Dan Warnick

U.S. Presidential Elections Status - Electoral Votes

Recommended Posts

(edited)

34 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

My friend owns a rental car franchise, famous brand. Every employee gets a brand new rental car every year, no charge. What's the value? The retail price they might rent that car out for, or their actual cost in that car (far less than you can imagine). The IRS made noises and tried to make a case. He destroyed them. 

It took the political ahole all this time to fabricate a nothing burger case and fantasize a value big enough to get (mediocre) headlines. If the IRS thought this was a case they would have initiated it. That they didn't tells you everything you need to know, and it's not like the Obama IRS hasn't been a political arm of the DNC for over a decade. You think it was an accident all those billionaire tax returns got released? The IRS win loss ratio in court looks impressive, but for every case that makes it that far, they've caved on thousands. You don't get to hear about them.

I was assigned a company-owned car when I was employed by a large power generation manufacturer. 

If (and when) I were to use that automobile for personal (non-business) use, I was charged a current mileage rate that was reported on expense accounts and deducted from the reported expenses.

You use a supplied car for personal use, you pay.

THAT'S the way it is supposed to work.

 

Edited by turbguy
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

I was assigned a company-owned car when I was employed by a large power generation manufacturer. 

If (and when) I were to use that automobile for personal (non-business) use, I was charged a current mileage rate that was reported on expense accounts and deducted from the reported expenses.

You use a supplied car for personal use, you pay.

THAT'S the way it is supposed to work.

 

You do understand by your own statement this DA would have had to go back and prove each and every occurrence the car was used for personal use.

That task would be impossible, but then again this corrupt administration has proven time and time again corrupted allegations can be used in a attempt to cancel a elected president even those that support his agendas by demonstration....

Insurrection cried from every corner of the land, politicians passionately calling for justice, 100's of arrests being made, a press vilifying these protesters 24/7, and yet not one of these protesters have yet to be charged with insurrection...not one.

A sitting President being accused of Russian COLLUSION, only to be disproven in shame for the world to see

The list goes on and on....RUMOR HAS IT seems to be the only foundation this Democratic party  has...Being supported by corporate dark money....

Frankly an entire political edidty basing its foundation and credibility based upon Rumor Has It. 

What lies in AZ....Something far greater than potentially  election fraud..

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

You do understand by your own statement this DA would have had to go back and prove each and every occurrence the car was used for personal use.

That task would be impossible, but then again this corrupt administration has proven time and time again corrupted allegations can be used in a attempt to cancel a elected president even those that support his agendas by demonstration....

Insurrection cried from every corner of the land, politicians passionately calling for justice, 100's of arrests being made, a press vilifying these protesters 24/7, and yet not one of these protesters have yet to be charged with insurrection...not one.

A sitting President being accused of Russian COLLUSION, only to be disproven in shame for the world to see

The list goes on and on....RUMOR HAS IT seems to be the only foundation this Democratic party  has...Being supported by corporate dark money....

Frankly an entire political edidty basing its foundation and credibility based upon Rumor Has It. 

What lies in AZ....Something far greater than potentially  election fraud..

Nope.

You just charge unpaid tax for for EVERY SINGLE MILE THE CAR WAS USED, if you cannot prove and document every places, time and purpose for every mile used.  That's the way it works!

Back-documenting does NOT count.

Evidently, you may not have ever had a company vehicle?

It can be a hassle with expense accounting.

Edited by turbguy
  • Upvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

You do understand by your own statement this DA would have had to go back and prove each and every occurrence the car was used for personal use.

You are expected to report your income honestly.

Just because tax evasion is difficult to prosecute does not make it any less of a crime.

You sign the return saying you claimed everything.  If you know otherwise,and still sign the thing, you are a criminal.

They won't bother coming after you if you just failed to report a few miles on a company truck.  They will fry the bigger fish.

haystack tax return.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Trump said about Leona Helmsley’s tax evasion

Image without a caption
Senior reporter
July 2, 2021 at 9:37 a.m. MDT
 

After criminal charges were unveiled against the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, on Thursday, the Trump Organization’s lawyers declined to weigh in on the specifics — as did former president Donald Trump himself. But then Trump’s son Eric decided he would give his own take on Fox News.

 

“They subpoenaed 3.5 million documents,” Eric Trump said. “They’ve gone through every single tax record that my father has had since 2005, and this is what they have: They have a company car, they have employment perks. Give me a break. They have been on a witch hunt.”

