Trump can pay smaller bond in civil fraud case as judge sets April date for hush money trial

Ill pass your message along to your future president.

 

I don't think President Biden givesAshit.

 

Right but this clown Engoron essentially ruled that when you put your property up for sale or go to get a loan in NY you have to represent that property at taxable value and not market value or else you've engaged in fraud.

We all know they aren't going to force that same rule upon everyone. So how is this not selective prosecution?

 

The judgement was based on 4 metrics

1. falsifying business records,
2. issuing false financial statements,
3. conspiracy to commit insurance fraud
4. conspiracy to falsify business records

The only one a self evaluation would have impacted based on value would have been the second point

He lied about square footage, some properties three times their actual size. He lied about current rent rolls and income statements. He lied about level of upgrades to both banks and insurers.

And he conspired with others to make changes to these reports to receive specific valuations

The value of MAL is subjective but those reports they submitted are not. Why are you only focusing on 1 of the 4? Is it because the other 3 really are not defensible?

 

And still, no reasons.

 

Only tax value allowed now. The other values a property can have are apparently worthless, unless of course you actually deal in real estate.

 

I still haven't heard any legit reasons why the Judge was allowed to disregard the statute of limitations as well. Can anyone shed some light on this?

 

Did he...? 18 U.S.C. § 3293 states that the statute allows for 10 years. When did The Stain commit/continue his fraud...?

"That a scheme may extend back beyond the limitation period does not preclude prosecution of an offense committed in furtherance of the scheme within the period."

 

Your link in no way even remotely resembles this case. The link you sited is not a loan application, it regards a quarterly report by a major financial investment group (JP Morgan). Those prosecuted in your link were prosecuted for putting out a Quarterly report which lied about the extent and value of there positions and losses. The investment managers invested poorly and after losing large sums in the market they lied to their investors, hiding their losses and elevating the market value of the holdings costing their investors a ton of money. No resemblance to this case against Trump. You don't like anyone who succeeds and have the mistaken opinion anyone who has attained wealth got it at the expense of others. Not the case and certainly not in Trumps case. Not even a good try by the way. Below is a quote from your link. Did you even read what you linked?

"But when the portfolio began experiencing mounting losses in early 2012, Martin-Artajo and Grout schemed to deliberately mismark hundreds of positions by maximizing their value instead of marking them at the mid-market prices that would reveal the losses. Their mismarking scheme caused JPMorgan’s reported first quarter income before income tax expense to be overstated by $660 million."

As for your statement "Investors all got left holding the bag" it is comical. Trump moved into Atlantic City in 1980 and opened a licensed casino in 1982 (later other development projects in Atlantic City). Trump is credited with the remarkable resurgence of the AC gaming industry throughout the next 30+ years. A lot of people made a lot of money buying and selling stock during this 30+ year span. The number of well paying jobs he helped foster over this 30+ year period (both direct and indirect) are incalculable and quite extensive. By 2016 hard times had fallen on the gambling industry nationwide and Atlantic City was no exception. Online gaming was taking a bite out of the customer base. Trump casino was losing money and eventually fell into debt. The prospects for recovery didn't look hopeful (in Trump's opinion). When you have a business which is losing money, in debt, and in an declining industry, one of the viable options is to close the doors and sell off the assets of the business. Another viable option is to sell the business to investors who hope they can turn the business around. Nothing illegal or untoward about it. That is business. Markets change. And people often lose their jobs in the process. It is capitalism and a market reality. Trump had another reason for doing so, his run for office and the subsequent attacks from the left demanding he divest in his investments (like gambling). Something of which you seem to be intimately versed. An investment group made an offer to buy the stock. A majority of the stockholders failed to approve the buyout. Trump decided not to continue to operate at a loss in a vain attempt to turn it around. It is in fact his fiduciary obligation to do just that in the interest of protecting the stockholders investment capital. He decided to bankrupt the business as was his ethical responsibility rather than continue to piss away money in vain.

