Trump tax returns

[bmforre]

Today
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to stop a prosecutor’s investigation of his personal finances, a bold assertion of presidential power that seeks a landmark decision from the nation’s highest court.

The filing by the president’s private lawyers represents a historic moment that will test the court and highlights the Constitution’s separation-of-powers design. It also marks a new phase in the investigations that have dogged Trump throughout his presidency and have culminated in an impeachment inquiry.

The eagerness Trump shows to keep his tax returns covered makes me curious. What is it he does not want us to see?

[lpm]

He doesn't want people to see:

Money launderer
Tax frauds
Bank frauds
Lack of wealth

Few people seem to know we've already seen some of his tax returns - New York state ones for his properties. They showed:

Tax frauds
and/or
Bank frauds

[plodder]

Here's a thing. If his tax returns show this, why hasn't the IRS prosecuted him?

[dyqik]

Here's a thing. If his tax returns show this, why hasn't the IRS prosecuted him?

The auditing arm of the IRS has been constantly cut in size for the past decade or so, and had also been ordered to focus on smaller cases.

I think it also relies on the DoJ for prosecutions, and that's under the control of the DAs and the AG, all appointed by Trump.

[username]

Here's a thing. If his tax returns show this, why hasn't the IRS prosecuted him?

Statutes of limitation are a big factor. It's extremely hard to prosecute tax stuff that's over 5 years old, even for the New York DA and AG.

[Bird on a Fire]

Statutes of limitation seem like an incredibly stupid idea, especially when they're that short. Who are they intended to benefit, other than fortunate criminals?

[username]

The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their enactment:[7]

A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence.
By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim.
Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice.

From Wikipedia.

[Bird on a Fire]

The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their enactment:[7]

A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence.
By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim.
Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice.

From Wikipedia.

Thanks. I can see it making sense for some kinds of crimes and places, e.g. theft in Classical Athens, but in the modern era data storage for stuff like tax records means most documents necessary are already stored for much longer than 5 years.

[username]

The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their enactment:[7]

A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence.
By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim.
Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice.

From Wikipedia.

Thanks. I can see it making sense for some kinds of crimes and places, e.g. theft in Classical Athens, but in the modern era data storage for stuff like tax records means most documents necessary are already stored for much longer than 5 years.

True to an extent; liberal thought tends towards the position that it's better guilty go free occasionally rather than innocents get convicted. The authoritarian position tends towards prosecution with as few fetters as possible. The common issue with the latter is capricious prosecution; once someone rises to a position wealth or influence they can become a target for all sorts of attention. It is with good reason people have qualms about governmental data retention

I don't remember a great deal about limitations in English law, iirc tax and most contracts have a 6 year limit, defamation 1. I don't think there are any for criminal stuff (although there used to be a year-and-a-day rule wrt some homicide)

[jimbob]

The homicide thing is not a statute of limitations. It was (is?) determining whether an attack that seriously injures someone was a criminal killing or GBH, as far as I understand. If they died outside that time, it wasn't murder or manslaughter.

So a limit for a window of the effect rather than the crime.

[username]

The homicide thing is not a statute of limitations. It was (is?) determining whether an attack that seriously injures someone was a criminal killing or GBH, as far as I understand. If they died outside that time, it wasn't murder or manslaughter.

So a limit for a window of the effect rather than the crime.

Heh, I guess, although a different charge is available if there's a body

Having glanced at the wiki page I see there are other criminal law limitations in English procedure, albeit for mostly minor stuff, but England stands out in the EU on this, most other countries do have them.

[plebian]

Official records maybe, but as the quote states, the defendants may have mitigating evidence that explains the records but which they dispose of through normal tidying exercises.

Do you have all your payslips for the last 10years and p60s? HMRC say you didn't pay tax in 2010 on earnings, I presume you have the paperwork to prove that you did.

[dyqik]

Official records maybe, but as the quote states, the defendants may have mitigating evidence that explains the records but which they dispose of through normal tidying exercises.

Do you have all your payslips for the last 10years and p60s? HMRC say you didn't pay tax in 2010 on earnings, I presume you have the paperwork to prove that you did.

Yes.

I have all my payslips going back to 2005, on paper. I also have all my payslips I've ever received in this country, from 2011 on, but those are all electronic, and cost nothing to store.

I also have all my tax returns, ever.

The statute of limitations strikes me as most important for assaults, criminal damage, etc. that result from arguments and fights, where witness evidence of what happened at the time is subject to memories fading and changing, particularly around mitigating circumstances, whether Han shot first, etc.

[AMS]

Given the argument that Statutes of Limitation exist to encourage prosecutors to get on with it, would it be better for the clock to start from the moment when evidence of a crime comes to light? So say Trump's tax returns show evidence of bank fraud, the window for prosecution should start from the day they are released to the Feds, rather than when it actually happened..

