I Know Mitt Cheated on His Taxes
My Two Cents.
The general assumption is that Mitt did nothing illegal in his tax filings, but used every legal trick in the IRS code to limit his liability. One basis for that assumption is that Mitt has been running for president since 1994 so he wouldn't be so stupid as to illegally evade taxes. Another basis is that John McCain claims his staff reviewed 23 years of Mitt's returns and found "There's nothing in Romney's tax returns that would disqualify him as a candidate, and McCain will 'personally vouch' for that."
(1) Ask Tim TurboTax Geithner & a couple of Bill Clinton's attorney general nominees about that. It is not that hard to cheat on your taxes & get it past the IRS. Thousands -- probably tens of thousands -- of ordinary people do it every year without the IRS even noticing. Mitt admitted a few days ago that he'd "been audited a few times." But remember, even when the IRS did audit Mitt's returns, it would have been Mitt's $400/hour tax attorneys countering a couple of G-9s who don't get overtime. Not a fair fight. Besides, when the object is to exploit every loophole & tax haven ($100 million IRA???), there are bound to be dicey calls.
(2) John McCain considered Mitt as a running mate for about 15 minutes, the obligatory period required to garner a photo op & an endorsement from a former opponent. My own annual tax returns on a miniscule income -- compared to Mitt's -- are as thick as The Great Gatsby. Mitt's have to be of War & Peace proportions. Do you think McCain's staff really combed through War & Peace x 23 in 15 minutes? Remember, this was the same gang who vetted Sarah Palin.
Not only that, McCain's wording was pretty cagey. He said there was nothing in the returns that was "disqualifying." That isn't the same thing as saying there was nothing that was illegal. If you get audited & the IRS fines you -- assuming the IRS is right -- you've done something "illegal." Unless it was egregious, you'll just have to pay back taxes, interest & (maybe) a fine. That isn't disqualifying. Plenty of decent people have lost audits & been hit with penalties. I wouldn't vote against somebody just because she made a mistake on her taxes.
But now. Instead of McCain's feeble vetters, nominee Romney faces a couple of hundred expert green eye shades anxious to dig in for the sheer fun of it. They are bound to come up with something, from "innocent" mistakes (See TurboTax Tim) to possible prosecutable evasions (perhaps past the statute of limitations). With such complex returns, & with the paramount goal of reducing liability (rather than giving the government its due), it is a virtual certainty that "mistakes were made."
Here's something else. Mitt himself doesn't know WTF is in those returns. Yeah, he's a Harvard MBA, but there's a reason he didn't do his own returns (see TurboTax Tim). He doesn't know how. He doesn't have time to learn. He's running for president, for Pete's sake. Inevitably, interviewers would ask him about some of those "mistakes that were made." A man running for office almost wholly on the basis of his business acumen can't afford to admit, "I have no idea," much less, "I can't add & subtract. I pay somebody to do that." Voter interpretation (fair or not): "You think you can run the whole country & you can't even read your own tax returns?"
Mitt should have been satisfied to live out his days in luxury, basking in the friendship of NASCAR & pro football team owners, the horsey set & whoever, maybe riding his car elevator up & down for fun (it might rotate!). Instead, he thought because it was his turn to be president, he could bluff his way into the job without having to show his cards. Don't tell me Mormons don't gamble. Mitt has gambled and won plenty of times. It's how he became a multi-millionaire. But Harry Reid -- another Mormon gambler -- just called Mitt's Big Bluff. Whether or not Mitt folds or shows his cards, he's lost the game.
Share Article
Reader Comments (12)
I wonder if the major problem return is for 2009? 2010 is out there. After learning among the 23 years of returns are some real dogs, the year prior to tax year 2009 would have been the time Mittster instructed his accountants to make things more presentable for his next run.
He'll never release the returns in any case.
Re: we'll divvy up the loot when we get back to the hideout. While reading CW on Mitt's tax returns I had a thought. Is it possible Mitt screwed his own gang on some of the really big heists that Bain pulled? I just read about the Italian Job. Mitt made off with millions but nobody know how many millions. If he had to show his taxes would his share surprise some of his cohorts? Just asking.