The valuation of the stock had dropped appreciably due to losses on the Quarterlies. The market capitalization of the stock fell below assets on hand. In other words, the total value of all the stock was worth less than the assets, such as the building, the property, the gaming machines, everything. With this market reality at hand, a good alternative is to close the doors so you stop hemorrhaging money, sell the assets and divide the proceeds among the stockholders. A group of investors thought they saw an opportunity to buy up the distressed assets in whole (rather than piece-meal) while the price was low. It was obviously their belief they could turn around the casino's and the industry would regain its former glory in the future, believing it to be a short-term lull in the gaming industry. They believed buying the whole thing as a collection was attractive rather than letting it go to auction is my understanding. They tendered an offer for the assets under bankruptcy and the courts decided to sell the assets. The new investor's confidence in their ability to turn it around have so far proven unfounded. This has nothing to do with Trump, as he was now divested. Once it goes into bankruptcy the courts decide what to do with the assets. The stockholders at the time had the option of selling at the tendered price offering or receiving an equal value of shares in the new company. Trump did not (and cannot) force the investment group or the current stockholders to accept a tendered offer. The stock was priced at whatever the market value was at the time and the new investors tendered an offer slightly above that. Your attempt to make a mountain out of a mole-hill shows your ignorance in regards to economics, the markets, business and the market forces. Bankruptcy is a part of doing business. Not all businesses are profitable. Some are NEVER profitable. Atlantic City had quite a run over the last 30+ years. Trump in fact has a remarkable track record. I don't know the exact number off-hand, but at one time I did. As I recall he has formed over 6000 business and about 11 of them have so far been placed into bankruptcy (my recollection). You might be surprised how good a run that is. Bankruptcies for all businesses tend to fail at rates measured in the 10's of percent. There is nothing shameful or unscrupulous about declaring bankruptcy. It's a part of the business lifecycle eventually.

"Data from the BLS shows that approximately 20% of new businesses fail during the first two years of being open, 45% during the first five years, and 65% during the first 10 years. Only 25% of new businesses make it to 15 years or more."

My opinion is this data is somewhat misleading because it includes ALL businesses. Many of which are small enterprises. My guess is LARGE enterprises don't fail at quite so high a rate. Still, Trumps numbers are astounding. Regardless, there is nothing untoward about the bankruptcy process. It is well established law and provides a means of handling the assets of businesses who determine closing the enterprise is the best option to prevent further losses to the investors. The bankruptcy courts decide what creditors get paid and how to sell off the assets. Any remaining proceeds are divided among the stockholders, as was done in this case. Stockholders in a company which enters into bankruptcy are in no way liable for paying off creditors beyond their investment. Should the assets prove insufficient to cover the outstanding debt the courts often leave the stockholders without any excess proceeds. Their obligations are limited to their investment and no further. Most all executive officers are paid a salary in exchange for their work on behalf of the stockholders. This continues until bankruptcy is filed, at which point the court decides what payment is received while bankruptcy is proceeding. In the vast majority of cases the courts continue the same existing compensation (but not always). The compensation of the executive officers is published in the quarterlies and the stockholders have the opportunity to make their decisions based on this publicly available information.

Understand, investment groups tender offers for a good reason you may not fully appreciate. Let's take Elon Musk's tendered offer to the Twitter stockholders. If Elon had attempted to go out and buy up enough Twitter stock on the exchange to take control of Twitter he would have to pay an exorbitant price. At any one time there is normally only about 1 to 2% of the total stock in a company available for purchase. The puts and calls on this pool of trading house stocks sets the market price. Putting it to numbers, lets say Twitter had a market cap of around $80 Billion. Elon needs to obtain at least $40 billion to control the company. Of the 80 Billion there is about $800 million in stock in the exchanges. Normally about 10% of that is traded on a daily basis (a daily volume of 80 million). If Elon attempts buy even 80 million in Twitter stock on a particular day he would DOUBLE the volume resulting in an increase in the market price by AT LEAST 100% and very likely more. It would also take quite some time at this rate to get there. But, there is another problem a potential investor like Elon faces. What if he does manage to clandestinely obtain shares of Twitter via anonymous market purchase. If it turns out enough investors don't want to sell he may find himself holding billions worth of stock in a company he can't control to do what he thinks wise to turn it around. This is why wealthy investors like Elon instead meet with the board of Twitter to express their interest. They secretly show him their books and give him a dog and pony show to peak his interest if they are interested in selling. Once Elon has the numbers he tenders an offer (obviously, always above the current market price) and the stockholders are notified Elon is offering X-amount to purchase controlling shares. If a majority of the stockholders agree to the offering price a deal is made. This precludes Elon having to pay exorbitant share prices bit by bit, and gives him control in a single purchase agreement.

