Donald Trump used $258,000 from his charity for legal settlements, reports say

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thorolfr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lmachine said:
Unfortunately the IRS doesn’t have the resources to examine every transaction in the country, but media attention can focus the agency on tax law violations. The newly opened investigation into the Trump Foundation by the NY Attorney General will also provide more information and share the investigative burden.
Click to expand...
They had enough resources to suppress conservative groups.
 
lmachine said:
Unfortunately the IRS doesn’t have the resources to examine every transaction in the country, but media attention can focus the agency on tax law violations. The newly opened investigation into the Trump Foundation by the NY Attorney General will also provide more information and share the investigative burden.
Click to expand...
Well, the IRS certainly had the resources to delay the tax exempt applications of every organization that had anything remotely patriotic in its name or had a lot of conservative donors.

Oh, yes, the New York attorney general. Another Clinton supporter, who won’t lift a finger to investigate the Clinton Foundation, despite widespread knowledge of its corruption, but picks this time to investigate Trump. Typical leftist totalitarianism. They would send Trump (and the other “deplorable” Americans) to the Gulag if they could.
 
I’m not sure if political post limitations are still on. But being concerned about it, I’ll leave this thread to the rest of you all.
 
Ridgerunner said:
A settlement is not a “legal obligation” until it’s made. Trump had no “legal obligation” to settle anything.
Click to expand...
The settlement was made, hence the obligation. Trump had no legal obligation to settle, but once he settled he had a legal obligation to fulfill the terms of the settlement or risk continuation of the suit. He chose to settle, he agreed to the terms of the settlement, and had a legal obligation to carry out those terms.
It’s entirely possible for one defendant in a lawsuit to win and another to lose.
Click to expand...
The reason Trump ended up paying the settlement was because his course was primarily liable for the mistake. The course was responsible for making sure the holes were the proper distances. Mourning’s charity would be a defendant in this case that would have won.
And why is it illegal for Trump’s foundation to pay the legal expenses of another charity?
Click to expand...
Because the Trump Foundation wasn’t involved in the tournament or the lawsuit.
The Trump Foundation payments went to or for charities. No question about that.
Clinton Foundation payments went to support Clinton’s political machine and daughter. No question about that either.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why you keep bringing up the Clinton Foundation. This is a thread about Donald Trump misusing charitable donations.
 
There are a lot of similarities between Don and Hillary. When there is shady stuff going down, one of them seems to be hanging around the neighborhood. One can argue which one is more corrupt, but one cannot argue that either one is a good role model for the rest of the nation.
 
lmachine said:
The settlement was made, hence the obligation. Trump had no legal obligation to settle, but once he settled he had a legal obligation to fulfill the terms of the settlement or risk continuation of the suit. He chose to settle, he agreed to the terms of the settlement, and had a legal obligation to carry out those terms.

The reason Trump ended up paying the settlement was because his course was primarily liable for the mistake. The course was responsible for making sure the holes were the proper distances. Mourning’s charity would be a defendant in this case that would have won.

Because the Trump Foundation wasn’t involved in the tournament or the lawsuit.

I’m not sure why you keep bringing up the Clinton Foundation. This is a thread about Donald Trump misusing charitable donations.
Click to expand...
Assumption upon assumption upon assumption. If, indeed, the Trump Foundation eliminated a liability source for the Mourning charity, it was a gift to a charity. No way around that.

Anyone attempting to know all the details of the settlement would have to read the settlement documents and understand the negotiations behind them. I doubt anyone but a very skilled lawyer could actually “get it” fully. In the course of my business I am sometimes obliged to interpret court judgment documents. Sometimes it’s easy and sometimes it’s very difficult. And sometimes you come out the same door you went in, because you don’t know (and can’t know) the details of the negotiations that led to it, and in particular you don’t know the “confidential” settlement documents that underlie the four corners of an agreement as to who is to do what.

But as a political attempt to draw equivalency between Trump Foundations benefits to actual charities (which has not been denied here) and Hillary Clinton’s selling the functions of her office for money going into her own pocket, (likewise not denied) I guess it’s the best the left has for the moment. That’s why this thread exists, and so Hillary Clinton’s corruption is entirely relevant.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Hillary Clinton’s selling the functions of her office for money going into her own pocket, (likewise not denied) I guess it’s the best the left has for the moment.
Click to expand...
If there was any real solid evidence that Hillary Clinton had sold the functions of her office for money, she would have been investigated and prosecuted for it by now or the present Republican controlled congress would be demanding that she be prosecuted for it. There is no solid evidence and anything else is mere innuendo or speculation.

The evidence of any wrong doing on Clinton’s part is no more sold than the evidence that Donald Trump made a contribution to the Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to head off an investigation of Trump University.
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

Deleted a couple of posts

This thread is not about Hillary Clinton, there are other threads about her.

