Lawrence O’Donnell Asks Tax Attorney If Romney May Be Hiding A Felony In His Tax Returns

VIDEO here: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lawrence-odonnell-asks-tax-attorney-if-romney-may-be-hiding-a-felony-in-his-tax-returns/

On MSNBC tonight, Lawrence O’Donnell raised a rather provocative question on his show tonight: did Mitt Romney participate in an IRS amnesty program in 2009, and was his refusal to report it a felony? He brought this up in the context of the renewed scrutiny of Romney’s tax returns after the recent allegations made against him by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. --snip--

2 replies, 874 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

2 replies	Author	Time	Post
Lawrence O’Donnell Asks Tax Attorney If Romney May Be Hiding A Felony In His Tax Returns (Original post)	Tx4obama	Aug 2012	OP
Good coverage Lawrence...nt	BootinUp	Aug 2012	#1
2009 IRS amnesty--Is this what Mitt meant when he said	ProgressiveEconomist	Aug 2012	#2

Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 12:09 AM

BootinUp (25,613 posts)

1. Good coverage Lawrence...nt

Reply to this post

Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:13 AM

ProgressiveEconomist (5,077 posts)

2. 2009 IRS amnesty--Is this what Mitt meant when he said

he had been "audited"?

Think of the timing. After the first Tuesday of November 2008, Romney knew he'd be running for President this year. He would have wanted to clean up anything in his just-scrutinized-in-VP-vetting tax records that could leak about felony tax evasion or borderline foreign tax havens. He could have availed himself of the 2009 IRS amnesty under assurances from his accountants that nothing untoward could leak except via Romney's own future disclosures.

Past amnesty for felony tax evasion would be an excellent reason to refuse absolutely any further disclosure of tax records. Can you think of a better reason, short of admitting to felonies that the IRS had not already forgiven?

Reply to this post