government subsidizing a business loss,  the free market thing to do would be to let him fall.

Taking into consideration losses is part of the formula for calculating the amount of income subject to tax.  It is not a subsidy. What you are describing is a gross receipts tax. Then there is a timing issue. Suppose you lose a million dollars in year 1, and make a million dollars in year 2. Is it reasonable to tax the million dollars in year 2, without carrying forward the losses in year 1? I don’t think so.  And such a crazed rule would cause businesses to make inefficient decisions in order to move revenue and expenses around between years, in order to try to smooth out such fluctuations in the amount of income and losses from year to year. That is very bad public policy.   Too much of that sort of behavior goes on as it is, without incentivizing it further,

[dspNY]

This is the most astonishingly ignorant thread I've read here, and that's saying a lot.

Let me try to simplify this.

You lose $900m this year. You are in the hole $900 million.

Next year, you make $900m in profit. Where are you? Only back to break even.

Your profit is zero over that time frame. Of course your tax should be zero. (Ignoring carry forward loss limitations for simplicity's sake, but including it would make the lefty argument even more ridiculous.)
 

Should you be able to deduct gambling losses in the same way? It's the same concept. You're x dollars in the hole. Next year you make x dollars. You're back to even and your tax should be 0.

The only difference is judgment call that property development is in the public interest and should be treated as a special loss, whereas gambling is not. But that's a judgment call by society.

Yet we have lots of people here who think in the described scenario, that this business should pay $300m plus in taxes...on a ZERO PROFIT situation. You all are beyond Karl Marx territory if you honestly believe that.

He's not a business. He's a person. It's his personal tax return.

Which also begs the question...did Trump mix his business losses into his personal tax return to benefit further? Remember, his business returns should be more complicated and separate from Schedules A, B, C and D

[dspNY]

Another reference to how heinous Trump's writeoff was:

In 1995, all NOL writeoffs in the United States totaled $49.331 billion. Trump's $916 million was 1.9% of that. Trump contributed almost 2% of the national non-operating loss write-off in the country that year

https://twitter.com/AlanMCole/status/782932366255796225

[ApatheticAustrian]

it's not important at all if his doings are legal......i think they are debate kryptonite, especially if compared to his own tweets.

it's a shame that TRUMP U won't be settled before the election.

[muon2]

If Republicans were truly supporters of capitalism, they would not agree with the government subsidizing a business loss,  the free market thing to do would be to let him fall.

A business loss can also be due to one-time capital purchases. This can happen to businesses big and small.

For example consider a household (say $100K total income) where one spouse works a salaried job and the other is self-employed in the tech sector. In early 2000 the self-employed spouse gets a contract to work for a tech firm and has to buy new computer equipment and software to meet the terms of the contract. Later that year the tech firm fails to pay as part of the tech crash. They don't actually go bankrupt that year, so there is the possibility that they will eventually pay (though by 2002 the tech firm has ceased to exist). In the meantime the household is dealing with the lost time worked that may never be paid as well as the expenses required by contract that won't probably ever be recovered. So, there is a business loss in 2000. Since the household files jointly, those actual contract expenses (not the lost time) reduce the taxes for the household, including those withheld by the salaried spouse.

Is that a business subsidy, or recognition that the household functions as a single unit? Should the household potentially face bankruptcy that could be avoided by the tax reduction due to events beyond the control of the household?

[Mister Mets]

There are two arguments here. It's criminal to violate the law, so lying on a welfare application would be fraud, while taking advantage of tax loopholes is usually not illegal.

The other point is that tax loopholes generally exist in order to spur economic activities that are beneficial to the country. Welfare doesn't do that, and gives people money for doing nothing.

[PeteB]

This thread is too convoluted for me .  Here are my simple three takeaways:

1. The tax carry-forward losses that Trump took are legal.  They do not necessarily mean that he is a bad (or good) businessman nor do they mean that he did anything wrong.  Yes, the values involved are huge, but so is the book real estate value that they are likely based on.

2. Unfortunately, for Trump, in addition to the legal argument, there is a moral side to all this.  First of all, the return does illustrate his hypocrisy; he has made a point of criticizing others for similar things (why would anyone who is legitimately on welfare, or has legitimately taken advantage of another government program be any more guilty than Trump?).  On top of it, this is a story that will just play very poorly with independent voters and even his supporters, however he spins it.

