SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Drew Harwell over at the Washington Post has an interesting story about a tax loophole that could allow Trump appointees to avoid paying millions in taxes.
President-elect Donald Trump's ultra-wealthy Cabinet nominees will be able to avoid paying millions of dollars in taxes in the coming weeks when they sell some of their holdings to avoid conflicts of interest in their new positions.
The tax advantage will allow Trump officials, forced by ethics laws to sell certain assets, to defer the weighty tax bills they would otherwise owe on the profits from selling stock and other holdings.
The benefit is one of the more subtle ways that the millionaires and billionaires of Trump's White House, which already will be the wealthiest administration in modern American history, could benefit financially from their transition into the nation's halls of power.
The legal tax maneuver, offered for years to executive-branch appointees and employees, was designed to help ease the sting of being forced to suddenly sell investments.
But the federal program, encoded in Section 2634 of federal ethics laws and known as a "certificate of divestiture," has never been tested quite like this. Trump's Cabinet picks have amassed assets worth billions of dollars from lifetimes in banking and investing, much of which they will be able to sell tax-free.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:32PM
The story was submitted by one of our community who thought it was worthy of a discussion.
No, the story was submitted by at least two that I know of. Isn't it customary to note that in the thread? And given the broad claims in the other submission, wouldn't it been a clue by four that maybe the title is incorrect, and that this affected more than Trump?
What I see here is that discussion taking place.
What I see is are obvious corrections to the story that was riddled with so many "happy accident" errors to give a completely false presentation of the law. If I submit a story about the supposed Satanic connections with Hillary Clinton, will that make the front page as well under the guise of the commingling of religion and politics?
Many of you have rightly pointed that at the moment Trump has absolutely no case to answer.
Well gee, that's charitable of you, but there is the issue of every other administration falling under the same laws that somehow escaped attention for the past umpteen years. Funny that.
But it is valuable IMHO to clear the air of such accusations before the man sits in the hot seat
Yes, there has been much clearing of the air by making even more accusations.
rather than have this sort of thing being a smokescreen to what is actually taking place sometime in the future.
As opposed to the smokescreen taking place now.
Gotcha.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday December 05 2016, @07:56PM
We only acknowledge multiple submitters so that all submitters get the karma points. As ACs cannot get karma, we do not normally do it for them. However, if we have already processed the story that we are accepting and then receive another version which does not meet the submission guidelines, we do not take any action to acknowledge the second story. And as I had no role in the editing of this story - as you can see if you read it carefully - it seems a bit pointless blaming me for it. I will however defend any editor against unfair claims that he/she is a liar.
As a Brit I am unqualified to comment on the niceties of US law. However, the community is better placed to do so. That is what they have done. It is called a discussion.
Not really, I am merely acknowledging that is what many of the more intelligent comments have said. I haven't got a horse in this race - I don't personally give a damn about who won your election. But we will all have to live with the consequences, so Trump's supporters had better get used to having people criticising their man.
I haven't made any accusations. Other commentators might have, perhaps you ought to take this up with them. If you don't like the submission, perhaps you ought to take it up with the submitter. And again I reiterate, the more intelligent comments have debunked the incorrect accusations in the various comments. Why do you think that it is our job to vet every comment to ensure that it suits your view of the world? You go fight your own case!
He is not yet in office, what smokescreen is taking place now? I said it is better to have this out of the way now rather than use it as a 'smokescreen in the future'.
Damn you got me there - I cannot argue against such a well-made logical argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @08:14PM
Problem being, beyond your tenuous accusations, I am far from a Trump supporter.
But I can recognize obvious yellow journalism. Maybe it's a quality you could learn to cultivate?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday December 05 2016, @08:24PM
Didn't mean to cast any slurs on your character. But if we stick to discussing what the story is about rather than blaming the editor, submitter or commentators that you don't agree with, we should be able to get along fine.
And as I live on this side of the pond - I'm going to bed now...