So show off. Quote the part of the tax code, which you have already researched, that supports you.
Should Mitt release his tax returns?
- Thread starter northeast
- Start date
So show off. Quote the part of the tax code, which you have already researched, that supports you.
I just use H&R Block, but they are fairly clear that they are responsible for the accuracy of the calculations, not for the validity of the content. Could you hire people to take that responsibility, at least financially?
Perhaps you could clarify exactly what you think I am condemning Romney for? I certainly don't think he is a tax attorney.
I was deeply offended that you were picking the lazy bullying bullsheet artist Franklin over me, based on absolutely nothing, after the reputable right wing source Forbes contradicted him, and wanted me to do more work, not him , the one who acted like the expert and therefore should have been able to clear things up easily. I hate reading tax code, it is painful, because it is so poorly written, and I don't claim expertise.
You do realize that at this point Franklin has admitted in his own Frankliny way that I was right all along, right?
This is a minor point that should have been settled in freaking 3 minutes, if Franklin just stated what he was talking about, but instead took 2 days because Republicans cheat, play semantic games, and fail to just be clear, logical, or have integrity. He just piled on one lie and misdirection after another, rather than just conceding one little point and moving on.
I have provided evidence in posts 266, 267, + 269.
However, the issue is whether there is anything in the source that supports what Franklin says. It is up to him to highlight that section, not me, because how am I supposed to know what part he supposedly is looking at?
Last edited:
[answering a q. directed at lefty]
The Law of America says that you are responsible for the tax returns you sign. Are you just playing devils advocate? You really think a billionaire is not responsible if he has an adviser do something illegal for him? He shouldn't know that that the people are reputable and capable? He shouldn't be aware of what they are doing, and raise questions or get second opinions if there is anything that seems questionable? You don't think it is possible that a client could ask an adviser to do something that is improper or pushing the envelope?
"Disallowed loss or credit carried to next year
Except as otherwise provided in this section, any loss or credit from an activity which is disallowed under subsection (a) shall be treated as a deduction or credit allocable to such activity in the next taxable year."
" In general
The term “passive activity” means any activity—
(A) which involves the conduct of any trade or business, and
(B) in which the taxpayer does not materially participate."
"If a closely held C corporation (other than a personal service corporation) has net active income for any taxable year, the passive activity loss of such taxpayer for such taxable year (determined without regard to this paragraph)—
(i) shall be allowable as a deduction against net active income, and
(ii) shall not be taken into account under subsection (a) to the extent so allowable as a deduction.
A similar rule shall apply in the case of any passive activity credit of the taxpayer."
"If during the taxable year a taxpayer disposes of his entire interest in any passive activity (or former passive activity), the following rules shall apply:
(1) Fully taxable transaction
(A) In general
If all gain or loss realized on such disposition is recognized, the excess of—
(i) any loss from such activity for such taxable year (determined after the application of subsection (b)), over
(ii) any net income or gain for such taxable year from all other passive activities (determined after the application of subsection (b)),
shall be treated as a loss which is not from a passive activity."
Except as otherwise provided in this section, any loss or credit from an activity which is disallowed under subsection (a) shall be treated as a deduction or credit allocable to such activity in the next taxable year."
" In general
The term “passive activity” means any activity—
(A) which involves the conduct of any trade or business, and
(B) in which the taxpayer does not materially participate."
"If a closely held C corporation (other than a personal service corporation) has net active income for any taxable year, the passive activity loss of such taxpayer for such taxable year (determined without regard to this paragraph)—
(i) shall be allowable as a deduction against net active income, and
(ii) shall not be taken into account under subsection (a) to the extent so allowable as a deduction.
A similar rule shall apply in the case of any passive activity credit of the taxpayer."
"If during the taxable year a taxpayer disposes of his entire interest in any passive activity (or former passive activity), the following rules shall apply:
(1) Fully taxable transaction
(A) In general
If all gain or loss realized on such disposition is recognized, the excess of—
(i) any loss from such activity for such taxable year (determined after the application of subsection (b)), over
(ii) any net income or gain for such taxable year from all other passive activities (determined after the application of subsection (b)),
shall be treated as a loss which is not from a passive activity."
Last edited:
The preceding are 4 excerpts from the code Franklin referenced, but failed to quote. The last one indicates that the passive loss can be applied not only to another passive activity, but to any income once they sell the horse, which is even more generous than I had assumed. There may be some special circumstances qualifying this I am not aware of (like subsection b?). Franklin is the one who represented himself as the tax expert, so it is up to him to explain those possible situations if he wants. Until he does, I am assuming that the Romney's will be able to write off any loss against some other income at some point.
I did not notice any discussion of hobbies in the section Franklin referenced as his source, although I did not read all the footnotes.
I would think that there is a possibility that the IRS could refute the classification of the horse as a business activity, but Franklin was not arguing this, nor did his referenced code discuss this.
I did not notice any discussion of hobbies in the section Franklin referenced as his source, although I did not read all the footnotes.
I would think that there is a possibility that the IRS could refute the classification of the horse as a business activity, but Franklin was not arguing this, nor did his referenced code discuss this.
Last edited:
Disregard this one, the next post is better.......
"Definition of 'Passive Activity Loss Rules'
A set of rules that prohibits using passive losses to offset earned or ordinary income. Passive activity loss rules prevent investors from using losses incurred from income-producing activities in which they are not materially involved.