[Gfamily]

The UK Limitations Acts operate on the basis that where there has been fraud or concealment, the time will not run until the fraud, concealment or mistake is discovered (or could with reasonable diligence be discovered).

[AMS]

Ah, good, so they've thought of that already. Anyone know if it's the same for the US?

[tom p]

Official records maybe, but as the quote states, the defendants may have mitigating evidence that explains the records but which they dispose of through normal tidying exercises.

Do you have all your payslips for the last 10years and p60s? HMRC say you didn't pay tax in 2010 on earnings, I presume you have the paperwork to prove that you did.

No, but my old employers do, to prove they paid the PAYE, which is how the vast majority of UK workers pay tax.
There's a big difference between some random punter & a business that the owner says is worth billions (and which undoubtedly has hundreds of millions in cashflow).

[username]

Ah, good, so they've thought of that already. Anyone know if it's the same for the US?

It varies by state and subject.

[username]

Wrt document storage, it's not uncommon for people to clear out old documents, nor is it uncommon for enterprises to go out of business which puts stored data out of reach (I think the uk rate is something between .5 and 1% per year).

As usual, predicating laws for large populations based on rare edge cases risks the creation of poor jurisprudence; hard cases make bad law.

How hard the Trump case is is not very well known to me, I haven't looked at the specifics closely.

[dyqik]

Wrt document storage, it's not uncommon for people to clear out old documents, nor is it uncommon for enterprises to go out of business which puts stored data out of reach (I think the uk rate is something between .5 and 1% per year).

In my case, it'd need Google, the USDA _and_ the Smithsonian Institution to go out of business for me to lose my tax records. At which point I'm not sure I'd be that concerned about the IRS being able to come after me.

But obviously I'm not someone that the SoL is aimed at.

[tom p]

Wrt document storage, it's not uncommon for people to clear out old documents, nor is it uncommon for enterprises to go out of business which puts stored data out of reach (I think the uk rate is something between .5 and 1% per year).

As usual, predicating laws for large populations based on rare edge cases risks the creation of poor jurisprudence; hard cases make bad law.

How hard the Trump case is is not very well known to me, I haven't looked at the specifics closely.

Um, if I had a business that had gone out of business, I'd make damn sure I kept the tax & other financial paperwork, since such things can bite one on the arse spectacularly. Of course, while Trump has gone bust repeatedly, he keeps going & there's no actual suggestion that he has lost his records, so it's a total irrelevance, especially since I understand he was benefiting in a tax way from having gone bust years ago, so he really must have all his records.
Apparently there's no statue of limitations for seeking back-taxes though, so while he might stay out of jail (unless he did any dodgy tax-based stuff in the last 3-6 years, the federal statue of limitations for tax fraud), he might also go broke from having to pay his back taxes over decades.
It's 5 years for money laundering & for bank fraud it's 10 years.
The limitations is when to charge. Then they can have up to 9 further months if they've issued the charge.
I keep seeing in google searches that there's no statue of limitations on civil claims arising from fraud, so a defrauded bank from whom he obtained money by falsely inflating his wealth can claim it back any time.

[username]

My point wrt businesses going out of business was within the frame of reference of other people (employees are the people I was thinking about specifically) getting the records, not the owner or specifically Trump.

Of my previous employers I have worked for a newspaper, a couple of bicycle shops, a cafe, a publisher, a computer services company, a pre-press bureau, a school, and a motorsports company all of whom are no longer trading and have been wound up in one way or another (this does not include many other enterprises for whom I have worked as a consultant that I have no idea at all about their status). Obtaining paperwork of any sort from any of these organisations would be nigh on impossible.

As I said wrt Trump, I'm not aware of the specifics of allegations made, so I'm making no comment on how hard identifying alleged crimes would be. I'd welcome links to reliable sources, but from the bits I've read about why he has not been prosecuted to date, the overarching commentary could be summed up as it's complicated.

[tom p]

It's trivial easy to have one rule for businesses and another for employees. Equally trivial to distinguish between real employees like you and fake employees who really own the company but who pay themselves a nominal salary for tax purposes.
There may be good reasons for having the statute of limitations as it is, but I suspect that the real reasons are political interference from corrupt US politicians (surely an oxymoron) working for some dodgy company rather than their constituents.

[Gentleman Jim]

corrupt US politicians (surely an oxymoron) working for some dodgy company rather than their constituents.

Oxymoron or tautology?

<looks around to return pedant hat to it's rightful owner>

[tom p]

corrupt US politicians (surely an oxymoron) working for some dodgy company rather than their constituents.

Oxymoron or tautology?

<looks around to return pedant hat to it's rightful owner>

FFS. Yes, obviously that.
I am so tired that I am making ridiculous dumb errors like that. What a Wally.