Late on October 1st, 2016, an unexpected “bombshell” article was released over twitter, Facebook, the NYT website and all over various forms of social media. The following article stated this:

Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.

The 1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.

Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump’s 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period.


Here are those documents That were obtained by the NYT and then redistributed for the world to see:



We are going to debunk this myth together and rip down the Controversy curtains to reveal that there is no controversy, and that this is a politically motivated attack.

Although Mr. Trump’s taxable income in subsequent years is as yet unknown, a $916 million loss in 1995 would have been large enough to wipe out more than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years.

The $916 million loss certainly could have eliminated any federal income taxes Mr. Trump otherwise would have owed on the $50,000 to $100,000 he was paid for each episode of “The Apprentice,” or the roughly $45 million he was paid between 1995 and 2009 when he was chairman or chief executive of the publicly traded company he created to assume ownership of his troubled Atlantic City casinos. Ordinary investors in the new company, meanwhile, saw the value of their shares plunge to 17 cents from $35.50, while scores of contractors went unpaid for work on Mr. Trump’s casinos and casino bondholders received pennies on the dollar.

“He has a vast benefit from his destruction” in the early 1990s, said one of the experts, Joel Rosenfeld, an assistant professor at New York University’s Schack Institute of Real Estate. Mr. Rosenfeld offered this description of what he would advise a client who came to him with a tax return like Mr. Trump’s: “Do you realize you can create $916 million in income without paying a nickel in taxes?”

Well, Mr. Trump did in fact take advantage of Tax laws to try and rebuild his fortune that he had lost in 1995 legally and fair.

Here’s how one gets out of Paying federal income taxes.

From the IRS website:

Repaying Withheld Tax

If you claim exemption from withholding, your employer will not withhold federal income tax from your wages. The exemption applies only to income tax, not to Social Security or Medicare tax.

You can claim exemption from withholding for the current year only if both the following situations apply.

  • For the prior year, you had a right to a refund of all federal income tax withheld because you had no tax liability.
  • For the current year, you expect a refund of all federal income tax withheld because you expect to have no tax liability.


Now, what is a tax liability?

Tax liability refers to the amount legally owed to a taxing authority as the result of a taxable event.

A tax authority — such as a local, state or national government — imposes taxes upon individuals, organizations and corporations to fund social programs and administrative roles. Taxable events include earning taxable income, having sales, receiving or issuing payroll, etc.. These taxes are legally binding.

The liability is generally calculated by multiplying the taxable event by the tax rate. The taxing authority has various legal options to enforce these payments.


In this case, Trump was able to state that he had no Libaility to pay taxes due to a significant loss in 1995, and losses prior to that years before.

A section from the USA Tax Act of 1995 and 1995 tax codes states:

Usa tax act.PNG

And another section states:

Sec. 1491 – Imposition of tax

§1491. Imposition of tax

There is hereby imposed on the transfer of property by a citizen or resident of the United States, or by a domestic corporation or partnership, or by an estate or trust which is not a foreign estate or trust, to a foreign corporation as paid-in surplus or as a contribution to capital, or to a foreign estate or trust, or to a foreign partnership, an excise tax equal to 35 percent of the excess of—

(1) the fair market value of the property so transferred, over

(2) the sum of—

(A) the adjusted basis (for determining gain) of such property in the hands of the transferor, plus

(B) the amount of the gain recognized to the transferor at the time of the transfer.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 365; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94–455, title X, §1015(a), 90 Stat. 1617; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95–600, title VII, §701(u)(14)(A), 92 Stat. 2919.)

(Hard to avoid Income Tax)

And another one:

(b) Other taxpayers

In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, losses from sales or exchanges of capital assets shall be allowed only to the extent of the gains from such sales or exchanges, plus (if such losses exceed such gains) the lower of—

(1) ,000 (,500 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return), or

(2) the excess of such losses over such gains.

And other one:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—

(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and

(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),

a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over ,900 15% of taxable income.
Over ,900 but not over ,150 ,535, plus 28% of the excess over ,900.
Over ,150 but not over 0,000 ,165, plus 31% of the excess over ,150.
Over 0,000 but not over 0,000 ,928.50, plus 36% of the excess over 0,000.
Over 0,000 ,528.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over 0,000.

s: and

Trump could have EASILY taken advantage of these laws and claim immunity from the taxes that were supposed to be paid in order to make goains on cpital and other business ventures.

Mr. Trump declined to comment on the documents. Instead, the campaign released a statement that neither challenged nor confirmed the $916 million loss.

“Mr. Trump is a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required,” the statement said. “That being said, Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes.”

The statement continued, “Mr. Trump knows the tax code far better than anyone who has ever run for President and he is the only one that knows how to fix it.”


He is and he just took advantage of fair and beneficial tax laws, and there is no need to challenge the legitimacy of the documents. That’s your responsibility.

