Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major Inconsistencies
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies
Documents obtained by ProPublica show stark differences in how Donald Trump’s businesses reported some expenses, profits and occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than they provided to New York City tax authorities. The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax.
For instance, Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017. He also gave conflicting occupancy figures for one of his signature skyscrapers, located at 40 Wall Street.
Lenders like to see a rising occupancy level as a sign of what they call “leasing momentum.” Sure enough, the company told a lender that 40 Wall Street had been 58.9% leased on Dec. 31, 2012, and then rose to 95% a few years later. The company told tax officials the building was 81% rented as of Jan. 5, 2013.
A dozen real estate professionals told ProPublica they saw no clear explanation for multiple inconsistencies in the documents. The discrepancies are “versions of fraud,” said Nancy Wallace, a professor of finance and real estate at the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley. “This kind of stuff is not OK.”
New York City’s property tax forms state that the person signing them “affirms the truth of the statements made” and that “false filings are subject to all applicable civil and criminal penalties.” The punishments for lying to tax officials, or to lenders, can be significant, ranging from fines to criminal fraud charges. Two former Trump associates, Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort, are serving prison time for offenses that include falsifying tax and bank records, some of them related to real estate.
Comments
-
Doesn't necessarily mean tax fraud. Could be bank fraud.
-
No one said trump is a good or honest person. Trumptards support his policies.
-
Haven't looked much - but just glancing at the picture accompanying the video clearly shows the word "accrual" on the Insurance expense line.
This is a pretty normal business practice to have one set of books for Tax and another for Book (accrual-based accounting). There's limits as to how much and who can be a cash-basis taxpayer and who has to be accrual. But it's not at all unusual.
If you don't know shit about finance or accounting....AAAARRRGHG two sets of books....FRAUD!!!....AAAAARGH Trump.
-
Did the IRS or NYRS see the documents?
-
I'm going to need to hear from the boreds resident fake accountant to know if they really got 'em this time.
-
So Propublica got the documents before the IRS? Sounds legit
-
Why did the Obama IRS allow Trump to get away with this?
-
You are correct. That being said, occupancy rates don't change based on the method of accounting. And the type of business, being a building with leases, there are not wild swings in tax to accrual basis.PurpleThrobber said:Haven't looked much - but just glancing at the picture accompanying the video clearly shows the word "accrual" on the Insurance expense line.
This is a pretty normal business practice to have one set of books for Tax and another for Book (accrual-based accounting). There's limits as to how much and who can be a cash-basis taxpayer and who has to be accrual. But it's not at all unusual.
If you don't know shit about finance or accounting....AAAARRRGHG two sets of books....FRAUD!!!....AAAAARGH Trump. -
Would have to spend a ton more time on this to rebutt or not - and i'm not getting paid enough to analyze Trump's tax returns, sources of repayment and lease rolls.2001400ex said:
You are correct. That being said, occupancy rates don't change based on the method of accounting. And the type of business, being a building with leases, there are not wild swings in tax to accrual basis.PurpleThrobber said:Haven't looked much - but just glancing at the picture accompanying the video clearly shows the word "accrual" on the Insurance expense line.
This is a pretty normal business practice to have one set of books for Tax and another for Book (accrual-based accounting). There's limits as to how much and who can be a cash-basis taxpayer and who has to be accrual. But it's not at all unusual.
If you don't know shit about finance or accounting....AAAARRRGHG two sets of books....FRAUD!!!....AAAAARGH Trump.
It's possible there's wild occupancy rate swings if, for instance, a tenant knocks down a few floors and then moves in/out.
I am a mercenary, however, and would do that kind of stuff for cash money. So hit me with either Venmo or a gofundme and I can make it say what needs to be said. Don't care either way - red money cashes the same as blue money.
-
There is so much stupid in that link not sure where to start...for folks with TDS it is somehow surprising people would sign leases at the beginning of the year (one of the big "gotchas" is the lease occupancy is 60% in 2012 and 80% in 2013, and 95% a few years later).
