Losing $916M in one year is not smart

[320 Years of History]

Money has no utility to me beyond a certain point. Its utility is entirely in building an organization and getting the resources out to the poorest in the world.
-- Bill Gates​

Introduction:
Let me be clear from the get go. I do not have a problem with Trump's having availed himself of the tax laws that allow him the likely net operating loss (NOL) carryforward (see also: The Net Operating Loss Carryback and Carryforward - AccountingTools). It was allowed and that's that.

That said, I don't care who one is, single handedly being the person responsible for the business decisions that resulted in a company's (a company the size of Trump's at the time) losing nearly a billion dollars in one year is enough to get pretty much any CEO fired, and most especially a CEO who is as closely involved in his business as Trump is in his. Now it didn't get Trump fired because his businesses are privately held and he's now as then the primary holder of them and the other owners can't sell their shares of ownership in it on the open market.


About the NOL itself:
For whatever tax deductions it gave him, losing $916M dollars in one year is not a smart thing to do. Nobody, nobody starts a business year or plans for the following year by thinking, "Okay. I'm going to lose nearly a billion dollars because it'll give me NOLs that will reduce my income tax liability for years to come." Operating losses are something that happens as a result of bad decision making. Why the decision(s) were bad is beside the point. They were very bad, terrible in fact, business decisions and deducting their cost on one's tax return is nothing more than making the most of a very, very bad business decision.

Now I haven't looked at the full return that's been making the news recently, but I do know that the -$916M figure being cited may not actually be the "starting" sum of the NOL Trump had. That figure could well be the sum carried forward, and then only using part of it to offset his 1995 income tax liability, rather than representing the actual sum of an operating loss he experienced in 1995.

Just to put Trump's NOL into perspective consider this. If you were to earn $100M in 2016 and pay federal income taxes at 30% (meaning you don't do much at all to minimize your tax liability), you'd have a preliminary $30M federal income tax liability. Now if you had a $900M NOL carryforward from 2015, you'd have an actual tax bill of $0. In 2017, unless you have a preliminary federal income tax liability of $870M,. you will also pay zero in federal income taxes.

Let's look at a $900M NOL a slightly different way. Assuming one pays taxes at 15% (that was Mitt Romney's effective tax rate), how much must one earn before all of a $900M NOL is "used up?" $6,000,000,000. One would need to earn $6B over the course of the following 20 years, or 18 years if one exercised the two year carryback election. Bear in mind the preceding figures assume one actually has a preliminary tax bill to begin with.

Frankly, I think 15% as an effective tax rate for Trump's companies is an overestimation of what his rate would be. The reason I think that is what I understand to be the average effective tax rate, according to a NYU Stern School report, in the industries in which he does business:

• Hotels: 11.34%
• REIT: 2.17%
• Real Estate Development: 1.06%
• Real Estate Operations and Services: 11.19%
• Real Estate General/Diversified: 9.4%
• Entertainment: 3.25%

What about Trump's so-called "comeback" after having a $916M NOL?
Well, we all know that Trump thinks his business acumen is "the best thing since sliced bread." Analysts seem to differ. Based on John Griffin's analysis, Trump has underperformed his peers by some 48% to 57%. That says more about just how easy it is to make money in Trump's industry. There aren't many places where one can underperform and still be a billionaire, or as near to being one as makes no difference. That combined with the seriously stupid-sh*t things he's said and done publicly over the past year and a half do not make Trump seem smart at all. What the man is is lucky. Period.

 

[Alt_Ascendant]

Warren Buffett's Berkshire loses $2 billion in two days

I've yet to hear claims Buffet isn't intelligent, and he lost 2 billion in two days.

 

[320 Years of History]

Warren Buffett's Berkshire loses $2 billion in two days

I've yet to hear claims Buffet isn't intelligent, and he lost 2 billion in two days.

Yes, that's a stock valuation loss. What is Berkshire's net loss for any given year? BH has had EBITDA in excess of $25B every year since 2011.

