Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Big "O" files a Schedule C?
bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am

If this is the only thing you can find to bitch and moan about, then he's the best president this country has seen.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm

I work as a government revenuer. Only stupid people make that kind of income and report it on a Schedule C. And I don't run across too many stupid people that do that any longer. Another thing, some big CPA firm completed his return. I wonder if they advised the President on the shortcomings on filing a Schedule C? Apparently not. But he does apparently understand itemized deductions on Schedule A to reduce his taxable income to include charitable contribution deductions.

But to answer your question. No, it isn't the only thing I can come up with. It is just one thing any prudent business person would understand. The guy recklessly chose a method of reporting that puts all his assets at risk. And you want me to believe anything he has to state about how taxation is going to fix our problems? The guy doesn't look after his own welfare responsibly. In fact, he sets himself up for train wreck.

He is already itemizing deductions so I'm not going to buy that he reports this way to pay tax at maximum personal risk because he's a nice guy that knows what he's talking about. This just shows he's an idiot when it comes to his own taxes. This guy doesn't have clue.

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am

This could have been a political decision.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm


Quote:
This could have been a political decision.

Yeah, how so? I asked myself the same question before starting this thread.

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am

Perhaps he wants to show that he's an honest Joe, completely open and does not hide behind the corporate veil.

roadster
roadster's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 9 months ago
Joined: Apr 16 2008 - 4:51am


Quote:
Perhaps he wants to show that he's an honest Joe...

An honest politician? Too few and far between. Maybe there's another method behind his madness.

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am

I'm not saying he is, I'm saying that he wants to show that he is.

roadster
roadster's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 9 months ago
Joined: Apr 16 2008 - 4:51am

Well, at least Mr. President filed a tax return...unlike some of his appointees.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 5 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am

Effing idiot.

Did he outearn you with his sole proprietership?

dcstep
dcstep's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 16 2007 - 4:59pm

This is most likely 1099 income from his publisher. You can't really evaluate the wisdom of doing it as a sole proprietor vs. a Sub-S LLC without know his contract with the publisher. He very likely has hold harmless clauses and other contractual terms that protect him from actions against the book and him as author.

If he defrauded the publisher, then those would go out the window, but then so would the corporate veil. An LLC does not protect the principal from fraudulent actions, it simply makes it harder to attack.

BTW, I can't stand the guy, but I just don't think that we can evaluate his protection of his assets without knowing the contracts under which he's building the wealth.

Yes, generally, I would recommend that individuals with significant business activities do it within a LLC or LLP structure, just to put up an extra wall of defense. Still, as an old CPA, I remember the days when I was forced to join a straight GP, with unlimited liability for my partners' actions. That was a very uncomfortable structure, mandate by state law until relatively recently. I'm glad that no one has to suffer under that anymore.

Dave

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm


Quote:
This is most likely 1099 income from his publisher. You can't really evaluate the wisdom of doing it as a sole proprietor vs. a Sub-S LLC without know his contract with the publisher. He very likely has hold harmless clauses and other contractual terms that protect him from actions against the book and him as author.

If he defrauded the publisher, then those would go out the window, but then so would the corporate veil. An LLC does not protect the principal from fraudulent actions, it simply makes it harder to attack.

BTW, I can't stand the guy, but I just don't think that we can evaluate his protection of his assets without knowing the contracts under which he's building the wealth.

Yes, generally, I would recommend that individuals with significant business activities do it within a LLC or LLP structure, just to put up an extra wall of defense. Still, as an old CPA, I remember the days when I was forced to join a straight GP, with unlimited liability for my partners' actions. That was a very uncomfortable structure, mandate by state law until relatively recently. I'm glad that no one has to suffer under that anymore.

Dave

That has nothing to do with his personal options to report passive income. No private contract trumps his options under the Internal Revenue Code. Had he chosen to report his passive income via a pass through entity he would have paid approx. the same tax with limited rather than full liability. This is an indicator of a risk taker. He is taking full risk at the taxpayer expense with his ridiculous tax ideology. It all makes sense to me now. An entire generation strapped in debt. All because he doesn't really know taxation at all. He honestly doesn't know how to protect himself or his own family. How is he going to protect the entire next generation from a lifetime of debt? This reporting method makes about as much sense as putting his $2.6 million dollar profit on the Sch. C into a single non-interest bearing checking account with service charges.

dcstep
dcstep's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 16 2007 - 4:59pm


Quote:

That has nothing to do with his personal options to report passive income. No private contract trumps his options under the Internal Revenue Code. Had he chosen to report his passive income via a pass through entity he would have paid approx. the same tax with limited rather than full liability.

We're talking corporate vs. private structure rather than tax filing status. Earnings from book writing is not passive income and I don't understand why you bring it up. He has full tax liability no matter how he filed, so long as he and/or his family are the stockholders/officers/directors of any LLC he forms. The corporate veil isn't going to protect him from defamation suits, if he's lied about someone in his book, they'll still go after his personal assets.

If he has an LLC and doesn't pay the full tax due and then the LLC is sued for non-payment, the LLC can file for bankruptcy, but then the bankruptcy court will look to where the assets went and he'll still be responsible.

He's done many things wrong and will do many more things wrong, I'm certain, but we can't evaluate the wisdom of his incorporation choices without more information.

Dave

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm

His income on the Sch. C is purely book royalties. Royalties from publishing a book are passive income. Christ, I can't believe I'm arguing with a CPA on my free time....

My point is that his choice of filing, apparently based on advice from the firm that completed his return, is not something a prudent business person would do in the real world. It doesn't matter what the risk or lack thereof might be. What matters is that this is merely a single indicator on how he manages his own money. You want him managing your money? Because that is what he is going to be doing in the very near future. He is going to manage our money at maximum risk. Certified Public Accountants have a tendency towards protecting taxpayers. That's your job. I do understand your side of the argument. I just disagree with most of it. But I have a tendency of disagreeing with just about every CPA I come into contact with. That's my job.

Personally, I think AlexO was on the spot. He reported in a rather simple manner because as president who is going to audit or sue him? His publisher? The Internal Revenue Service?

You would think the numskull would realize that his tax return is like a resume. He used the wrong format. As far as I'm concerned it goes in the trash with the rest of the resumes that don't qualify for the position. That's what I do with resumes that are the wrong format or even missing a single grammatical "period". Period.

Log in or register to post comments
-->
  • X