HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Is the answer in Willard'...

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:59 PM

Is the answer in Willard's 2009 return?

What is he hiding?

Well, the US Government announced an amnesty program in 2009 for US Citizens holding unreported assets in offshore accounts. From March 2009, these folks were given the option of a penalty-free (and reduced tax burden) fess-up period to tell the IRS about these accounts. The program closed on October 15, 2009 (but was offered again in 2011).

I think this is the white whale, folks: Willard took advantage of the amnesty and in releasing the 2008 and 2009 returns, we would know exactly how much he was previously shielding from the government by his disclosures. It also makes him "legal" again - as these accounts are now being reported.

Besides, the McCain vetting team would have only seen through 2007 - so 2008 and 2009 are two years NO ONE has seen until 2010 was released.

Information on the 2009 Amnesty:

Overview: http://www.mlhorwitzlaw.com/Articles/IRS-Amnesty-Program-for-Unreported-Offshore-Bank-Accounts.shtml

And extension to October 15, 2009: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/amnesty-deadline-extended-for-offshore-account-holders/

28 replies, 2986 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is the answer in Willard's 2009 return? (Original post)
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 OP
Jackpine Radical Jul 2012 #1
alcibiades_mystery Jul 2012 #8
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #10
Jackpine Radical Jul 2012 #21
alcibiades_mystery Jul 2012 #22
Jackpine Radical Jul 2012 #23
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #24
Jackpine Radical Jul 2012 #25
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #26
Jackpine Radical Jul 2012 #27
Jackpine Radical Jul 2012 #28
tk2kewl Jul 2012 #2
pnwest Jul 2012 #3
HereSince1628 Jul 2012 #4
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #5
HereSince1628 Jul 2012 #6
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #9
Blue Meany Jul 2012 #7
grantcart Jul 2012 #11
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #12
Laura PourMeADrink Jul 2012 #14
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #16
Laura PourMeADrink Jul 2012 #13
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #15
struggle4progress Jul 2012 #17
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #18
struggle4progress Jul 2012 #19
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #20

Response to Ruby the Liberal (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:15 PM

1. This is possible, but I personally find it unlikely--

simply based on Romney's personality. He's above the rules; there is zero chance (in his mind) that anyone would be able to harm him, so why would he seek an amnesty that required him to actually part with some of his oh-so-deserved-and-precious money?

As Leona Helmsley famously said, "Taxes are for the Little People."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 03:02 PM

8. You misunderstand the amnesty program

Romney certainly had accounts with UBS.

UBS was certainly going to report out those accounts in its deal with the federal government. It was literally a matter of whether UBS would be able to continue doing business in the US.

The amnesty was really a giveaway: everyone with a Swiss account should have been prosecuted. It was a one-time get out of jail free card, but only if you owned up immediately. The rich fuckers using UBS as a tax dodging strategy all gave it up because they knew the jig was up.

It's almost certainly the case that Romney was involved in the UBS amnesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #8)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 03:16 PM

10. I don't have up to date numbers,

But at the second link, in September of 2009, the estimate was that 3,000 US Citizens took advantage of the amnesty, and that was 22 days before it expired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #8)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 03:29 PM

21. You're being rather persuasive.

I sorta did understand the nature of the amnesty program, but didn't get it that others (i.e. other UBS stakeholders) would be in essence making the decision to take advantage of the amnesty for him.

I still bet that, left to his own devices, he would have relied on his belief in his own invulnerability & would have toughed it out, believing himself above the rules. After all, throughout his life, the rules have never applied to him. Why should he expect them to bite him now? (Or in the recent past?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #21)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 04:06 PM

22. That same character trait would be true of the vast majority of the 2009 amnesty takers

The first round of voluntary disclosure takers (the 2009 voluntary disclosure) was made up almost entirely of huge net worth individuals - billionaires, essentially, and those with many hundreds of millions, like Romney.

These were all people very much used to getting their way and never having to answer to anybody. At the very least, 4,500 or so people with the same character traits you attribute to Mr. Romney cried uncle, had their lawyers draft voluntary disclosure letters, amended their 2009 IRS filings, and paid the piper. They did so to avoid federal tax evasion charges that would surely come once UBS released the names.

So, if 4,500 high net worth, nobody-can-touch-me individuals came forward, why not Mr. Romney, too? Is he really so different from all the other ultra-rich. Or isn't he exactly like those 4,500?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #22)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 04:24 PM

23. I can't answer that on the basis of available information.

If I sent him a Personality Assessment Inventory, or maybe an MMPI-2, do you think he'd be willing to fill it out & return it?