The media also fails to cover big scandals and rather chooses trivial and frivolous claims and news stories.

The tax experts consulted by The Times said nothing in the 1995 documents suggested any wrongdoing by Mr. Trump, even if the extraordinary size of the loss he declared would have probably attracted extra scrutiny from I.R.S. examiners. “The I.R.S., when they see a negative $916 million, that has to pop out,” Mr. Rosenfeld said.

The documents examined by The Times represent a small fraction of the voluminous tax returns Mr. Trump would have filed in 1995.

Ok, Then there’s nothing to report on if you say there is no wrongdoing both here, prior or beyond this point. If you look at the codes, you will understand why there was no wrongdoing of any sort. Bye.

Because the documents sent to The Times did not include any pages from Mr. Trump’s 1995 federal tax return, it is impossible to determine how much he may have donated to charity that year. The state documents do show, though, that Mr. Trump declined the opportunity to contribute to the New Jersey Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial Fund, the New Jersey Wildlife Conservation Fund or the Children’s Trust Fund. He also declined to contribute $1 toward public financing of New Jersey’s elections for governor.

So? We all do that sometimes. Trump was in a hard place and needed to conserve Money himself.

The tax documents also do not shed any light on Mr. Trump’s claimed net worth of about $2 billionat that time. This is because the complex calculations of business deductions that produced a tax loss of $916 million are a separate matter from how Mr. Trump valued his assets, the tax experts said.

Again, Business Assets and other assets are here, not his personal wealth, CAPITAL ASSETS.

Nor does the $916 million loss suggest that Mr. Trump was insolvent or effectively bankrupt in 1995. The cash flow generated by his various businesses that year was more than enough to service his various debts.

At that rate, he would have gone bankrupt in a few years had he not done anything. And business income was only $3.5 Million that year, and lower for other forms of income.

But fragmentary as they are, the documents nonetheless provide new insight into Mr. Trump’s finances, a subject of intense scrutiny given Mr. Trump’s emphasis on his business record during the presidential campaign.

Then why are you reporting this?

The documents show, for example, that while Mr. Trump reported $7.4 million in interest income in 1995, he made only $6,108 in wages, salaries and tips. They also suggest Mr. Trump took full advantage of generous tax loopholes specifically available to commercial real estate developers to claim a $15.8 million loss in 1995 on his real estate holdings and partnerships.

Exactly, he fairly and genuinely took advantage of the laws to rebuild his fortune and his organization. In no way was his conduct unethical or in any violation of the law. If it was, a serious audit would have been in order YEARS ago.

But the most important revelation from the 1995 tax documents is just how much Mr. Trump may have benefited from a tax provision that is particularly prized by America’s dynastic families, which, like the Trumps, hold their wealth inside byzantine networks of partnerships, limited liability companies and S corporations.

Biased argument, going after those who write the tax codes and how they “benefit the wealthy and protect them.” Overused Argument that no longer works as proven by new tax codes that show a 35% business tax rate and a very high tax bracket for those making $400,000 a year or above.

Reports by New Jersey’s casino regulators strongly suggested that Mr. Trump had claimed large net operating losses on his taxes in the early 1990s. Their reports, for example, revealed that Mr. Trump had carried forward net operating losses in both 1991 and 1993. What’s more, the reports said the losses he claimed were large enough to virtually cancel out any taxes he might owe on the millions of dollars of debt that was being forgiven by his creditors. (The I.R.S. considers forgiven debt to be taxable income.)

Where are these “reports”? Notes? Facts? Documents? NOTHING. If you’re going to make a claim, prove it.

But crucially, the casino regulators redacted the precise size of the net operating losses in the public versions of their reports. Two former New Jersey officials, who were privy to the unredacted documents, could not recall the precise size of the numbers, but said they were substantial.

Again, no proof to show for it.

Politico, which previously reported that Mr. Trump most likely paid no income taxes in 1991 and 1993 based on the casino commission’s description of his net operating losses, asked Mr. Trump to comment. “Welcome to the real estate business,” he replied in an email.

Donald Trump has stated he rarely used email. This is likely a lie as no email has surfaced with the comment.

“Does your secretary send emails on your behalf?” he was asked.

His secretary generally typed letters, Mr. Trump said. “I don’t do the email thing.”

By 2013, Mr. Trump was still not sold on email. “Very rarely, but I use it,” he said under questioning.


Now, thanks to Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax records, the degree to which he spun all those years of red ink into tax write-off gold may finally be apparent.

Again, stretching the truth and making something out of nothing.

Now, this is likely a distraction thrown by the NYT to cover for Hillary’s embarrassing statement about Bernie Sanders Supporters in February, in leaked audio from a Staffer’s email released yesterday:

This is likely the 47% moment for Hillary, but the MSM has failed to cover it for most of the day.

Come on, New York Times, Focus on the real topics, not some fictional and over-drawn bull-crap, let’s get back to REAL journalism.