He added: “This is what they’re going after. This isn’t a criminal matter.”

 

The first thing to note is that these are the first charges. There might not be any others — and some analysts indeed said they were underwhelmed by the charges, to the point where they suggest the former president himself is likely safe — but we don’t yet know that. The second is that this isn’t just about providing “perks”; it’s about whether those perks were given in ways that deliberately avoided taxation. And prosecutors claim very solid evidence of that, judging by the indictment.

 

Something else many noted Thursday, though, was that defenses like Eric Trump’s struck quite a different tone from the one his father did three decades ago, when a high-profile rival was accused of — you guessed it — tax evasion.

Multiple reports and social media posts referenced Trump’s 1989 comments about fellow New York real estate developer Leona Helmsley, who was later convicted of evading $1.2 million in taxes. As the New York Times wrote Thursday:

 
[Trump’s] reluctance to discuss the allegations in depth stood in contrast to his gloating after a real estate rival, Leona Helmsley, was charged with tax crimes in 1989, prompting Mr. Trump to call her a “disgrace to humanity.”

Former Republican congresswoman Barbara Comstock (Va.), a Trump critic, added: “Trump called Leona Helmsley ‘a disgrace to humanity’ for her tax dodging….”

Trump added in that 1989 letter: “What has happened to the legendary Helmsley reputation is indeed sad — but I am not surprised. … When God created Leona, the world received no favors.”

Trump is certainly no stranger to setting a standard for someone else and then bulldozing past it himself. But how much do his comments about Helmsley actually apply to his own situation and that of his business?

 

That’s less clear than some suggest. While Trump certainly criticized his rival in light of her tax charges, his argument seemed to have less to do with her allegedly defrauding the government, and more to do, perhaps unsurprisingly, with her having wronged Trump personally.

 
The letter to Leona (more juicy excerpts in a moment) stems from (surprise) a financial dispute. To wit, casino magnate and multibillionaire developer Trump recently purchased a chunk of Atlantic City real estate from Penthouse International Ltd. for $56 million, and plans to convert an unfinished casino into a non-casino hotel. Included in the property is a small parcel owned by the Helmsleys that had been leased to Penthouse for 100 years. Trump charges that Leona Helmsley has refused to transfer the lease to him, in what should be a routine transaction, out of sheer animosity. “I’m taking her to court,” Trump said in a telephone interview today from Atlantic City. “In the real estate business you don’t do that … The woman is a total disgrace to the industry and humanity. This is a bad woman.”

When Helmsley’s tax fraud trial began, Trump again piled on, saying, “I can feel sorry for my worst enemy, but I cannot feel sorry for Leona Helmsley. She deserves whatever she gets.”

One could certainly argue that bears some relevance to the younger Trump’s complaint about alleged political targeting. The elder Trump seemed to revel in whatever punishment befell Helmsley in her tax fraud case because he didn’t like her. Now the Trump family is complaining that others are targeting them because of ill will.

 

As for how analogous the two cases themselves are, that’s again up for debate. But they aren’t too far apart in certain respects.

 

While Helmsley was convicted of evading $1.2 million in taxes, Weisselberg is accused of avoiding paying more than $900,000 in total.

Helmsley was convicted on 33 of 41 counts, while Weisselberg and the Trump Organization face 15. But the charges were similar. For Helmsley, it was:

  • 1 count of conspiracy to defraud the United States
  • 3 counts of tax evasion
  • 3 counts of filing false personal tax returns
  • 16 counts assisting in filing false reports
  • 10 counts of mail fraud

The charges in Weisselberg’s case:

  • 1 count of conspiracy
  • 1 count of a scheme to defraud
  • 1 count of grand larceny
  • 4 counts of criminal tax fraud
  • 4 counts of filing false reports
  • 4 counts of falsifying business records

In the years since Helmsley’s trial, Trump, of course, has made no secret of his preference for conveniently getting around tax laws. During a 2016 presidential debate, he responded to Hillary Clinton’s attacks on his alleged avoidance of paying taxes by saying that, if he did so, that “makes me smart.” (We have since learned that Trump did indeed avoid paying much of any taxes for many years.) Real estate developers are known for their gaming of the tax system, so it’s hardly a surprise that Trump would avoid directly deriding specific tax-avoidance tactics.

