Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

How Romney used his church's tax status to lower his tax bill

+5
Sal
Margin Call
knothead
boards of FL
Floridatexan
9 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://www.salon.com/2012/10/31/how_romney_used_his_churchs_charity_status_to_lower_his_tax_bill/?source=newsletter

'We already know that Mormon Mitt Romney has been tremendously generous to his church, giving over $5 million in the past two years alone, but now we learn that his charitable activity with LDS may not have been entirely altruistic. Bloomberg’s Jesse Drucker reports that Romney exploited the church’s tax-exempt status to lower his tax bill.

Romney reportedly took advantage of a loophole, called a charitable remainder unitrust or CRUT, which allows someone to park money or securities in a tax-deferred trust marked for their favorite charity, but which often doesn’t pay out much to the non-profit. The donor pays taxes on the fixed yearly income they get from the trust, but the principle remains untaxed . Congress outlawed the practice in 1997, but Romney slid in under the wire when his trust, created in June 1996, was grandfathered in.

The trust essentially lets someone “rent” the charity’s tax-exemption while not actually giving the charity much money. If done for this purpose, the trust pays out more every year to the donor than it makes in returns on its holdings, depleting the principal over time, so that when the donor dies and the trust is transferred to the charity, there’s often little left. The actual contribution “is just a throwaway,” Jonathan Blattmachr, a lawyer who set up hundreds of CRUTS in the 1990s, told Bloomberg. “I used to structure them so the value dedicated to charity was as close to zero as possible without being zero.”

Indeed, this appears to the case for Romney’s trust as well. Bloomberg obtained the trust’s tax returns through a Freedom of Information Request and found that Romney’s CRUT started at $750,000 in 2001 but ended 2011 with only $421,203 — over a period when the stock market grew. Romney’s trust was projected to leave less than 8 percent of the original contribution to the church (or another charity that he can designate). This, along with the trust’s poor returns — it made just $48 in 2011 — suggest the trust is not designed to grow for the LDS church but just serve as a tax-free holding pool from which annual payments can be disbursed to the Romneys.


This is hardly the first tax-avoidance strategy Romney has employed. It’s well known that he holds offshore bank accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands, but he has used more obscure vehicles as well. There’s the “total return equity swap,” where a taxpayer calls a stock they own by another name and doesn’t pay taxes on it. There’s the way he’s been avoiding gift and estate taxes through a trust that he set up for his children and grandchildren. And there’s the neat trick whereby private equity firms claim that management fees are capital gains and thus qualify for a lower tax rate than straight income. Bain Capital was known for pursuing an aggressive tax-mitigation strategy (they’re now under investigation for it), and so was Marriott Hotels when Romney was an influential board member.

And it’s not just taxpayers who lose out. “The Romneys get theirs off the top and the charity gets what’s left,” said Michael Arlein, a trusts and estates lawyer at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP. “So by definition, if it’s not performing as well, the charity gets harmed more.”"

---------------------------

Believe what you want to believe, Romney fans, because I know that's what you'll do anyway.



Guest


Guest

nochain wrote: Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep

'FT' and the rest of the loons have really become more lame and boring...if that's even possible....

boards of FL

boards of FL

nochain wrote:FREE PASS ALERT!
FREE PASS ALERT!


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

If no laws were broken then whats the problem?

boards of FL

boards of FL

alecto wrote:If no laws were broken then whats the problem?

The problem is that we have this deficit problem that ballooned ever since we cut taxes back in 2001-2003. We also have people like Romney paying lower effective tax rates than people who make $50k per year. Now, you can either vote for the candidate who wants to fix that, or you can vote for the candidate who wants to exacerbate that - essentially pouring gasoline on the fire.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
alecto wrote:If no laws were broken then whats the problem?

The problem is that we have this deficit problem that ballooned ever since we cut taxes back in 2001-2003. We also have people like Romney paying lower effective tax rates than people who make $50k per year. Now, you can either vote for the candidate who wants to fix that, or you can vote for the candidate who wants to exacerbate that - essentially pouring gasoline on the fire.

And what has your hero BHO done in the last 4 years to "fix" this? You hypocritical folks who denigrate someone for following the law - regardless of "appearance" are hilarious! So, you have on this side a businessman who grew wealthy using the tools made available by the government in past years. On the other hand you have someone who smoked dope and blew coke in past years - which regardless of your slant is still against the law - now to whom are you giving a free pass?

boards of FL

boards of FL

nochain wrote:And what has your hero BHO done in the last 4 years to "fix" this?

He has pushed for the Buffet Rule and also for rolling back top tier tax rates to levels from the Clinton era.

nochain wrote:You hypocritical folks who denigrate someone for following the law - regardless of "appearance" are hilarious! So, you have on this side a businessman who grew wealthy using the tools made available by the government in past years. On the other hand you have someone who smoked dope and blew coke in past years - which regardless of your slant is still against the law - now to whom are you giving a free pass?

So, nochain, should someone who makes millions of dollars per year pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who makes $50k per year?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
nochain wrote:And what has your hero BHO done in the last 4 years to "fix" this?

He has pushed for the Buffet Rule and also for rolling back top tier tax rates to levels from the Clinton era.

nochain wrote:You hypocritical folks who denigrate someone for following the law - regardless of "appearance" are hilarious! So, you have on this side a businessman who grew wealthy using the tools made available by the government in past years. On the other hand you have someone who smoked dope and blew coke in past years - which regardless of your slant is still against the law - now to whom are you giving a free pass?

So, nochain, should someone who makes millions of dollars per year pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who makes $50k per year?

Who said he does?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/18/news/economy/Romney_effective_tax_rate/index.htm

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
nochain wrote:And what has your hero BHO done in the last 4 years to "fix" this?

He has pushed for the Buffet Rule and also for rolling back top tier tax rates to levels from the Clinton era.

nochain wrote:You hypocritical folks who denigrate someone for following the law - regardless of "appearance" are hilarious! So, you have on this side a businessman who grew wealthy using the tools made available by the government in past years. On the other hand you have someone who smoked dope and blew coke in past years - which regardless of your slant is still against the law - now to whom are you giving a free pass?

So, nochain, should someone who makes millions of dollars per year pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who makes $50k per year?


Someone that makes millions of dollars per year via long-term capital gains pays a tax rate of 15%. The capital used to create that income has typically already been taxed at rates up to 35%. Someone making millions of dollars per year in ordinary income will pay tax rates according to their income...up to 35%. Several studies by non-partisan groups have shown that people making $50000 in ordinary income pay effective tax rates in the 7-8% range. Your question is misleading at best and completely deceptive at worst.

boards of FL

boards of FL

nsureme wrote:Someone that makes millions of dollars per year via long-term capital gains pays a tax rate of 15%. The capital used to create that income has typically already been taxed at rates up to 35%. Someone making millions of dollars per year in ordinary income will pay tax rates according to their income...up to 35%. Several studies by non-partisan groups have shown that people making $50000 in ordinary income pay effective tax rates in the 7-8% range. Your question is misleading at best and completely deceptive at worst.

Mea culpa. Let me rephrase. Being that our deficit problem can be traced back to tax cuts and ramped up defense spending, should we 1) cut taxes further and ramp up military spending further or 2) restore tax rates for top tier earners to those from the Clinton era, implement the Buffet rule, and rein in defense spending?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

2 TRILLION should be plenty to run the federal govt... I don't think any segment of society can fix the reason it isn't.

"If you live above your means... sooner or later you must live below your means." can't remember who said that.

The key point after the temporary bush tax cuts was spending... and it still is... along with printing funny money.

knothead

knothead

boards of FL wrote:
nsureme wrote:Someone that makes millions of dollars per year via long-term capital gains pays a tax rate of 15%. The capital used to create that income has typically already been taxed at rates up to 35%. Someone making millions of dollars per year in ordinary income will pay tax rates according to their income...up to 35%. Several studies by non-partisan groups have shown that people making $50000 in ordinary income pay effective tax rates in the 7-8% range. Your question is misleading at best and completely deceptive at worst.