Sounds sinister...
And somehow it is "shocking" that they paid $744k in "insurance", but paid $460k in "property insurance". Because...you know...the only kind of insurance around is property insurance.
HondoBros unite...you have some stupid to put on display... -
As usual Houston starts with the assumption that Trump is right and then works backwards from there to justify it. Given what we know about Trump, is it remotely surprising at all that he would commit fraud like this? Of course you were the last guy to defend that Trump was right when he said the hurricane was hitting Alabama.
-
This is the exact excerpt from the article.HoustonHusky said:There is so much stupid in that link not sure where to start...for folks with TDS it is somehow surprising people would sign leases at the beginning of the year (one of the big "gotchas" is the lease occupancy is 60% in 2012 and 80% in 2013, and 95% a few years later).
Sounds sinister...
And somehow it is "shocking" that they paid $744k in "insurance", but paid $460k in "property insurance". Because...you know...the only kind of insurance around is property insurance.
HondoBros unite...you have some stupid to put on display...
the company told a lender that 40 Wall Street had been 58.9% leased on Dec. 31, 2012, and then rose to 95% a few years later. The company told tax officials the building was 81% rented as of Jan. 5, 2013.
According to Wikipedia, this building has over 1.1M square feet of office. So they are claiming they filled almost 250k square feet of space in a span of 5 days. While it's possible to sign a large lease, I challenge you to go find out if there were any major leases signed for this building during the first week of January 2013. My guess is no and Trump lied about it. Prove me wrong.
-
You want your guess proved wrong by somebody on an internet message board when the IRS and a heavily regulated industry like banking haven't come up with anything.insinceredawg said:
This is the exact excerpt from the article.HoustonHusky said:There is so much stupid in that link not sure where to start...for folks with TDS it is somehow surprising people would sign leases at the beginning of the year (one of the big "gotchas" is the lease occupancy is 60% in 2012 and 80% in 2013, and 95% a few years later).
Sounds sinister...
And somehow it is "shocking" that they paid $744k in "insurance", but paid $460k in "property insurance". Because...you know...the only kind of insurance around is property insurance.
HondoBros unite...you have some stupid to put on display...
the company told a lender that 40 Wall Street had been 58.9% leased on Dec. 31, 2012, and then rose to 95% a few years later. The company told tax officials the building was 81% rented as of Jan. 5, 2013.
According to Wikipedia, this building has over 1.1M square feet of office. So they are claiming they filled almost 250k square feet of space in a span of 5 days. While it's possible to sign a large lease, I challenge you to go find out if there were any major leases signed for this building during the first week of January 2013. My guess is no and Trump lied about it. Prove me wrong.
OK! Makes total sense.
-
How many times does Trump need to lie before you stop giving him the benefit of a doubt?PurpleThrobber said:
You want your guess proved wrong by somebody on an internet message board when the IRS and a heavily regulated industry like banking haven't come up with anything.insinceredawg said:
This is the exact excerpt from the article.HoustonHusky said:There is so much stupid in that link not sure where to start...for folks with TDS it is somehow surprising people would sign leases at the beginning of the year (one of the big "gotchas" is the lease occupancy is 60% in 2012 and 80% in 2013, and 95% a few years later).
Sounds sinister...
And somehow it is "shocking" that they paid $744k in "insurance", but paid $460k in "property insurance". Because...you know...the only kind of insurance around is property insurance.
HondoBros unite...you have some stupid to put on display...
the company told a lender that 40 Wall Street had been 58.9% leased on Dec. 31, 2012, and then rose to 95% a few years later. The company told tax officials the building was 81% rented as of Jan. 5, 2013.
According to Wikipedia, this building has over 1.1M square feet of office. So they are claiming they filled almost 250k square feet of space in a span of 5 days. While it's possible to sign a large lease, I challenge you to go find out if there were any major leases signed for this building during the first week of January 2013. My guess is no and Trump lied about it. Prove me wrong.
