How Harlan Crow Slashed His Tax Bill, By Taking Clarence Thomas On Superyacht Cruises

So you have no logical answer. Imagine my surprise!

YOU were the one saying Thomas was a bystander, now you're making a major character. Make your mind up.

 

Since you are already making up a fiction, of my not being able to offer a cogent explanation for your dubious confusion-- why don't you make up my mind, as well?


P.S.-- And, if you have time in the early afternoon, and feel inspired to it-- I wouldn't mind having someone make up my bed for me, as well.

 

I'm sorry you don't like the fact you have no rational or factual basis for your presumptions, but there's noting I can do about it.

 

Says the guy who admits he can only presume Thomas was influenced by Crow, but believes his presumption is therefore fact....

 

Since you are already making up a fiction.....

 

BREAKING NEWS!!
Supreme court judge goes on boat ride with friend while being black.
We must not let him get away with this!!!

 

So how exactly did Thomas slash Crow's tax bill?

 

You should really just scan through, and read the thread. This is an erroneous reading of the title or OP, in which others have preceded you, and been answered. For that matter, you have already asked this, previously, and had me answer you. Nowhere in this thread or linked article, does it say that Justice Thomas, personally slashed Crow's tax bill. The cruises, on which Crow took Thomas, however, were the basis of Crow's tax fraud-- along with other times that Crow sailed his yacht, w/out Thomas aboard.

It is pathetically ironic, that this means of schmoozing Supreme Court Justice Thomas, was simultaneously the basis of illegal deductions, for Crow's company. That is the Thomas connection. Also, like it or not, any story about Crow-- even one in which Thomas is not hanging out on the poop deck with Harlan, or anywhere to be seen-- is going to mention Thomas, because that connection makes any news about Crow, of at least greater interest than would otherwise be the case, and may also make whatever is being reported, more significant.

 

He didn't.
The OP wants us to believe his presumptions and prejudices are facts.

 

Another partisan failure. Thomas had nothing to do with how the man paid or failed to pay taxes. Criticize the yacht owner, not the SC justice.

 

I keep asking them to explain how exactly and can't get an answer. Deducting business entertaining expenses by a long shot predated Thomas ever being on the SCOTUS and as far as I know no case concerning them was ever before him.

 

"ProPublica has obtained a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people, covering more than 15 years. The data provides an unprecedented look inside the financial lives of America’s titans, including Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg. It shows not just their income and taxes, but also their investments, stock trades, gambling winnings and even the results of audits."

Don't you think there should be a criminal investigation into how such HIGHLY PROTECTED UNDER FEDERAL LAW personal information was leaked to this group and that we need to pass a law making it a federal crime to release such information about a private citizen just as it is under HIPAA law concerning your health information? If not why not other than your just out to get your political opponents.

 

I have read it and the link provide and from other sources and nowhere there nor have you explained exactly how Thomas helped to cut Crow's tax bill yacht or no yacht.

Read your own link

how-harlan-crow-slashed-his-tax-bill-by-taking-clarence-thomas-on-superyacht-cruises

What fraud and I see no evidence that any cruises with Thomas aboard were written off on Crow's taxes as a business expense. Did he use it for other business entertaining and business purposes, and have no reason to doubt he did not. LOTS of business is done while entertaining. I was in sales for most of my life and entertained LOTS of customers and did LOTS of business doing so. Nothing illegal or nefarious about it.

 

Are you asking if I take as hard of a line, against divulging personal information, as does your Party's hero, Donald Trump, who warned Russia, if they could access any of Hillary Clinton's emails, about classified U.S. government subjects, to not dare to release any of them?

 

That's because Crow's taxes were not released to the he public-- isn't that the violation of privacy, about which your last post was so concerned? Now you are saying that you want to see the actual records? Make up your mind.

You should, rather, read the link, better. Here, let's do it, together, to see if it alleges the thing, which you expect to see explained. I'll break it in half, to make it easier for you:

how-harlan-crow-slashed-his-tax-bill-

Do you see anything about Thomas at all, much less about him actively helping to cut Crow's tax bill, in that first half? There is only one subject, that I see, and that is "Harlan Crow." Does your perception, differ?