Mea culpa. Let me rephrase. Being that our deficit problem can be traced back to tax cuts and ramped up defense spending, should we 1) cut taxes further and ramp up military spending further or 2) restore tax rates for top tier earners to those from the Clinton era, implement the Buffet rule, and rein in defense spending?

******************************

S-I-L-E-N-C-E . . . . . . . . .

Margin Call

Margin Call

boards of FL wrote:
nochain wrote:And what has your hero BHO done in the last 4 years to "fix" this?

He has pushed for the Buffet Rule and also for rolling back top tier tax rates to levels from the Clinton era.

nochain wrote:You hypocritical folks who denigrate someone for following the law - regardless of "appearance" are hilarious! So, you have on this side a businessman who grew wealthy using the tools made available by the government in past years. On the other hand you have someone who smoked dope and blew coke in past years - which regardless of your slant is still against the law - now to whom are you giving a free pass?

So, nochain, should someone who makes millions of dollars per year pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who makes $50k per year?

This issue is more dynamic than your question implies. The answer depends on if the income is offset by deductible expenses and how the money is earned (cap gains, dividends, municipal bond interest). Further, if you look at the aggregate taxes paid for the income ranges you are talking about, the rich guys are indeed paying a higher effective rate.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
alecto wrote:If no laws were broken then whats the problem?

The problem is that we have this deficit problem that ballooned ever since we cut taxes back in 2001-2003. We also have people like Romney paying lower effective tax rates than people who make $50k per year. Now, you can either vote for the candidate who wants to fix that, or you can vote for the candidate who wants to exacerbate that - essentially pouring gasoline on the fire.

Once again were any laws broken? NO.

Please, please tell me you are not that naive BOF. in 2008 Candidate Obama said he would lower the deficit, he added 6+ trillion to it. Now President Obama says he is going to lower the deficit. Seriously, He is lying through his teeth, he isn't going to lower crap. Obama can tax the rich at 95% and it will not solve shit without massive spending cuts not only to the military but all the nice little social programs. I have a lot of respect for you BOF and can't believe you would believe Obama given his record. Would Romney do any better? Couldn't tell ya but in this election the unknown is better than the known.

Guest


Guest

[quote="alecto"][quote="boards of FL"]
alecto wrote:If nCouldn't tell ya but in this election the unknown is better than the known.

That's the determination I finally made.... I look at 4 years of failure and see nothing on the horizon but more empty promises for the next four.

boards of FL

boards of FL

alecto wrote:Please, please tell me you are not that naive BOF. in 2008 Candidate Obama said he would lower the deficit, he added 6+ trillion to it. Now President Obama says he is going to lower the deficit. Seriously, He is lying through his teeth, he isn't going to lower crap. Obama can tax the rich at 95% and it will not solve shit without massive spending cuts not only to the military but all the nice little social programs. I have a lot of respect for you BOF and can't believe you would believe Obama given his record. Would Romney do any better? Couldn't tell ya but in this election the unknown is better than the known.

Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit. The fiscal year 2012 recently closed and the deficit is now $1.1 trillion. The year before that it was $1.3 trillion. It seems as if a trend may be emerging.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43656


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

nochain wrote:That's the determination I finally made.... I look at 4 years of failure and see nothing on the horizon but more empty promises for the next four.

"Well, this squirt gun doesn't seem to be having much of an effect at reducing this fire. I suppose we should try gasoline now."


_________________
I approve this message.

Sal

Sal

alecto wrote:If no laws were broken then whats the problem?

From what I can understand, the loophole Romney took advantage of is legal, just sleazy even by tax-lawyer standards, because he’s essentially getting a payment every year from the ‘trust’ that gradually reduces the church’s principal to zero.

I've heard rumors that Willard is not particularly well-liked amongst the Mormon hierarchy. Maybe, this kind of three-card-monte explains that.

