L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,703
From his personal asserts.To pay his personal debt...
From his personal asserts.To pay his personal debt...
No, his charity is not "his personal assets". Because it's a charity. Also the money donated to his charity was almost exclusively not from Trump.From his personal asserts.
Then why is it (his ) charity? Does the charity belong to someone else?No, his charity is not "his personal assets". Because it's a charity. Also the money donated to his charity was almost exclusively not from Trump.
L.T., why are you acting obtuse? He has control of the charity, he started it. But he's not allowed to use it as his piggy bank. Otherwise a person could just start a charity and use it as a tax haven and use the donations for money laundering. Which is precisely what he's doing, which is precisely why he won't release his tax returns.Then why is it (his ) charity? Does the charity belong to someone else?
I'm not saying what Hillary's done with the Clinton foundation hasn't been shady. I think it's pretty obvious that it has. The difference is Hillary's always managed to put up smoke without a fire, and people have been chasing that smoke for 20 years without coming up with anything.To be fair the Clinton's foundation did all kinds of shady stuff. Things like this which are actually scary:
In a separate case, ABC News reports that a top Clinton Foundation donor named Rajiv Fernando was placed on State’s International Security Advisory Board. Fernando appeared significantly less qualified than many of his colleagues, and was appointed at the behest of the secretary’s office. Internal emails show that State staff first sought to cover for Clinton, and then Fernando resigned two days after ABC’s inquiries.
All Trump did was shift charitable money from one charity to another.
I am not being obtuse. It is a legitimate question. Charities, Trusts, etc are set up in unique ways at the wishes of the founders for various reasons. It isn't an automatic violation for someone to utilize these vehicles for various reasons. One would have to be aware of how the charities in question are structured. I don't know, do you? You can't assume there is a violation simply because it is a charity.L.T., why are you acting obtuse? He has control of the charity, he started it. But he's not allowed to use it as his piggy bank. Otherwise a person could just start a charity and use it as a tax haven and use the donations for money laundering. Which is precisely what he's doing, which is precisely why he won't release his tax returns.
I am saying you cannot question the legality without knowing the structure of the entity.L.T., why are you acting obtuse? He has control of the charity, he started it. But he's not allowed to use it as his piggy bank. Otherwise a person could just start a charity and use it as a tax haven and use the donations for money laundering. Which is precisely what he's doing, which is precisely why he won't release his tax returns.
Um , yes I can. The nation's laws on running a charity aren't subject to the structure of a charity. If Trump is involved in self dealing from a charity, the structure of the company is irrelevant. Because he's engaged in a clear conflict of interest as well as violating restrictions on the operation of charities put forward by the IRS.I am saying you cannot question the legality without knowing the structure of the entity.
But you don't know how it is structured so you can't know whether it in violation. It may well be but until IRS or DOJ say there is a violation of law then it conjecture by both of us to make pronouncements. Remember, there are ways of structuring things that can circumvent the law but not be illegal. That is why they call them loopholes. Further if there is self dealing then it will need to be pointed out by the prosecutors.Um , yes I can. The nation's laws on running a charity aren't subject to the structure of a charity. If Trump is involved in self dealing from a charity, the structure of the company is irrelevant. Because he's engaged in a clear conflict of interest as well as violating restrictions on the operation of charities put forward by the IRS.
It's all right here if you care to actually know the answer to this question.I am not being obtuse. It is a legitimate question. Charities, Trusts, etc are set up in unique ways at the wishes of the founders for various reasons. It isn't an automatic violation for someone to utilize these vehicles for various reasons. One would have to be aware of how the charities in question are structured. I don't know, do you? You can't assume there is a violation simply because it is a charity.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-DealingRosemary E. Fei, a lawyer in San Francisco who advises nonprofit groups, said both cases* clearly fit the definition of self-dealing.
“Yes, Trump pledged as part of the settlement to make a payment to a charity, and yes, the foundation is writing a check to a charity,” Fei said. “But the obligation was Trump’s. And you can’t have a charitable foundation paying off Trump’s personal obligations. That would be classic self-dealing.”
When internal revenue makes a determination I am sure you will let everyone know. In the meantime they are allegations not facts. Do you mind waiting for the actual findings? Then we can all talk about them.It's all right here if you care to actually know the answer to this question.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?postshare=2341474381688708&tid=ss_tw
But as usual you ignore the facts put before you.
How can you ask what somebody else knows when you clearly have no clue yourself.
Any non profit is under these rules.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Dealing
Self-Dealing
The conduct of a trustee, an attorney, or other fiduciary that consists of taking advantage of his or her position in a transaction and acting for his or her own interests rather than for the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust or the interests of his or her clients.
By the way there was no criminal investigation of Hillary nor could the administration wire anything to Iran so cool.your jets before you spout off again. If Trump is guilty then all of us will be informed.When internal revenue makes a determination I am sure you will let everyone know. In the meantime they are allegations not facts. Do you mind waiting for the actual findings? Then we can all talk about them.
I don't know the answer to that. Talk to an attorney who has some expertise.Wait, I can create a charity and structure it in a way that allows me to use the money for whatever I want? And all this time I've been working for a living, like some sucker?
Actually fines waged against a corporation aren't personal debts. A personal debt would be his charity paying off his mortgage. His charity giving money to another charity for the sake of another corporation or some form of a corporation is not actually a personal debt at all.Trump using charity funds to pay off personal debts is something that proves he's using his charity as an extension of his personal wealth.
He owns the corporation, anything that benefits his corporation goes into his pocket. He's allowed to pay himself from his own company at any time, which makes it a (taxation friendly) extension of his wealth. Which is fine, it's perfectly legal to treat a corporation that way, just not a charity, because a charity enjoys tax exemptions, and take charitable donations.Actually fines waged against a corporation aren't personal debts. A personal debt would be his charity paying off his mortgage. His charity giving money to another charity for the sake of another corporation or some form of a corporation is not actually a personal debt at all.
Wait for the book to come out.He owns the corporation, anything that benefits his corporation goes into his pocket. He's allowed to pay himself from his own company at any time, which makes it a (taxation friendly) extension of his wealth. Which is fine, it's perfectly legal to treat a corporation that way, just not a charity, because a charity enjoys tax exemptions, and take charitable donations.
Do you have any doubt that we'd find more egregious violations of Trump actually released his taxes?
Same as it ever was.When internal revenue makes a determination I am sure you will let everyone know. In the meantime they are allegations not facts. Do you mind waiting for the actual findings? Then we can all talk about them.
Are you posting to yourself now.By the way there was no criminal investigation of Hillary nor could the administration wire anything to Iran so cool.your jets before you spout off again. If Trump is guilty then all of us will be informed.
Did you read the article?Actually fines waged against a corporation aren't personal debts. A personal debt would be his charity paying off his mortgage. His charity giving money to another charity for the sake of another corporation or some form of a corporation is not actually a personal debt at all.
Additionally I'm not sure that a charity donating to another charity is actually inappropriate.