Weisselberg Indicted

[struth]

Trump Organization offices are in Trump Tower. That means his primary location is New York City and that means his apartment there cannot be a tax free fringe benefit.

You don’t have to prove residency. Your tax home only depends on your primary work location. They don’t care where you live when it comes to taxable fringe benefits. If you decide to live in Florida but work in New York, that’s your problem.

um as to your first paragraph, that's completely untrue. If a company is based and HQed some place, but operates all over the world, that doesn't mean it's employees all live and have to pay taxes wherever it's HQed....and that doesn't mean that the business can't own an apartment to keep employees from other locations up when they visit the HQ.

Your logic is completely off, and doesn't even make logical sense.

Your tax home, is based on your residency not where your employer is HQed. Geez...just how freaking clueless can you be.

 

[colfax_m]

um as to your first paragraph, that's completely untrue. If a company is based and HQed some place, but operates all over the world, that doesn't mean it's employees all live and have to pay taxes wherever it's HQed....and that doesn't mean that the business can't own an apartment to keep employees from other locations up when they visit the HQ.

Your logic is completely off, and doesn't even make logical sense.

Your tax home, is based on your residency not where your employer is HQed. Geez...just how freaking clueless can you be.

Your tax home is based on where you work. Logically, the CFO of an organization would work at the company headquarters. Weisselberg did work at Trump tower. That was his main work location. That makes an apartment in Manhattan a taxable benefit.

We don’t need to rely simply on this fact to establish that. Testimony from other employees would be able to adequately demonstrate that’s true.

You guys aren’t doing anything but casting uncertainty, in a very dubious manner, because none of you have argued where Weisselberg’s main location would be if not New York.

 

[struth]

Your tax home is based on where you work. Logically, the CFO of an organization would work at the company headquarters. Weisselberg did work at Trump tower. That was his main work location. That makes an apartment in Manhattan a taxable benefit.

We don’t need to rely simply on this fact to establish that. Testimony from other employees would be able to adequately demonstrate that’s true.

You guys aren’t doing anything but casting uncertainty, in a very dubious manner, because none of you have argued where Weisselberg’s main location would be if not New York.

You pay state income taxes on where you are a resident. You may owe taxes on where you work as well...for example, if you live in Conn, and work in NY, you pay state income taxes in Conn., and NY as a non-resident on NY based income. That of course may lead to deduction, and credits in either state, I don't know the tax laws of Conn and NY off hand....same for folks that may live in VA or MD, and work in DC, often common there as well.

But if I work for Nike, and live, and work in Kansas, I don't pay state income taxes in Oregon, simply because Nike is HQed there as you suggest.

I am not casting any uncertainity on anything...he may very well owe more in taxes, because he didn't claim the value of some of the perks he got from his employer...frankly I dare say that's true for millions of Americans.....but normally, how that is handled is a conversation between accountants and auditors....this move by Vance, desperate move by Vance in his witch hunt quest, is unprecedented....and frankly has quite the uphill battle to prove beyond a reasonable doubt...but he's desperate and trying to save some face, it's likely the main reason he isn't running for re-election.

 

[Chillicothe]

Don’t know where the income you state comes into play

You sure dont. He has spoonfed it to you like you were a drooling invalid.

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

I must say, poster 'colfax' has demonstrated far more patience and good will than I could.
By my tolerance level......we passed the Captain Obvious 'Duh!' point some posts back.

But then, that Trump Devoted Sycophant-thingy ...... is a thing.
It brings on Willful Obtuseness.
An amazing phenomena.
IMHO

But, a hat-tip to 'Colfax' .....for schooling us all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The only truth is Trump is still living rent free in your head and Vance's head."

And that's a bad thing?
Wouldn't we want prosecutors to be focused on their cases?

And too, as some wit observed months ago on this venue: 'Better he lives in their heads ....... than in the White House.

True that?

 

[colfax_m]

You pay state income taxes on where you are a resident. You may owe taxes on where you work as well...for example, if you live in Conn, and work in NY, you pay state income taxes in Conn., and NY as a non-resident on NY based income. That of course may lead to deduction, and credits in either state, I don't know the tax laws of Conn and NY off hand....same for folks that may live in VA or MD, and work in DC, often common there as well.

But if I work for Nike, and live, and work in Kansas, I don't pay state income taxes in Oregon, simply because Nike is HQed there as you suggest.

I am not casting any uncertainity on anything...he may very well owe more in taxes, because he didn't claim the value of some of the perks he got from his employer...frankly I dare say that's true for millions of Americans.....but normally, how that is handled is a conversation between accountants and auditors....this move by Vance, desperate move by Vance in his witch hunt quest, is unprecedented....and frankly has quite the uphill battle to prove beyond a reasonable doubt...but he's desperate and trying to save some face, it's likely the main reason he isn't running for re-election.

