If You Don't Own a Business STFU

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Asfaloth54

His audit status is irrelevant to that question.

Not at all. The best example is what spawned this thread and other inquiries. A portion of a 1995 return was released by a third-party to the press. #1: the general public has no PROOF that the copy referenced in the media is a final FILED copy, one that was subsequently auditted, supplemented, and/or amended.

I take you have never been "auditted" by the IRS or never had to supplement and/or amend your previously filed return. It is my understanding with loss carries back one must file an amended return to make the adjustment back on previously filed returns and with loss carries forward the previously filed return is relevant to the issue of whether or not the carry forward is legit. As a consequence there is a "ripple effect" on returns that change them for years forward or back.

An existing audit can have that same "ripple effect." So if Trump released his returns now when he's in the middle of an audit the media (and you no doubt) would be jumping all over him for the $100 here and there he claimed for WEEKS and then if and when there is a change in the returns as a result from the audit all that bullshit will go UNCHANGED and as is the case it seems in the media their "first impression" is the ONLY ONE THEY KEEP!

For instance: Over the past 5-10 years how many people have the media CONVICTED before a trial only to have them ACQUITTED by a judge or jury! Too many to remember. The acquittal or dismissal usually gets buried near the obituaries.

Now look at the bright side: The audit may show he should have paid more taxes than was originally computed on his returns.

Don't you want to make him look bad ... like he's cheating you out of more tax money you can sop up on in the coming years?

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

. When Hillary was told to turn over her emails, she destroyed them. She did not comply with the law, in fact, she destroyed the evidence that was demanded.

.

or the billing records or just about anything else investigators were seeking, hellary either destroyed them or hid them

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Not at all. The best example is what spawned this thread and other inquiries. A portion of a 1995 return was released by a third-party to the press. #1: the general public has no PROOF that the copy referenced in the media is a final FILED copy, one that was subsequently auditted, supplemented, and/or amended.

I take you have never been "auditted" by the IRS or never had to supplement and/or amend your previously filed return. It is my understanding with loss carries back one must file an amended return to make the adjustment back on previously filed returns and with loss carries forward the previously filed return is relevant to the issue of whether or not the carry forward is legit. As a consequence there is a "ripple effect" on returns that change them for years forward or back.

An existing audit can have that same "ripple effect." So if Trump released his returns now when he's in the middle of an audit the media (and you no doubt) would be jumping all over him for the $100 here and there he claimed for WEEKS and then if and when there is a change in the returns as a result from the audit all that bullshit will go UNCHANGED and as is the case it seems in the media their "first impression" is the ONLY ONE THEY KEEP!

For instance: Over the past 5-10 years how many people have the media CONVICTED before a trial only to have them ACQUITTED by a judge or jury! Too many to remember. The acquittal or dismissal usually gets buried near the obituaries.

Now look at the bright side: The audit may show he should have paid more taxes than was originally computed on his returns.

Don't you want to make him look bad ... like he's cheating you out of more tax money you can sop up on in the coming years?

[tonyvicksa]

The number of jobs he has created is 51K according to CNN and the state of NY. You have absolutely no idea what he pays. So you minimum wage comment is bull shit. I would be very surprised if he pays minimum wage. After all you get what you pay for. Sissy boy, just because you make min wage does not mean everyone else does.

Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

who cares he's only paying them minimum wage anyway they're better off going to Burger King at least they can rise to the ranks of shift manager like Bimbo.

and the number is 31,000 not 51,000 stop trying to inflate that clowns numbers. Futhermore, he's not self made at all like Michael Bloomberg, his pops gave him the seed money and without that seed money he's nothing but another old angry bitter redneck trying to fuck his own daughter.

furthermore he's been bailed out by middle eastern sheiks. This fucking clown lost everything his dad gifted him and he's lucky he was able to inflate his wealth so that Middle Eastern MUSLIM investors would even think about saving his dumb ass.

[tonyvicksa]

Everyone is and should comment on it. I simply meant that owning a business is very different than working in one. Not better, just different. So I believe it is hard for a non business owner to understand the decisions owners make. Including the decision to invest, borrow and sometimes declare bankruptcy.

Originally Posted by Old-T

I actually think you make some sound points in your post, but your opening point needs to be addressed. Whether I own a business or not, yes, I have a right to comment on Trump's tax returns and his foreign purchases.

Just like lots of people feel entitled to talk about the military without having been in it, or NASA without having been an astronaut, or medical care without being a doctor.

Sorry, but that is what free speech implies.

[Yssup Rider]

You're fired?

[tonyvicksa]

You see 3 pages of tax returns for a 30+ year career and you can proclaim, "Donald Trump does not pay federal income tax". Pathetic really pathetic.

I mean this with complete sincerity. I feel sorry for you that you don't understand the situation discussed in this thread. That you are only able to understand news stories at a "face value" level. It is also sad you are such a bitter, angry person.

Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

when that son of a queer starts paying fed tax come holla at me.

[tonyvicksa]

+1

Once they lose an argument they just pivot so they don't have to accept defeat. LOL

Originally Posted by canuckeight

Fair enough, when we get the emails stating she sold American secrets to Saudi Arabia, China and Iran. No Problem. Trouble with you libs is you can never stay on talking point. The discussion was about FED TAXES.

So, I am going to explain in terms you understand.
Lets say you are in your favorite glory hole and the employer sticks his cock in for you to blow it. The first rope you get in your mouth is tax deductible by you. But the second rope he shoots in your eye and on your doo, the employer cannot write that off. So in essence you get a free load of cum in your eye.
Understand now Sistrunk?

[Asfaloth54]

Originally Posted by Budman

The IRS gets to audit his return not every POS lib in the country. Once his audit is over then releasing the return is expected.

You seem really concerned about his tax return yet have zero interest in HRC missing emails. Typical lib hypocrisy.

This thread is about tax returns, not emails. You have zero clue as to my politics, or what I think about Hillary. You could just have the decency to ask, instead of looking stupid by assuming.

His audit is on its 15th year, according to him. Americans should not have to wait until after an election - or another 15 years - to see info that could be significant to their decision.

[Marshall2.0]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Got any idea what happened to the families effected by the almost one billion in bankrupt corporations?

You mean the workers who had their jobs saved because Trump saved the business by filing BK?

[Asfaloth54]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Not at all. The best example is what spawned this thread and other inquiries. A portion of a 1995 return was released by a third-party to the press. #1: the general public has no PROOF that the copy referenced in the media is a final FILED copy, one that was subsequently auditted, supplemented, and/or amended.

I take you have never been "auditted" by the IRS or never had to supplement and/or amend your previously filed return. It is my understanding with loss carries back one must file an amended return to make the adjustment back on previously filed returns and with loss carries forward the previously filed return is relevant to the issue of whether or not the carry forward is legit. As a consequence there is a "ripple effect" on returns that change them for years forward or back.

An existing audit can have that same "ripple effect." So if Trump released his returns now when he's in the middle of an audit the media (and you no doubt) would be jumping all over him for the $100 here and there he claimed for WEEKS and then if and when there is a change in the returns as a result from the audit all that bullshit will go UNCHANGED and as is the case it seems in the media their "first impression" is the ONLY ONE THEY KEEP!

For instance: Over the past 5-10 years how many people have the media CONVICTED before a trial only to have them ACQUITTED by a judge or jury! Too many to remember. The acquittal or dismissal usually gets buried near the obituaries.

Now look at the bright side: The audit may show he should have paid more taxes than was originally computed on his returns.

Don't you want to make him look bad ... like he's cheating you out of more tax money you can sop up on in the coming years?

Your assumptions about what I think are unfounded and presumptuous. But that seems to be the accepted form of ignorant debate here. Oh well.

Your argument is invalid as it makes the same bogus claim that he should hide his returns because the media will 'jump all over them'. It's simply ludicrous to imply that the media won't jump all over a final audited return. How bout he does the right thing and releases them - trusting Americans to draw valid conclusions from the data? Or don't you trust Americans?

[Sistine Chapel]

Originally Posted by tonyvicksa

You see 3 pages of tax returns for a 30+ year career and you can proclaim, "Donald Trump does not pay federal income tax". Pathetic really pathetic.

I mean this with complete sincerity. I feel sorry for you that you don't understand the situation discussed in this thread. That you are only able to understand news stories at a "face value" level. It is also sad you are such a bitter, angry person.

Ha! please don't feel sorrow for me because 1.) I'm not worried about you folks and your daily meltdowns in any way, shape, form, or fashion and 2.) I pull in an $amount$ annually that would make your head spin like a merry go round. In fact I probably should be voting Trump based on the potential tax breaks alone.

[tonyvicksa]

+1

Originally Posted by Marshall2.0

You mean the workers who had their jobs saved because Trump saved the business by filing BK?

[Budman]

Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Ha! please don't feel sorrow for me because 1.) I'm not worried about you folks and your daily meltdowns in any way, shape, form, or fashion and 2.) I pull in an $amount$ annually that would make your head spin like a merry go round. In fact I probably should be voting Trump based on the potential tax breaks alone.

You must be the greatest weed wacker in the country. Congrats. You should refrain from commenting on politics since I'm sure you don't pay fed income tax. Do you send most your money back to Mexico?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Asfaloth54

Americans should not have to wait until after an election - or another 15 years - to see info that could be significant to their decision.

You mean like what emails were shredded? .... or

what will be the after-effects of a failed health care proposal?

... or whether it was a video that killed an ambassador?

I could probably stack 15 years of his returns under your nose and you'd still be trying to figure out what the fuck all the boxes were for by inauguration time.

Or do you want a $20,000 a year reporter cub tell you what they mean?