Whether Romney cheated on his taxes in the conventional sense is, for me, beside the point. I'm just not comfortable with a candidate who proudly and defiantly proclaims: "I paid what was owed and not a penny more," and proves it by releasing a return that shows multiple complex tax shelters throughout the world. Not to mention that $100 million in the IRA.
Mitt's tax returns will be proof that the rich can screw the poor legally. Yes I am sure he paid a few bucks in taxes every year. But his returns will not only expose how the rich really get rich, but will also show that their robbery is actually legal. It might be a little more difficult for Mitt to claim his grand leadership in business development when it turns out that you and I actually paid the bill.
Apparently Mitt doesn't confine his tax avoidance to income tax. According to the local San Diego paper:
"Mitt Romney has saved nearly $109,000 in taxes by appealing his property assessment from San Diego County over four years for his oceanfront home in La Jolla.
Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, purchased the Mediterranean-style house on Dunemere Drive in 2008 for $12 million. Within months, he set out to decrease his annual property tax bill. "
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/aug/06/romney-gets-property-tax-relief-la-jolla/
It is a practice to over charge the US divisions of a company and take the profit overseas. Taking profits overseas and causing a loss here gives a company a loss to be carried over to reduce a profitable year's taxes. Mitt may not have paid taxes some years because of a contrived loss. An amnesty will bring the profits home or they can be used for an overseas aquisition.
Romney is correct in not releasing his tax returns. He cannot be elected if they are examined. He may be elected if he stands fast and does not let the facts destroy him.
Where is WikiLeaks when we need them ??????
Great thoughts everyone. To Casey: how about an IRS agent that wouldn't mind spending a few thousand years in jail!
I'm with Victoria D. in her discomfort at supporting such an arrogant individual. Be they Democrat or Republican, how can someone stand before the citizens of America touting their pride in American exceptionalism while paying high fees to keep his/her money in off-shore accounts safely hidden from the U.S. taxman? Or disregarding the taxman, putting the money to work providing jobs for Americans to build American products.
Mr. Romney needs to put his money where his mouth is.
First, Marie, very nice summation of the story thus far. I'd give you a lot more than two cents for this one but then you might have to declare it on your 2012 returns. Maybe you can declare it as a charitable donation to your readers. I'm sure Willard has attempted far more specious declarations.
Part of the discomfort with Romney should be, especially for his supporters, his obvious hypocrisy in demanding that Ted Kennedy and later John Kerry, open their books to the voters and provide full and unfettered access to their tax records (he even went so far as to instruct voters that anyone who did not should be considered unfit for public office) but when it comes time for him to do the same, he insists upon his privacy along with his wife who haughtily sniffs that the Romneys have already given "you people" enough.
But since when has hypocrisy been a problem for Republicans? It's mother's milk for them.
In any event, it's clear, as Marie and many others have pointed out, that whatever he's got to hide (and more and more I'm liking JJG's idea that Willard the Rat is just as concerned about being outed to his former partners concerning some kind of side deal he kept off the Bain books for even more personal profit) he's more comfortable with public approbation for stonewalling than he is with transparency and the kind of openness he has demanded of others.
Another example of sterling Republican character.
I was hoping this tax issue might be the silver bullet but I am beginning to have the nagging suspicion it may fade away before bearing fruit due to the short attention span of too many Americans. Does anyone have an opinion on this? I need some encourament.
Don't much care what his tax returns show or not. Love that he won't release them. And the longer this anal retentive behavior goes on, the better, methinks.
"A clause in Academi’s settlement with prosecutors bars the company from making any public statements 'contradicting any aspect' of the agreement. Any such statement could allow the government to nullify the settlement...." CW: and nobody goes to jail."
You know I just found out yesterday that attorney client privilege is protected forever. So whether it's Erik Prince and his merry band of fascist mercenaries or Mitt and his legal henchmen deleting the hard drives as governor or Olympic guy, we can never, ever access the information that may remain if they put on the attorney client label.
So, the robber barons of hundred years ago, their papers are all protected by attorney client "privilege" in perpetuity. One can assume they were even worse than we realize. Just like Mitt.