the author is probably trying to imply that Trump used funds from the charity for personal use and avoided taxes on it
-
-
-
I see, (if he did). But I don't see them say that and it's pretty strong thing to imply...usually reporters wouldn't do that.
-
that's what I thought his last paragraph implied. I mean if not what is the big deal.
-
That's what I was left with. Not to be rude but if it's that hard for us to figure out, it's not particularly clearly written
-
but isn't that what often happens with agenda based articles. Vague enough to imply but not indict.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@SpiderM51 Unfortunately, lots of charities are just fronts for extravagant trips and to pay family members -
True but implying without the evidence isn't a good idea in news business. I don't see the evidence but maybe I missed
-
It isn't illegal but it is creative tax planning
-
nothing wrong with creative tax planning, IRS taxes creatively.
-
Not at all...if loophole available, you'd want to take advantage of it to reduce taxes
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
the article was guilt by implication, not evidence.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@SpiderM51 Many pro athletes have charities & their agents work in donations in their contracts so they pay less in taxesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I thought they said that's what Clintons routinely did...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@SpiderM51 ....and wish to remain totally anonymous.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.