As for your final rant, have you ever considered the fact that the entire justice system controlled by democrats has targeted him. Not opinion, FACT. Their statements to their electorate prior to them even taking office leave no room for interpretation. In spite of millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars being spent investigating every aspect of his life (much are illegal investigations without probable cause or complaint) they have basically come up with squadoosh. I would hazard to guess fewer than 1% of Americans could survive such an assault by the highest levels of deep state government without them finding SOMETHING more substantial than "we think his own non-binding estimate was higher than we would guess", even after the bank charged with assessing the estimate believed it to be actually a little below market value. Give me a break! No one has been more minutely scrutinized than Trump. This is why myself and others believe Trump to hold the highest ethical business practices and virtually the only politician of virtue I can identify. Trump has FU money. He isn't beholden to special interest funding (which by all appearances resembles legalized bribery IMHO) to pay for his campaign. This is what drives the Swamp to derangement. They can't use their money to control him. He doesn't need to serve. It is possible he does it for ego as the Left is quick to accuse. Myself and many others believe he does it out of a true concern for what he has witnessed about the Washington establishment. He likely could have just as easily run as a Democrat, though this would have resulted in a similar shift in the DNC. In fact he was a lifelong Democrat until just recently. You see only Democrat=Good, Republican=Evil and shut out all information to the contrary. You gotta start at least TRYING to be an American. Start focusing on the Republic and the People it serves. This is far more important than your partisan party leanings.

 

'Trump is selling 'God Bless the USA' Bibles for $59.99 as he faces mounting legal bills'
Source: AP

NEW YORK (AP) — Former President Donald Trump is now selling Bibles as he runs to return to the White House.

Trump, who became the presumptive Republican nominee earlier this month, released a video on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday urging his supporters to buy the “God Bless the USA Bible,” which is inspired by country singer Lee Greenwood’s patriotic ballad. Trump takes the stage to the song at each of his rallies and has appeared with Greenwood at events.

“Happy Holy Week! Let’s Make America Pray Again. As we lead into Good Friday and Easter, I encourage you to get a copy of the God Bless the USA Bible,” Trump wrote, directing his supporters to a website selling the book for $59.99.'

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/trump-god-bless-usa-bible-greenwood-2713fda3efdfa297d0f024efb1ca3003

 

prosecuted? no one was prosecuted

lol instead the bank evaluated the property gave the rate and terms, were paid back early, made millions and wacko lefties crying fraud. brilliant!

 

I'm happy to address the other ones.

1) One of the most prominent forensic accountants in the country testified that there was no intentional fraud or deception within his records. He provided over a dozen examples of other businesses who have made the same type of mistakes.

3) The insurance fraud was based upon the tax valuation of his property which you already acknowledged is a ridiculous metric.

4) Again one of the foremost forensic accountants in the country testified that there was no willful conspiracy to falsify business records. Moreover the business records he supposedly falsified were in regards to what he presented to the bank. The same bank who testified that they were happy with the results and would love to do business with him again.

Of course Engoron ignored all this because he was going to convict Trump before this bs even started.

 

But you didn't address the point.

Engoron ruled that Trump needed to represent his property at TAXABLE value as opposed to market value.

If NY does not enforce that specific measure on every other real estate transaction and loan in NY then on what grounds can this not be considered selective prosecution?

 

Thanks for your opinion. On the record: I NEVER watch NBC and NEVER go to social media for information. I usually discuss with other professionals (in my field and other fields) to get their views but still consider them carefully. Trump's sociopathy has everything to do with all his behavior , words, intentions etc. His pathology plays a big part in each topic about him. His psyche state is of considerable importance given his ambitions and intentions. If you think otherwise............fine.....no problem.

 

Very true and well said. However, I am concerned your discussion (and certainly mine as well), while entirely accurate and in accordance with all standards of US code, risks getting dragged down into the minutia. The crux of the matter is, regardless of the bastardization of the code of law (blatantly apparent), the judgement levies preposterous penalties far beyond ANYTHING one would deem appropriate and within the bounds of excessive fines and levies. Even if all the inane rulings, biases, and processes transparent in this persecution are accepted, what is the level of damage (if there were an injured party)?

Presuming the bank accepted the Trump teams non-binding estimate at face value, and did not due their required due diligence. The difference the supposed over-estimation in the value of the property by ~2 million would not by the wildest imagination have resulted in any noticeable difference in the rate offered. The value of the property is a small portion of their estimate as to the final value of the property after improvements are made with the $107 million loan. The vast majority of the eventual value of the improved property stems from the $107 million worth of improvements. An initial overestimation of the contemporary value of property in the amount of $2 million is down in the noise. It is highly unlikely this would have resulted in an increase in the rate offered by more than 0.1% if any at all. The resulting "damages" to no one would be:

$107M at 0.1% over 40 month. The total difference in interest paid would be $182,890.67.