Yes, you pay income taxes on the location where they were earned. This isn't all that relevant other than to point out that Weisselberg's residence was in New York, which further adds to the evidence that Trump Tower was indeed his primary place of work. Again, it would be trivially easy to get testimony to demonstrate that Trump Tower was Weisselberg's primary work location.

The purpose of determining his tax home (which the IRS defines as his primary work location) is to determine what fringe benefits are taxable. You don't get lodging and travel for convenience purposes to work at your primary work location. It's clearly not allowed. It's so clearly not allowed, that it must be intentional. There's other corroborating evidence it was well outside the bounds of the law as well.

As for saying it's true for millions of Americans, that's just completely made up. Even if it were true, I dare say that Weisselberg is well within the top echelon of this behavior given he's successfully hidden as much income as the median American makes in their entire lifetime. Tax evasion, especially on this scale, is prosecuted. It's absolutely not unprecedented and it seems it will be quite possible to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt given the allegations in the indictment.

Treating this as a "conversation between accountants and auditors" is a miscarriage of justice. I'm sick of rich assholes getting away with crimes because they're "too hard to prosecute". That's the corruption in our justice system and I'm glad when anyone tries to change it.

 

[struth]

Yes, you pay income taxes on the location where they were earned. This isn't all that relevant other than to point out that Weisselberg's residence was in New York, which further adds to the evidence that Trump Tower was indeed his primary place of work. Again, it would be trivially easy to get testimony to demonstrate that Trump Tower was Weisselberg's primary work location.

The purpose of determining his tax home (which the IRS defines as his primary work location) is to determine what fringe benefits are taxable. You don't get lodging and travel for convenience purposes to work at your primary work location. It's clearly not allowed. It's so clearly not allowed, that it must be intentional. There's other corroborating evidence it was well outside the bounds of the law as well.

As for saying it's true for millions of Americans, that's just completely made up. Even if it were true, I dare say that Weisselberg is well within the top echelon of this behavior given he's successfully hidden as much income as the median American makes in their entire lifetime. Tax evasion, especially on this scale, is prosecuted. It's absolutely not unprecedented and it seems it will be quite possible to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt given the allegations in the indictment.

Treating this as a "conversation between accountants and auditors" is a miscarriage of justice. I'm sick of rich assholes getting away with crimes because they're "too hard to prosecute". That's the corruption in our justice system and I'm glad when anyone tries to change it.

The IRS isn't involved in this case, so their defination isn't really relevant. With that said you certainly can deduct for hotel rooms, apartments etc...even if your office, is in the same city. I have already provided that information for you....if the purpose of the apartment/hotel etc is for the benefit of the employer.

"
As a general rule, the IRS considers employer-provided housing to be a fringe benefit, and fringe benefits count as taxable income for an employee.

An exception is granted if the lodging is for the convenience of the employer, is on the business’s premises, and is provided as a condition of employment." How Is Corporate Housing Taxed? Is It Tax-Deductible?

They didn't find the case worthy of a criminal investigation or probe

How much he made, is not relevant. It's really not that much over 15 years based on the allegation....

 

[colfax_m]

The IRS isn't involved in this case, so their defination isn't really relevant. With that said you certainly can deduct for hotel rooms, apartments etc...even if your office, is in the same city. I have already provided that information for you....if the purpose of the apartment/hotel etc is for the benefit of the employer.

"
As a general rule, the IRS considers employer-provided housing to be a fringe benefit, and fringe benefits count as taxable income for an employee.

An exception is granted if the lodging is for the convenience of the employer, is on the business’s premises, and is provided as a condition of employment." How Is Corporate Housing Taxed? Is It Tax-Deductible?

They didn't find the case worthy of a criminal investigation or probe

How much he made, is not relevant. It's really not that much over 15 years based on the allegation....

Funny how you claim the IRS definition isn’t relevant but you’re using IRS definitions to determine if it is taxable. These are contradictory and only one is correct. The IRS definitions are relevant.

When you listed the conditions that lodging is tax free, you neglected to note that you have to fit all three conditions, not just one.

Further, it’s extremely unlikely that the housing could be considered to be at the convenience of the employer anyway.

 

[struth]

Funny how you claim the IRS definition isn’t relevant but you’re using IRS definitions to determine if it is taxable. These are contradictory and only one is correct. The IRS definitions are relevant.

When you listed the conditions that lodging is tax free, you neglected to note that you have to fit all three conditions, not just one.

Further, it’s extremely unlikely that the housing could be considered to be at the convenience of the employer anyway.

