The New York Times explained why Trump wanted immunity from audits by the IRS. Before his first presidency, Trump appears to have had a tax liability of nearly $80 million. The IRS claimed that he used the same business failure twice to decrease his tax debt.
The new exemption from audits that he gave himself saves him what he owed, which would now be nearly $100 million. It’s not clear whether he will ever again be audited by the IRS.
The Times reported:
A tax audit that President Trump has been fighting since his peak earning days as a television celebrity was most likely wiped away in this week’s settlement with the Justice and Treasury Departments.
The agreement, part of a resolution to an unusual lawsuit that Mr. Trump and his sons filed against the Internal Revenue Service, frees the president from a potential adverse ruling that could have cost him more than $100 million, according to an analysis of his tax returns in 2020 by The New York Times.
Two years ago, Mr. Trump’s middle son, Eric Trump, acknowledged to The Times that the audit remained active. During his father’s first term in office, the matter was put on hold, records obtained by The Times showed.
It is unclear whether the matter was placed on hold again during the president’s current term or was resolved. If it was still pending until this week, the increased interest and penalties would have grown significantly.
Mr. Trump has always argued that he did nothing wrong in the way he filed his tax returns.
The audit dated back to a $72.9 million tax refund that Mr. Trump claimed, and received, starting in about 2010. The total reflected all the federal income tax he had paid, plus interest, for 2005 through 2008, his greatest earning years as the star of his reality show, “The Apprentice.”
Mr. Trump justified the refund claim by declaring huge business losses — a total of $1.4 billion from his core businesses for 2008 and 2009 — that tax laws had prevented him from using in prior years, The Times previously reported.
Records obtained by The Times did not itemize the business losses. But two of the largest-scale projects of Mr. Trump’s career — his long-failing casinos and his money-losing tower in Chicago — appeared to be behind the biggest numbers. In both cases, Mr. Trump made the argument that his interest in those projects met the tax code definition of worthlessness.
In 2008, with sales on his new Chicago condo-hotel tower lagging far behind projections, Mr. Trump claimed that he had so much debt on the project that he would never see a profit. That move resulted in Mr. Trump reporting losses as high as $651 million for the year, The Times and ProPublica found.
The I.R.S. has argued that he, in effect, tried to write off the same losses on the Chicago tower twice.
During his first campaign, Trump contended that it was “smart” to avoid taxes. He may be the first billionaire to skip them altogether.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
He’ll get away with it only if it survives the courts. Not sure how the SCOTUS will rule on it if/when it gets to them.
LikeLike
❝If only I had thought of that …❞
— Al Capone
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. What happens when the highest court in the land gives assists to utter criminality?
Well, this kind of thing.
LikeLike
This NYT article was a perfect addition to the NYT’s resident “legal” expert – Adam Liptak – giving the NYT stamp of legitimacy to Trump’s actions in his “news analysis” today, where Liptak NYT-splains to readers that “Trump’s $1.8 Billion Fund TESTS Constitutional Limits”.
“TESTS” because Liptak wants the world to know that even the so-called liberal NYT recognizes that regardless of whether or not you like what Trump is doing, it very well could be perfectly fine! NO ONE KNOWS!
The NYT’s official take is that Trump’s worst actions are like someone taking a test where there is NO RIGHT ANSWER! Whether it is shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, declaring himself all powerful, ordering the DOJ to go after his enemies and fire anyone who objects, it’s very important that the public understand that “even the liberal NYT” says that the answer to the test – whether or not all this is perfectly legal and constitutional – is something no one can know.
But it is so very “brave” and “admirable” (sarcasm intended here) that the reporters at the NYT write what they are absolutely positive are very courageous articles like this one that explains WHY Trump is doing something readers may not like that the NYT has made clear might be completely fine for a president to do. No one knows! The NYT wants readers to understand there is no answer to the test that can ever be knowable, even to their resident legal expert.*
Yes, thank you to the NYT for writing up the absolutely shocking news that Trump wanted immunity from audits because it financially benefitted him!! Boy, no American knew that! How very brave of the NYT to tell Americans what they already knew. But some people probably mistakenly thought what Trump was doing was illegal, when the NYT just doesn’t know if it is. After writing such a very brave article about Trump’s motives (to benefit himself!) no wonder the NYT wanted to make sure the public understood that no one knows whether there’s anything wrong with that! It’s just a huge mystery!*
*Caveat – it’s a big mystery and unknowable UNLESS a tipping point of Republicans agree it is wrong, because the NYT’s definition of “evidence” to support what is true boils down to: “are enough Republicans who Trump hasn’t already labeled as deranged Trump-haters going on record to say it’s wrong? Because only then is it wrong.”
None of us should hold our breaths that’s going to happen, and until then, what Trump is doing might be reprehensible, but (according to the liberal newspaper of record) it is simply unknowable as to whether Trump’s action are legal and constitutional.
It’s revealing that the NYT has no problem characterizing Trump’s motives and presenting evidence for Trump’s motives, as if Trump’s motives can be determined. While at the same time the NYT is legitimizing a fascist-enabling narrative that determining whether something blatantly unconstituional IS unconstitutional is beyond the ability of a NYT legal reporter. It’s not about “evidence” – it’s about whether Republicans think so or not.
LikeLike