|
LookieNoNookie -> RE: Just how far will Mitt go to avoid taxes? (11/1/2012 5:56:23 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
In fairness, allow me to post Kens entire post:
"Best check with someone who knows these trusts. Romney got a tax deduction on all the initial principal and got to defer taxes on all the income, til for instance the cap gains rate got lowered about 10 years ago. But only 8% of that principal deposit will ever reach the charity. Congress stepped in and required these instruments to return at least 10% but grandfathered existing CRUT's. "
Now, I believe, since I have posted your entire post, with zero exclusions or deletions, allow me to state (again) that at no time in the ENTIRE history of this country, has Congress EVER mandated that a Trust or ANY investment in the entire United States of America "shall" (which is a legal word meaning "must") achieve ANY level of income/profit to be deemed a legal trust and therefore, not excluded from Trust status.
(I'm hoping that was and is now clear Ken).
You need to learn to fucking read english, and stop flooding forums as well.
What exactly does '10%' reference in my post? The only possible reference is to the preceding sentence where I state that Rmoney's tax shelter trust will return only 8% of the principal to the charity. Which is also clear if you had actually read the Bloomberg article and not simply started making shit up.
Now that you've made a thorough fool of yourself do you have a defence for Rmoney renting a charitable institution's tax status for his own profit or not?
I'm glad I made a fool of myself Ken.
The facts speak for themselves, even as you clearly can't.
|
|
|
|