 
 

But perhaps the most relevant Trump comment about Helmsley came in 2007, after she died.

Trump went on TV to lament what she had done to her husband Harry Helmsley, whom Trump counted as a friend, because of her tax fraud.

“And, you know, in all fairness to her, she really made him happy,” Trump said, “except for the last two years of his life, where he was going through all of this hell because of things that she caused with her tax evasion and various other — which was so foolish, because he was such a rich man.”

Indeed, even if the charges against the Trump Organization aren’t as big as some might have expected, the schemes outlined certainly lead to similar questions about why the Trump Organization would engage in them. And according to prosecutors, they all began around the time Trump lamented how “foolish” it was for Helmsley to jeopardize her family for such pittances.

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank You Stormy

 

Trump Organization Charges: A Probe of Hush Money Moved to Fringe Benefits

The indictment of the company and its CFO, Allen Weisselberg, grew out of an investigation into a hush-money payment to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels

Corinne Ramey at Corinne.Ramey@wsj.com, Rebecca Davis O’Brien at Rebecca.OBrien@wsj.com and Rebecca Ballhaus at Rebecca.Ballhaus@wsj.com
 
 
 

The indictment of the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer grew out of an investigation into a seemingly unrelated matter: the now-infamous $130,000 payment to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels.

The Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into a hush-money payment to former President Donald Trump’s alleged mistress has since transformed into a sweeping probe into the business practices of the Trump Organization, including whether it engaged in bank, insurance and tax fraud.

This week, an investigation that had been stalled multiple times over three years finally reached a courtroom with the indictment of the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, on tax-related charges. The district attorney’s office, which is working with the New York attorney general’s office, accused the company and its CFO of carrying out a 15-year scheme to avoid taxes by using Manhattan apartments, luxury cars and private-school tuition as off-the-books compensation.

The Trump Organization and Mr. Weisselberg have pleaded not guilty, with their lawyers saying they will fight the charges.

The charges run far afield of the probe’s original focus—the Trump Organization’s handling of the payment to Ms. Daniels, which was intended to silence her about her allegations of a sexual encounter with Mr. Trump. Former prosecutors said Thursday’s charges could become a steppingstone to filing broader charges against Mr. Trump himself, if Mr. Weisselberg were to seek leniency in return for testifying against his longtime boss.

In late May, extensive discussions began between the district attorney’s office and Mr. Weisselberg’s lawyers, in which prosecutors broadly described their case and raised the prospect of his cooperation. In the weeks leading up to Thursday’s charges, Mr. Weisselberg’s lawyers told prosecutors he wouldn’t cooperate.

Mr. Trump’s supporters have derided the probe as a partisan fishing expedition, with the former president calling it “an investigation in search of a crime.” Carey Dunne, Mr. Vance’s general counsel, said in court Thursday that the company had engaged in a “sweeping and audacious illegal payments scheme” and that the case wasn’t politically motivated.

It is not uncommon for white-collar investigations to branch off in new directions and end far from where they started, especially in cases in which documents, such as tax returns, end up in prosecutors’ files, said Scott R. Wilson, a former top official at the New York attorney general’s office.

“If a prosecutor sees something that might be of interest or relate to the commission of a crime, it’s standard operating procedure to pull that thread, even if it’s not the original focus of the investigation,” said Mr. Wilson, now a partner at the firm DLA Piper.

In one case, an Internal Revenue Service tax probe into top FIFA official Chuck Blazer led to a sprawling, multiagency investigation into corruption in soccer’s governing body. Mr. Blazer pleaded guilty in 2013 and wore a wire while cooperating with federal prosecutors, leading to the convictions of top soccer officials. Mary Mulligan, a lawyer representing Mr. Weisselberg, represented Mr. Blazer during that investigation.

This account of the investigations into the Trump Organization is based on interviews with people involved in the probes and court documents.

The groundwork for New York prosecutors’ investigation was laid in January 2018, when The Wall Street Journal revealed that Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, had helped arrange the hush-money payment to Ms. Daniels, just before the 2016 election, in exchange for her silence.

At the time, the office of special counsel Robert Mueller had been investigating Mr. Cohen for months, for possible bank fraud and other matters, as part of its investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 election. The Journal’s report fueled an expansion of the investigation into Mr. Cohen, which Mr. Mueller handed over to Manhattan federal prosecutors in February 2018.

