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

Writing that check can not possibly have been legal.

Whether or not he paid off in full later should be considered by a judge, and should be part of determining penalties.

 

I'm not expressing an opinion other than pointing out that I have a stake in this and that I want our laws enforced.

Whether you like taxes or not is totally irrelevant. You can have negative opinions on ALL our laws, but if you choose to act on that by breaking the law you should face a judge.

 

I'm just going to say it.

http://tax.findlaw.com/tax-problems...f-limitations-or-deadline-for-action-on-.html

 

It is relevant to why we have differing opinions on this subject. I for one do not have the same zealotry to see our tax laws enforced.

 

If paid back in the same fiscal year straight into the accounts and he did not claim tax relief on this money then it would be ok for a company and probably a charity too.

No. A donation cannot be used to pay an expense

When a person donates to a charity, the donator can reclaim some higher rate tax relief on his donation and the charity can also claim the lower rate of tax relief (in the UK). eg £100 donation costs the donator around £75 and the charity receives around £125. In effect the government has lost £50 in tax

 

There will be no charges. The IRS cannot assess the Taxes owed.

 

I don't believe that it is legal for his charity to make a decision to loan money to his own business interests even for a short period of time. That is still a for-profit use of money that was donated on the grounds that it would be used for charitable purpose and has thus included the government contributing by not taxing the money.

I just don't believe that charities full of tax exempt donations can be used as business slush funds for the controller of the charity. I'm sure there are ways he could reduce the penalties, but those ways don't make it legal.


The federal government has limited resources for prosecution and he's a presidential candidate, so Trump may not get prosecuted.

 

lol. You're just talking about how penalties might be calculated.

The catch here is that Trump has done this several times.

The $100,000 is only one of the cases.

The ease or difficulty of assessing damages is not a factor in determining whether the law was broken.

He has a pattern of using funds due our government for his own business interests. Plus, he has a responsibility to donors.

 

The statute you posted earlier on refers to personal tax payers and is the same for the UK. Companies is a longer period - minimum 7 years in the UK (6 years of accounts)

 

The donation was clearly a resolution er court ordered.....

I don't know how that is handled as far as taxes but.... It's a very unique situation....

 

Then change our tax laws.

Look, even those who dislike our tax laws have to admit that breaking those laws is illegal.

And, for the most part such people see charitable giving as an alternative to federal social programs. But, in this case Trump is doing MORE damage to charitable giving than he is to our government!

How can you possibly accept THAT?

I just don't understand your logic.

But, it really doesn't matter. He broke the law. If we don't like the law, we should change the law, not just let wealthy people use their power to evade taxes while the rest are left to pick up the debt they leave.

 

Just so we know what were talking about.

We have the Bondi thing which was settled and a $12,000 dollar football helmet in 2012, which maybe but probably not.

 

I don't see anything unique about this case.

There are plenty of cases of illegal use of charitable donations.

And, the $100,000 case is less than half the value of the Trump cases that have been found so far.

What do you think about the portrait that was purchased by his foundation and then used to decorate his hotel?

 

Yes basically it was that...

Besides, I would doubt he was even aware considering he's probably been sued 100,000 times - yeah it happens with money and that's why you have lawyers on call 24/7 when you're worth billions...

 

There was absolutely ZERO use of charitable donations in this case.

What happened was that Trump was forced to give a donation BY A COURT OF LAW so he donated to his own...

 

I don't have to care if they are enforced. Some people do sure yeah, but a lot of people don't that's the way it is.

Go over to one of the shooting threads and they are talking about this exact thing. The ones who are ok with shootings say change the laws. The others say the laws shouldn't matter. This is noting in the bigger picture of things. The government collects $4T in taxes what's this? Like $30,000 if even anything. He probably would have been able to take the deduction even if it came out of his own bank account.

 

There is also the settlement of the flag pole and the portrait used to decorate one of his hotels.

The total misused charitable donations comes to more than $250,000.

Had that money been taxed as per non-charitable rates, it clearly represents misdirection of thousands of dollars that the federal government allowed on the basis that it would be used charitably.

Besides surely being illegal, this is a seriously bad direction for America's charitable foundations, as why would I donate to a charity if it is legal to be used as a slush fund for undocumented and unsecured business loans to the controlling interest?

 

No, the check was written against the charitable foundation, NOT Trump. There is no indication that the money came from anywhere BUT the charitable foundation.

And, let's remember that this is only one of several cases of this.

 

Now your'e just making stuff up.

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/irm_25-006-001r.html

 

Again, this is a pattern. And, the pattern is certainly not limited to cases such as the flagpole case where the court was involved.

It also includes stuff that was entirely private, and the total of cases that have been identified comes to more than $250K.

Why are you trying to defend this action?

 

It wasn't with in the last 3 years. Fraud, maybe, that's 6 years in NY. Fraud would be hard to prove and requires intent to deceive.

 

Statutes of limitation are a prosecutorial limit.

It addresses when the miscreant may be prosecuted, NOT whether the law was broken.

 

Again, you are now arguing whether it would be hard to prosecute Trump for having broken the law.

With that I agree. Federal prosecutors are pretty strapped, plus Trump is a candidate. So, even cases that may be inside the statutes of limitation are likely not to be prosecuted.

My issue is that Trump is running for office and has developed a pattern of breaking the law.

Sometimes it is up to the people to decide. I'm not in favor of breaking the law like this and I do want there to be serious respect for our charitable giving programs.

 

But that the thing right? If he isn't going to suffer consequences it doesn't matter. Trump has said many times over he uses the laws of this country to get ahead, then he goes on to say that he's running because he want's to change them. His tax plan is about eliminating deductions. It puts a $100,000 cap on charitable donations.

 

Because one is presumed innocent if your name is Hillary Clinton but presumed guilty only if you are Donald Trump is why.