Also, did you notice I noted upon the size of Trump's loss in relation to the size of his company? What is the financial size of BH compared to Trump Organization?

Is there another irrelevant fact that you care to share with us?

 

[g5000]

Trump took his casino public, and then every investor lost their ass on the stock while Trump was paid $40 million.

Trump doesn't give a flying fuck about the victims who buy his bullshit and his neverending chain of con jobs.

He's living large on donor money, making money off the rubes.

He's a huckster, Chumps. When will you wise up?

 

[g5000]

The more I learn about Trump, the more serious doubts I have he is a billionaire.

I think every last thing Trump says about himself is a lie.

At this point, if Trump shook my hand, I would count my fingers and check to make sure I still had my wallet.

 

[Norman]

The more I learn about Trump, the more serious doubts I have he is a billionaire.

I think every last thing Trump says about himself is a lie.

At this point, if Trump shook my hand, I would count my fingers and check to make sure I still had my wallet.

Yet the tax returns that were released PROVED he at least had a billion.

What a moron...

 

[Nosmo King]

Trump is a lousy businessman but quite possibly the greatest promoter since P.T. Barnum. His name is worth more than his property holdings. He sells his name, gets a piece of the action and that 's it!

Do we want a huckster buffoon, a human Molotov cocktail, a crude, boorish petulant little man representing us as President of the Ynited States?

The American people can't be this gullible, no matter how angry they very well may be.

 

[Norman]

Trump is a lousy businessman but quite possibly the greatest promoter since P.T. Barnum. His name is worth more than his property holdings. He sells his name, gets a piece of the action and that 's it!

Do we want a huckster buffoon, a human Molotov cocktail, a crude, boorish petulant little man representing us as President of the Ynited States?

The American people can't be this gullible, no matter how angry they very well may be.

A tolerant liberal, apparently the issue with Trump is now that he is a too crude....

Of course, when they can't deal with the arguments, they have to attack the person.

 

[Nosmo King]

Trump is a lousy businessman but quite possibly the greatest promoter since P.T. Barnum. His name is worth more than his property holdings. He sells his name, gets a piece of the action and that 's it!

Do we want a huckster buffoon, a human Molotov cocktail, a crude, boorish petulant little man representing us as President of the Ynited States?

The American people can't be this gullible, no matter how angry they very well may be.

A tolerant liberal, apparently the issue with Trump is now that he is a too crude....

Of course, when they can't deal with the arguments, they have to attack the person.

The argument is Trump's lack of admirable qualities. His issues are pure isolationism. Build a wall, shut down trade, exclude immigrants. Hardly a position that guarantees American success.

So, what's left? The man himself. And he is not the type of man I would like to spend some time with. He is petulant and has the manners of a professional wrestler. He appeals to low brow, hoy poloy, unburnished by the veneer of learning. He admires Putin, fails to disavow the likes of David Duke and is surrounded by RWNJ and Birthers.

 

[Norman]

Trump is a lousy businessman but quite possibly the greatest promoter since P.T. Barnum. His name is worth more than his property holdings. He sells his name, gets a piece of the action and that 's it!

Do we want a huckster buffoon, a human Molotov cocktail, a crude, boorish petulant little man representing us as President of the Ynited States?

The American people can't be this gullible, no matter how angry they very well may be.

A tolerant liberal, apparently the issue with Trump is now that he is a too crude....

Of course, when they can't deal with the arguments, they have to attack the person.

The argument is Trump's lack of admirable qualities. His issues are pure isolationism. Build a wall, shut down trade, exclude immigrants. Hardly a position that guarantees American success.

So, what's left? The man himself. And he is not the type of man I would like to spend some time with. He is petulant and has the manners of a professional wrestler. He appeals to low brow, hoy poloy, unburnished by the veneer of learning. He admires Putin, fails to disavow the likes of David Duke and is surrounded by RWNJ and Birthers.

His positions... spoon fed to you by the media.

You don't even know what his positions are... what a loser.

