What if there were other papers mailed with the return?

[PCIntern]

Perhaps there's a faulty assumption that that's all that was in the envelope. Perhaps there were other documents which will take a bit longer to verify. Perhaps some very incriminating documents.

Some people think this might be the case.

[asiliveandbreathe]

1. Like the deduction page...

would love to see that baby..he may owe taxes and penalties afterall...

[former9thward]

17. From 1995?

Uh no... The time limits on that return expired in 2002.

[asiliveandbreathe]

19. Hummm - you made me do some research - that is a good thing

from an article -

http://tax.findlaw.com/tax-problems-audits/what-is-the-irs-statute-of-limitations-or-deadline-for-action-on-.html

False, Fraudulent, or Missing Returns: No IRS Statute of Limitations


It is also important to note that no deadline applies where the IRS can establish that a taxpayer has: 1) filed a false or fraudulent return; 2) willfully attempted to evade tax; or 3) failed to file a return. Unlike the circumstances above where tax returns are filed (even with errors), these are cases in which a taxpayer is willfully or intentionally not filing taxes or is filing fraudulent return(s). Not only will there be no time limit on IRS action against such taxpayers, but heightened interest fees and penalties will apply.

Just sayin' - I'm sure there is more here than meets the eye...be well..

[former9thward]

20. The IRS would have audited that return.

You don't claim a $916 million loss and not get audited.

[duncang]

2. IIRC

I think there was a suggestion they were looking at more. Just not sure what or how much.

[MANative]

3. If I were one to bet, I'd bet on that.

I'd love to get confirmation that it was Marla who sent them. That'd be sweet retribution, and completely legal.

[Exilednight]

4. Only if it's a joint filing.

The NYT received the documents anonymously two weeks after the reporter who published them said he would happily spend time in jail if he ever got his hands on them.

There is actually no fear of him going to jail since he did not solicit the source of said material to break the law. It's also unlikaely that Trump will sue due to the fact that he would have to answer questions about their legitimacy and open the door for further tax records to be entered into evidence and court records. Once they're entered into court records they are public domain.

[MANative]

5. Yup - working on the assumption that it's a joint filing.

Marla was dumb enough to marry the idiot, but I hope she's smart enough to have consulted an attorney before letting these documents out into the world.

Based on my very limited knowledge, I think you're right about the reporter's legal position. (Sent a note to an investigative reporter friend and awaiting her feedback - she's been in the business for 30+ years, so I'm betting she'll have some insight.)

[MANative]

9. Read the article in the Times by the reporter who received the docs.

She says they were signed by both Marla and Donald, so it was a joint return.

[csziggy]

11. Yes they were joint filings - look at the top of the pages as shown in the NYT article

On each form (New York, Connecticut and New Jersey) the names listed are "Trump, Donald J. and Marla" and the box for "Married filing joint return" is checked. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/01/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

[longship]

6. Well, the NYTimes says, "No comment."

Which is really all it means. Whether there is more or not, they are not saying. And only a fool would interpret "no comment" as meaning anything other than what it literally says.

The Times has journalistic and legal standards with which it should abide. If I had such info which they released, I would release it as soon as I could, as they have apparently done.

However, if another journalist asked either if there was more, or if I knew who sent the document, the only rational response is, "No comment."

That's why I would not intuit anything into Suzanne Craig's response.

[PCIntern]

7. Some people say that there's more

That's all I'm saying I don't know but some others say this. I'm just repeating what I've heard.

[longship]

10. Based on a "no comment", that's a stretch.

Because Craig and the Times would say the same damned thing whether there was more or not. So, the "no comment" gives one absolutely no information, just as it is intended.

They want no more info released on this other than what they have already published. If there is more coming, putatively still under analysis, they are not saying. Drumpf is a highly letigious person and the Times isn't stupid. Any more info might reveal a source, whether it is anonymous or known.

"No comment" makes absolute sense here. However, it would be wrong to conclude anything about that.

[PCIntern]

14. I couldn't agree with you more

But some people say that other thing

[longship]

15. Sometimes people make shit up.

But in this case, that stretches the facts a bit too far. That's why I am posting on it. I prefer that DU be grounded in facts. I don't mind some conjecture, but "no comment" specifically by a respected journalist certainly does not mean "speculate as you will".

My best.

[PCIntern]

16. Right longship

I agree. I just think that the FOX in the henhouse can work for both sides

[longship]

18. Good one, my friend.

[MFM008]

8. The guy on morning joe

Said there's more they are " chasing".

[eleny]

12. Hey, if lots of people are saying - that's good enough for me

[PCIntern]

13. Exactly. nt