General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsso what do you think is in those tax returns
I say he didn't pay for a couple of years and there is no coming back from that.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)And he doesn't want his new dumbass buddies to find out about it.
C_U_L8R
(45,001 posts)that would be funny
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)unique tax shelters most Americans won't understand (like his horse)
profits from companies that are involved in abortion services
Other stuff I can't even think of, the low tax rate is just the tip of the iceberg.
moondust
(19,979 posts)Felony material?
patrice
(47,992 posts)i.e. who else is making deposits to his FOREIGN accounts.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)It's possible that he only tithed on his US income. God doesn't give exclusions for income from sources outside the US.
patrice
(47,992 posts)tax free, because they are a church.
If he did that, it'd be real interesting to see how much of what corporations the Mormons MAY have either kept or sold their interests in, which we won't know exactly because that will be on their own tax filings, but it'd be interesting to know who received that kind of opportunity.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Between his miraculous 100m 401k and his assets in offshore tax havens (whoops forgot to add the 77k dressage horse and similarly abusive deductions) there is a very good possibility he paid no tax at all for quite a few years.
If he won't release more than two years of his tax returns maybe he'll just answer this question. Have you filed a return with zero federal income tax liability in the last 20 years?
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)see his total income during those years. Money is obviously very important to him.
Solomon
(12,310 posts)You gotta actually pay something to get a refund.
Maraya1969
(22,479 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)it will show he considered his residency to be in Utah, not Mass as he claimed he lived there for at least 7 years so he could weasel his way into a governorship. Then there are those medicinal horses, which I think is a lot of poppycock. And he probably paid less than 14% on his income and people will understand that is a very low rate. Then it might show how many other countries he invests in rather than invest in the US, which he would rather bleed to death than invest in. Evil donations for sure, the kind not even rabid RWers would like. I think the fetus disposal business is probably the least of his worries, maybe he even donated to NOW, the RWers won't have that for sure. Maybe he even claimed more dependents than he actually has, who knows this guy is a weasel can't put anything past him.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)Blaukraut
(5,693 posts)FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I also suspect he's been giving the impression of being less rich than he actually is...as in he's really a billionaire. Combine those, and you have a billionaire that's paying little to no taxes. Result: candidacy flushed down the toilet (amidst a sigh of relief that tar and feathers have gone out of style).
former9thward
(31,997 posts)But he couldn't be a billionaire because he has released his 2010 return. That would show his wealth.
trof
(54,256 posts)Hey, it was a money maker with EXCELLENT returns to investors.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)I hope he sticks to his guns with not releasing being less damaging than the answer.
But, I agree - deferred interest carryover filings with <10% taxes paid.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)sort of fraud, too.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)and so far has released only an estimate. We're more than half way through the year and still waiting. What gives?
As far as the previous years are concerned, I have no idea. My guess is that he paid virtually no taxes in certain years, even less than the 13.9 percent in 2010. I do think 2009 may be a problematic year for him. If 2009 were like 2010, he would have released that return to avoid controversy. But if something is problematic about 2009, it would not only make him want to keep that year private, but it would prevent any other returns being released because of the noticeable gap in tax returns it would create. What happened in 2009 and if the return is just like 2010 was, why not at least release that, too?
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)That allowed people to fess up as to their offshore tax havens at a fraction of the taxes due and no penalty.
2009 is my top pick, with 2008 close behind.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)Thanks for the info about the tax amnesty. I didn't consider that and it sounds interesting.
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)But if it was something illegal, why doesn't the IRS know about it. Would they not take a second look given recent events? Is there a reason they would ignore problems with his returns?
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)but highly unethical/questionable.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)RedStateLiberal
(1,374 posts)(according to him). Just think how out of touch he'd look for getting at least $100,000 a year salary for three years for no work (as he claims).
spin
(17,493 posts)Romney might be laying a trap. He could let the media and the Obama camp go wild for a month or so or even wait until the debates when Obama challenges him to release the forms. He then do so and might simply laugh when after the media searches through the documents the results merely only show he is a very rich but charitable man who had some perfectly legal offshore accounts.