 

[my2¢]

I'm neither smart enough nor rich enough to understand whether Trump losses was real money or perhaps simply special tax privileges developers might be provided on imagined losses. What I do imagine is that those most happy about this latest news are the venture capitalist Trump was going to sock by eliminating their special tax loopholes. I'm not one of those either. But my dogs don't care.

 

[Vigilante]

[On Trump and Taxes

Oh my, the breathless NYT reports, after aiding and abetting breaking the law by releasing part of a NY state tax return that was stolen (if it's a true copy) from Trump.

The return showed a roughly $900 million net loss one year.

This, the Times reports, means that Trump may not have paid any federal (or state) taxes for many years.

To which I say: So what?

Let me remind you that the way you generate a net operating loss (NOL) is by losing money. In this case (if the return is factual) Trump lost a lot of money. The tax code allows you to reduce your tax liability when you lose money until your operating income reaches zero (and I remind you, the last 10 to 30 grand of it has already reached a zero payment liability, so you in fact "throw away" that amount worth of tax "benefit" right up front) but you cannot get a refund on previous taxes paid as you accumulated that capital when you take a loss. This is similar but not identical to capital loss treatment.

What happens with a capital loss is that the loss is rolled forward and you may take up to $3,000 a year against future income until it is exhausted, and you may also offset it dollar-for-dollar against future profits (capital gains.) A NOL also can used to "look back" for up to 3 years; which way you wish to go with that will depend on both the tax rates involved and your expected future plans (if the business is shut down then the choice is obvious, but if not it's quite a bit more complex.)

There's nothing wrong with this. You lost actual money to generate the NOL in the first place.

That ability to use it to offset gains isn't "ripping off the government" or "ripping off poor people" since the loss actually happened and in fact you get screwed when you take a NOL and use it to offset future profits because you are forced to consume that loss with inflated dollars in future years, but you cannot adjust the NOL for inflation!

I have personally had both NOL and capital losses in the past and so have millions of others. There's not only nothing wrong with it it is in fact only a partial recapture against a real loss you already suffered.

Let's say that I make a bad investment and lose $500,000. My income that year from investments was $100,000, but I lost half a million in capital. It's gone -- I really lost it -- and the law says that the loss must be crystallized, not on paper, for it to count (in other words I had to have closed the position.)

Ok, so I have a NET -$400,000 from investments this year. I can only take $3,000 of that against my ordinary income; that is, if I had $50,000 worth of W2 income (from a job) the law says I cannot use the $400,000 loss to reduce the $50,000 to zero -- only to $47,000. I can continue to take that $3,000 (yes, it's that tiny!) every year forever until it's consumed, but if I have an investment gain in future years the remainder of the NOL carries forward and is an offset on that gain dollar-for-dollar until it is "used up."

Anyone who invests has, at some time, probably had one of those capital losses. If you have ever run a business and had a losing year you have had NOLs. There is nothing evil, wrong, duplicitous or anything of the sort about taking and using them in future years as they only are usable when you regain, through your hard work, the capital you previously lost and at the time you previously gained it in the first place you already paid taxes on it!

To suggest otherwise or that someone, such as Trump, is evil for having one and thus paying no tax in future years until it was/is consumed is outrageous. Such a suggestion is equivalent to demanding that someone pay taxes on something that has been lost or stolen from them and any politician or media outlet that implies or states same ought to be run out of town on a rail.

Why? Because it is equivalent to demanding "heads I win, tails you lose". To demand that someone pay taxes when they make money but when they lose money they cannot offset that loss against future gains means that you're now obligated to pay when you win and also in effect you are obligated to pay when you lose (irrespective of the reason) as well, because an actual net operating loss destroys part of your capital base!

Trump, if this return is accurate, did what every single company and individual taxpayer with investments does when there is a net loss. There is not only nothing wrong with it the tax code already penalizes you for losses because you cannot offset them dollar-for-dollar against current wage income; you can only take the $3,000/year for capital losses and zero for business net operating losses. Since both losses are in fact destroyed capital (from your point of view) you should be able to deduct them fully against AGI, but that's not how the law works -- you can only deduct them against future business or investment (e.g. net operating) gains.

