John Bolton Trump hater on indictment

[Bob_C]

Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.

Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.

Yeah not charged.

"The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme."

sure

NDA payments for sexual harassment were deductible in 2017. So, what was the scheme?

Good work. That was the trap. They aren’t deductible in 2018-current.

 

[HHusky]

Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.

Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.

Yeah not charged.

"The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme."

sure

NDA payments for sexual harassment were deductible in 2017. So, what was the scheme?

Daddy might have wanted to characterize it as "payments for sexual harassment" then. He didn't. That's the whole point. Falsification of business records.

As for the scheme, you might want to peruse the 10 pages or so unsealed yesterday under a heading which reads, in very subtle wording you may have missed, "THE SCHEME". Does someone have to cut your meat for you?

 

[Bob_C]

Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.

Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.

Yeah not charged.

"The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme."

sure

NDA payments for sexual harassment were deductible in 2017. So, what was the scheme?

Daddy might have wanted to characterize it as "payments for sexual harassment" then. He didn't. That's the whole point.

As for the scheme, you might want to peruse the 10 pages or so unsealed yesterday under a heading which reads, in subtle wording, "THE SCHEME". Does someone have to cut your meat for you?

So he should have characterized it as something else that was also tax deductible then for a net change in his taxes of $0?

Ok

 

[HHusky]

Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.

Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.

Yeah not charged.

"The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme."

sure

NDA payments for sexual harassment were deductible in 2017. So, what was the scheme?

Daddy might have wanted to characterize it as "payments for sexual harassment" then. He didn't. That's the whole point.

As for the scheme, you might want to peruse the 10 pages or so unsealed yesterday under a heading which reads, in subtle wording, "THE SCHEME". Does someone have to cut your meat for you?

So he should have characterized it as something else that was also tax deductible then for a net change in his taxes of $0?

Ok

That's assuming it can be deemed a payment for "sexual harassment", though he wasn't being accused of that as far as I know. But more fundamentally, it also assumes that there are no concerns with untruthful tax reporting as long as all the taxes owed (or more) get paid, which is obviously[/i] incorrect.

 

[Bob_C]

I don’t actually care about “untruthful” characterizations that don’t change the actual outcome. And I’m a CPA.

 

[46XiJCAB]

Smart legal types are laughing at Bragg. Dazzler is focused on his crotch…….eeerrrr case.

 

[HHusky]

I don’t actually care about “untruthful” characterizations that don’t change the actual outcome. And I’m a CPA.

I'll PM you when I need to launder some money or commit bank fraud then.

Thanks!

 

[46XiJCAB]

I don’t actually care about “untruthful” characterizations that don’t change the actual outcome. And I’m a CPA.

I'll PM you when I need to launder some money or commit bank fraud then.

Thanks!

Crackerjack box lawyer. Let your smarter peers handle this one. Stick to giving your clients shitty “legal” advice.

 

[Bob_C]

I don’t actually care about “untruthful” characterizations that don’t change the actual outcome. And I’m a CPA.

I'll PM you when I need to launder some money or commit bank fraud then.

Thanks!

I don’t have any kiddy porn deal connections, sorry.

 

[46XiJCAB]

Notice how Dazzler, the shitty dishonest lawyer, has said zero about Bragg’s office leaking the indictment details to Michael Isikoff.

And then he wrote the most blatant hit piece possible.

A felony that Dazzler apparently approves of.

 

[Sledog]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/mother-veteran-killed-nyc-shreds-alvin-bragg-trump-charges-nonsense
Meanwhile the Dazzler cheers this fucking POS commie rat bastard! He let's killers off easy. Oh and the statute of limitations on those minor misdemeanor charges are long expired.