4 ms·

This is sort of ironic, because isn't this precisely what the president is accused of doing? Sheltering money from taxes in a foundation? Or is it accusations o

by rconti 9y ago

This is sort of ironic, because isn't this precisely what the president is accused of doing? Sheltering money from taxes in a foundation? Or is it accusations of laundering rather than tax sheltering? I guess I don't quite get the difference, either. Regardless, both cases show that it's pretty hard to actually get caught doing it.

hkmurakami 9y ago
>Sheltering money from taxes in a foundation? That's more what Soros is doing. Edit: since I'm being down voted to hell, here's my source https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/george-soros-transfers-18-billion-to-his-foundation-creating-an-instant-giant-1508252926 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/george-soros-transfers-18-b... WSJ is biased in general but their reporting of tax loopholes here is legitimate. Avoids accumulated capital gains tax on all transferred assets. $18B in gross assets. I am happy to hear counter arguments of how this is not a foundation based tax dodge / tax shelter.
- dailyvijeos 9y ago
  Conspiracy theory bullshit rhetoric has no place on HN. Go back to Alex Jones.
  - hkmurakami 9y ago
    https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/george-soros-transfers-18-billion-to-his-foundation-creating-an-instant-giant-1508252926 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/george-soros-transfers-18-b... Here is my source. WSJ is biased in general but their reporting of tax loopholes here is legitimate. Avoids accumulated capital gains tax on all transferred assets. $18B in gross assets.
    - plcancel 9y ago
      There is an interesting interview with Robert Reich on foundations and philanthropy here: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/09/rob_reich_on_fo.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/09/rob_reich_on_fo.htm... Transcript at the bottom. Coincidentally, Reich offers anecdote regarding Soros and taxes at about 30 minutes into interview. However, I'm posting this for its general coverage of the topic. (edited to clarify)
    - matt4077 9y ago
      It's not a "tax loophole". A foundation certified to spend money for altruistic goals is exempt from taxes like any other non-profit. Soros has the same power to get his money back as you do when you write a cheque to Amnesty International, i. e. none. So yes, he's saving 50 cents in taxes for every $1 he gave to philanthropic causes. It's really nothing special or scandalous.
  - sctb 9y ago
    Please go read the guidelines and then start commenting civilly and substantively, or we'll ban the account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dailyvijeos 9y ago
It’s as similar as blood and concrete. You’re conflating a self-absorbed moron and his family of sycophants and sociopaths whom violated the emoluments clause and enriched themselves, with a company whose sole mission is to benefit charities. One violated the law and has not been punished while the other exists for public benefit but got caught up in technicalities because of an ignorance of commercial law. The two could not be more different.
- EpicEng 9y ago
  So, your argument is that they're completely different due to things which are completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law? Ok.
matt4077 9y ago
The major problems with Trump's foundation was that (a) it involved a lot of "self-dealing", where the foundation would pay for services/room rental etc at Trump properties, (b) some money that was outright spent on items for Trump, such as a portrait of him, (c) that he made specific promises regarding the use of funds, but never actually paid much or anything to the announced recipients, and (d) that he overstated the amount of money he had put up himself. (a) is not a crime by itself, but it raises red flags, and there usually needs to be a really good paper record showing, for example, that other options weren't available, and that only market prices were paid. (b) is basically misappropriation or embezzlement, but depending on the amounts involved, it can be considered a mistake and healed by paying it back. Not sure about (c) and (d)'s legality. There is absolutely nothing wrong with structure of, for example, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, or Soros' Open Society Foundation. Yes, the foundations are not subject to inheritance taxes. But the money is required to be spent on altruistic endeavours. It cannot be clawed back for personal expenses, not by the founders, nor by their descendants.

by rconti 9y ago

hkmurakami 9y ago

>Sheltering money from taxes in a foundation? That's more what Soros is doing. Edit: since I'm being down voted to hell, here's my source https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/george-soros-transfers-18-billion-to-his-foundation-creating-an-instant-giant-1508252926 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/george-soros-transfers-18-b... WSJ is biased in general but their reporting of tax loopholes here is legitimate. Avoids accumulated capital gains tax on all transferred assets. $18B in gross assets. I am happy to hear counter arguments of how this is not a foundation based tax dodge / tax shelter.

dailyvijeos 9y ago
Conspiracy theory bullshit rhetoric has no place on HN. Go back to Alex Jones.
- hkmurakami 9y ago
  https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/george-soros-transfers-18-billion-to-his-foundation-creating-an-instant-giant-1508252926 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/george-soros-transfers-18-b... Here is my source. WSJ is biased in general but their reporting of tax loopholes here is legitimate. Avoids accumulated capital gains tax on all transferred assets. $18B in gross assets.
  - plcancel 9y ago
    There is an interesting interview with Robert Reich on foundations and philanthropy here: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/09/rob_reich_on_fo.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/09/rob_reich_on_fo.htm... Transcript at the bottom. Coincidentally, Reich offers anecdote regarding Soros and taxes at about 30 minutes into interview. However, I'm posting this for its general coverage of the topic. (edited to clarify)
  - matt4077 9y ago
    It's not a "tax loophole". A foundation certified to spend money for altruistic goals is exempt from taxes like any other non-profit. Soros has the same power to get his money back as you do when you write a cheque to Amnesty International, i. e. none. So yes, he's saving 50 cents in taxes for every $1 he gave to philanthropic causes. It's really nothing special or scandalous.
- sctb 9y ago
  Please go read the guidelines and then start commenting civilly and substantively, or we'll ban the account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dailyvijeos 9y ago

It’s as similar as blood and concrete. You’re conflating a self-absorbed moron and his family of sycophants and sociopaths whom violated the emoluments clause and enriched themselves, with a company whose sole mission is to benefit charities. One violated the law and has not been punished while the other exists for public benefit but got caught up in technicalities because of an ignorance of commercial law. The two could not be more different.

EpicEng 9y ago
So, your argument is that they're completely different due to things which are completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law? Ok.

matt4077 9y ago

The major problems with Trump's foundation was that (a) it involved a lot of "self-dealing", where the foundation would pay for services/room rental etc at Trump properties, (b) some money that was outright spent on items for Trump, such as a portrait of him, (c) that he made specific promises regarding the use of funds, but never actually paid much or anything to the announced recipients, and (d) that he overstated the amount of money he had put up himself. (a) is not a crime by itself, but it raises red flags, and there usually needs to be a really good paper record showing, for example, that other options weren't available, and that only market prices were paid. (b) is basically misappropriation or embezzlement, but depending on the amounts involved, it can be considered a mistake and healed by paying it back. Not sure about (c) and (d)'s legality. There is absolutely nothing wrong with structure of, for example, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, or Soros' Open Society Foundation. Yes, the foundations are not subject to inheritance taxes. But the money is required to be spent on altruistic endeavours. It cannot be clawed back for personal expenses, not by the founders, nor by their descendants.