That is not an abuse of the tax code. What is an abuse of the tax code is to "donate" money to a "charity" (your own family foundation), radically reducing your income (and thus tax liability) that you control and which then turns around and spends nearly none of the donated funds on actual charitable services; rather, nearly all of those funds are used to pay salaries and travel (effectively living expenses and high-on-the-hog living expenses at that!) for your family members and their friends. That is legal but it's slimy as hell and that is what the Clintons have in fact done since leaving the White House.

The NY Times is a hack outfit -- not only did they run a story predicated on a criminal act they are trying to spin something that is not only lawful but every person who either runs a small business or invests does as a matter of course and is perfectly ethical, legal and in fact already occurs under mandated-by-law disadvantage that accrues to someone who has this happen, including Trump, in the tax code!

On Trump and Taxes

 

[Frank'sRules]

[On Trump and Taxes

Oh my, the breathless NYT reports, after aiding and abetting breaking the law by releasing part of a NY state tax return that was stolen (if it's a true copy) from Trump.

The return showed a roughly $900 million net loss one year.

This, the Times reports, means that Trump may not have paid any federal (or state) taxes for many years.

To which I say: So what?

Let me remind you that the way you generate a net operating loss (NOL) is by losing money. In this case (if the return is factual) Trump lost a lot of money. The tax code allows you to reduce your tax liability when you lose money until your operating income reaches zero (and I remind you, the last 10 to 30 grand of it has already reached a zero payment liability, so you in fact "throw away" that amount worth of tax "benefit" right up front) but you cannot get a refund on previous taxes paid as you accumulated that capital when you take a loss. This is similar but not identical to capital loss treatment.

What happens with a capital loss is that the loss is rolled forward and you may take up to $3,000 a year against future income until it is exhausted, and you may also offset it dollar-for-dollar against future profits (capital gains.) A NOL also can used to "look back" for up to 3 years; which way you wish to go with that will depend on both the tax rates involved and your expected future plans (if the business is shut down then the choice is obvious, but if not it's quite a bit more complex.)

There's nothing wrong with this. You lost actual money to generate the NOL in the first place.

That ability to use it to offset gains isn't "ripping off the government" or "ripping off poor people" since the loss actually happened and in fact you get screwed when you take a NOL and use it to offset future profits because you are forced to consume that loss with inflated dollars in future years, but you cannot adjust the NOL for inflation!

I have personally had both NOL and capital losses in the past and so have millions of others. There's not only nothing wrong with it it is in fact only a partial recapture against a real loss you already suffered.

Let's say that I make a bad investment and lose $500,000. My income that year from investments was $100,000, but I lost half a million in capital. It's gone -- I really lost it -- and the law says that the loss must be crystallized, not on paper, for it to count (in other words I had to have closed the position.)

Ok, so I have a NET -$400,000 from investments this year. I can only take $3,000 of that against my ordinary income; that is, if I had $50,000 worth of W2 income (from a job) the law says I cannot use the $400,000 loss to reduce the $50,000 to zero -- only to $47,000. I can continue to take that $3,000 (yes, it's that tiny!) every year forever until it's consumed, but if I have an investment gain in future years the remainder of the NOL carries forward and is an offset on that gain dollar-for-dollar until it is "used up."

Anyone who invests has, at some time, probably had one of those capital losses. If you have ever run a business and had a losing year you have had NOLs. There is nothing evil, wrong, duplicitous or anything of the sort about taking and using them in future years as they only are usable when you regain, through your hard work, the capital you previously lost and at the time you previously gained it in the first place you already paid taxes on it!

To suggest otherwise or that someone, such as Trump, is evil for having one and thus paying no tax in future years until it was/is consumed is outrageous. Such a suggestion is equivalent to demanding that someone pay taxes on something that has been lost or stolen from them and any politician or media outlet that implies or states same ought to be run out of town on a rail.