I was just using that information to respond to your comment.

The IRS isn't relevant, since they aren't involved. Maybe you do need to meet all conditions...where was this apartment? I assumed since Trump Organization is in the real estate business they used on of their own properties.

Why is that "extremely unlikely?"

It would be Govt's burden to prove that it wasn't, beyond a reasonable doubt of course.

Does NY have a different law in regards to employer provided housing? I haven't been able to find anything....

 

[colfax_m]

I was just using that information to respond to your comment.

The IRS isn't relevant, since they aren't involved. Maybe you do need to meet all conditions...where was this apartment? I assumed since Trump Organization is in the real estate business they used on of their own properties.

Why is that "extremely unlikely?"

It would be Govt's burden to prove that it wasn't, beyond a reasonable doubt of course.

Does NY have a different law in regards to employer provided housing? I haven't been able to find anything....

The IRS is highly relevant since New York relies on their definitions given they take the taxable income directly from the W2 where this fringe benefit should be listed as taxable.

The apartment was in a building they do not own. It’s not on company premises.

Claiming it would be for the convenience of the employer would be an affirmative defense. They have to prove it was. There’s no rational argument that an accountant has to be living there. I have friends who moonlighted as physicians for a hospital. Their lodging was provided on the hospital for the weekend so that they could respond to medical emergencies. That was for the convenience of the employer. This was not.

 

[struth]

The IRS is highly relevant since New York relies on their definitions given they take the taxable income directly from the W2 where this fringe benefit should be listed as taxable.

The apartment was in a building they do not own. It’s not on company premises.

Claiming it would be for the convenience of the employer would be an affirmative defense. They have to prove it was. There’s no rational argument that an accountant has to be living there. I have friends who moonlighted as physicians for a hospital. Their lodging was provided on the hospital for the weekend so that they could respond to medical emergencies. That was for the convenience of the employer. This was not.

If they leased it, it's their property.

It's not an affirmative defense....the Govt must prove it wasn't.

 

[colfax_m]

If they leased it, it's their property.

It's not an affirmative defense....the Govt must prove it wasn't.

Nonsense on all counts.

The law says the location has to be on premises. Not on their property. There’s an important difference.

It’s an affirmative defense. If you think an exemption applies to you, you have to prove it. Like self defense. You can’t shoot someone unless you can prove it’s self defense.

Lastly, let’s not overlook the ledger which has the rent for the apartment taken out of his “base salary”. This would mean that had he not had the apartment paid for, he would have gotten that money as taxable salary. That’s failing the third condition, that it was contingent on his employment.

Weisselberg has to meet all three criteria and he can’t even meet one.

 

[jc456]

and is provided as a condition of employment."

yep, his contract.

 

[jc456]

These are contradictory and only one is correct. The IRS definitions are relevant.

but the IRS didn't do anything. There is that.

 

[colfax_m]

yep, his contract.

Providing a tax free benefit in lieu of taxable salary is illegal.

 

[colfax_m]

but the IRS didn't do anything

They often don’t. That doesn’t make it any more legal.

 

[jc456]

Claiming it would be for the convenience of the employer would be an affirmative defense.

yep, his contract with the company outlined his benefits.

 

[struth]

Nonsense on all counts.

The law says the location has to be on premises. Not on their property. There’s an important difference.

It’s an affirmative defense. If you think an exemption applies to you, you have to prove it. Like self defense. You can’t shoot someone unless you can prove it’s self defense.

Lastly, let’s not overlook the ledger which has the rent for the apartment taken out of his “base salary”. This would mean that had he not had the apartment paid for, he would have gotten that money as taxable salary. That’s failing the third condition, that it was contingent on his employment.

Weisselberg has to meet all three criteria and he can’t even meet one.

Self Defense is certainly an affirmative defense...with that said, once it's raised, it's the burden of the Govt to show that it wasn't self-defense.

I don't see this being an affirmative defense...but whatever...still an unhill battle to prove criminal liability....in particular since he used third party accountants Typcially this is argued over auditors and accountants....this unprecedented move by Vance, is going to be a difficult burden to prove...but we know he doesn't really intent to go to trial over this.

I don't know if he can meet the requirements or not, not sure what the evidence is. Frankly, maybe he should pay taxes on the benefit...

 

[colfax_m]

yep, his contract with the company outlined his benefits.

Assuming it did, it’s irrelevant.

 

[jc456]

Providing a tax free benefit in lieu of taxable salary is illegal.

the man didn't receive a dime. The company payed the building owner the money for the apartment. The CFO did not get a dime.

 

[jc456]

Assuming it did, it’s irrelevant.

again, the man never saw a dime. No money, no taxes. You still haven't explained what tax money you think is owed.