Margin Call

Margin Call

salinsky wrote:
alecto wrote:If no laws were broken then whats the problem?

From what I can understand, the loophole Romney took advantage of is legal, just sleazy even by tax-lawyer standards, because he’s essentially getting a payment every year from the ‘trust’ that gradually reduces the church’s principal to zero.

I've heard rumors that Willard is not particularly well-liked amongst the Mormon hierarchy. Maybe, this kind of three-card-monte explains that.

The annual distribution is taxed. This type of trust is tax deferred....basically a 401(k) for really rich guys.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

salinsky wrote:
alecto wrote:If no laws were broken then whats the problem?

From what I can understand, the loophole Romney took advantage of is legal, just sleazy even by tax-lawyer standards, because he’s essentially getting a payment every year from the ‘trust’ that gradually reduces the church’s principal to zero.

I've heard rumors that Willard is not particularly well-liked amongst the Mormon hierarchy. Maybe, this kind of three-card-monte explains that.

They'll never get it, Sal, because they don't WANT to see it. Romney represents, maybe better than anyone else, what's WRONG with the country. I think the author got it wrong about Mitt's popularity as governor, other than so-called "Romneycare", but he has totally backed away from that stance in his current campaign. He has twisted the tax laws to his own advantage, even beyond the tithe to his church. He has shipped American jobs overseas and marveled at the wages and living conditions the Chinese will accept. He used highly questionable funding, to say the least, in the formation and operation of Bain Capital. He hit up the federal government for taxpayer dollars to salvage Bain & Co. by defrauding the FDIC; he took $1.3 billion taxpayer dollars to help finance the 2002 Olympics. He doesn't believe in banking in the US, for unknown reasons, preferring to set up overseas accounts, which are known for their usefulness in one major arena...the tax dodge. His "blind trusts" aren't really blind. His wife thinks it's "their turn" and doesn't think "you people" need anymore info on their tax situation, because (parsing) she doesn't want to provide more fodder for the press to decipher and the opposition to use against them.

And yet this is the man some want to run the country? ASTOUNDING!

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
alecto wrote:Please, please tell me you are not that naive BOF. in 2008 Candidate Obama said he would lower the deficit, he added 6+ trillion to it. Now President Obama says he is going to lower the deficit. Seriously, He is lying through his teeth, he isn't going to lower crap. Obama can tax the rich at 95% and it will not solve shit without massive spending cuts not only to the military but all the nice little social programs. I have a lot of respect for you BOF and can't believe you would believe Obama given his record. Would Romney do any better? Couldn't tell ya but in this election the unknown is better than the known.

Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit. The fiscal year 2012 recently closed and the deficit is now $1.1 trillion. The year before that it was $1.3 trillion. It seems as if a trend may be emerging.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43656

Yea, must be all that additional tax revenue from the highly successful, multi-billion dollar "Shovel Ready" and "Green Money Energy Bankruptcy" programs generating those millions of jobs BHO promised. Sure. Perhaps it is a result of austerity measures in BHOs budget submissions, oh wait - it can't be that because none were passed. Oh well, BHOs sheeple will vote out of their extreme pride in hearing teleprompter promises and just hope for the best. He will likely get reelected so it will be interesting to see how 2016 looks. I'm thinking just like now except 4 years worse. Maybe he can at least propose programs to get the unemployment rate down to say, maybe 7% within 4 years???? lol!

Margin Call

Margin Call

Floridatexan wrote:
salinsky wrote:
alecto wrote:If no laws were broken then whats the problem?

From what I can understand, the loophole Romney took advantage of is legal, just sleazy even by tax-lawyer standards, because he’s essentially getting a payment every year from the ‘trust’ that gradually reduces the church’s principal to zero.

I've heard rumors that Willard is not particularly well-liked amongst the Mormon hierarchy. Maybe, this kind of three-card-monte explains that.

