Trump Tax Returns

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by Dback Jon, Oct 31, 2016.

  1. Russ Smith

    Russ Smith The Original Whizzinator Contributor

    Age:
    54
    Posts:
    56,899
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    So the question is if DB purged the records, does the IRS still have them and if so is Trump going to claim the judges ruling doesn't apply?

    Mazar is different I think they've confirmed they have the records.

    And what's the legal consequence of ordering someone to delete your tax records?

    Amazing lengths to hide records he insists are clean
     
  2. LVG

    LVG Your Friendly Neighborhood P&R Mod Contributor

    Posts:
    19,785
    Likes Received:
    3,382
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Vegas, baby, yeah!
    It's called spoliation of evidence, and it's highly fact dependent. In civil context, the spoliation is either intentional or unintentional. Suppose DB had a policy of where it kept all tax returns submitted by clients and prospective clients for 2 years, and then destroyed the tax returns. Suddenly and out of the blue, DB gets a subpoena demanding 10 years of tax returns; because DB destroyed all but the last two years of tax returns, it's not going to be found in contempt.

    Same facts, but DB knew that there was a legal investigation ongoing for two years, and then receives a subpoena. DB failed to preserve the two years of tax returns that it knew or reasonably should have known was relevant to an ongoing investigation, and thus will face sanctions.

    Same facts, but upon receipt of the subpoena DB immediately shredded everything, took it out on the company front lawn, lit it on fire while blaring F. Da Police and posting a video of said Enron-esque bonfire to YouTube. DB is going to face severe sanctions and the people who knowingly participated in the destruction of documents will probably face jail time.

    If DB knew that there was someone who was seeking Trump's tax returns in a legal action (hell, maybe even congressional), then received a destruction notice which DB honored, then they'll be sanctioned.
     
  3. Russ Smith

    Russ Smith The Original Whizzinator Contributor

    Age:
    54
    Posts:
    56,899
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Joined:
    May 14, 2002

    Excellent use of NWA in a legal explanation!

    So basically if DB had reason to know or suspect the records were going to needed and they still shredded them, they are in trouble.
     
  4. LoyaltyisaCurse

    LoyaltyisaCurse IF AND WHEN HEALTHY...

    Age:
    45
    Posts:
    38,754
    Likes Received:
    5,527
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Location:
    CA
    It’s unfathomable the bank wouldn’t have electronic records stored at the bank. With the type, size and complexity of Trump’s loan portfolio DB would—at minimum—be collecting annual financials for loan renewal and/or review. The bank should also—at minimum—have the annual executive summaries of each of the loan renewals discussing at length the financial trends, analysis and recommendations for any given underwriting event for Trump loans. They would/should have audited financials from accounting firm as well. The only way none of that exists would be the direct result of shenanigans taking place.
     
    nashman likes this.
  5. LVG

    LVG Your Friendly Neighborhood P&R Mod Contributor

    Posts:
    19,785
    Likes Received:
    3,382
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Vegas, baby, yeah!
    All they typically have is electronic records. At least, that's been my experience. They scan in the docs, upload them, and discard the originals in most cases.
     
  6. LVG

    LVG Your Friendly Neighborhood P&R Mod Contributor

    Posts:
    19,785
    Likes Received:
    3,382
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Vegas, baby, yeah!
    It's my favorite song to use when illustrating how bad the behavior can get.

    Yep - actually knew or reasonably should have known.
     
  7. Russ Smith

    Russ Smith The Original Whizzinator Contributor

    Age:
    54
    Posts:
    56,899
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Joined:
    May 14, 2002

    As the NCAA called it in the Derrick Rose case "strict liability" in that they should have known or had reason to suspect Rose was ineligible and still chose to play him so when he was later found to be ineligible, they were strictly liable for playing an ineligible player.
     
  8. TJ

    TJ Suge White

    Posts:
    26,216
    Likes Received:
    7,687
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Location:
    South Bay
     
  9. LoyaltyisaCurse

    LoyaltyisaCurse IF AND WHEN HEALTHY...

    Age:
    45
    Posts:
    38,754
    Likes Received:
    5,527
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Location:
    CA
    Appeals court deals blow to Trump in tax return case
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/04/politics/donald-trump-tax-returns-court-ruling/index.html
     
    Russ Smith likes this.
  10. LVG

    LVG Your Friendly Neighborhood P&R Mod Contributor

    Posts:
    19,785
    Likes Received:
    3,382
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Location:
    Vegas, baby, yeah!
    I don't know if SCOTUS has the 4 votes necessary to hear this case. Trump is trying to spin this as a criminal prosecution; it's not. It's an investigation. If there is some sort of bar to criminal prosecution of the President by a state, that bar would be effective once charges are filed or a indictment is returned. That question, I think, would be heard by SCOTUS. But whether a state can investigate? That's a different matter all together, and I think SCOUTS would rule for the state due to many practical reasons.
     
    Dback Jon and LoyaltyisaCurse like this.

Share This Page