OK! Makes total sense. -
I'm mocking your (lack of) internet sense of 'logic' and "prove it, bitch" mentality.insinceredawg said:
How many times does Trump need to lie before you stop giving him the benefit of a doubt?PurpleThrobber said:
You want your guess proved wrong by somebody on an internet message board when the IRS and a heavily regulated industry like banking haven't come up with anything.insinceredawg said:
This is the exact excerpt from the article.HoustonHusky said:There is so much stupid in that link not sure where to start...for folks with TDS it is somehow surprising people would sign leases at the beginning of the year (one of the big "gotchas" is the lease occupancy is 60% in 2012 and 80% in 2013, and 95% a few years later).
Sounds sinister...
And somehow it is "shocking" that they paid $744k in "insurance", but paid $460k in "property insurance". Because...you know...the only kind of insurance around is property insurance.
HondoBros unite...you have some stupid to put on display...
the company told a lender that 40 Wall Street had been 58.9% leased on Dec. 31, 2012, and then rose to 95% a few years later. The company told tax officials the building was 81% rented as of Jan. 5, 2013.
According to Wikipedia, this building has over 1.1M square feet of office. So they are claiming they filled almost 250k square feet of space in a span of 5 days. While it's possible to sign a large lease, I challenge you to go find out if there were any major leases signed for this building during the first week of January 2013. My guess is no and Trump lied about it. Prove me wrong.
OK! Makes total sense.
HTH
-
Ok cool. Go Dawgs.PurpleThrobber said:
I'm mocking your (lack of) internet sense of 'logic' and "prove it, bitch" mentality.insinceredawg said:
How many times does Trump need to lie before you stop giving him the benefit of a doubt?PurpleThrobber said:
You want your guess proved wrong by somebody on an internet message board when the IRS and a heavily regulated industry like banking haven't come up with anything.insinceredawg said:
This is the exact excerpt from the article.HoustonHusky said:There is so much stupid in that link not sure where to start...for folks with TDS it is somehow surprising people would sign leases at the beginning of the year (one of the big "gotchas" is the lease occupancy is 60% in 2012 and 80% in 2013, and 95% a few years later).
Sounds sinister...
And somehow it is "shocking" that they paid $744k in "insurance", but paid $460k in "property insurance". Because...you know...the only kind of insurance around is property insurance.
HondoBros unite...you have some stupid to put on display...
the company told a lender that 40 Wall Street had been 58.9% leased on Dec. 31, 2012, and then rose to 95% a few years later. The company told tax officials the building was 81% rented as of Jan. 5, 2013.
According to Wikipedia, this building has over 1.1M square feet of office. So they are claiming they filled almost 250k square feet of space in a span of 5 days. While it's possible to sign a large lease, I challenge you to go find out if there were any major leases signed for this building during the first week of January 2013. My guess is no and Trump lied about it. Prove me wrong.
OK! Makes total sense.
HTH
-
insinceredawg said:
Ok cool. GoPurpleThrobber said:
I'm mocking your (lack of) internet sense of 'logic' and "prove it, bitch" mentality.insinceredawg said:
How many times does Trump need to lie before you stop giving him the benefit of a doubt?PurpleThrobber said:
You want your guess proved wrong by somebody on an internet message board when the IRS and a heavily regulated industry like banking haven't come up with anything.insinceredawg said:
This is the exact excerpt from the article.HoustonHusky said:There is so much stupid in that link not sure where to start...for folks with TDS it is somehow surprising people would sign leases at the beginning of the year (one of the big "gotchas" is the lease occupancy is 60% in 2012 and 80% in 2013, and 95% a few years later).
Sounds sinister...
And somehow it is "shocking" that they paid $744k in "insurance", but paid $460k in "property insurance". Because...you know...the only kind of insurance around is property insurance.
HondoBros unite...you have some stupid to put on display...
the company told a lender that 40 Wall Street had been 58.9% leased on Dec. 31, 2012, and then rose to 95% a few years later. The company told tax officials the building was 81% rented as of Jan. 5, 2013.
