"Zero tax in 2009" theory - 2009 is the year Romney is afraid to show, before and after are ok

[Liberal_in_LA]

What's Romney Hiding in His Tax Returns?

Last night, I had dinner with some (non-Bain) private equity executives and took the opportunity to quiz them on the topic and test my own theories about Romney’s tax returns. Let me emphasize that I have no idea what is in those returns and neither did anyone I spoke with. What follows is unfounded, though not implausible, speculation. The most intriguing scenario that emerged about what could be lurking in those returns is as follows:

When the stock market collapsed in 2008, the wealthiest investors fared worse than everyone else. (See, for instance, this Merrill Lynch study.) The “ultra-rich” — those with fortunes over $30 million — fared worst of all, losing on average about 25 percent of their net worth. “There was really nowhere to hide as an investor in 2008,” Merrill Lynch’s president of global wealth management pointed out in 2009. “No region ended the year unscathed.”

As a member of the ultra-rich, Romney probably wasn’t spared major losses. And it’s possible that he suffered a large enough capital loss that, carried forward and coupled with his various offshore tax havens, he wound up paying no U.S. federal taxes at all in 2009. If true, this would be politically deadly for him. Even assuming that his return was thoroughly clean and legal — a safe assumption, it seems to me — the fallout would dwarf the controversy that attended the news that Romney had paid a tax rate of only 14 percent in 2010 and estimated he’d pay a similar rate in 2011.

The “zero tax in 2009? theory — again, this is sheer speculation — gains further sustenance when you consider it’s the only year for which nobody knows anything about Romney’s taxes. He’s revealed what’s in his 2010 and 2011 returns; and he reportedly submitted 20-some years’ worth of returns to the McCain campaign when he was being vetted for vice president in 2008. Steve Schmidt, McCain’s chief strategist in that campaign, said on MSNBC last night that while he didn’t examine Romney’s returns himself, nothing that McCain’s vetters found in them disqualified Romney from consideration.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-17/whats-romney-hiding-in-his-tax-returns

[pinto]

1. Sounds plausible to me, financially and politically.

(disclaimer) I'm no economist, but the simple scenario outlined here makes sense.

[n2doc]

2. I just gotta believe it is worse than that.

I think there is fraud involved. He could spin 2009 as 'well, I lost a ton of money that year so of course I didn't pay taxes then'. The compliant MSM would cover for him and it

[SoutherDem]

3. I think that is one of the problems

but I think there are many others. IF we could just see the same number as he gave McCain I think the whole picture would become crystal clear.
Either he did something wrong (legally) which I don't think he would have taken that chance, or
he did something wrong (ethically) which I think is most likely, or
He did nothing wrong.

But he won't release or at least so far hasn't released them so we will never know.

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. A possibility...I think it's also the UBS amnesty that's at issue

If you have to admit that you volunteered for an AMNESTY program (where the amnesty is for federal felony tax evasion), I have to believe you're sunk deeper than Gary Hart on the Monkey Business.

[cbdo2007]

5. correct, this is much more damaging and plausible than this "zero taxes in 2009" stuff.

[Liberal_in_LA]

7. is the amnesty application part of the tax return?

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. It would have to be an amended return filed with the IRS

Since the amnesty payments went into Treasury.

I'm not exactly clear on what the mechanics of the amnesty program were (since I didn't have millions stashed in a Swiss bank!), but any moneys enter treasury that way would have to be through an amended return as far as i know. It would actually stick out like a sore thumb when he released his 2009s.

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. The amnesty window closed Oct 15, 2009 for that round

(another round was offered in 2011).

This would have been a payment to the US Treasury, so likely an amended 2008 return with taxes paid being noted on a 2009 return.

[rufus dog]

6. What a bullshit article

First off the rich fared worse than most, (looks like registration is required to download the referenced doc) the rich did not fair the worst, did the lose the most amount of money, fuck yes, due to the fact that they have the far largest percentage of the money but not as a percentage of wealth.

This is a trial ballon that will be used as an attempt to close the case. I wouldn't fucking care if he paid zero taxes in 2009 due to huge carryover losses in 2008. But I am not going to fall for the BS that it was a one time event, and that is what this article is trying to argue.

[grantcart]

9. I downloaded the link without problem

You are missing the point of the author

And it’s possible he suffered a large enough capital loss that, carried forward and coupled with his various offshore tax havens, he wound up paying no U.S. federal taxes at all in 2009

Revelations that Romney paid no taxes two years ago and then made 43 million the next year when the stock market rebounded would end any chance that he could be elected.

[rufus dog]

11. I read it again

(The link to the article worked, I didn't want to sign up for the report on High Net Worth from CapGemini - went ahead and downloaded this time)

Anyway, I still believe the purpose is to have a back up plan and release one year only if pushed, if that only shows that he had the carried forward losses from 2008 and no taxes they will gloss over it saying it was a one time event due to the crash in 2008.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem if it was a one time event, (disregarding that the 15% rate is B.S.) but I don't believe it is a one time event, I believe it will likely be consistent on all returns going back years and that he needs to release multiple years.

[grantcart]

10. This is what its all about.

He carried forth huge loses from capital loses and knows that he can't explain it to the average working guy.