Did Romney pay NO income taxes for 10 years?

I don't think there is a man or woman alive that can fix the economy in four years...especially when this has been a growing problem for over several decades. We have to work together and not fight against each other. just sayin

If republicans elect Romney he will be it court the entire time.
Cue the IRS!
Better give R Paul the nomination. LOL

I loved that part of this post.
An ill wind is about to blow!

Mac Attack wrote:

If republicans elect Romney he will be it court the entire time.
Cue the IRS!
Better give R Paul the nomination. LOL

Below is an excerpt of article explaining why I wrote the previous comments.

In a widely cited blog post Thursday, a University of Colorado law professor opined that "Bain's management fee conversions are not legal." Victor Fleischer wrote that "If challenged in court, Bain would lose."

While it's hard to find anyone who agrees with the spirit of the fee conversion, interviews with tax experts suggest it's far from clear that the strategy amounts to breaking the law. "This is an aggressive tax tactic," said Lee Sheppard, a corporate lawyer and legal commentator, reflecting the attitude of most observers.

David Kautter, managing director of the Kotuk tax center at American University and a partner at Ernst & Young for 28 years, said that if you cobble together various IRS rulings and principals as established over the past 40 years, you can justify the fee waiver strategy. For example, the concept of "constructive receipt," he says allows managers to delay tax liability as long as they waive their fees before the tax year begins. And then, "what turns lead into gold," he says, is the longstanding IRS practice of treating general partner income according to the nature of the distribution. In this case, the income is distributed as capital gains from the fund, and therefore it's taxed as such. Indeed, you could use the same strategy in any general partnership structure, he argues.(Feeling wonky? Here's a presentation explaining the legal issues and citing IRS rulings.)

In accusing Bain of breaking the law, Fleisher, according to Kauttner, is "arguing what should be, rather than what is."

Not So Fast

Michael Graetz, a professor of tax law at Columbia University, isn't so fast to dismiss the spirit of the law. "I couldn't go to my dean and say instead of giving me next year's salary give me a partnership interest and it will some how magically turn into a capital gain," he says. "You can't take compensation and somehow magically transform it into capital gains."

All of the experts I consulted said that, as far as they knew, the IRS has not ruled on this strategy. An IRS attorney referred me to a spokesperson, who would only say that "federal law prohibits the IRS from discussing any particular taxpayer or case." Private equity firms have apparently flown under the IRS radar, at least when it comes to this issue. The 5-year-old tax journal article even stipulates that the strategy has yet to be upheld, so tax advisors appear to have taken the approach that it's better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

"You're playing an audit lottery," says Graetz. "Your tax return becomes your opening bid."

Romney appears to have benefited from the carried interest tax treatment, but it's not clear if he benefited from the management fee conversion. "Mitt Romney might have benefited from these fee waivers to the extent that he had profits interests in the funds awarded to him under his 10-year retirement deal," Sheppard says. Romney has released tax returns for 2010 and an estimate of his 2011 return. Democrats, and even some Republicans, have urged him to release returns for earlier years as well. In an article in Saturday's New York Times, my former colleague Jim Stewart suggests that even looking at just 2010, you can learn some details about Romney's returns from earlier years.

Because of the political implications of this issue, many experts refused to discus it. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants told me to get back to them when I had a non-campaign related question. I called a nonpartisan think tank, which referred me to a left-leaning think tank, which declined to be quoted. A couple of corporate lawyers never called back.

But it's probably a safe bet that the IRS will take a look at management fee waivers sooner, rather than later.

Wishfull thinking and pure Democratic bullshit!

NY probes private equity tax strategy

Many of the world’s largest private equity firms face an investigation into strategies that may have helped them to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in US taxes.

The groups being investigated by New York’s attorney-general, Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, include Bain Capital – formerly led by Barack Obama’s Republican presidential challenger, Mitt Romney – KKR and Apollo Group, a person familiar with the investigation said.

I’m surprised it hasn’t happened sooner,” said one private equity executive.“You have a right to privacy, but you don’t have a right to be president. If Bain and Mr Romney saved themselves tens of millions of dollars in taxes, then you would expect that to be examined.”

Mr Schneiderman has issued subpoenas as part of an investigation into the “fee-waiver” strategy, in which executives invested management fees paid by investors back into one of the investment funds. Any profits on those fees would be taxed at the capital gains rate – a much lower tax rate than if it were treated as ordinary income. There is debate over whether the strategy is legal, aggressive or illegal. The strategy was risky and could have resulted in losses for the manager if the investment funds were not profitable.

Critics of the tax treatment of private equity maintain that fees paid to firms for investment management do not represent true capital at risk, and so should be taxed as normal income in the same way as bonuses paid to investment bankers, or lawyers working on a “no win, no fee” basis.

The investigation is being run by the state’s Taxpayer Protection Bureau, which was started last year by Mr Schneiderman to try to recoup revenues lost by the state. The investigators sent subpoenas to private equity firms that disclosed that they used the fee conversion strategy and to large firms to try to determine how widespread the strategy was used.

With a jurisdiction that includes Wall Street, the New York attorney-general’s office has long held a reputation for being tough on big investment firms. Mr Schneiderman’s predecessors include Andrew Cuomo, the current governor, and Eliot Spitzer, who cracked down on Wall Street firms a decade ago.

Private equity firms have faced increased scrutiny at the federal level, too. The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating several firms for dealings with sovereign wealth funds. Other private equity firms, including Carlyle, previously settled with the state attorney-general for their involvement in a “pay to play” scheme where middlemen were paid fees to gain access to state pension plans.