Now, the remainder of the link:

by-taking-clarence-thomas-on-superyacht-cruises

Are you unaware of the function in a sentence, of "prepositions?" Words like: aboard, above, about, across, after, against, ahead, amid, before, beside, below, by, etc.? The phrases they begin are about something, named outside of the phrase; in this case: Harlan Crow. That is to say, nothing in the prepositional phrase, adds an additional subject, to the sentence-- it is explanatory of Crow's aforementioned action, of slashing his own tax bill.

The title is not expected to fully encompass, all the details of a story. So this tells us that the "discount" Crow finagled on his taxes, had something to do with his taking Clarence Thomas on his superyacht, for a cruise. Again, nothing in that, which portrays Thomas as the doer, also known as the "subject" of a sentence. Rather, Thomas is the "direct object" of the verb, "taking." The doer, the person who was doing the "taking," remains Crow. Thomas is merely the person, to whom the action is being done.

I hope you are helped, by my refresher English seminar. The cruise was the vehicle, Crow used, in his dishonest accounting, to drive his tax bill lower. Thomas was only a passenger, on that vehicle.

Let us now look at the opening of the article, at that link:

<Snip>
For months, Harlan Crow and members of Congress have been engaged in a fight over whether the billionaire needs to divulge details about his gifts to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, including globe-trotting trips aboard his 162-foot yacht, the Michaela Rose.

Crow’s lawyer argues that Congress has no authority to probe the GOP donor’s generosity and that doing so violates a constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the Supreme Court.

Members of Congress say there are federal tax laws underlying their interest and a known propensity by the ultrarich to use their yachts to skirt those laws.

Tax data obtained by ProPublica provides a glimpse of what congressional investigators would find if Crow were to open his books to them. Crow’s voyages with Thomas, the data shows, contributed to a nice side benefit: They helped reduce Crow’s tax bill.
<End Snip>

Once again, it is the "voyages" which are the basis of Crow's squeezing out of a fraudulent benefit; Thomas is clearly only depicted as being "with" Crow, on these cruises.

 

For you to expect Harlan Crow to be mentioned, in any article, without the mentioning of Thomas, is like not anticipating the name of "Siegfried" to appear, in any article about "Roy." Crow's long patronage of the Supreme Court Justice, has tied him to Thomas, as the reason for his newsworthiness. In this case, of course, Thomas was a prominent figure aboard the cruises, which were used in the illegal tax deduction scheme-- so it is your criticism of the mere mentioning of Thomas's name, as if there was no connection whatsoever, which is the clear failure.

 

This is quite the conspiracy theory. At no point is any of this proven. It’s just a conspiracy.

 

You are using the term connection with what seems to be illegal activity. I reject that.

 

YES THEY WERE and it was done so illegally from what we know and I ask again should we not have a full criminal investigation into how those records were released and a law passed to make it illegal for ANYONE to publish or print or disclose such information no matter from where they got unless there is a court order to release them? Well

I've read the link and the post here, your personal attacks notwithstanding no matter how desperate they get, and ask again where is the proof of any tie between what Crow pays in taxes and Thomas.

HOW?????

Prove he deducted the cost of those specific voyages as a business expense.

 

Well I said that they were not released to the general public, to which you, here, are claiming the opposite. My, my-- how could we ever resolve this? Wait! I know: you could produce a snip from those records, if they are, indeed, available to the public, and I would have to concede that you were correct. If, however, you cannot access these records, it would prove my own contention.

Just take a look at those records, you say are released to the public.

 

That is just your misreading of the article. Thomas is only associated with the "voyages" upon the superyacht. The voyages are the activity which was used by Crow, for his illegal tax deductions. Not complicated.

 

Pro Publica is the GENERAL PUBLIC and done so for PUBLIC publication. I have already cited they have the tax records of these wealthy people given to them by unnamed sources.

Would you not support people who make such private protected information public being prosecuted under federal law.

 

Are you claiming that voyages which were entirely pleasure cruises with Thomas on board were claimed as a business deduction? Who said any tax deductions were illegal?

 

It is your claim not mine YOU prove it.