Should Mitt release his tax returns?

[Stoked]

franklin, are you a CPA or something similar, or just full of it?

Yup cause only a "CPA or soemthing similar" would know about this issue.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Maybe you should be clear when you spout off nonsense. What did you mean then when you said Romney is worse than food stamp recipients?

I meant exactly what I said. I was clear that I didn't have a problem with Romney taking a tax deduction, but my problem was with him bitching about food stamp recipients while he did it.

 

[franklin]

We quoted the Forbes article. Give us the arcane quote from the pages of IRS gobblydygook that say otherwise. I looked , and I didn't see it, which means unless you can quote it, you are a liar.

Salty quoted part of a Forbes article, not you.

Forbes is not the IRS and has no interpreting authority or ability to determine whether the Romneys can legally take this as a passive income deduction or not. You need to show us where the authority says the Romneys can take the deduction, exactly how much for, and under what specific circumstances. We can begin analyzing this circumstance after you provide us the proper inputs, which should have been given on page one. Why didn't you provide us adequate information from the start instead of leading everyone on trying to make this sound as bad as you possibly could?

 

[northeast]

Gameface neg repped me....for calling Franklin a liar.
Franklin said Romney's can't deduct the losses from the fancy horse if it does not turn a profit.
I am open to learn, so show me a source for this.
Franklin ridiculed people for not having good sources.
We gave a source stating Franklin is wrong, Franklin gave a source which as far as I can tell is just obfuscation, and confirms our source.
If Franklin knows what he is talking about and is not lying, then he can easily show us where his source supports his statement.
Until he does that , he is just a liar.

 

[northeast]

Why didn't you provide us adequate information from the start instead of leading everyone on trying to make this sound as bad as you possibly could?

Why don't we start by having you show us where your source says that the Romney's won't be able to take a tax loss on the horse like you said?

 

[SaltyDawg]

Salty quoted part of a Forbes article, not you.

Forbes is not the IRS and has no interpreting authority or ability to determine whether the Romneys can legally take this as a passive income deduction or not. You need to show us where the authority says the Romneys can take the deduction, exactly how much for, and under what specific circumstances. We can begin analyzing this circumstance after you provide us the proper inputs, which should have been given on page one. Why didn't you provide us adequate information from the start instead of leading everyone on trying to make this sound as bad as you possibly could?

Actually the Forbes article I linked to was written by Janet Novack. I don't know what her credentials are, but her profile claims she is some sort of an expert. However, the relevant parts of the article (including the part I quoted) were from (their words, copied and pasted from the article) CPA Peter J. Reilly, who writes the Passive Activities blog on Forbes, and Chicago tax lawyer Robert E. McKenzie. I think they are certainly qualified to interpret IRS tax code for us peasants.

 

[One Brow]

I'm not sure I would agree. Romney is an executive, and is used to delegating liberal authority to various departments of his staff. They basically need to report back to him the success of their functions. If they were to simply say "we saved you an additional 0.3% below the level you paid for federal taxes last year", he probably won't say "how?" He'll say "COOL!" and take it.

And if they say "Mitt, you can still do that, but do it THIS way because it will be better for your taxes", I'm not sure he's going to ask why, or go into the details, or ask what particular method is being exploited, etc. His purpose is not to know tax avoidance strategies very well. His purpose is to allow his people to do their job, and then trust in their judgment so he can focus on other things like... winning elections... or something.

Last I checked, you acknowledge personal responsibility to the IRS for your tax returns. If Romney is not paying attention to how his taxes are managed, he's taking a big risk that way. I'm not going to vote for Romney anyway, but if he regularly allows others to mess with documents that he is personally responsible for, and does not pay attention to how they are altered, I think that is a bad sign for his Presidency.

 

[franklin]

I meant exactly what I said. I was clear that I didn't have a problem with Romney taking a tax deduction, but my problem was with him bitching about food stamp recipients while he did it.

I would agree with this had Romney been receiving government subsidies for his business or leisure activities. Expensing is a necessary part of business accounting and that's all we have here.

If you really want to rant about this then you should focus on the USDA being under budget pressure wanting to support prices by subsidizing producers & getting the money to do so by cutting food stamp expenditures. Really? Because giving money to the hungry doesn't let that money find its way to the producers all the same?

Why don't we start by having you show us where your source says that the Romney's won't be able to take a tax loss on the horse like you said?

I've asked you about a dozen times now to correct this error you're alleging. The only reason you persist in calling me a liar rather than showing where I was not accurate is because you don't believe what you're claiming.

 

[northeast]

Like somebody who can spend years as the CEO of company and then claim he had nothing to do with the actions of the company during that time.

 

[northeast]

The only reason you persist in calling me a liar rather than showing where I was not accurate is because you don't believe what you're claiming.

No, I wasted time reading pages of IRS mumbojumbo, because you were too lazy to reference what exactly you were talking about. Until you tell us where that reference does what you say it does , you are a liar.