Private equity firms fought off a battle several years ago to have their tax structure changed as Democratic lawmakers called for the closing of a “private equity loophole” in the tax code. Most private equity managers receive most of their income from funds profits rather than their salary, leading to a lower tax rate.

Bain, Apollo, and KKR declined to comment.

TNBLOWFLY wrote:

<quoted text>
BIG BAD EQUITY FIRMS. MUST THE THE BIG BAD BUSHIES AND KOCHIES AT WORK, ALL IS LOST. IT IS THE BIG BAD EQUITY FIRMS TAKING OVER THE WORLD. LOL

You'll think big and bad when they subpoena old man Mitt into the courtroom and he's surrounded by lawyers wanting to know where the money is at. LOL

Romney should have stfu and stayed out of politics. He's not cut out for it anyway, no one likes him, not even you.

Oh yes hamburger, we all know that you really wish that obama did not have to run for reelection, you wish he would just magically do one of those executive order decree thingies and appoint himself as president in perpetuity,,lol
It really galls you that Romney is tied in the polls, and that Romney will beat your big eared clown like a dog,,, BIG BAD EVIL EQUITY FIRMS,,,lol The courtroom will be full, many dems like reid pukelosi just to name 2, because there are many dems addicted to the BIG EVIL EQUITY FIRMS AS WELL,,,lol

TNBLOWFLY wrote:

Oh yes hamburger, we all know that you really wish that obama did not have to run for reelection, you wish he would just magically do one of those executive order decree thingies and appoint himself as president in perpetuity,,lol
It really galls you that Romney is tied in the polls, and that Romney will beat your big eared clown like a dog,,, BIG BAD EVIL EQUITY FIRMS,,,lol The courtroom will be full, many dems like reid pukelosi just to name 2, because there are many dems addicted to the BIG EVIL EQUITY FIRMS AS WELL,,,lol

Nah, I don't want Obama in office after this term ends in 2016. After that anyone except a republican will be fine. Republicans just aren't for the right kind of people. They've got an unbalanced way of thinking. How can a business do good when their customers don't have the money to buy their products? See, that is why Reagan's supply side economics has never worked. It was ass backwards. Give the working people good jobs at a decent pay rate and just about everyone will want to work, instead of being on welfare. Not all, but a lot more than we have now. When working people have money, they will buy the products the companies make and the companies will prosper even while making their products here in the USA. As long as capital gains are taxed at low rates, business people will continue to take money out of their businesses instead of reinvesting in capital improvements. Republicans have it ass backwards again. Everything they do is against the working person getting ahead. Instead of trying to screw the workers, try to help them and it will in turn help the businesses. Until the republicans figure this out, I'll never be for a republican.

Mac Attack wrote:

<quoted text>
Nah, I don't want Obama in office after this term ends in 2016. After that anyone except a republican will be fine. Republicans just aren't for the right kind of people. They've got an unbalanced way of thinking. How can a business do good when their customers don't have the money to buy their products? See, that is why Reagan's supply side economics has never worked. It was ass backwards. Give the working people good jobs at a decent pay rate and just about everyone will want to work, instead of being on welfare. Not all, but a lot more than we have now. When working people have money, they will buy the products the companies make and the companies will prosper even while making their products here in the USA. As long as capital gains are taxed at low rates, business people will continue to take money out of their businesses instead of reinvesting in capital improvements. Republicans have it ass backwards again. Everything they do is against the working person getting ahead. Instead of trying to screw the workers, try to help them and it will in turn help the businesses. Until the republicans figure this out, I'll never be for a republican.

The party is better off if people like you stay democrat. Your party wants to keep people addicted to welfare and every other freebie, only problem is they are not really free. Generations will be paying the debt accumulated by misguided democrats.

TNBLOWFLY wrote:

<quoted text>
The party is better off if people like you stay democrat. Your party wants to keep people addicted to welfare and every other freebie, only problem is they are not really free. Generations will be paying the debt accumulated by misguided democrats.

Nah, democrats don't want people on welfare any more than republicans want it. Democrats just want people to be able to eat and have a place to sleep. Check it out, if republicans get their way and wages go down to the level of third world wages, no one will want to work. I mean, what is the point of working and having nothing? On the other hand, if wages are reasonably higher than welfare, more people will want to move away from welfare and get a job and have more than they did while on welfare. Republicans are promissing more jobs, but the jobs they're promissing are very low paying jobs that won't entice people to move off of welfare. So, the republican philosophy is to force people to work for less by doing away with welfare. What they're asking for is a revolt, something like the Occupy movements that went around the world this last year. Pay better and get people to leave welfare voluntarily. The US will be better and our country will have a better chance at beating China.

Mac Attack wrote:

<quoted text>Nah, democrats don't want people on welfare any more than republicans want it. Democrats just want people to be able to eat and have a place to sleep. Check it out, if republicans get their way and wages go down to the level of third world wages, no one will want to work. I mean, what is the point of working and having nothing? On the other hand, if wages are reasonably higher than welfare, more people will want to move away from welfare and get a job and have more than they did while on welfare. Republicans are promissing more jobs, but the jobs they're promissing are very low paying jobs that won't entice people to move off of welfare. So, the republican philosophy is to force people to work for less by doing away with welfare. What they're asking for is a revolt, something like the Occupy movements that went around the world this last year. Pay better and get people to leave welfare voluntarily. The US will be better and our country will have a better chance at beating China.

wage have went down under Obama's lack of leadership. I guess you haven't noticed that. Under President Romney, the economy will prove for everyone,