Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stop repeating yourself you dumb bitch.
>
> Here you go rightard. When filed as net operating
> losses Trump could have claimed losses by
> investors and bankers whom loaned him money.
>
>
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/03/a
> rt-of-the-steal-this-is-how-trump-lost-916m-and-av
> oided-tax.html
First of all, it's from the libtards at the Daily Beast. Second, it doesn't really help your case as far as claiming someone else's losses, you're just too dumb to understand that.
Here's the operative part:
Quote
The technique is simple. The taxes due immediately because a debt is forgiven can be exchanged for relinquishing future real-estate tax deductions. Trump agreed to forgo his future right to take about $1 billion worth of depreciation on his casino hotels.
This exchange created a future problem for Trump. Real estate that cannot be depreciated is worth a lot less. Indeed, generous tax benefits drive real-estate investment. So while Trump escaped an immediate income-tax bill, the future tax benefits he gave up would mean that he would likely have to pay income taxes on his salary, fees for licensing his name, and other income.
To solve this problem, Trump sold stock for the first time in 1995. He founded Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, which then took ownership of his casino hotels.
That meant Trump got money for selling his casino hotels, while the investors got real estate with greatly diminished tax benefits.
Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts was a complete disaster. It lost money every year. During Trump’s 13 years as chairman, the company lost $1.1 billion. Trump stock fell from a high of $35 to just 17 cents, wiping out investors.
Trump did just fine, though. He was paid $82 million, Fortune magazine estimated. The publicly traded company even took out loans that were used to pay off some of Trump’s remaining obligations to the banks from when he owned his casinos outright.
The $82 million Trump was paid by the publicly traded company bearing his name should have all been received income tax-free thanks to those NOLs. Thus his mismanagement, and the tax benefits he stripped out of the casino hotels before he sold them to shareholders, made him richer and them poorer.
Let me try to explain how this works in more simple terms that you can wrap your little pinhead around. He's just getting into speculation about the details of how various aspects may have been treated. None of that affects (not effects) the matter of Trump claiming someone else's losses. He doesn't even address that.
If you as an investor give/loan/buy stock or in whatever other way give my company money, then it must be recognized in some way. If I give you a turd in exchange, that doesn't affect that I still have to recognize that money in some way.
If the turd that you invested in/bought bonds/gave a bad loan against, whatever (doesn't affect the principle, just the details of treatment) goes tits up, or a partnership generates a loss that's passed through, or you otherwise have a monetary loss, then that is YOUR LOSS. I cannot claim it. You claim your own capital loss, bad debt, whatever. It is yours for ever and ever. You fill out the proper loss line on your tax forms and deduct it.
What happens on my side is entirely independent. I have recognized your money as in-coming money in some way. Now my company goes to shit. I now have a loss for whatever I have invested that I can deduct. I only have my loss not yours. The details in the article relate to how I must treat the in-coming money that I received as far as how that might offset the amount of that loss.
Got it dummy? I never get to claim your loss as you implied. I never in some way take your loss away from you. Assuming that what the author says is the case, which isn't even necessarily true, it simply affects how recognition of that in-coming money may offset my loss and the end size of my loss claimed.