Here’s Theory #3 On How Donald Trump Got $916 Million in Tax-Free Income

The theories are piling up! Today, Josh Barro summarizes a theory from Lee Sheppard in Tax Notes about how Donald Trump managed to show a $916 million operating loss on his 1995 tax return. By my count, this is the third plausible theory in circulation. I shall now summarize Barro’s summary of Sheppard.

Sheppard reckons that Trump’s casino operations were organized as an S corporation, in which profits and losses flow through to the owner. So when the S corporation sustained huge losses after the casinos collapsed, those losses passed through to Trump. Subsequently, the corporation’s debts were canceled, which should have shown up as offsetting income. However, because the debts were canceled through bankruptcy, they never showed up on the S corporation’s balance sheet and never passed through to Trump:

“But wait!” I hope you are saying. “Wouldn’t that put Trump afoul of the rule that his tax losses from the S Corporation can’t exceed what he invested in it in the first place plus the prior profits?”

Yes, it would — except that, before the 2002 loophole fix, the debt forgiveness enjoyed by the S Corporation would have passed through to Trump for the purposes of calculating the amount of profit the S Corporation had earned on his behalf, even though the same debt forgiveness did not pass through as actual taxable profit to him.

Sheppard refers to this as a “double dip” — the tax loophole would have allowed Trump to claim losses on his individual income tax return that were ultimately borne by creditors, not by him.

Did you notice the reference to a “2002 loophole” there? This is what makes Sheppard’s theory so precious. “Double dipping” is obviously stupid, and it was never the intention of Congress. However, when the IRS tried to kill it off, the Supreme Court ruled that the letter of the law is the letter of the law. If Congress screwed up, it’s up to Congress to fix it.

So they did. In 2002 double dipping was banned. And guess who voted to ban it?

Yep: Hillary Clinton. So when Donald Trump disingenuously demands to know why Clinton never tried to close the loopholes he used, the answer is: She did. And if there had been any way to make it retroactive, she probably would have voted for that too.

So many theories. But all of them have one thing in common: They demonstrate that although Trump isn’t much of a businessman, he is rich enough to hire good tax attorneys who will hand over huge stacks of forms for him to sign blindly. That’s a helluva qualification for president, isn’t it?

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.