The damages this nutty judge arrived at presumed the resulting rate offered due to the small difference in MAL estimate would be more than double the rate arrived at. As a result he came up with an insane amount in damages of $8 million when the reality is it could be no more than 183 grand. He then went even more insane and awarded punitive damages (to whom I have no idea as there was no injured party) of ~$466 million!!!!!!!!!!! I'm sorry, but this alone is just so far beyond anything one would consider reasonable. The total award exceeds all reasonable injuries (to no one) by more than 2600 fold. Wow!!! This is scary stuff. The deep state is a reality and the rule of law means nothing.

 

Hair splitting. Point is that any statute of limitations can exist beyond those limits, if the offence continues...

And the law I referenced was specifically about the commission of fraud...as in the case of The Stain...

 

Judge Nudie gave summary judgement that the man was guilty (or liable) of fraud. Then comes the jury. Leftists on this board kept repeating that their role was to decide damages. In the end though, it was Judge Nudie who settled on the amount. So what was the purpose of the jury? I admit that I'm somewhat ignorant here.

 

Have a source to this forensic accountant? I have seen analysts say what he did is illegal but not unusual but haven’t read one saying that what he did could have been a simple mistake

Especially seeing they had testimony that trump told employees to smudge the numbers

trump was dropped by a CPA firm in 2022 because they couldn’t stand behind their annual reports. The trump organization CFO is in jail for fraud. They were hit with a tax fraud conviction in 2022. They are barred from running a charity because they defrauded a cancer charity.

Is it really far fetched that this is also fraud?

 

After all the litigating being done here on PF it will be interesting to see how the Appeals Court rules ...

... IF ... tRaitor tRump actually pays the $175 million bond in time.

Hopefully they'll clear up why Judge Engoron found the tRump oRganization guilty of fraud and how he came to the dollar am mounts of fines and penalties he imposed and why or why not they were upheld. There's so many decisions speculations about the case, here, it will be enlightening to see how the real authority, the Appellate Cort rules. And then compare the decisions handed down here to what decisions the Cort arrives at.

 

See post #175 in this thread.

Your missing the point. The estimate provided by the applicant for the loan (Trump) has no legal bearing. It is a response to a request to provide information on what the APPLICANT thinks the collateral is worth. It is merely an opportunity for the applicant to provide any information he thinks might help the bank in their own valuation of the property. Any estimates given are non-binding. It is the bank which is responsible for assessing the actual value of the collateral. The bank is not only permitted to reject the estimate, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to come to their own estimate as to the risks associated with the loan, including their own estimated valuations of the collateral. Not only is it non-binding as a matter of law, Trump's team included a disclaimer with their estimate stating...

"The methods used to determine this estimate are detailed above. These estimates are our own estimates made in good faith and SHOULD NOT be construed as a guarantee of the actual market value at any time now or in the future. The lending institution is encouraged to do their own assessment of what it considers the fair market value of the property now, and after any planned improvements are completed."

The estimate they provided of Mar-a-lago was a small percentage above the Tax-Assessed-Value of the property and an even smaller fraction (~2%) of the total valuation. This could hardly be conceived to have resulted in any noticeable difference in the interest rate subsequently offered by the bank.

Other abnormalities in the legal process were glaring and highly unusual. The AG who was recently elected ran on a platform of "If you vote for me I guarantee you I will tirelessly work 24/7 on nothing else until I find SOMETHING to charge Donald J. Trump with.", and once elected did exactly that? She investigated a private contract where no injured party legally allowed to do so even filed a complaint. This is a clear violation of due process. She got the cart before the horse and went off on a witch hunt. This is not how due process is defined. The AG has no authority to investigate private transactions where no complaint by an injured party has been filed. To this day, the bank has stated their own assessment of the collateral was their basis for granting the loan, did not rely on the applicants valuations, and were happy with the interest earnings they received. The loan was paid back in full 27 years before the term of the loan with interest. The bank lost no money, they made money. There were no damages and there was no party involved in the private transaction who even filed a complaint. It is the craziest case in the history of kangaroo courts.

