Grand Jury to hear evidence against Trump, weigh potential charges

Politics & Elections
161

What’s your basis for saying this? If it’s correct that he got substantial off-the-books payments and things-in-kind, and his on-the-books pay was reduced accordingly, and neither he nor Trump Org reported the substantial off-the-books payments, that sounds like a tax evasion scheme, not some oversight or sloppy bookkeeping. According to the indictment, the effect of that scheme was that $900,000 in taxes were not paid.

The AP article (thanks, Aspenglow) also gives other recent examples of businesses which were prosecuted for hiding compensation and avoiding taxes.

162

As most of us here have concluded for a while I guess, Trump is no businessman; he’s constantly searching for new sources of cash. He went from legitimate loans, then (most) banks cut him off. He then went to junk bonds, and has probably run out of options on that front. He’s now down to dealing with shady bank networks that involve banking operations in Russia, Cyprus, Malta, the Caribbean, and so forth.

163

I’d go further: Most defendants wouldn’t be in a position to appoint the head of the IRS to deny compliance with a subpoena that is quite routine and in fact enshrined in the code as “shall”, forcing the Congress and Mr. Vance to take the matter to the courts, including the Supreme Court, twice. And even then, SCOTUS protected him by not issuing its final ruling until Trump was out of office.

I think we know who should be ashamed, but he’s incapable of shame.

164

That’s a good article, but it fails to mention a couple of things. Yes companies routinely give high level executives perks like personal travel on corporate planes, but the value of that trip is still taxable income and still needs to be reported. It’s called a “perk” because the executive isn’t paying for the value of the trip itself, the company is. But the employee is still liable for taxes on it.

I owned a very small (one person) incorporated business for years. I owned a car that I used mostly, but not exclusively for work and I made the payments from the company checking account. My office was located in my apartment and I paid the entire electric bill from the company account. When I traveled on business, I sometimes stayed an extra day or two.

But every year, I declared, as income, a dollar value for officer perks. And it wasn’t a small number, either. It was usually a five figure number and I always complained about it. But I paid taxes on that, just like I would’ve if I’d gotten a check for that amount.

Real “Perks” are given in addition to salary. They may be specified in a contract or they might be handed out in an organized or even a capricious manner as incentives, rewards or gifts.

Now, when your salary is initially negotiated, you might accept a lower number if there are good perks involved.

But that’s not what Trump was doing. A legitimate “perk” might be - You take your family to Hawaii on our corporate jet. Even though you’re going to have to pay taxes on the value of the plane ride, the ride itself is free to you. That’s why it’s a perk, the employee is getting a plane ride for a fraction of the actual cost.

A Trump Org perk - which is not really a perk- would be : You take your family to Hawaii on our corporate jet. The ride is not free to you, you have to pay back every penny to us. But you don’t have to pay taxes on the value of the ride, whereas if we’d given you the same money to hire a plane yourself, you’d have to pay taxes on it.

This is not a perk, you got nothing free, you just got to avoid taxes.

165

These arguments are had all of the time. If my company sends me to Vegas for a week to go to a conference, and they pay for my hotel, food, entertainment, booze, etc. when does that cross the line from a business expense to an in-kind contribution? Tax lawyers make a living arguing over that.

Vance took him to court in the middle of election season and speculation was that we would see Russian cash going into his pockets, hand paid by Putin, but after all of this, we see an allegation of tax evasion against this old man? It is simply abusive. If you piss the state off, it could happen to any of us.

166

I’d say systematic and ongoing while keeping a separate ledger to account for the tax evasion pretty clearly crosses the line. Because something doesn’t reach the most egregious levels of illegality doesn’t mean that the abuses that have been uncovered aren’t also serious.

167

Rich people get away with a whole lot. If you did work for him, good luck getting paid. If he defaulted on an obligation to you, good luck getting recompense.

What they can’t get away with is screwing over other rich people. Or banks. They actually do have the resources to hold him accountable.

Maybe in a metaphorical sense, he is a god, and we are mere mortals. But, in that metaphor, he’s pissed off the other gods, the real gods. (In fact, kinda reminds me of the episode of Critical Role where “The Traveler”, who has been passing himself off as a god, claims to be an avatar of one of the real gods, and very quickly he, the party, and his followers suddenly learn the power of a real god.)

168

$359,058 for school tuition for two of his grandkids doesn’t sound like a business expense.

169

I’m not sure what the age of the man has to do with it. Lots of old men are in prison.

170

That’s not what the Trump Organization did. That’s nothing close to what the Trump Organization did. That’s what they are trying to make people think they did, but what they did doesn’t involve perks. Once again, they are taking advantage of the fact that the general public is ignorant when it comes to corporate tax law.

They didn’t give Alan Weisselberg any perks, just like the cashier at the Food Lion doesn’t give me my groceries as a perk. He paid for them. He paid the Trump Organization the value of every single thing he received.