The Manhattan federal prosecutors’ probe into the hush-money payments and Mr. Cohen’s personal business and tax dealings proceeded in secret until April 9, 2018, when Federal Bureau of Investigation agents raided Mr. Cohen’s office, apartment and hotel room.

Several Trump associates provided information in the investigation, including Mr. Weisselberg, the Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter. Mr. Weisselberg, who had arranged for Mr. Cohen’s reimbursement by the Trump Organization, was granted immunity to testify before a federal grand jury, the Journal reported.

In August 2018, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign-finance violations related to the hush-money payments and separately to income-tax evasion and lying to a financial institution, saying Mr. Trump had directed him to make the hush-money payment to Ms. Daniels. Mr. Trump has denied the affair with Ms. Daniels and said he did nothing wrong. He was never charged.

In the days after his plea, federal prosecutors learned from media reports that the Manhattan district attorney’s office was investigating how the company reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the payment, and whether it falsified business records in the process. The U.S. attorney’s office asked its state counterparts to hold off. Mr. Vance complied.

In those early months, the primary goal of Mr. Vance’s office was to be ready to proceed with a state investigation if Mr. Trump shut down the federal investigation, or pardoned Mr. Cohen—what one person called a “break the glass moment.”

Neither of those things happened. In July 2019, Manhattan federal prosecutors told the judge overseeing Mr. Cohen’s case that the office had concluded the campaign-finance portion of its investigation.

Mr. Vance’s office soon resumed its investigation. In August 2019, state prosecutors subpoenaed the Trump Organization for documents about the hush-money payments and financial information. Prosecutors said their subpoena required the Trump Organization to turn over tax returns; Mr. Trump’s lawyers disagreed.

 

Weeks later, prosecutors tried a more aggressive approach: They subpoenaed Mazars USA, the president’s longtime accounting firm, seeking Mr. Trump’s personal and company tax returns and a swath of financial documents.

In September 2019, Mr. Trump sued Mr. Vance to block the subpoena, kicking off a legal battle that would substantially delay the probe. Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that a sitting president couldn’t be subject to a criminal investigation.

As the case proceeded through multiple courts, Mr. Vance’s investigation broadened. In August 2020, prosecutors said they were investigating Mr. Trump and the company on potential bank and insurance fraud.

Since at least January 2021, Mark Pomerantz, a former federal prosecutor now on leave from the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, has been working on the probe. That February, he was sworn in as a special assistant district attorney.

It was unusual for the office to recruit an outside lawyer for the investigation, although it had a previous relationship with Paul Weiss. Lawyers from the firm previously consulted in the office’s prosecution of the former Trump adviser Paul Manafort on mortgage-fraud charges, to which he pleaded not guilty. That case ended after the state’s highest court let stand a lower-court ruling that Mr. Manafort couldn’t be prosecuted.

On Feb. 22 this year, the Supreme Court declined to block the subpoena for Mr. Trump’s tax returns. Investigators from Mr. Vance’s office picked up the files hours later.

The district attorney’s office and the New York attorney general’s office were separately—and by this summer collaboratively—investigating Mr. Weisselberg, examining whether he and other employees illegally evaded taxes on perks they had received from the company.

Share Your Thoughts

Do you think Allen Weisselberg will cooperate against his former boss? Why or why not? Join the conversation below.

Prosecutors were attempting to pressure Mr. Weisselberg, a longtime confidant of Mr. Trump, to cooperate in their broader probe. They subpoenaed a Manhattan private school that his grandchildren attend, and obtained his personal tax returns in pursuit of their investigation into tax evasion.

Mr. Weisselberg’s team, in advance of talks with the district attorney’s office, tapped Don Fort, the former chief of the IRS’s criminal investigation division who is now director of investigations at Kostelanetz & Fink LLP.

After a series of Zoom meetings and phone calls with prosecutors that began in late May, Mr. Weisselberg’s lawyers said he wouldn’t cooperate.

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why it’s important to spend an extra 10’s of billions for IRS enforcement chasing the 400 billion plus in tax cheating by our upper class every year. Republicans have spent careers in reducing enforcement. Imagine that. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Now to be fair the Dems have done little to nothing stopping tax evasion. They just bluster a bit more. It truly is class warfare and the poor are truly losing that war. Now that we have a SCOTUS that is solidly behind corporations expect the onslaught to continue. 
Of course what makes all this work is there is little pain, just that growing deficit and debt. Have we hit 30 trillion yet? Must be time for another tax cut.