Then there are the penalties. Any rational assessment of damages would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $180K. The judge used some unknown method to arrive at $8 million in damages. Then added on an insane amount for punitive damages of $466 million. The judgement is so far beyond any legal norms as to be preposterous. This is likely 2600 times the amount even a liberal assessment of the damages would conclude. It also conspicuously matches the total amount of cash on hand Trump has earmarked to fund his own presidential campaign. By all measure there were no discernible damages whatsoever. Since there was no actual injured party to give this inane amount of money to, it will go to the state. A state which wasn't involved in the private contract in any way whatsoever and had no reason or business even looking into the matter. This truly is the craziest case study I've ever come across.

 

And that would have likely protected them had they not conspired to alter numbers on financial disclosures. They could say it’s worth a brazilion dollars but when they started lying about rent rolls, square footages and finances / income statements that’s when it became fraud.

I asked a specific question — who is the forensic accountant and where can I read their full analysis

 

TLDR

But I skimmed enough to ask:

OK, that's one side of it but how do you justify him turning right around and low-balling the same properties come tax time.



No fraud there?

 

I don't normally do others' work for them. This time I did a quick 3 minute search and located these. Disclaimer: I have not vetted these sources for accuracy or bias as I normally do. I don't even know if this gives you what you desire. I did a very quick scan and think it pertains. They are what they are and I hope it is of help to you.

https://thedailyrecord.com/2023/12/07/trump-returns-to-ny-civil-fraud-trial-as-testimony-nears-end/
https://nypost.com/2023/10/05/trump-lawyers-rip-accountant-for-testimony-at-ny-fraud-trial/

 

Neither I nor anyone else can answer the question you posed here. Note that tax filings are rarely if ever released to the public, by law and for good reason. I will help you out a bit here though.

Congress has delegated to the IRS Congressional authority to act on its behalf regarding interpretations of the US tax code and how it might impact tax filings. In other words, in the event the IRS believes a particular tax filing is inappropriate and violates US Code they are the party who has the authority to file a complaint for damages (a tort) on behalf of the USG. For the sake of argument I will assume your filing is the example (I know you pay all your taxes). You file your taxes and the IRS examines your filing. For whatever reason they think there is a discrepancy with the US tax code. So they conduct an audit and likely ask you to clarify with additional information. They ask you to come in an discuss the matter. If they are satisfied with your responses no problems. If they do not believe the filing correct they will explain the reasons why and tell you what they believe you owe. You can come to "some kind" of agreement with them and pay accordingly, or you can refuse if you believe their assessment to be incorrect. The IRS will then likely file a complaint for damages (tort) and file it with the courts. It can be a civil complaint if they believe it to be an honest disagreement, or they can go forward and file a criminal complaint. They essentially fulfill the same right to file a complaint on behalf of the USG as the board of directors does on behalf of a company. In fact the USG IS little more than a company. The courts will follow due process like they are supposed to do in all cases in coming to a verdict.

What this means is your query into any particular tax filings by Trump are first of all likely conjecture\disinformation you picked up from an unreliable source. The reason I suspect this is for several reasons. Such matters are rarely public. They are privileged unless and until one of the 2 parties involved (the IRS?) files a complaint for damages as the injured party. The courts do not and can not even look into your tax agreements unless the IRS files a complaint with the courts. Trump is audited EVERY SINGLE year (as are all returns involving more than some large amount). Experience tells me every single year there are at least a few minor issues the IRS will have with such a large filing. Trumps tax accountants and lawyers will work with the IRS and come to an agreement. Once concluded there are no issues left to be addressed by the courts, or the IRS for that matter. For example, I heard mention Trump claimed MAL as a primary residence or a business investment of some sort. Whatever was eventually filed obviously was within the US tax code since every year Trump's team has satisfied any concerns the auditors had. Claims Trump has "cheated" on his taxes are therefore completely false disinformation. Same thing for Bill Gates. And Gates I'm sure likely relies on and pays high priced lawyers and accountants to handle it all. Swooping in at the end of the day to sign-off on an agreement without really knowing the details of how they arrived at a compromise with the IRS. You hear such accusations all the time, claiming the rich cheat on their taxes. They are a natural target for such public ridicule. Very seldom is there any veracity to the claims. Although I do recall actor Wesley Snipes had a serious run-in. And a few others like Mike Tyson and even Sugar Ray Leonard and Don King.

