ROMNEY <> For IRS TAX purposes (2010) he's ACTIVE IN BAIN, for POLITICAL purposes HE RETIRED IN (1999)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2012 1:24 AM GMT
    Mitt Romney Reaped Huge Tax Benefits Based On 'Active' Role At Bain Capital

    Even if Romney could persuade the IRS his involvement was legitimately active, that still leaves him in a rhetorical jam: For tax purposes, he claims an active status; for political purposes, he claims to have zero to do with the investments.

    WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney has repeatedly insisted during the presidential campaign that layoffs and other controversy surrounding Bain Capital companies for the past decade are not his responsibility, because he retired in 1999. When tax experts charged that he benefited from legally dubious tax avoidance strategies employed by Bain, his campaign noted that the investments are kept in a blind trust completely out of his control.

    "As we have said many times before, Governor and Mrs. Romney's assets are managed on a blind basis. They do not control the investment of these assets. The investment decisions are made by a trustee," spokeswoman Michele Davis said.

    But according to his 2010 tax return, when the Internal Revenue Service comes calling in April, Romney has a different answer: The presumptive GOP nominee reaps lucrative tax breaks for "active" participation in the private equity firm he founded, as well as a host of other investments.

    As David Kautter, a tax expert at American University, explains, the concept of active investment has different meanings for the IRS and for regular people. "When you say you're actively involved in all these businesses, people do think, OK, you're actively involved. But the tax law has its own definition," he said.

    The IRS advises that "[f]actors that indicate active participation include making decisions involving the operation or management of the activity, performing services for the activity, and hiring and discharging employees. Factors that indicate a lack of active participation include lack of control in managing and operating the activity, having authority only to discharge the manager of the activity, and having a manager of the activity who is an independent contractor rather than an employee."

    Even if Romney could persuade the IRS his involvement was legitimately active, that still leaves him in a rhetorical jam: For tax purposes, he claims an active status; for political purposes, he claims to have zero to do with the investments.

    The distinction is valuable, for the IRS treats passive and active income and losses differently. If a passive investment loses money, the taxpayer can only write off that loss if passive gains have also been made. But active losses can be written off at a 35 percent rate and deducted from the taxpayer's ordinary income. In other words, a taxpayer wants active losses, not passive losses. So by describing many of his investments as active, Romney saves himself millions of dollars in taxes.

    With those active investments, he is also securing a tax break few Americans enjoy: When he wins, he's paying a 15 percent rate on the gain. When he loses, he's writing it off at 35 percent, meaning that tax policy is subsidizing Romney's risk in his Bain investments.

    In other words, Romney didn't build that, at least not without taxpayer backing.

    [This story was the result of a reader tip. To tip us off to another, write to]

    Federal rules allow many of these tax loopholes. But under the technical terms of the retirement package that Romney negotiated for himself, he has borne a lighter tax load than most other retired financial professionals. And the unusually large scope of his deductions and the generous rate at which they are recognized have some tax experts questioning their validity.

    Romney's 2010 tax return lists $301,630 in "trade or business interest" deductions and $503,737 in "trade or business expense" deductions -- all of it described as expenses from his business partnerships, including Bain. Specifically from his various Bain-related activities, Romney scored a total of $547,525 in such deductions.

    These kinds of deductions are only available to "active" participants in business partnerships. While Romney filed as an active participant for tax purposes, there is no evidence that he took part in Bain management decisions in 2010, and he has denied doing so.

    The sophistication with which Romney used Bain's later efforts to boost his own income could serve as fodder for political campaign advertisements. Since Romney has been willing to profit from Bain's later activity, the Obama campaign may well argue that such practices are fair game for attack ads. Some Democrats are already on the attack.

    "Governor Romney appears to be saying one thing to the American people and one thing to the Internal Revenue Service," Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) said to The Huffington Post. "Right now we are just seeing inconsistent statements. The American people are entitled to know more than that. If there's a legalistic distinction, we are entitled to know what that is. ... Has he played too close to the line or over the line?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2012 6:08 AM GMT
    It seems that Romney has another tax problem, Ryan's plan if adopted would bring his own taxes down to about 1%, Could there be a conflict of interest in there somewhere ? LOL Well, maybe not, he's asking his sheeple republican masses who vote against their own interests to pick up the tab to make up for the taxes he wouldn't be paying under the Ryan plan.

    YESIREEEE !!! Vote republican

    Here's what the president had to say about this Ryan Tax plan:

    the president said:

    "[T]he centerpiece of my opponent's entire economic plan is a new five trillion dollar tax cut, a lot of it going to the wealthiest Americans. His new running mate, Congressman Ryan, he put forward a plan that would let Governor Romney pay less than 1 percent in taxes each year. And here's the kicker -- he expects you to pick up the tab.

    "Governor's Romney tax plan -- this is not my analysis now -- this is the analysis of independent folks who analyze tax plans for a living. That's what they do. Their analysis showed that Governor Romney's tax plan would actually raise taxes on middle class families with children by an average of $2,000. Not to reduce the deficit, not to grow jobs, not to invest in education, but to give another tax cut to folks like him.

    "Now, ask Governor Romney and his running mate, when they're here in New Hampshire on Monday -- they're going to be coming here on Monday -- ask them if that's fair. Ask them how it will grow the economy. Ask them how it will strengthen the middle class."
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 27, 2012 4:54 PM GMT

    You'll wake up the American Press
    ...... let alone the American public icon_rolleyes.gif