Why? Because it is equivalent to demanding "heads I win, tails you lose". To demand that someone pay taxes when they make money but when they lose money they cannot offset that loss against future gains means that you're now obligated to pay when you win and also in effect you are obligated to pay when you lose (irrespective of the reason) as well, because an actual net operating loss destroys part of your capital base!

Trump, if this return is accurate, did what every single company and individual taxpayer with investments does when there is a net loss. There is not only nothing wrong with it the tax code already penalizes you for losses because you cannot offset them dollar-for-dollar against current wage income; you can only take the $3,000/year for capital losses and zero for business net operating losses. Since both losses are in fact destroyed capital (from your point of view) you should be able to deduct them fully against AGI, but that's not how the law works -- you can only deduct them against future business or investment (e.g. net operating) gains.

That is not an abuse of the tax code. What is an abuse of the tax code is to "donate" money to a "charity" (your own family foundation), radically reducing your income (and thus tax liability) that you control and which then turns around and spends nearly none of the donated funds on actual charitable services; rather, nearly all of those funds are used to pay salaries and travel (effectively living expenses and high-on-the-hog living expenses at that!) for your family members and their friends. That is legal but it's slimy as hell and that is what the Clintons have in fact done since leaving the White House.

The NY Times is a hack outfit -- not only did they run a story predicated on a criminal act they are trying to spin something that is not only lawful but every person who either runs a small business or invests does as a matter of course and is perfectly ethical, legal and in fact already occurs under mandated-by-law disadvantage that accrues to someone who has this happen, including Trump, in the tax code!

On Trump and Taxes

The so what is, I want to be President, of this great nation, which I refuse to pay a dime for. That dog doesn't hunt.

 

[BIG YANK BAL 1976]

Trump is an old washed up Orange piece of shit, when Clinton kicks his ass in the next 2 debates, his ass is going down the shitter along with his white trash fanboys, nuthuggers, groupies..

Sniff, Sniff, Sniff, go blow more Coke up your nose, you fat bloated, Orange piece of shit..

 

[Frank'sRules]

Trump is an old washed up Orange piece of shit, when Clinton kicks his ass in the next 2 debates, his ass is going down the shitter along with his white trash fanboys, nuthuggers, groupies..

Sniff, Sniff, Sniff, go blow more Coke up your nose, you fat bloated, Orange piece of shit..

Aside from that how do you like him?

 

[Vigilante]

[On Trump and Taxes

Oh my, the breathless NYT reports, after aiding and abetting breaking the law by releasing part of a NY state tax return that was stolen (if it's a true copy) from Trump.

The return showed a roughly $900 million net loss one year.

This, the Times reports, means that Trump may not have paid any federal (or state) taxes for many years.

To which I say: So what?

Let me remind you that the way you generate a net operating loss (NOL) is by losing money. In this case (if the return is factual) Trump lost a lot of money. The tax code allows you to reduce your tax liability when you lose money until your operating income reaches zero (and I remind you, the last 10 to 30 grand of it has already reached a zero payment liability, so you in fact "throw away" that amount worth of tax "benefit" right up front) but you cannot get a refund on previous taxes paid as you accumulated that capital when you take a loss. This is similar but not identical to capital loss treatment.

What happens with a capital loss is that the loss is rolled forward and you may take up to $3,000 a year against future income until it is exhausted, and you may also offset it dollar-for-dollar against future profits (capital gains.) A NOL also can used to "look back" for up to 3 years; which way you wish to go with that will depend on both the tax rates involved and your expected future plans (if the business is shut down then the choice is obvious, but if not it's quite a bit more complex.)

There's nothing wrong with this. You lost actual money to generate the NOL in the first place.

That ability to use it to offset gains isn't "ripping off the government" or "ripping off poor people" since the loss actually happened and in fact you get screwed when you take a NOL and use it to offset future profits because you are forced to consume that loss with inflated dollars in future years, but you cannot adjust the NOL for inflation!

I have personally had both NOL and capital losses in the past and so have millions of others. There's not only nothing wrong with it it is in fact only a partial recapture against a real loss you already suffered.