I do recall reading about an issue Trump had with the city of NY for reneging on an agreement he had with the city regarding property taxes. Hope that helps you. He entered into a contract with the city which gave him the enticement needed to invest in a building complex (approved by the Mayor at the time and the city council). Following completion of the project a new mayor (Koch I think) decided the previous mayor was wrong to have entered into the agreement and decided to just kill the deal. Trump sued and won in court. This may be something you've heard. Many anti-Trumpers claim this was preferential treatment or cheating of some sort. However, the city wanted the complex built and Trump did not want to proceed with the project as the crazy high tax rates made the venture economically unfeasible for Trump. The city agreed to the deal, reducing the taxes and this was the only reason Trump proceeded. It was all on the up and up and while some may disagree with the cities decision to enter into the agreement, it all followed due process in the end and the agreement was honored.

 

I just wanted to add something which might help your research. I've also seen accusations and ridicule claiming Trump paid no taxes for like 10 years. There is likely some truth to this, however no improprieties exist. All done in accordance with the tax code. From what I have managed to put together it likely involves Trumps holdings when the real estate market in NY collapsed. It kinda goes along these lines...

Trump acquired Real Estate holdings of approximately $30 Billion way back. On this $30 billion he owed some huge amount of let's guess $15 billion to various banks. This meant on paper he had a net worth of about $15 billion let's say. The value of the holdings dropped VERY rapidly, to the point where the market value of the real estate was below what was owed to the banks. This meant it was in his interest to enter into bankruptcy, leaving the banks with a sizable loss. Losses which would likely result in the closure of several banks. I think the shortfall at the current market value was about $5 Billion, making Trump the most Broke @#$ Byatch in the country. Of course the lenders don't want him to file for bankruptcy as it would mean having to report a huge downfall on their balance sheets. He met with the lenders and they agreed to refinance the loans at better terms. This gave him (and the lenders) time for the real estate market to rebound and hopefully get all of their heads above water. It took 2 to 3 years for the market to rebound, as I recall, to the point where he was once again just plain broke. One of the terms of the new agreement was Trump would be permitted to spend no more than $12 million per year for personal expenses. Imagine that, you are worth negative Billions and spending $12 million per year.

It was during his divorce from Ivanna Trump making it all the more stressful I am sure. However, what it meant was Ivanna wouldn't be able to obtain a large divorce settlement like she would have gotten shortly prior. Ivanna and Donald also came to some kind of agreement, but she didn't get much. She had a prenup with Donald in which she would get $25 million. But with their negative wealth there was nothing for her to take. It didn't even make sense to contest the prenup. She likely stood to not even get the amount in the prenup. In the end they came to some kind of agreement where she would be put in charge of one of the buildings for a small salary. Perhaps even an AC casino (its been awhile since I looked into it so I don't recall precisely. I think the arrangement was he would find a way to at least pay the $25 million prenup at a later date. But it didn't end there.

Remember, Trump had made many billions of dollars up until that point. He had paid all of the taxes owed on these many billions of dollars over the years. Part of the tax code protects taxpayers from being penalized on the basis of the filing schedule. Lets say you invest in a business and you lose $800,000 the 1st year. You file your taxes and pay nothing. The following year you make $1 million. You can file what is called income averaging and essentially list your income for the 2 years as 100,000 each year, pay at a much lower rate, and only pay on the total amount earned (200,000 instead of 1 million). The only reason you owe so much this year has to do with the boundary line (date) the IRS arbitrarily places at January 1. This also works in reverse if you made a lot of money, paid the taxes on that amount and then on a subsequent year made less or even lost money. What this means is Trump earned and paid taxes on perhaps $20 billion in income, then lost his a$$. But he is entitled to recoup the taxes he had already paid using income averaging. So even though he was the brokest person in the US, being 5 Billion in debt, each year he could income average and recoup billions of dollars back from the taxes already paid. Understand if you earned 20 billion this likely amounts to 10 Billion in taxes paid (early?). You can income average for I believe up to 18 years. Eventually the markets recovered and he was able to maintain ownership of the real estate holdings and rebuild his wealth. I believe he still has yet to recover back to his previous holdings. So, there may be some truth to the statement he paid no taxes for 10 years in spite of the fact his wealth was rapidly recovering. All of it completely legal and within the tax code. In fact it really is fair if you think about it. Why should you pay massive taxes when you make money then when you subsequently lose money you get nothing. Income averaging is designed to correct what is essentially an unfairness caused by major fluctuations from one year to the next (or many years). Amazing huh?