Being materially involved with earned or ordinary income-producing activities means the income is active income and may not be reduced by passive losses. Passive losses can be used only to offset passive income"
quoted from www.investopedia.com
"Definition of 'Passive Activity Loss Rules'
A set of rules that prohibits using passive losses to offset earned or ordinary income. Passive activity loss rules prevent investors from using losses incurred from income-producing activities in which they are not materially involved.
Being materially involved with earned or ordinary income-producing activities means the income is active income and may not be reduced by passive losses. Passive losses can be used only to offset passive income"
quoted from www.investopedia.com
Last edited:
"Generally, the rule is that you can deduct passive losses to the extent that you have passive income from other activities"
https://taxguide.completetax.com/text/c60s10d399.asp
* for incomes > 100k
This was exactly my point, that Franklin disputed, to my recollection.
https://taxguide.completetax.com/text/c60s10d399.asp
* for incomes > 100k
This was exactly my point, that Franklin disputed, to my recollection.
Last edited:
All they have to do is prove that Ann participated materially in the business, and that she intends to make a profit doing it. They have a leg to stand on because the horse is now going to the Olympics and there is proof that they are going somewhere with this and that a profit is possible.
You are assuming it has to be treated as passive income, it does not.
I'm confused why people feel that the president should identify with and understand the average American citizen? Why is this important? Shouldn't it be more important that he knows how to fix the economy? Grow the middle class? Deal with foreign powers? I want the ****ing smartest man possible sitting behind the Resolute desk. Not the guy that I can sit down and have a beer and discuss college football with. If that's what you're looking for and keep electing we're screwed for sure.
You can deduct passive losses to the extent that you have passive gains that year, but the remainder of the loss can be carried forward and used in the coming years against passive gains.
I don't think it applies to what they are doing, but if they did not participate in the business it would be considered passive income/loss.
It's also similar to their other investment income/loss. Investment gains and losses can only be used to offset each other and not against ordinary income/loss. They must be living off of investment gains if they have such a low tax rate. They paid taxes on the ordinary income as they made it, and now they will pay the lower capital gains rate on the gains on those investments. That is the reason for their low tax rate, not because of other tax breaks. When/if he is making 400K in ordinary income as President that money will be taxed as ordinary income at whatever higher rate it works out to be, but his total tax rate will be lower because he will make much more money at the lower rate.
It's pretty basic stuff if you know what you are talking about and how the tax code works.
Just taking a basic look at the numbers people are reporting for his taxes in 2010, I don't have any issues with it.
No , I specifically said it could possibly be challenged as a passive LOSS, not that I am expecting it to be.
Their tax return and Franklin are the ones assuming it is a passive loss.
The one tax return partially revealed has already been filed, it is not a hypothetical.
I have not seen the actual return myself, but it appears that the nature of the tax treatment has been declared.
Last edited:
Their low tax rate was largely due to the special treatment of some rich wall street types (including many who profited immensely in less than honorable ways off of the repeated bubbling up and subsequent crashing of the world economy ).
Also, their low tax rate, I would assume, is not applied to income that is sheltered from taxes using a variety of techniques, in the hundreds of millions at least. (As an illustration, suppose someone has gross income of 20 million, shelters 10 million, and pays 1.5 million in taxes. Then his tax rate is a low 15% , right? But he really only paid 7.5%. My point being that his tax rate is not really his tax rate.)
You are making it sound like it will look very innocent and ordinary if we knew the details. I think exactly the opposite is true. If we had more details, people would be amazed and resentful over the ways they avoid taxes on income and the quantities involved, and it would definitely be more than just basic stuff, and this is why he is not going back farther.
Last edited:
Yes. Obama did. Why can't Mitt?
You are claiming something you don't know.
It was reported (estimated for 2010 and 2011), and I am rounding here, he earned 42 million, he will pay 6.2 million in taxes for a rate of around 12.5%.
He will pay over 7million in charitable contributions, which probably helped drop the effective tax rate down from 15 to where it got to 13.9 or whatever it is estimated to be.
You are saying if I understand correctly that you think he earned/will earn much more than the 42 million and that he has it in some sort of illegal tax shelter and will not have to pay tax on that while it is in the shelter. I don't think so. Prove it. I think the IRS looks out for that stuff, and I also don't think Mitt would do that, let alone be dumb enough to do that and then try to run for president when he knows he will be looked at under the microscope.
Because people are jealous bitches and don't want someone so wealthy to be rewarded further.
Spazz, I didn't say avoiding taxes was illegal. I am just saying his critics would have a lot more to work with if we saw the years when he built his fortune.
Why did he have Swiss bank accounts? What other foreign accounts does he have? What about unrealized gains? What about retirement accounts? What else?
Furthermore, tax returns only tell us what was reported on his returns. Just because they are clean, does not mean he is clean. It is just a good place to start looking at what he is all about.
Why did he have Swiss bank accounts? What other foreign accounts does he have? What about unrealized gains? What about retirement accounts? What else?
Furthermore, tax returns only tell us what was reported on his returns. Just because they are clean, does not mean he is clean. It is just a good place to start looking at what he is all about.
Last edited:
Not sure what you mean, you have to be more specific. I agree that I do not know exactly what methods he uses to reduce the income he pays taxes on, and the quantities of same, and I'd like to learn more about this. I have heard that he has a retirement account in the hundreds of millions, and I assume "income" from that is not counted as part of his income for tax purposes. I think there are some questions regarding the appropriateness of contributions to his retirement accounts. I do know that unrealized gains are not counted as income. I wonder if he benefits by donating appreciated assets to charity, and if so , by how much. I think there would be lots more to talk about if I knew more about his finances regarding effective tax rates, and what they do not take account of.