Edited by Boat
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only place on the planet you could assemble a jury that would be taken for a ride by evidence free prosecutors to bring an indictment about extremely minor possible tax violations that are common practice. 

Bogus case. Fiddly charges, Cy Vance should be embarrassed by having this for his swan song. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

The only place on the planet you could assemble a jury that would be taken for a ride by evidence free prosecutors to bring an indictment about extremely minor possible tax violations that are common practice. 

Bogus case. Fiddly charges, Cy Vance should be embarrassed by having this for his swan song. 

This bureaucratic scamming has taken on proportions that defy imagination, Muller was left disgraced as thoughtless old man as Biden himself will face someday. When will the day come for them when they are forced into the light??? That day is coming soon based upon the desperate actually unheard of abuses of the legal system in this country...It would indeed be a delight to see Bernie Sanders cast into the glare of this corrupt media..what a day that would be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

This bureaucratic scamming has taken on proportions that defy imagination, Muller was left disgraced as thoughtless old man as Biden himself will face someday. When will the day come for them when they are forced into the light??? That day is coming soon based upon the desperate actually unheard of abuses of the legal system in this country...It would indeed be a delight to see Bernie Sanders cast into the glare of this corrupt media..what a day that would be.

...and you think that #45, in his private dealings, has not performed similar abuse?

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

The only place on the planet you could assemble a jury that would be taken for a ride by evidence free prosecutors to bring an indictment about extremely minor possible tax violations that are common practice. 

Bogus case. Fiddly charges, Cy Vance should be embarrassed by having this for his swan song. 

extremely minor possible tax violations that are common practice???? not common practice and not minor. Criminal scheme and time to lock them all up. I bet you never have worked on corporate taxes. What Trump and Company did was outright criminal and it takes alot of work to cover up such criminal behavior . Common practice....... So common they did everything possible to hide it. The sad part is people such as yourself give criminals like Trump a pass.

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Giuliani license revocation hearings turned out to be missing due process and DID NOT allow a presentation of evidence. Affidavits backing the statements defined by the plaintiff association as "lies" a priori, were not allowed into evidence in the required evidentiary hearing that did not occur. The action was illegal. The NY supreme ct. acted outside the law ignoring due process. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

...and you think that #45, in his private dealings, has not performed similar abuse?

I speak to the US govt beaurcrats abusing the legal system, you speak to Trump abusing the tax system. Interesting commentary. Let us have a frank discussion, 90% of US citizens in some manner of form bend the tax regs, I should like to know how many citizens report there frivolous gains visiting the casino's...plzz Turbguy think.

How many citizens have there tax returns seized by the AG with no foundation of crime? But to investigate if there is a crime.. Name one case of such a event...there is none.

Taking a bit further was the alleged crime inspired by the IRS? I hope you can grasp the concept it is the IRS that audits and recommendeds any irregularities and initiating any investigation...did the IRS order this or did the NY AG just over step???

Ahh below the sheer arrogance of the Democratic leadership...he should have been indicted within hour's...

Schumer Threatens the Court

Speaking to a crowd on the Supreme Court steps, the leading Senate Democrat declared: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.” He meant Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the newest Justices who were appointed by President Trump.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/schumer-threatens-the-court-11583368462

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

extremely minor possible tax violations that are common practice???? not common practice and not minor. Criminal scheme and time to lock them all up. I bet you never have worked on corporate taxes. What Trump and Company did was outright criminal and it takes alot of work to cover up such criminal behavior . Common practice....... So common they did everything possible to hide it. The sad part is people such as yourself give criminals like Trump a pass.

Ohh put a sock in it...Do you even have any ideal how to amortize a lease write off??? Is the payment written down? is it the gas usage or the maintenance costs or just general use? Frankly what yr did this occur, what were the guidelines/codes during that time? What constitutes business VS personal use? Do not depend upon some liberal rag making headlines to guide your insightful intellect...they have been proven wrong time and time again....Rumor Has It!

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

The Giuliani license revocation hearings turned out to be missing due process and DID NOT allow a presentation of evidence. Affidavits backing the statements defined by the plaintiff association as "lies" a priori, were not allowed into evidence in the required evidentiary hearing that did not occur. The action was illegal. The NY supreme ct. acted outside the law ignoring due process. 