 

[northeast]

Most of the pages of the reference were irrelevant.
The only relevant part I saw said exactly what the Forbes article said.
Why don't you read it , quote it , and explain something different?

 

[Stoked]

Gameface neg repped me....for calling Franklin a liar.
Franklin said Romney's can't deduct the losses from the fancy horse if it does not turn a profit.
I am open to learn, so show me a source for this.
Franklin ridiculed people for not having good sources.
We gave a source stating Franklin is wrong, Franklin gave a source which as far as I can tell is just obfuscation, and confirms our source.
If Franklin knows what he is talking about and is not lying, then he can easily show us where his source supports his statement.
Until he does that , he is just a liar.

You did no such thing. Salty did. Stop piggybacking on his work. You also insulted people for anything disagreing with you (franklin is dihonest, a liar...I'm a psycho...)

Using your own logic. Until you can proove your point you are nothing but a lying psycho.

 

[northeast]

No stoked, you have stated that you enjoy annoying people , not only here, but as part of your government job, so that you can get them in trouble with the police after you annoy them . I am just going by what you tell me and show me.

 

[Stoked]

No stoked, you have stated that you enjoy annoying people , not only here, but as part of your government job, so that you can get them in trouble with the police after you annoy them . I am just going by what you tell me and show me.

If that is the case then I suggest that you seek proffesional help.

 

[northeast]

This is a huge waste of time.
Suffice it to say, it appears Franklin was lying when he said that the Romney's will not be able to write off a loss on their horse on their taxes if it doesn't eventually turn a profit, and he used a bogus source instead of just being clear about what he was basing this on.

 

[Stoked]

This is a huge waste of time.
Suffice it to say, it appears Franklin was lying when he said that the Romney's will not be able to write off a loss on their horse on their taxes if it does eventually turn a profit, and he used a bogus source instead of just being clear about what he was saying.

Do you believe it yet?

 

[franklin]

No, I wasted time reading pages of IRS mumbojumbo, because you were too lazy to reference what exactly you were talking about. Until you tell us where that reference does what you say it does , you are a liar.

When this horse was dishonestly hyped as a hobby horse I took your position and addressed from the hobby horse pov:

The Romney story caught my eye because I am constantly telling my wife that we cannot deduct expenses for Patrick, the wonderful, but not Olympic caliber, dressage horse she rides. Why can Ann Romney deduct expenses for Rafalca while we cannot deduct expenses for Patrick? That raises one more question. Is the Romney activity actually an activity for profit, or is it a hobby? Does she actually intend for Rafalca to turn a profit? Would she actually sell Rafalca? I don’t doubt that Rafalca could be sold for a huge amount of money, but could she be sold for a profit? If the activity is a hobby, the Code limits the deduction by only allowing expenses to the extent of gains. Thus, if Romney’s activity is a hobby and not an ordinary and necessary business expense or an investment activity, she could not deduct losses in excess of gain.

--Donold Torbin, Ohio State University.

When the dishonest hobby horse hype fell on its face and the issue was turned into a business expense, I addressed it as such:

Now some have noted that the Romneys may still get the deduction because they can carry over the loss to future years. The Code provides that if an asset is fully sold, the loss generated from the activity, if it is an activity engaged in for profit, would not be a passive loss. Thus the Romneys will only get a large tax deduction from Rafalca, if Rafalca is sold at a loss and they actually suffer a loss. This raises the specter that taxpayers may ultimately be subsidizing Romney’s horse activity.

ibid

 

[Stoked]

Boom bitches...

 

[One Brow]

This is a huge waste of time.
Suffice it to say, it appears Franklin was lying when he said that the Romney's will not be able to write off a loss on their horse on their taxes if it doesn't eventually turn a profit, and he used a bogus source instead of just being clear about what he was basing this on.

Why not just quote the part of the law that allows Romney to offest his loss almost anywhere? That would be all the proof you need for your accusations.

I will not be voting for Romeny, but I think franklin is right on this issue.

 

[northeast]

because I did work, and Franklin just makes stuff up.
He tricked me into wasting my time reading IRS gobbledygook, which is one of the most unpleasant tasks in the world.
let him take the time to provide the quote.
Let Franklin read the IRS BS, and give us one iota of reason to believe that the Forbes quote is incorrect.
.
Also, I can't prove a negative. If Franklin really has some expertise, and it appears that he does, there may be something in the pages that negates the section that I read. It is also possible that there is something that is NOT in that section that negates that section under these circumstances. I nicely asked repeatedly for him to justify his conclusion, but he ignores most every post I make ,. and makes up new lies , misrepresentations, and distortions.

Franklin was the one that represented he had a source. Why is he too f'g lazy to highlight the section of his reference that supports his statement?

So seriously, you think that the Forbes quote is false, and Franklin is telling the truth , based on absolutely nothing except a reference to IRS tax code that I spent the time to look at and see that it confirmed the FOrbes article?