3. Last but not least, this serves as an indicator and a red flag.  The fact that he did these financial maneuvers in 1995 begs the question what else has he done in subsequent years.  Just as Clinton is legitimately questioned about the Clinton Foundation ("pay for play"), Trump should clearly address whether his financials are putting him in a potentially compromising situation.  If he is not releasing his tax returns and financial info, then people should not trust him - plain and simple.

[GeorgiaModerate]

This thread is too convoluted for me .  Here are my simple three takeaways:

1. The tax carry-forward losses that Trump took are legal.  They do not necessarily mean that he is a bad (or good) businessman nor do they mean that he did anything wrong.  Yes, the values involved are huge, but so is the book real estate value that they are likely based on.

2. Unfortunately, for Trump, in addition to the legal argument, there is a moral side to all this.  First of all, the return does illustrate his hypocrisy; he has made a point of criticizing others for similar things (why would anyone who is legitimately on welfare, or has legitimately taken advantage of another government program be any more guilty than Trump?).  On top of it, this is a story that will just play very poorly with independent voters and even his supporters, however he spins it.

3. Last but not least, this serves as an indicator and a red flag.  The fact that he did these financial maneuvers in 1995 begs the question what else has he done in subsequent years.  Just as Clinton is legitimately questioned about the Clinton Foundation ("pay for play"), Trump should clearly address whether his financials are putting him in a potentially compromising situation.  If he is not releasing his tax returns and financial info, then people should not trust him - plain and simple.

Nice summary.

[Hermit For Peace]

I don't care who you are or how much money you make or don't make, every should have to pay taxes, no matter what.

Does that include Trump?

[Hermit For Peace]

I am not tax savvy by any means, in fact I'm pretty ignorant of that realm. However, this sounds real sleazy to me....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And then Trump goes on to make a fortune off of other people's loss? That sounds like the sleazy truth to me. So yes, let's praise him for being such a genius.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/02/opinions/why-trump-tax-news-is-stunning-mccaffery/index.html

[dspNY]

I am not tax savvy by any means, in fact I'm pretty ignorant of that realm. However, this sounds real sleazy to me....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And then Trump goes on to make a fortune off of other people's loss? That sounds like the sleazy truth to me. So yes, let's praise him for being such a genius.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/02/opinions/why-trump-tax-news-is-stunning-mccaffery/index.html

Which again asks the question of whether Trump used his business losses and money from other people as part of this horrendous $916 million write-off. At least if Warren Buffett or the Clintons write off a large sum, you know it is their money

[Torie]

Back in the day, there was a traffic in purchasing losses from other companies. The tax code was tightened up to make that very difficult, and that was done prior to 1995. Now, when there is a change of ownership of a company with losses, that is merged into a profitable company, the tax losses disappear. So most probably, the losses were Trump's, and Trump's alone.

[7,052,770]

Did Trump really lose $1b? Or did he just do a phony "devaluation" of buildings he wasn't planning to sell anyway as an accounting trick to not have to pay taxes?

The former would make this story not that huge of a deal, but all indications point to the latter...

[Mallow]

The other point is that tax loopholes generally exist in order to spur economic activities that are beneficial to the country. Welfare doesn't do that, and gives people money for doing nothing.

This is exactly the opposite of how I see it. Tax loopholes exist to give wealthy people more wealth for doing nothing but being wealthy. Welfare exists to help poor people through tough situations in their life with the hope that they can turn it around and get back into the workforce. Obviously this is a gross oversimplification, but my point is, your premise (as with mine) is based in opinion, not fact.

[Doimper]

Even losing.

[MasterJedi]

In the end it doesn't matter to Trump because as he has said he "plays with OPM, Other People's Money".

Once this election is over the IRS and DOJ need to nail him to a wall and then send him to a non-white collar prison. As he said the "blacks love him".

[ProudModerate2]

For one person (tax return) in the entire USA, to make up 2% of the total of all NOL in one year (1995) is HUGE !
This does not look good for the Trump name/enterprise, at all.

[Wells]

Hillary Clinton has a new tax calculator, just for Donald Trump:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/page/trump-taxes/

Type in any income, and see how much you would have paid if you were Donald Trump.