According to Wikipedia, this building has over 1.1M square feet of office. So they are claiming they filled almost 250k square feet of space in a span of 5 days. While it's possible to sign a large lease, I challenge you to go find out if there were any major leases signed for this building during the first week of January 2013. My guess is no and Trump lied about it. Prove me wrong.
OK! Makes total sense.
HTHDawgsDwags. -
This...seems like the lack of imminent demise of Trump is getting to this HondoBro.PurpleThrobber said:
You want your guess proved wrong by somebody on an internet message board when the IRS and a heavily regulated industry like banking haven't come up with anything.insinceredawg said:
This is the exact excerpt from the article.HoustonHusky said:There is so much stupid in that link not sure where to start...for folks with TDS it is somehow surprising people would sign leases at the beginning of the year (one of the big "gotchas" is the lease occupancy is 60% in 2012 and 80% in 2013, and 95% a few years later).
Sounds sinister...
And somehow it is "shocking" that they paid $744k in "insurance", but paid $460k in "property insurance". Because...you know...the only kind of insurance around is property insurance.
HondoBros unite...you have some stupid to put on display...
the company told a lender that 40 Wall Street had been 58.9% leased on Dec. 31, 2012, and then rose to 95% a few years later. The company told tax officials the building was 81% rented as of Jan. 5, 2013.
According to Wikipedia, this building has over 1.1M square feet of office. So they are claiming they filled almost 250k square feet of space in a span of 5 days. While it's possible to sign a large lease, I challenge you to go find out if there were any major leases signed for this building during the first week of January 2013. My guess is no and Trump lied about it. Prove me wrong.
OK! Makes total sense.
He seems angry.
And its not like the WSJ wrote articles about Trump leasing out 400+k in office space in a short amount of time at the same building in 2009 (Bear Stearns was in it):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204624204577177552462568814
But for someone who keeps telling everybody how Trump is a bad business person they might want to explain how bad of a deal it was for him to buy the building for ~$10MM and it be worth ~$600MM now. Sounds like Trump didn't know what he was doing...
Add to that I'm confused as to how telling a lender in 2012 the place was 60% rented and a tax office in 2013 the place is 80% rented (which is likely true so who cares to begin with) somehow defrauds anybody...you gave the bank a low number which doesn't help the application and you gave the govt a higher number which would hurt you if you are somehow trying to lowball its value.
But why bring logic into a discussion with a HondoFSBro...
-
I've wondered the same thing about youinsinceredawg said:
How many times does Trump need to lie before you stop giving him the benefit of a doubt?PurpleThrobber said:
You want your guess proved wrong by somebody on an internet message board when the IRS and a heavily regulated industry like banking haven't come up with anything.insinceredawg said:
This is the exact excerpt from the article.HoustonHusky said:There is so much stupid in that link not sure where to start...for folks with TDS it is somehow surprising people would sign leases at the beginning of the year (one of the big "gotchas" is the lease occupancy is 60% in 2012 and 80% in 2013, and 95% a few years later).
Sounds sinister...
And somehow it is "shocking" that they paid $744k in "insurance", but paid $460k in "property insurance". Because...you know...the only kind of insurance around is property insurance.
HondoBros unite...you have some stupid to put on display...
the company told a lender that 40 Wall Street had been 58.9% leased on Dec. 31, 2012, and then rose to 95% a few years later. The company told tax officials the building was 81% rented as of Jan. 5, 2013.
According to Wikipedia, this building has over 1.1M square feet of office. So they are claiming they filled almost 250k square feet of space in a span of 5 days. While it's possible to sign a large lease, I challenge you to go find out if there were any major leases signed for this building during the first week of January 2013. My guess is no and Trump lied about it. Prove me wrong.
OK! Makes total sense.
And decided that you've exceeded your limit
-
Trump just underwent an IRS audit and another audit via Mueller.
Go ahead hang your hat on taxes. Mueller did.