Let's say that I make a bad investment and lose $500,000. My income that year from investments was $100,000, but I lost half a million in capital. It's gone -- I really lost it -- and the law says that the loss must be crystallized, not on paper, for it to count (in other words I had to have closed the position.)

Ok, so I have a NET -$400,000 from investments this year. I can only take $3,000 of that against my ordinary income; that is, if I had $50,000 worth of W2 income (from a job) the law says I cannot use the $400,000 loss to reduce the $50,000 to zero -- only to $47,000. I can continue to take that $3,000 (yes, it's that tiny!) every year forever until it's consumed, but if I have an investment gain in future years the remainder of the NOL carries forward and is an offset on that gain dollar-for-dollar until it is "used up."

Anyone who invests has, at some time, probably had one of those capital losses. If you have ever run a business and had a losing year you have had NOLs. There is nothing evil, wrong, duplicitous or anything of the sort about taking and using them in future years as they only are usable when you regain, through your hard work, the capital you previously lost and at the time you previously gained it in the first place you already paid taxes on it!

To suggest otherwise or that someone, such as Trump, is evil for having one and thus paying no tax in future years until it was/is consumed is outrageous. Such a suggestion is equivalent to demanding that someone pay taxes on something that has been lost or stolen from them and any politician or media outlet that implies or states same ought to be run out of town on a rail.

Why? Because it is equivalent to demanding "heads I win, tails you lose". To demand that someone pay taxes when they make money but when they lose money they cannot offset that loss against future gains means that you're now obligated to pay when you win and also in effect you are obligated to pay when you lose (irrespective of the reason) as well, because an actual net operating loss destroys part of your capital base!

Trump, if this return is accurate, did what every single company and individual taxpayer with investments does when there is a net loss. There is not only nothing wrong with it the tax code already penalizes you for losses because you cannot offset them dollar-for-dollar against current wage income; you can only take the $3,000/year for capital losses and zero for business net operating losses. Since both losses are in fact destroyed capital (from your point of view) you should be able to deduct them fully against AGI, but that's not how the law works -- you can only deduct them against future business or investment (e.g. net operating) gains.

That is not an abuse of the tax code. What is an abuse of the tax code is to "donate" money to a "charity" (your own family foundation), radically reducing your income (and thus tax liability) that you control and which then turns around and spends nearly none of the donated funds on actual charitable services; rather, nearly all of those funds are used to pay salaries and travel (effectively living expenses and high-on-the-hog living expenses at that!) for your family members and their friends. That is legal but it's slimy as hell and that is what the Clintons have in fact done since leaving the White House.

The NY Times is a hack outfit -- not only did they run a story predicated on a criminal act they are trying to spin something that is not only lawful but every person who either runs a small business or invests does as a matter of course and is perfectly ethical, legal and in fact already occurs under mandated-by-law disadvantage that accrues to someone who has this happen, including Trump, in the tax code!

On Trump and Taxes

The so what is, I want to President, of this great nation, which I refuse to pay a dime for. That dog doesn't hunt.

Try English next time... But when it comes to your continued bullshit....

 

[Contumacious]

Money has no utility to me beyond a certain point. Its utility is entirely in building an organization and getting the resources out to the poorest in the world.
-- Bill Gates​

Introduction:
Let me be clear from the get go. I do not have a problem with Trump's having availed himself of the tax laws that allow him the likely net operating loss (NOL) carryforward (see also: The Net Operating Loss Carryback and Carryforward - AccountingTools). It was allowed and that's that.

That said, I don't care who one is, single handedly being the person responsible for the business decisions that resulted in a company's (a company the size of Trump's at the time) losing nearly a billion dollars in one year is enough to get pretty much any CEO fired, and most especially a CEO who is as closely involved in his business as Trump is in his. Now it didn't get Trump fired because his businesses are privately held and he's now as then the primary holder of them and the other owners can't sell their shares of ownership in it on the open market.


