- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DC Circuit Rules against Trump re House Request for Tax Records
Posted on 10/11/19 at 2:31 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 10/11/19 at 2:31 pm to AggieHank86
Ok that makes sense now. Thank you
0
Posted on 10/11/19 at 2:32 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I cannot tell whether you actually do not understand or whether you are feigning ignorance.
OF COURSE a professional is going to await the appellate process. I SAID as much. The question is “What happens when the ruling becomes final.”. (The word “final” is found in my post that you referenced.)
The professional will almost certainly produce the documents in that instance. The litigant might well have an “unfortunate fireplace accident” involving those records. As such, a competent investigator will ALWAYS seek them from an outside source, if there is any chance to find them there.
LMAO waaaaaaaat?
The courts decision will encompass whether that information should be disclosed, whether his right to privacy should be superseded. When that happens it wont matter if the defendant tosses them in the fire pit because all those filings are on record at the IRS. Maybe you're talking about something other than tax filings I dont know.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 2:38 pm to McChowder
quote:Aaaaaaarrrrggghh!
LMAO waaaaaaaat?
The courts decision will encompass whether that information should be disclosed, whether his right to privacy should be superseded. When that happens it wont matter if the defendant tosses them in the fire pit because all those filings are on record at the IRS. Maybe you're talking about something other than tax filings I dont know.
You are not paying attention.
The question is NOT whether the entity issuing the subpoena could obtain the records ELSEWHERE than form the litigant (e.g. from the accountant or from the IRS), but whether they can obtain them from the LITIGANT.
if you seek them ONLY from the litigant, the chances are good that you would not eventually get them (even after an appeal), because the litigant STILL might destroy them.
That is WHY you also seek them from whatever outside entities may have access to similar information. Professionals (such as Mazars) are especially good, because they (1) keep better records than the litigant and (2) HAVE more information than the IRS, because they also have the supporting data.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 2:39 pm to Janky
quote:
Where would a payment show up in a tax return? Did he try to deduct the payment. I didn't really follow the bimbo conspiracy.
I believe it would be listed as a "liability"
Posted on 10/11/19 at 2:42 pm to Mickey Goldmill
They have liabilities listed on tax returns?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 2:43 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:That is the claim.quote:I believe it would be listed as a "liability"
Where would a payment show up in a tax return? Did he try to deduct the payment. I didn't really follow the bimbo conspiracy.
After Cohen testified that Trump reimbursed him for the payment, Dems searched the disclosure forms for a “payable” to Cohen corresponding to it. The required disclosure forms did not disclose such a liability.
Now, the Dems say that they want to see how Trump accounted for that payment. A tax return is one place “reasonably calculated” to seek that information. Did he expense it? Did he deduct it?
If Cohen paid Daniels in 2016 and Trump runs his affairs on an accrual basis, he would expense that $130k in 2016 and record a liability until the debt was paid. When paid, he would credit cash and debit the account payable.
If he operates on a cashflow basis, he would probably expense it in the year that he repaid Cohen.
Congress claims to want to see what happened, so they can craft disclosure requirements that would capture this sort of thing “next time.”
This post was edited on 10/11/19 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 10/11/19 at 2:49 pm to AggieHank86
On Congressional Subpoenas to Accounting Firms
As a CPA, this is just one more reason to hate these people.
quote:
CPAs are trusted advisors who often enjoy long-term and close relationships with clients and become intimately familiar with clients’ personal financial lives. The Oversight Committee’s subpoena to the President’s accountants includes requests for detailed financial information during a period when Mr. Trump was a private citizen and operated private companies. If ultimately enforced in all respects, the subpoena will establish a troubling precedent that is likely to undermine future relationships between accountants and their clients. It is hoped that Congress or the courts will endeavor to limit future subpoenas that threaten to undermine the special relationship of trust between CPAs and their clients.
As a CPA, this is just one more reason to hate these people.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 2:51 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Congress claims to want to see what happened, so they can craft disclosure requirements that would capture this sort of thing “next time.”
Posted on 10/11/19 at 2:55 pm to Janky
quote:I agree that the justification seems flimsy.quote:
Congress claims to want to see what happened, so they can craft disclosure requirements that would capture this sort of thing “next time.”
The POINT is that the flimsiness of the justification is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT under existing law, as outlined above (multiple times).
This post was edited on 10/11/19 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 10/11/19 at 2:56 pm to AggieHank86
It just shows how corrupt the court is.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 2:57 pm to Janky
quote:You call it “corruption.” I call it “following existing law.”
It just shows how corrupt the court is.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 2:59 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
You call it “corruption.” I call it “following existing law.”
Why can't it be both?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 3:02 pm to SSpaniel
quote:
Why can't it be both
Exactly
Posted on 10/11/19 at 3:06 pm to SSpaniel
quote:Quite a pithy little quip, but let’s look at it.quote:Why can't it be both?
You call it “corruption.” I call it “following existing law.”
quote:I have real trouble seeing either fraud or dishonesty in applying existing judicial precedent.
corruption: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.
I would have a MUCH bigger problem with a judge who DECLINES to follow precedent.
This post was edited on 10/11/19 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 10/11/19 at 3:08 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Quite a pithy little quip
And that was all it was intended to be. I reckon you know that, though.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 3:10 pm to SSpaniel
So, are you acknowledging that the DC Circuit would be obliged to follow applicable precedent?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 3:35 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
As you know, it is not extraordinarily unusual in a court proceeding for a party to be requested to produce documents arguably covered by one privilege or another.
1. This isn’t a court proceeding. And even if it were, failing to produce documents subject to a privilege isn’t unreasonable or unlawful, especially when the holder of the documents is under a duty NOT to disclose. Refusing to produce them is actually the legal, and ethical move.
2. The Court doesn’t review privileged documents to determine whether privilege exists. The court only reviews them AFTER there is some indicia, or at least a freaking argument that an exception to the privilege applies. The burden of proof in that case would lie with the requesting party to show at the very least “good cause.” There is no argument whatsoever that Jerry Nadler’s curiosity about Trump’s tax returns (esp from when he wasn’t POTUS) falls under any exception.
That’s what the law is, not what it should be. Trump’s tax returns are none of our fricking business. Just like my tax returns are none of yours.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 3:49 pm to AggieHank86
quote:That's OK. The board will make up an opinion for you!
I have not seen the tax returns or supporting data, so it would be silly to opine on that issue.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 4:06 pm to Big Scrub TX
It's way past due to declare democrats as terrorist organization and send them all to prison camps.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 6:25 pm to SSpaniel
quote:You are correct. This is likely the reason that Mazars is not even briefing any of these issues. It quite simply has no dog in the fight.quote:There is doctor-patient confidentiality and attorney-client privilege, but there is no accountant-client privilege, is there?
I want to see AggieHank86's medical records. What difference does it make if I subpoena you or your doctor? The service provider has a sworn duty to protect your privacy by law.
We got sidetracked a bit on privilege, but it is NOT an issue arising from this subpoena. The only issue is whether Congress (or a Committee thereof) had the legal authority to issue this subpoena. Two courts have now ruled that such authority does exist.
This post was edited on 10/11/19 at 6:54 pm
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News