There was only ONE reason for them to give Alan Weisselberg stuff instead of the money to buy stuff. If they had given him the money to buy his own stuff, he would’ve had to pay taxes on that money.

It’s grand larceny and tax evasion. New York City has incarcerated plumbers and diner owners for for doing the same thing on a smaller scale. I want them all locked up if they’re guilty, Trump or not Trump. I paid business taxes properly for the past 30 years. If I had evaded them, my retirement would be a lot nicer and more secure. I’m not going to hand wave this away for a diner owner or an ex-President.

171

Plus, if the prosecutors* can prove:

(1) that there were two sets of books,

(2) that Trump Org kept track of all the “perks” that Trump Org gave to Weisselburg, and

(3) that was used to reduce the taxable cash salary paid to Weisselburg,

(4) while not reporting the perks to the tax folks,

that’s not a “business expense”. That’s a conscious scheme to make off-the-books, non-taxable compensation to him.

When my office sends me to a convention, I don’t get any cash benefit from it, and it doesn’t affect my salary. Here, the “perks” are alleged to be in substitution for salary, and not reported.

  • personal note: I find it much easier to type “Crown” than “prosecutors” - I made five typing mistakes in that one word before I got it right.
172

That’s only relevant in this case if your company, as policy, tracked every penny you spent in Vegas and required you to reimburse them.

Which would probably have you screaming “Then that trip wasn’t a perk, dammit!” Which is exactly my point.

173

You’re absolutely right, UV.

If you as an employer pay your employee’s house payment or rent, groceries, school tuition for your employee’s children, car payments and such, all things that most people pay on an after-tax basis from salary, but your employee considers these payments undeclared “fringe benefits” for which he is not obliged to pay taxes, and you as the employer also keep a separate set of books that screams like a blinking neon sign, “in lieu of wages for my employee!” and from which he, the employee, removed notations from the books that said, “approved per me,” and then you as the employer run for a highly visible, much scrutinized political position such as, oh, say, president, and abuse your position as president in every imaginable way to prevent perfectly legitimate inquiries into your tax practices as an employer – after, it should be noted, having repeatedly promised to disclose your tax records once they were no longer “under audit” (a bullshit reason to prevent scrutiny if ever there was one) – then you, too, along with your employee who failed to pay taxes on obvious in-lieu-of-wages expenses, may piss off “the state” such that you and your employee, as average joes, could be investigated and charged for tax evasion.

Here’s a link to the indictment. I encourage you to read it to appreciate the full scope of what is asserted. It’s from the NY Times, but it’s a copy of the actual indictment, and they do permit a limited number of free views per month. It’s only 24 pages.

(Do I win Bulwer-Lytton?)

174

Doesn’t everyone do that? Sounds like a typical Thursday to me.

175

Yeah. That’s how I run my business, too. :roll_eyes:

176

But – but you don’t understand! He went after a Republican! Whatever happened to the IOWRDI doctrine?

177

I’m having a hard time taking what you are writing seriously and on face value. Are we reading the same indictment?

The indictment claims that these “cross the line” items include rent for his primary residence, lease payments for his and his wife’s personal cars, tuition for private schools for family members and in the case I mentioned beforehand basically just outright cash under the table. All of which appears to have been marked on internal spreadsheets as part of his compensation package (and deducted as such from his official “over the table” pay).

I think you’re saying that essentially everything is commonly considered a business expense? So if I get my employer to pay my mortgage payment, buy me and my family members personal cars and pay for my kid’s private school and college that’s a business expense and it would be outrageous for prosecutors to single me out for something that is commonly done?

I’m kind of shocked to hear that, so maybe you can clarify your position a little? I must be misunderstanding something. Otherwise it seems that your position is that the only income tax you should need to pay is on income that you add to savings every month? I did have an impression from other threads that you practiced law (I may be misremembering!), so I’m curious if this is advice you give your clients.

178

I mean, I get what you’re saying about travel. I’ve gone on plenty of business trips and been reimbursed with it not being considered taxable income. That seems normal to me, and I can understand why where it crosses the line might not be crystal clear. But you’re including basic, personal living expenses in your primary residence and family expenses in what you’re considering “normal”. Is it genuinely your position that the items in this indictment are still grey areas subject to plausible debate by tax lawyers, especially after marking it internally as compensation? I’d be very surprised if my company budgeted my hotel reimbursement for when I visit HQ as “Driver8 compensation” for example.

179

And there’s nothing saying Trump Org can’t make these payments and give low-rents apartments and pay for grandkids’ tuition, if they think Weisselberg is worth that much to the Trump Org

They can do all those things, so long as they mark it down on the books (the one and only set of books) as compensation, and issue the necessary tax forms to Mr W., and decleaste into their own tax returns.

180

whaaa?