Here are 2 questions to ask now that Trump's 'been exposed as perhaps the biggest loser in American

[sinkingfeeling]

history’ by David Cay Johnston.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/05/david-cay-johnston-here-are-2-questions-to-ask-now-that-trumps-been-exposed-as-perhaps-the-biggest-loser-in-american-business-history/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=182&recip_id=1097&list_id=2

<snip>

1. Does this shed any light on his fight to keep Congress from seeing his recent tax returns?
2. Do Trump’s tax filings matter to us and our government?

And the answers are yes and YES!

A major implication of these tax documents, as well as the 2005 partial tax return obtained and other records, is that Trump’s tax returns would not stand up under audit.

<snip>

So why didn’t the IRS catch this? Because there is no tax to collect when there are losses, reported as negative income. Imagine a tax return showing $10 million of negative income. An auditor works the case and finds $3 million of phony losses. The taxpayers now has $7 million of negative income and no tax is due.

<snip>
The story of Trump’s taxes is the story of a man whose lying, cheating, stealing and continual need for cash to sustain the image of a multi-billionaire has made him vulnerable to kompromat. It is the story of a known tax cheat who has taken an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution but ignores that oath, violate that oath.

****************
I urge you to read the complete article at link.

[unblock]

1. that doesn't make much sense.

yes, an auditor who found he only had 7 million of negative income instead of 10 million of negative income is probably wasting their time.

but then, why would donald fraud waste *his* time overstating his losses if his taxes were already legitimately zero?


there's really only one reason to exaggerate losses on a tax return, and that's to evade taxes. so either he would have owed taxes had he filed an honest return, or the losses are honest and he's a huuuuge loser.


i suppose there is a somewhat more elaborate possibility: if the losses can be carried forward, then perhaps he didn't owe any taxes, legitimately, in the years in question, but during those years he accumulated losses which could be carried forward to offset profits in future years.

we'd need a more complete set of returns to test that hypothesis.