This was at the bottom of the first story the New York Times printed about Donald Trump's tax returns:
The new tax data showed that while in the White House, Mr. Trump made charitable contributions in cash, something the House committee said warrants further investigation. “We would have inquired as to whether the large cash contributions were supported by required substantiation,” the report said.
Cash! You betcha. Isn't that how everyone makes five and six figure charitable contributions?
Trump has a long record of aversion to making contributions to charity. His foundation was funded almost entirely by other people and was eventually dissolved after a judge ruled that it engaged in “a shocking pattern of illegality.” A long investigation by the Washington Post showed that Trump had given away only about $200,000 per year during his adult life, a paltry sum for a multi-billionaire and far, far less than he implied he gave away. The New York Times reported that of his more recent giving, virtually all of it was only technically charitable: he agreed not to develop land, usually after already deciding he didn't want to develop it anyway.
So should we believe that the undocumented "cash" contributions he allegedly gave to charity during his presidency are real? I don't know how anyone other than the IRS could investigate this, but why bother? I think we all know the answer.
I immediately remembered this;
Why is a $25,000 campaign donation Donald Trump made in September 2013 to Pam Bondi, a Republican running for re-election as Florida’s attorney general, now such a big deal?
Trump circumvented Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules by routing the money through a charitable entity, the Donald J Trump Foundation, which is prohibited by law from making political donations. More controversially, however, Bondi’s office was at the time mulling whether to join a New York state probe into allegations that customers who paid thousands of dollars to Trump University, Trump’s for-profit education company, for a real estate investment course were ripped off. Just days after Trump’s donation arrived, Bondi dropped her investigation into the alleged fraud, citing “insufficient grounds” to proceed.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/07/donald-trump-donation-pam-bondi-florida-attorney-general
That’s the type of clarity Trump donates to.
Sigh, “Charity”.
By sheer chance it all worked out, he should try buying lottery tickets.
When I was audited by the Australian Tax Office years ago, the first thing they wanted to see was documented evidence of every deduction I'd claimed. For charitable donations, that meant official receipts. No documented evidence meant the claim was disallowed.
I guess that would be unfair to presidents, who are too busy running America to file receipts systematically.
On the other hand, for comedians and prosecutors, Trump is the gift that keeps on giving.
Careful! Next thing, he'll ask for his cut.
As a matter of precision: "he agreed not to develop land, usually after already deciding he didn't want to develop it anyway."
Should be restated as "usually after already deciding he could not profitably develop it anyway."
An important difference. Every known case would generally indicate he pivot to the tax advantage strategy of 'charitable' only after he found his development scheme as desired was not plausibly going to be realised...
What about all that closet space at Mar A Lago that he generously donated to the federal govt for the storage of classified documents?
To be fair, he did donate his Presidential salary. On the other hand, given how little money he's made recently, maybe he should have kept his salary...
Presumeably, he didn't need it ... always more rubes he can grift off of. But by "donating" it, he gets a whopping big "charitable" deduction. Win Win!!
Totally with you until the next to last sentence. "Why bother" to investigate whether he engaged in outright tax fraud?
I hope I'm missing sarcasm here?
“ I don't know how anyone other than the IRS could investigate this, but why bother?”
I read that to mean that Kevin thinks the IRS should investigate but that the answer is so obvious that news organizations would be wasting their time investigating it.
Your take on that seems reasonable
After reading through The Washington Post's article fairly lengthy & detailed, as Kevin mentioned - I saw that one commenter took it to task, implying that it wasn't enough, seeming to think that The Post should name more names, & basically hand over a completed case to a prosecutor.
Similarly, one reader suggested that all the beleaguered IRS has to do was "alert" Congress to its desperate need for more funding. Who did s/he think purposely kept funding inadequate? I remember the huge photo in The Post of an entire room piled with IRS paperwork-& the government's generally outdated computer H/W & S/W doesn't help.
Think that room stuffed with paperwork was formerly their cafeteria
When my late wife worked at the San Jose IRS office she commented that her data entries to the Fresno office went by carrier pigeon. One letter at a time.
Do away with charitable deductions altogether. Millions of Americans that have never filed an itemized a return give to worthy causes.
Let weasels pay to whitewash -- pound salt, Stanford -- their public image.
While i am all for investigating the cash contributions I think there is about a zero probability that the organizations to whom he provided sham contributions would not provide investigators confirmation that they were real.
Steve
This cheap lying piece of shit never gave away anything to anybody unless he got something in return. Guaranteed, that for every so called charitable giving there was a kick back, or something nefarious going on under the table. I have no evidence but I know this to be true, simply because of his long history fucking people over, and absolute lack of empathy for anyone but himself.
The man is accused of far worse than beingy stingy with charity or cheating on his charitable deduction.
Sad
My buddy's mother makes $50 per hour working on the computer (Personal Computer). She hasn’t had a job for a long, yet this month she earned $11,500 by working just on her computer for 9 hours every day.
Read this article for more details.