Please stay on the topic of the original post.
 
Trump is actually doing his foundation a favor, by ‘storing’ its portrait on his golf resort wall, his adviser says
Trump, the adviser said, was actually doing his charity a favor, by “storing” its painting on the wall of a bar at Trump National Doral, outside Miami.
Click to expand...
“There are IRS rules which specifically state that when a foundation has an item, an individual can store those items – on behalf of the foundation – in order to help it with storage costs,” Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn said on MSNBC. “And that’s absolutely proper.”
Click to expand...
MSNBC’s Hallie Jackson pressed Epshteyn. Was he really talking about the $10,000 portrait that was recently discovered – by an Univision journalist – at the Champions Bar and Grill? “You’re telling me that that is storage, for Mr. Trump?” Jackson.
Click to expand...
“Right, of course, he’s doing a good thing for his foundation,” Epshteyn said.
Click to expand...
…]
Click to expand...
“It’s hard to make an IRS auditor laugh,” Brett Kappel, an attorney who advises nonprofit groups at the Akerman law firm, wrote in an email. “But this would do it.”
Click to expand...
Experts said that the IRS had actually ruled on a similar issue in 1974, in a case where a major donor to a private foundation took paintings belonging to that foundation and hung them in his home. (The rules against “self-dealing” apply to both major donors and to foundation officers, like Trump.) The IRS determined that this was, indeed, self-dealing – because the homeowner was using the foundation’s assets to benefit himself.
Click to expand...
 
chero23 said:
The following will be used for his defense here.
  1. the Clinton foundation
    Or
  2. the liberal media
Click to expand...
You’re okay with the Clinton’s using their “charity” as a personal slush fund to the tune of millions per year?
 
ucfengr said:
You’re okay with the Clinton’s using their “charity” as a personal slush fund to the tune of millions per year?
Click to expand...
Facts? There is absolutely no evidence that the Clintons are using the Clinton Foundation as a slush fund. It doesn’t become true just because this allegation gets repeated over and over again. If you think that there is evidence, please provide a link to a valid news source.
 
adowcday said:
Facts? There is absolutely no evidence that the Clintons are using the Clinton Foundation as a slush fund. It doesn’t become true just because this allegation gets repeated over and over again. If you think that there is evidence, please provide a link to a valid news source.
Click to expand...
The Moderator has cautioned this thread is about Trump, not Clinton. But there are plenty of indicia of the “slush fund” assertion. I’ll leave it there.
 
NY Attorney General’s Probe Of Trump Foundation Appears To Widen
The New York attorney general’s investigation of the Donald J. Trump Foundation appears to have broadened to include new allegations of self-dealing by Trump that surfaced after the probe began, TPM has learned.
Click to expand...
The town of Palm Beach, Florida, has provided documents to the New York Attorney General’s Office as part of the probe, a lawyer for the town confirmed to TPM on Wednesday. The documents relate to a legal dispute that Trump settled with the town using foundation money. The details of the 2007 Palm Beach case were first reported by the Washington Post last week.
Click to expand...
“The New York Attorney General’s Office did contact me in regard to this matter,” John Randolph, the Palm Beach town attorney, told TPM Wednesday evening. “I just sent them the documents that I had previously sent to the Washington Post.”
Click to expand...
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman had announced earlier this month, before the Washington Post’s reporting on the Palm Beach case, that his office had opened an investigation into Trump Foundation after it was reported that Trump had used foundation money to buy personal gifts for himself.
Click to expand...
The contact with Palm Beach by the Attorney General’s Office suggests its probe had widened to include other alleged acts of self-dealing. The Attorney General’s Office declined to comment Thursday.
Click to expand...
 
Trump Foundation lacks the certification required for charities that solicit money
Donald Trump’s charitable foundation — which has been sustained for years by donors outside the Trump family — has never obtained the certification that New York requires before charities can solicit money from the public, according to the state attorney general’s office.
Click to expand...
Under the laws in New York, where the Donald J. Trump Foundation is based, any charity that solicits more than $25,000 a year from the public must obtain a special kind of registration beforehand. Charities as large as Trump’s must also submit to a rigorous annual audit that asks — among other things — whether the charity spent any money for the personal benefit of its officers.
Click to expand...
 
Does this mean that contributors to the Trump Foundation that deducted that contribution from their NY taxes will be fined for incorrect filings?
 
sallybutler said:
Does this mean that contributors to the Trump Foundation that deducted that contribution from their NY taxes will be fined for incorrect filings?
Click to expand...
I didn’t get that impression from what I’ve read but I have no idea about the New York laws. It says that depending on what the regulators decide they can force the Trump Foundation to refund all of the donations. In that case my understanding is the money would go back to the individuals and companies who donated and would be treated as income (they could pay taxes on it or give it to charity and deduct it again).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top