They'll never get it, Sal, because they don't WANT to see it. Romney represents, maybe better than anyone else, what's WRONG with the country. I think the author got it wrong about Mitt's popularity as governor, other than so-called "Romneycare", but he has totally backed away from that stance in his current campaign. He has twisted the tax laws to his own advantage, even beyond the tithe to his church. He has shipped American jobs overseas and marveled at the wages and living conditions the Chinese will accept. He used highly questionable funding, to say the least, in the formation and operation of Bain Capital. He hit up the federal government for taxpayer dollars to salvage Bain & Co. by defrauding the FDIC; he took $1.3 billion taxpayer dollars to help finance the 2002 Olympics. He doesn't believe in banking in the US, for unknown reasons, preferring to set up overseas accounts, which are known for their usefulness in one major arena...the tax dodge. His "blind trusts" aren't really blind. His wife thinks it's "their turn" and doesn't think "you people" need anymore info on their tax situation, because (parsing) she doesn't want to provide more fodder for the press to decipher and the opposition to use against them.

And yet this is the man some want to run the country? ASTOUNDING!

Nice job...and you didn't even point out that he is an inveterate liar!

no stress

no stress

How Romney used his church's tax status to lower his tax bill 58086110

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/31/how_romney_used_his_churchs_charity_status_to_lower_his_tax_bill/?source=newsletter

'We already know that Mormon Mitt Romney has been tremendously generous to his church, giving over $5 million in the past two years alone, but now we learn that his charitable activity with LDS may not have been entirely altruistic. Bloomberg’s Jesse Drucker reports that Romney exploited the church’s tax-exempt status to lower his tax bill.

Romney reportedly took advantage of a loophole, called a charitable remainder unitrust or CRUT, which allows someone to park money or securities in a tax-deferred trust marked for their favorite charity, but which often doesn’t pay out much to the non-profit. The donor pays taxes on the fixed yearly income they get from the trust, but the principle remains untaxed . Congress outlawed the practice in 1997, but Romney slid in under the wire when his trust, created in June 1996, was grandfathered in.

The trust essentially lets someone “rent” the charity’s tax-exemption while not actually giving the charity much money. If done for this purpose, the trust pays out more every year to the donor than it makes in returns on its holdings, depleting the principal over time, so that when the donor dies and the trust is transferred to the charity, there’s often little left. The actual contribution “is just a throwaway,” Jonathan Blattmachr, a lawyer who set up hundreds of CRUTS in the 1990s, told Bloomberg. “I used to structure them so the value dedicated to charity was as close to zero as possible without being zero.”

Indeed, this appears to the case for Romney’s trust as well. Bloomberg obtained the trust’s tax returns through a Freedom of Information Request and found that Romney’s CRUT started at $750,000 in 2001 but ended 2011 with only $421,203 — over a period when the stock market grew. Romney’s trust was projected to leave less than 8 percent of the original contribution to the church (or another charity that he can designate). This, along with the trust’s poor returns — it made just $48 in 2011 — suggest the trust is not designed to grow for the LDS church but just serve as a tax-free holding pool from which annual payments can be disbursed to the Romneys.


This is hardly the first tax-avoidance strategy Romney has employed. It’s well known that he holds offshore bank accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands, but he has used more obscure vehicles as well. There’s the “total return equity swap,” where a taxpayer calls a stock they own by another name and doesn’t pay taxes on it. There’s the way he’s been avoiding gift and estate taxes through a trust that he set up for his children and grandchildren. And there’s the neat trick whereby private equity firms claim that management fees are capital gains and thus qualify for a lower tax rate than straight income. Bain Capital was known for pursuing an aggressive tax-mitigation strategy (they’re now under investigation for it), and so was Marriott Hotels when Romney was an influential board member.

And it’s not just taxpayers who lose out. “The Romneys get theirs off the top and the charity gets what’s left,” said Michael Arlein, a trusts and estates lawyer at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP. “So by definition, if it’s not performing as well, the charity gets harmed more.”"

---------------------------

Believe what you want to believe, Romney fans, because I know that's what you'll do anyway.

SPECIFICALLY, what laws were broken?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum