General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTax attorney on the certified letter Cheeto sent about his taxes
(FB post of a friend of mine who is a tax attorney, and teaches tax law.)
For context, tax opinion letters are used to help a taxpayer avoid liability (and potentially shift it to the law firm) in the event the IRS decides a position is abusive. As such, the language is chosen very carefully and well-understood by every attorney and IRS agent looking at it. That means someone not in this world looking at it is going to miss the meaning of much of what is written. So, for example, if a tax attorney writes that there is "substantial authority" for a position, he is opining that there is about a 40% chance the taxpayer's position will prevail on audit; less than "more likely than not" (just over 50%) but more than where there is a "reasonable basis (~1/3 chance). Without knowing that it is coded language, though, each of these might superficially mean the same thing as "should"prevail (~60%) but they don't.
1. The Dillon/Nelson letter uses "immaterial" to describe the amounts Trump has received from Russian sources which is a meaningless term: If the intent is to state that it is so small as to be able to be disregarded, the term would be "de minimis" and the attorneys know this, so they were intentionally giving a meaningless opinion.
2. Definitions are everything in opinion letters and unless a term is defined broadly, it should be read exceedingly narrowly. The letter repeatedly refers to "Russian sources", "Russian lenders", "Russian entity" without defining Russian. As such, a non-lawyer reading the letter might think that a Russian includes ones controlled by Russians, but it does not--unless there is a different definition (and there isn't), it means entities incorporated in Russian and excludes entities incorporated elsewhere even if all the funding and ownership is from Russians. Since, like many Americans, Russian oligarchs choose to incorporate their businesses in countries with more favorable tax laws or where their home governments can't seize the assets when the person is arrested for criminal wrongdoing (think "offshore accounts" , NONE of the income or loans from these people would be included as Russian-sourced in the opinion letter--yet it is this very income/debt people that is at the heart of the issue.
3. When an opinion letter is given in connection is given in connection with a transaction or handed over to the IRS on audit, the back-up info is ALWAYS provided. Without the back-up info, it's worthless and would be ignored. The back-up info for this letter is Trump's tax returns for a decade. By releasing this letter, he has likely waived attorney-client privilege with respect to the returns, so there is now not even a pretense of an excuse for not releasing them publicly so we can see what fills the many holes carefully created by the letter.
4. The letter defines TTO (the Trump Organizations to which it applies) to include only entities in which Trump is the sole or principal owner. So it excludes the many licensing deals and such under which Trump receives royalties, which are thought to be his primary source of income--as far as this letter is concerned, they could be 100% from Russian sources without being disclosed.
Of course, there are also the many other items noted by others--why the 2 month delay between having the letter written and providing it? The letterhead creates the impression that it is the opinion of Dillon/Nelson, not the firm--is that accurate and, if so, that says a lot about how much it is worth (even less than a blank sheet of paper).
Interestingly, the direct links to the letter that used to exist seem to have been broken, so I'm linking to an article that embeds a copy of the letter instead of directly to the original source. Happy to sub it out if someone else has a working direct link.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/12/law-firm-russia-trump-morgan-lewis
Raven
(13,899 posts)I've written dozens of legal opinions and this article nails exactly what's wrong, and bogus, about the Trump tax opinion. One additional thing that I noticed is that the opinion is addressed to Trump himself which means that the authors are only liable to Trump if the opinion is incorrect. Usually legal opinions are addressed to lenders and/or others who have a reason to rely on them in connection with taking some action. This tax opinion probably should have been addressed to Congress...fat chance of that!
onenote
(42,747 posts)Last edited Mon May 15, 2017, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)
I don't think this is or can be characterized as a tax opinion letter. In my experience, tax opinion letters make clear on their face that they are tax opinion letters and opine as to questions of law rather than merely state some facts.
Raven
(13,899 posts)the legal opinions I've written were environmental and land use opinions usually for lenders and/or prospective tenants in a development project. The first step was to gather the facts from appropriate professionals such as engineers and architects and get these folks to certify to those facts. We would then put the law to those facts and opine on compliance. The interesting thing here is that Trump, being a developer, is familiar with legal opinions so I'm guessing he knows that the "opinion" he is trying to foist on the world is pure bullshit.
mitch96
(13,924 posts)I was reading about this in a few places.. Why won't the Senate use this law??
"The legislation approved in 1924 gave each of two tax committees the House Ways & Means and Senate Finance Committees the unqualified right to request any tax returns from the Secretary of the Treasury."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/11/congressman-rarely-used-law-could-make-trump-tax-returns-public/97788564/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/11/1632589/-New-Jersey-congressman-invokes-1924-tax-law-giving-Congress-power-to-examine-Trump-s-tax-returns
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-has-the-power-to-obtain-and-release-trumps-tax-returns/2017/02/07/aa53254c-ea63-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.5f65137a9dff
M
volstork
(5,403 posts)because there is a repub majority. It's that simple.
Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)are flinging another handful of republican monkey poo in the face of America's decent, tax-paying citizens. That sucks. Sad. Deplorable.
* republican Draft-Dodger-in-Chief
N_E_1 for Tennis
(9,773 posts)The Polack MSgt
(13,192 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,756 posts)ginnyinWI
(17,276 posts)panfluteman
(2,065 posts)Makes the whole epithet of "Crooked Hillary" the biggest lie / joke / exaggeration of the 2016 election campaign.
Nitram
(22,853 posts)when s/he writes those words.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)isn't even represented in the letter.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)3. When an opinion letter is given in connection is given in connection with a transaction or handed over to the IRS on audit, the back-up info is ALWAYS provided. Without the back-up info, it's worthless and would be ignored. The back-up info for this letter is Trump's tax returns for a decade. By releasing this letter, he has likely waived attorney-client privilege with respect to the returns, so there is now not even a pretense of an excuse for not releasing them publicly so we can see what fills the many holes carefully created by the letter.
Does anything here make the tax returns obtainable in a reasonably timely manner?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)With emphasis on that item.
First of all, the tax opinion letters I've seen rarely have attachments, so I don't know what the attorney is referring to when he suggests that back up information is "always" provided. Indeed, the typical tax opinion letter contains a disclaimer by the attorneys that they are accepting the factual premises on which the letter is based as true and have not independently verified them.
Second, and more significantly, the attorney-client privilege has next to nothing to do with whether tax returns can be obtained through "discovery" in non-tax litigation. Instead, the courts have created a "common law" privilege specific as to the discoverability of tax returns through subpoenas in civil cases. In most jurisdictions this privilege is "qualified" -- meaning it can be overcome through a showing that the information in the tax return is relevant to the case and cannot be obtained through other means.
In the case of a criminal case, the standard for subpoenas seeking tax returns is presented in 26 U.S.C. § 6103(i). Again, attorney-client privilege has nothing to do with it.
As noted above, the letter sent by Trump's lawyers isn't a "tax opinion letter" -- a very specific type of legal document. It's not clear why the tax attorney quoted in the OP would analyze it as if it was a tax opinion letter.
randr
(12,414 posts)The legalese cults' method of pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.
Wounded Bear
(58,698 posts)well, anybody with any common sense, anyway. Nice to see it expressed coherently and clearly and couched in laymen's terms for us non-legal types. It is rather obviously a smoke screen that I'm sure his minions will consider binding proof that he doesn't need to release his taxes. Frankly, IMHO it adds to the argument for revealing Trump's financial dealings. All of them. I'm sure his tax returns are a small part of his dirty dealings.
Thanks for this.
Enoki33
(1,587 posts)question about trump's tax returns by stating they would not be released because they could be used against him. There is reason to believe the shuffling of original Russian money among his hundreds of shell companies are paramount to the investigation.
Wounded Bear
(58,698 posts)I suspect all things Trump are ass deep in dirty Russian money.
Just need to peel off the layers of crap covering it.
Paladin
(28,271 posts)mulsh
(2,959 posts)ignored and ridiculed.
Thanks for the handy translation.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)The problem in Washington is they're probably trying to figure out which of his crimes the fewest other politicians and their patrons have committed also.
erronis
(15,328 posts)Blackmail is nasty and can be used against most politicians, especially. (Wonder why that is....)
"Old Europe" has long-ago shed its Puritan-style ethos and can rarely be blackmailed for sexual peccadildos. Once the USofA grows up it will be back to money-laundering, murder, etc.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Buns_of_Fire
(17,191 posts)his doctor expressing the opinion that Rump is the fittest, healthiest, manly-manliest, smartest specimen of the human race that he's ever encountered (or something like that).
Wounded Bear
(58,698 posts)Just put on his lawyering suit.