About the NOL itself:
For whatever tax deductions it gave him, losing $916M dollars in one year is not a smart thing to do. Nobody, nobody starts a business year or plans for the following year by thinking, "Okay. I'm going to lose nearly a billion dollars because it'll give me NOLs that will reduce my income tax liability for years to come." Operating losses are something that happens as a result of bad decision making. Why the decision(s) were bad is beside the point. They were very bad, terrible in fact, business decisions and deducting their cost on one's tax return is nothing more than making the most of a very, very bad business decision.

Now I haven't looked at the full return that's been making the news recently, but I do know that the -$916M figure being cited may not actually be the "starting" sum of the NOL Trump had. That figure could well be the sum carried forward, and then only using part of it to offset his 1995 income tax liability, rather than representing the actual sum of an operating loss he experienced in 1995.

Just to put Trump's NOL into perspective consider this. If you were to earn $100M in 2016 and pay federal income taxes at 30% (meaning you don't do much at all to minimize your tax liability), you'd have a preliminary $30M federal income tax liability. Now if you had a $900M NOL carryforward from 2015, you'd have an actual tax bill of $0. In 2017, unless you have a preliminary federal income tax liability of $870M,. you will also pay zero in federal income taxes.

Let's look at a $900M NOL a slightly different way. Assuming one pays taxes at 15% (that was Mitt Romney's effective tax rate), how much must one earn before all of a $900M NOL is "used up?" $6,000,000,000. One would need to earn $6B over the course of the following 20 years, or 18 years if one exercised the two year carryback election. Bear in mind the preceding figures assume one actually has a preliminary tax bill to begin with.

Frankly, I think 15% as an effective tax rate for Trump's companies is an overestimation of what his rate would be. The reason I think that is what I understand to be the average effective tax rate, according to a NYU Stern School report, in the industries in which he does business:

• Hotels: 11.34%
• REIT: 2.17%
• Real Estate Development: 1.06%
• Real Estate Operations and Services: 11.19%
• Real Estate General/Diversified: 9.4%
• Entertainment: 3.25%

What about Trump's so-called "comeback" after having a $916M NOL?
Well, we all know that Trump thinks his business acumen is "the best thing since sliced bread." Analysts seem to differ. Based on John Griffin's analysis, Trump has underperformed his peers by some 48% to 57%. That says more about just how easy it is to make money in Trump's industry. There aren't many places where one can underperform and still be a billionaire, or as near to being one as makes no difference. That combined with the seriously stupid-sh*t things he's said and done publicly over the past year and a half do not make Trump seem smart at all. What the man is is lucky. Period.

Is losing all those lives in Benghazi , smart?

Is losing several thousand top secret emails , smart?


.

 

[Vigilante]

Trump is an old washed up Orange piece of shit, when Clinton kicks his ass in the next 2 debates, his ass is going down the shitter along with his white trash fanboys, nuthuggers, groupies..

Sniff, Sniff, Sniff, go blow more Coke up your nose, you fat bloated, Orange piece of shit..

 

[320 Years of History]

A tolerant liberal, apparently the issue with Trump is now that he is a too crude....

That's never not been an issue for me re: the way Trump presents himself and yet also wants to be the person who represents the U.S. in all aspects.

 

[Frank'sRules]

[On Trump and Taxes

Oh my, the breathless NYT reports, after aiding and abetting breaking the law by releasing part of a NY state tax return that was stolen (if it's a true copy) from Trump.

The return showed a roughly $900 million net loss one year.

This, the Times reports, means that Trump may not have paid any federal (or state) taxes for many years.

To which I say: So what?

Let me remind you that the way you generate a net operating loss (NOL) is by losing money. In this case (if the return is factual) Trump lost a lot of money. The tax code allows you to reduce your tax liability when you lose money until your operating income reaches zero (and I remind you, the last 10 to 30 grand of it has already reached a zero payment liability, so you in fact "throw away" that amount worth of tax "benefit" right up front) but you cannot get a refund on previous taxes paid as you accumulated that capital when you take a loss. This is similar but not identical to capital loss treatment.