I would do the scoring & interpretation for free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #23)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 04:32 PM

24. The count of those who took the amnesty is up to 34,500 now

Here is a great read on Willard and the tax dilemma that was published this morning. These guys lay out the 5 red flags they see ONLY in the 2010 return, and didn't even note that his FBAR wasn't included in the release (detail on tax haven holdings - Willard only released the fact he had one, not what it did). Even without that, they made a really good argument on why something stinks about this whole thing:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/18/opinion/kleinbard-canellos-romney-tax/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #24)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 04:51 PM

25. Ruby, you're a gem!

And a red gem at that.

Thanks for that article; it was fascinating reading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #25)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 05:28 PM

26. Glad you liked that!

I thought they did a really great job with it. It will definitely come in handy again as the drip drip keeps drip dripping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #26)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 05:42 PM

27. I love the smell of Republicans melting down in the morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #8)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 10:15 PM

28. After reading various pieces here and elsewhere,

I'm now entirely on board with the UBS amnesty theory, although I think there may be a few other goodies hidden in there as well. Very damning that he didn't release the part of his 2010 return that would have documented his taking advantage of the amnesty program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:15 PM

2. that is probably why Obama camp is asking "did he pay any taxes at all?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:21 PM

3. Thats the most plausible theory so far. Makes an

awful lot of sense!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:29 PM

4. It seems possible, still need the tax-return for evidence.

Being a participant in the amnesty would provide the opposition with an opportunity to narrate meanings onto it. That's just the sort of thing that Romney would call distortions and lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:35 PM

5. Did you notice his theme of "what the law required"?

Its how he answers questions about his disclosures, about paying taxes - he "did (paid) what the law required".

Not challenging that he did something illegal, I am saying that there is shady shit in there and I will bet good money the offshore amnesty is at the top of that list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #5)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:46 PM

6. IMO I think he did things that were legal, but are embarrassing for a presidential candidate

All those machinations to create tax-protections are legal, but not particularly patriotic or socially conscious.

And what if the Bishop and Ward President who judged whether people could get into Temple actually based his tithes on his tax-dodged income?

More and more embarrassment I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 03:13 PM

9. Exactly what I was driving at.

Not suggesting he did anything illegal (the IRS would have already been on that), but that his character is less than desirable for a "patriot" that wants to lead this country based on how he ran his "business" (and personal finances).

It isn't the amount of money he has, its the handout from the US government. Government handouts under the cloak of loopholes that allows him to pay a fraction in % than the rest of the country. Like bankrupting pension plans for monetary gain and allowing the PSGC (taxpayers) to pick up the tab.

"Free stuff"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:56 PM

7. Well, he hasn't denied it...

and "some people" are saying it's true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 03:42 PM

11. Its 2009 for different reasons.


Guys like Romney took huge capital loses in 2008 and could offset that in 2009 taxes so that he probably didn't pay any taxes that year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #11)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 08:09 PM

12. Indeed - that too.

Carryovers will play a huge part in 2009. Why I want to see both years.

An amended/final 2008 return would show the pre-10/15/09 amnesty filing, and 2009 will show both the loss carryover from 2008 AND taxes paid in 2008 on the amnesty accounts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 08:58 PM

14. That is why we need to keep this going every day. If some repukes are saying he should - gotta

get that so more and more repukes are saying it. If he doesn't cave then, it will be proof positive he
decided to "take his chances" and piss off his party rather than face the consequences of release of bad shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #14)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:20 PM

16. Ha! I wrote him a letter today encouraging him to stand his ground.

Now I just need to figure out how to get my "support" over to him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002964830#post2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 08:56 PM

13. So isn't saying that McCain might have known about the hidden assets. I know he didn't

have them on prior returns that McCain saw, but maybe he told him about it?

Na

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #13)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:18 PM

15. There is the 'we're both rich guys' clause that may have led to bragging,

but I doubt it. Plausible deniability (and self preservation - trust no one) would lend to him not discussing those accounts outside of the confines of his financial advisor's office - which is my guess.

All I know is that I don't want him to release squat yet. The question hanging in mid-air is much more entertaining in the press right now than the eventual (?) analysis will be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:42 PM

17. I'm guessin it's more likely to be in his 1999 return

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #17)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:54 PM

18. What is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #18)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 10:14 PM

19. It! The answer! Whatever Mitt is hidin!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #19)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 10:18 PM

20. Doh!

Sorry - thought you were talking about tax havens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread