There's 2 things I'm confused about. First, is this his personal return or company return? It seems like an awfully large loss on his personal
Posted by
pmb (aka pmb)
Oct 3 '16, 14:51
|
though I guess it's conceivable when the companies went under he lost all the value of his equity (still would be surprised if the basis in it was that high). Also, Guiliani and others were all over the news yesterday talking about his fiduciary responsibility to his shareholders to pay as little tax as possible. If this is his personal return the fiduciary responsibility argument goes out the window. Second, and I'm assuming it was done legally, the thing that it shows to me is just that he's been a failed business man. There are continuing innuendos that somehow he took advantage of loopholes that are available only to the super-rich to avoid the taxes. Showing losses isn't necessarily that (especially when there were, in fact, failed businesses). Losses and loss carry forwards are available to everyone and are probably used as much by small business owners as anyone. The real issue is that he lost $916 million in 1 year. People seem not to know what to make of the information and are scrambling around for a narrative. I think the narrative is just that he sucked as a business man (at least in that time frame which is the only one we have evidence of).
|
Responses:
|