What if they’re only “loaned” for the publicity?
Not that I believe for a second that the clothing is loaned.
You’re basically right, but it could get complicated. For example, if you never take ownership of the clothes and merely wear them a couple of times while on TV for what you call promotional purposes… It’s hard to tell exactly what you’d call the value received there.
[QUOTE=dracoi]
You’re basically right, but it could get complicated. For example, if you never take ownership of the clothes and merely wear them a couple of times while on TV for what you call promotional purposes… It’s hard to tell exactly what you’d call the value received there.
[/QUOTE]
(Emphasis added)
And now we’ve plausibly explained the audits!
I’m not an accountant, so I’m clearly only guessing here, but it seems to me that if he made a case that wearing clothing from his line was required as part of the branding deal, then the clothing wouldn’t be considered income. Just like if a factory provides uniforms for workers the value of the uniforms is not considered income.
What if you have “BERNIE!” tattooed on your forehead? Is that a charitable contribution, or just 'tarded?
I don’t buy it. He’d never wear the crap he sells.
Well, surely they produce a range of items, from lousy-but-overpriced all the way up to fine-but-way-overpriced? And surely very few people buy the high-end stuff?
And surely he can wear the high-end stuff as a walking advertisement?
I believe that entertainers can claim the cost of their clothing regardless of what type it is. So while he was on ‘The apprentice’, he could get one of his companies to buy him $10,000 suits as a legit expense. Apart from that, there are probably plenty of brands that would give him or loan him stuff for free so that he can be photographed wearing it at a big event.
So yeah, his personal income could easily be under $500,000. When your public image is your business then absolutely everything you do in public, is business.