Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems

Each subsidiary is a separate legal entity

 

The case is from 2007 and here is a news report dated 25 Jan 2007:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...row-as-Trump-sues-over-right-to-fly-flag.html

Quote:
At 80ft, the pole is almost twice as high as the 42ft limit set out in the town's codes. Its 15ft by 25ft flag also technically breaks the local maximum of four feet by six feet.

Code enforcement officials in the expensive resort town have said that, on safety grounds, the Trump flagpole, built to withstand a 150mph hurricane, is both inappropriate and unsafe. They also claim that the businessman failed to obtain a building permit or permission from the landmarks board.

Mr Trump, who hosts the business reality show The Apprentice, has refused to take down the flag despite the town's decision to fine him $1,250 (£620) for every day that it remains up

 

I don't give a crap about the flag pole ---- What evidence do you have that Trump was using money from his foundation to pay legal bills????

You still don't get it.

 

"In a settlement, Palm Beach agreed to waive those fines — if Trump’s club made a $100,000 donation to a specific charity for veterans. Instead, Trump sent a check from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a charity funded almost entirely by other people’s money, according to tax records."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...c88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...able-foundation-settle-legal-disputes-n651661

http://www.beachpeanuts.com/2016/09...-legal-dispute-with-charitable-donations.html

 

From the viewpoint of companies. A director can put money into his company and the money is referred to as a directors loan. All or part of this money can be repaid to the director at any time. Any money paid to the director greater than the outstanding loan is considered salary or dividend payment and will be taxed at the normal rate. Any expenses paid out on behalf of a director are treated as salary. All money transfers, loans, payments etc in and out must be in the end of year accounts

It is more complicated with charities as most are tax exempt and tax relief is applicable to donations (in UK). A trustee of a charity is not an owner. He can be a salaried employee by the charity and will have the same rights as any employee in any company. In the case with Trump. He can lend money to a charity and will be treated as a loan but this loan is not a donation, so no tax relief applicable. He can make donations and claim tax relief on these donations but he will be treated the same as any other donator and this donated money now belongs to the charity. As before, all donations and loans must be shown in the end of year accounts. The charity is not responsible for any expenses that have been placed on any of its employees. Charity expenses must relate to charity business

 

Yes and no. Parents are pulled into settlements with subsidaries more often than not. If you are going to settle you are not going to give an out through bankruptcy so you make sure to attach the parent to any settlement agreement. You'd be a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dumbass not to.

 

My God, you ignorant Lefties are having a hissy fit because a charity made a donation to another charity? You're sick. Or desperate.

 

So Trump was forced to make a donation to his own charity and ordered to do so by a judge.

This is hilarious....

"IN A SETTLEMENT" meaning it was court ordered or some sort of mutual agreement....

Progressives still don't get it...

 

Not only that but forced...

There is absolutely ZERO corruption in this at all....

Also, why the (*)(*)(*)(*) should someone even have to make a donation over the US FLAG.....

If you look at the lawsuit it's basically a progressive pissed off over a flag............. Yea we need to INDEED make America er the United States great again.

 

Trumps club is not a charity and the agreed settlement was that Trump's club was to make the donation. You're sick that you think that it is okay to use the charity money to pay off Trumps expenses. If my charity donations were used to pay off one of the charity workers parking fines I would be livid

 

Yes.

However, my bet is that those donating to his charitable foundation have already gotten the tax benefit of the donation. They undoubtedly wrote that off on their own taxes.

So, when Trump uses those funds for his businesses (the more than $250K, for example) he is using the funds of those who thought they were donating to a charitable cause AND the funds that the government forgave on the same grounds.

As a tax payer, I want my money back from Trump.

And, if his acts in co-opting federal funds for his business purposes isn't breaking the law, I certainly don't know why not.

 

So if Trump reimbursed the charity afterwards would it be illegal?

 

The charitable foundation includes federal funds in the form of the tax relief given those donations.

A way to detect this is to note that our government is a little bit further in debt, because of the tax write-offs. Had the money been given Trump NOT as a charity, the government would have collected the tax that must be paid on NON-charitable donations.

As a tax payer, I want my money back.

And, if that misappropriation isn't a crime, I want to know why not.

 

The money was never yours. That's ridiculous.

 

That would still be Trump loaning government money to himself without permission. And, the payback could not have been a charitable deduction on his own taxes.

So, are you claiming he paid back the money from his own funds with no charitable donation deduction and including the interest on the loan?

If so, why has Trump not suggested that?

Besides, I can't imagine that it is legal for a charitable fund to be used as a source of loans like that. It turns charities into slush funds for undocumented and unsecured loans with no oversight where federal funds are involved.



Do you think it makes sense to see the tax returns of presidential candidates?

 

I want my government's money back to our government.

And, that goes back to ME as a tax payer. I'm on the hook for more interest on the public debt, for example.

 

When he got caught up in the Bondi thing he paid a $2,500 fine and paid the money back to the foundation himself. Aside from it being a gift for her to drop the case its over. That's really hard to prove, especially since the money didn't go to her directly.

 

What some people might call "a little conflict of interest", I call FRAUD.

 

This is where it gets quite complicated. If it was recent event he could argue that there was an oversight and he intended to take the payment as a taxable salary or perhaps the safer route take the payment as a loan (at an agreed reasonable interest rate) and then pay back the loan + interest. So in effect he would be paying it back and it becomes a legal transaction.

However it happened nine years ago (7-8 years in accounting years). I don't have any experience on what would happen after this length of time. If I was him, I would approach the authorities, pay an agreed fine and make a significant gesture fast and hope it all goes away.

 

You'll have to show us and the WORLD where the Clintons have ever done that.

 

It's not the governments money either. They never had it for it to be theirs.

 

Are you trying to claim that the $100,000 check from his own charity was TO his own charity??

That would be HILARIOUS!! It would add a whole new layer.

 

What if he paid it back right away, what if he made a donation to the charity after the event but in the same fiscal year? We are railing on this but we don't have all the facts. Is it shady sure, is it unethical? Probably. But we don't know if its Illegal. Id imagine if it was that AG that has a hard on for him, would have already handed out the indictment. The evidence is incontrovertible. Right?

 

Oh yes it is.

The government forgave tax on that money on the grounds that it would go to a charitable use.

Paying off on a business liability is not a charitable use.

The government has every right to want that taxes that was owed.

Look, from the perspective of the government this is essentially the same as you paying off a debt and then listing it as a charitable contribution on your taxes. Except, in the Trump case the money involved was mostly money from other people - not Trump.

Government finances get back to ME as a tax payer. I have a stake in this.

Charities aren't slush funds to be used in private enterprise like that.

 

You and I have very different opinions on taxes. Lets just agree to disagree. I'd be happy to discuss this in another thread.