Offshore Business Bank Accounts
It is not illegal to have foreign bank accounts. In fact, there are many legitimate reasons for U.S. taxpayers to maintain offshore accounts. Some of our many clients have inherited accounts from relatives. Others may be hedging their investments in foreign currencies as part of an overall investment strategy, and still others may have established the accounts to protect their familys assets while they were fleeing from oppressive regimes abroad.
Regardless of the reason these funds are being held overseas, taxpayers must disclose the existence of their foreign accounts, and report any income derived from them to the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS is pursuing offshore tax evasion in earnest. Pressure can only be expected to increase on U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed foreign accounts. A Voluntary Disclosure provides U.S. taxpayers with previously undisclosed offshore accounts a way to avoid the harshest penalties and potential criminal prosecution.
http://www.newjersey-tax-lawyer.com/practices/Offshore-Accounts/
Of course Romney could be hiding something serious and if he is and it is discovered he never will become President.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)More income than expected and a tax rate close to 10% after deductions.
Bucky
(54,003 posts)Not financial evidence indicating Romney's role in the death (or at least corporeal disposal) of a deceased prostitute. My theory is that the sheer physical heft of his financial statement, along with the paperwork backing up all the claims, exemptions, and evasions he made to horde his money, is so voluminous that he was able to actually bury a dead women (or rugby player) in it.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)At least for those years and maybe a few before. I don't know what the MA open records laws would allow a reporter to find. I just can't imagine, if those tax returns had any problems, it wouldn't be in the IRS records. Also, whatever state he's claimed residence in that has state income taxes, would have records.
I understand that it would be considered foul play for OFA to cross the line although I believe GWB crossed many lines during his reign, to take a look at those 23 years or whatever is in question in the IRS records.
Although i'm not sure that they keep them that long, some place has them on file... for many purposes. Such as getting a bailout, getting compensation from his corporations, and a whole string of things. I'll be we have some DU members who understand this.
But frankly, I don't think this line of attack, while we're enjoying it, is going to result in much for OFA. Because Americans are known for trying to get out of paying with deductions, etc. and some may feel, some common ground with Mittens. I think more focus on Bain is needed. The right is always making their case, which is a bad one but works on their base, that the Democrats are about taxes and nothing else.
I believe the deficit issue is a false one, no matter how much screaming is done. Because deficits get ignored, Bush and Co. sure as hell said they didn't mean a thing. And during times of disasters either man-made or not, the important thing is the LIVING. Not DEAD things. I don't even believe we have a deficit in the terms that it's generally expressed. We have a MORAL DEFICIT.
We have not addressed what is happening and I don't mean the SHAM morality of the pro-life movement. We are killing each other and the planet. We are destroying so many things that are infinitely more valuable than our economic system.
Back to the taxes. I think they can used to show for some that Romney and this vulture system hurts them. that they are not making it because of it. I think the Democratic Party is best able to make this argument. The GOP has fought and is continuing to fight us AGAINST EVERY SINGLE THING that provides LIFE for Americans and the world for JUST MONEY.
We need to make this about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY. I believe the Bain issue, as Krugman says, is the main tool to use. This is the debate that Obama has said needs to happen. And it does, this country needs to decide about the haves and have nots NOW. Are we are nothing but a predatory, greedy nation that preys on everything and everyone? Is this what we really are?
JMHO.
Igel
(35,300 posts)-- People would be surprised at how much he donated to the church. It's one thing to be a Mormon. It's another to give them $10 million in stock.
-- His returns for those years may not have been separate from his wife's. And he doesn't want to hand over his wife's returns (and properly so--they're nobody's business).
-- His returns show dealings that are contractually obligated to be kept secret. If he can't get a waiver from the other parties, he's stuck.
Some others seem plausible:
Between tax write-offs and special rules for the income from his position (active or not) at Bain, I'd image that the US portion of his adjusted earned income might be relatively low in at least one year.
Other portions may be listed by where they originate, and perhaps he figures nobody would like if he had legal, but in hindsight evil, dealings with some place like Libya.
And then there are the losses that he almost certain had in some places. After all, this is 1999, 2000, and 2001. What was going on? NASDAQ crash and first NYSE crash in 2000. Recession in 2001, with the finale of the NYSE crash that began, slightly recovered, and concluded the following year.