What happens with a capital loss is that the loss is rolled forward and you may take up to $3,000 a year against future income until it is exhausted, and you may also offset it dollar-for-dollar against future profits (capital gains.) A NOL also can used to "look back" for up to 3 years; which way you wish to go with that will depend on both the tax rates involved and your expected future plans (if the business is shut down then the choice is obvious, but if not it's quite a bit more complex.)

There's nothing wrong with this. You lost actual money to generate the NOL in the first place.

That ability to use it to offset gains isn't "ripping off the government" or "ripping off poor people" since the loss actually happened and in fact you get screwed when you take a NOL and use it to offset future profits because you are forced to consume that loss with inflated dollars in future years, but you cannot adjust the NOL for inflation!

I have personally had both NOL and capital losses in the past and so have millions of others. There's not only nothing wrong with it it is in fact only a partial recapture against a real loss you already suffered.

Let's say that I make a bad investment and lose $500,000. My income that year from investments was $100,000, but I lost half a million in capital. It's gone -- I really lost it -- and the law says that the loss must be crystallized, not on paper, for it to count (in other words I had to have closed the position.)

Ok, so I have a NET -$400,000 from investments this year. I can only take $3,000 of that against my ordinary income; that is, if I had $50,000 worth of W2 income (from a job) the law says I cannot use the $400,000 loss to reduce the $50,000 to zero -- only to $47,000. I can continue to take that $3,000 (yes, it's that tiny!) every year forever until it's consumed, but if I have an investment gain in future years the remainder of the NOL carries forward and is an offset on that gain dollar-for-dollar until it is "used up."

Anyone who invests has, at some time, probably had one of those capital losses. If you have ever run a business and had a losing year you have had NOLs. There is nothing evil, wrong, duplicitous or anything of the sort about taking and using them in future years as they only are usable when you regain, through your hard work, the capital you previously lost and at the time you previously gained it in the first place you already paid taxes on it!

To suggest otherwise or that someone, such as Trump, is evil for having one and thus paying no tax in future years until it was/is consumed is outrageous. Such a suggestion is equivalent to demanding that someone pay taxes on something that has been lost or stolen from them and any politician or media outlet that implies or states same ought to be run out of town on a rail.

Why? Because it is equivalent to demanding "heads I win, tails you lose". To demand that someone pay taxes when they make money but when they lose money they cannot offset that loss against future gains means that you're now obligated to pay when you win and also in effect you are obligated to pay when you lose (irrespective of the reason) as well, because an actual net operating loss destroys part of your capital base!

Trump, if this return is accurate, did what every single company and individual taxpayer with investments does when there is a net loss. There is not only nothing wrong with it the tax code already penalizes you for losses because you cannot offset them dollar-for-dollar against current wage income; you can only take the $3,000/year for capital losses and zero for business net operating losses. Since both losses are in fact destroyed capital (from your point of view) you should be able to deduct them fully against AGI, but that's not how the law works -- you can only deduct them against future business or investment (e.g. net operating) gains.

That is not an abuse of the tax code. What is an abuse of the tax code is to "donate" money to a "charity" (your own family foundation), radically reducing your income (and thus tax liability) that you control and which then turns around and spends nearly none of the donated funds on actual charitable services; rather, nearly all of those funds are used to pay salaries and travel (effectively living expenses and high-on-the-hog living expenses at that!) for your family members and their friends. That is legal but it's slimy as hell and that is what the Clintons have in fact done since leaving the White House.

The NY Times is a hack outfit -- not only did they run a story predicated on a criminal act they are trying to spin something that is not only lawful but every person who either runs a small business or invests does as a matter of course and is perfectly ethical, legal and in fact already occurs under mandated-by-law disadvantage that accrues to someone who has this happen, including Trump, in the tax code!

On Trump and Taxes

The so what is, I want to President, of this great nation, which I refuse to pay a dime for. That dog doesn't hunt.

Try English next time... But when it comes to your continued bullshit....

Your question was asked and answered, in English.