Absolute nonsense. He was allowed to submit evidence and affidavits but did not do so. 

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

What constitutes business VS personal use?

A huge fraction of the time, that's easy to determine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ohh put a sock in it...Do you even have any ideal how to amortize a lease write off??? Is the payment written down? is it the gas usage or the maintenance costs or just general use? Frankly what yr did this occur, what were the guidelines/codes during that time? What constitutes business VS personal use? Do not depend upon some liberal rag making headlines to guide your insightful intellect...they have been proven wrong time and time again....Rumor Has It!

 

is it the gas usage or the maintenance costs or just general use? it is an automobile/truck expense and they are to be detailed in other deductions ( and also cannot be taken by an employee as an automobile mileage deduction if the employer reimburses the employee for his real expenses) . and Ideal on lease writeoffs? Nope as we never lease equipment . Get a tax specialist, Trump sure could of used some advice from a tax specialist and work on your spelling, Gomer. Yeah so looking at the indictments, Trump and Gang are criminals that cheated on a daily basis. Good luck supporting Crooks, it is all you have left. PS Allen's wife was provided a vehicle by Trump and Co? I hope Allen gets the max, he will love General Population in prison. Rumor has it they have space for Trump in the same Hell hole Allen will be spending his last days on earth.

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ohh put a sock in it...Do you even have any ideal how to amortize a lease write off??? Is the payment written down? is it the gas usage or the maintenance costs or just general use? Frankly what yr did this occur, what were the guidelines/codes during that time? What constitutes business VS personal use? Do not depend upon some liberal rag making headlines to guide your insightful intellect...they have been proven wrong time and time again....Rumor Has It!

 

What constitutes business VS personal use? Yeah living in a rent free apartment within miles of the business. You need an answer? Trump and Co got nailed for scamming. Trump can shove a sock in his cake hole as nothing but BS comes out of it.

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

I speak to the US govt beaurcrats abusing the legal system, you speak to Trump abusing the tax system. Interesting commentary. Let us have a frank discussion, 90% of US citizens in some manner of form bend the tax regs, I should like to know how many citizens report there frivolous gains visiting the casino's...plzz Turbguy think.

Quote

 

No.

I speak to #45 abusing the legal system.

He learned well from Roy Cohn.

I don't bend the regs. 

Perhaps you do. What's your SS Number?  I can always use the IRS's "finders fee".

Gambling gains are balanced against gambling losses.  If (at Casino's) you have and use their "club card", they keep track of that for you.

Payers are only required to report and withhold on winnings in excess of $5000 (perhaps increased recently).

Edited by turbguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Absolute nonsense. He was allowed to submit evidence and affidavits but did not do so. 

Not what he says, and i believe him over the NY Supreme ct any day. The opportunity was the hearing, where they DIDN'T allow the affidavits to be presented but claimed he had an opportunity to do so, which was a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, 0R0 said:

Not what he says, and i believe him over the NY Supreme ct any day. The opportunity was the hearing, where they DIDN'T allow the affidavits to be presented but claimed he had an opportunity to do so, which was a lie.

He only needed to attach the affidavits to the response he filed where he claimed to have said affidavits. It wouldn't be all that surprising to find out the Rudy wasn't smart enough to figure that out. He probably mailed them to Four Seasons Total Landscaping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

This astonished me, and made me very proud of the leaders of our military.

This may not seem like a big deal, but I’ve never heard of anything like it.

It’s a respectful but firm statement (to the Commander in Chief, from the officers who report to him), that they would not permit him to interfere with the results of the constitutional process.

If it meant nothing to #45, you can be sure that his VP understood it very clearly.

It is also very sad that this had to be written...

 

JCS Message to the Joint Force JAN 12 21.pdf

Edited by turbguy
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

Not what he says, and i believe him over the NY Supreme ct any day. The opportunity was the hearing, where they DIDN'T allow the affidavits to be presented but claimed he had an opportunity to do so, which was a lie.

Why would any reasonable person believe what emanates from a lawyer's mouth outside of a court room?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, turbguy said:

A huge fraction of the time, that's easy to determine.

Smiles, ok Turb. When I'm in the city 5 days a week and commuting to work, is that business or personal? Smiles trap question do you understand the nature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.