BAINGATE Explained: People, this is no joke and SEC should press the tax issue

[uponit7771]

1.) Romney said in FEC and other filings he was NOT operationally leading Bain.

2.) Bain said in Federal filings rMoney WAS operationally leading Bain

3.) Tax Returns would show if rMoney took tax benefits from ....OPERATIONAL control of Bain making him either have to explain to the SEC wtf is up or explain to the IRS wtf is up....either way....that's not good for prez candidate.

4.) rMoney will not SHOW taxes from that period....as of the Boston Globe Story rMoney NOW has something tangible to hide


Lying to SEC is serious offense, Martha Stewart was jailed for less....

I miss anything?

Regards

Edit

P.S. How this ties into FactCheck is FactCheck pretty much said the same thing I said above but left out the tax returns issue. If rMoney took TAX benefits from control of Bain that would be an ESTABLISHMENT in writing that rMoney was OPERATIONALLY controlling Bain and not just a prima facia controller of the company (controller in name only) as both WAPo and FactCheck claim rMoney to be.

As FactCheck stated rMoney could go to jail for a clip if rMoney was in operational control of Bain during that period and it wasn't just on the face control cause he was "busy with the Olympics"

This is interesting

[snacker]

1. Grab the popcorn...

this could get interesting!

[Earth_First]

2. Silly OP, only little people go to jail... n/t

[uponit7771]

3. Yeah, Martha was only worth 150million sooooo yeah.....she had to go...silly me :) I hope this has..

....legs

[FiveGoodMen]

11. I think Martha's a Democrat

[rufus dog]

4. IOKIYAR

Martha contributed to Dems.

[bluestateboomer]

21. Had that same thought.

Hope we're wrong, but it seems to happen an awful lot.

[uponit7771]

5. Shameless kick, do I have anything wrong outline?

[Marrah_G]

6. This really needs to go viral

[uponit7771]

7. Well, first to the GOP...they'd understand something this simple...The Obama admin...

...is just playing the negatives of this up to be just a lie to the voters....nope....rMoney COULD have either lied to the SEC or the IRS and his taxes would show this.

How much you wanna bet that the person who takes 77k from a "dressage" horse would take some tax benefit from operational control of a company during that same period...

rMoneys a freakin jerk.

[ieoeja]

8. Statute of Limitations is 7 years. n/t

[uponit7771]

9. Crap, for the IRS...I think you're right but what about the SEC?

[Kalidurga]

10. Maybe not

The statute of limitations does not apply in the case of a false tax return or fraudulent tax return filed with the IRS with intent to evade any tax. See section 6501(c)(1) of the Tax Code and section 301.6501(c)-1 of the Tax Regulations.

http://www.etaxes.com/statute_of_limitations.htm

But, I am not sure lying to the SEC means he also lied on his tax returns. I think we need to examine both as separate issues.

[uponit7771]

14. +1!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

38. +2

[KansDem]

12. But isn't that 7 years from when the crime was reported?

And an investigation started?

FroWhen does the clock start ticking for statutes of limitations?
Once you've figured out what statute of limitations applies to your case, your next step is to determine when the clock starts ticking. In most situations the time starts to run on the "date of harm" -- that is, on the date when you were injured, your property was harmed, or a contract or agreement was violated.

However, a huge exception to this general rule exists. The exception protects plaintiffs in situations where they may not be aware for months or even years that they have been harmed. In such situations, statutes of limitations may start the clock ticking either on the "date of discovery" of the harm or on the date on which the plaintiff "should have discovered" the harm. In short, for some types of legal actions the statute of limitations clock can start ticking at three different times!

•Earliest: The date of harm.
•Later: The date on which the plaintiff reasonably should have discovered the harm. This refers to the date when a judge considers it fair to say that the plaintiff should have known about the harm, even if the plaintiff didn't actually know about it.
•Latest: The date on which the plaintiff actually discovered the harm.

--more--
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/statutes-of-limitations-lawsuit-timeline-faq-29038-5.html

[siligut]

13. I just don't ever want him to be elected, he would be the black death

I think he should be made ineligible to run for any government office, but doubt he will ever see jail for this.

[OmahaBlueDog]

15. Questions about Baingate

1) Assuming there is merit to the allegations, what would be the next logical step. Would the President appoint a Special Prosecutor (in light of the political nature of the situation) or would the facts and evidence be brought before a Federal Grand Jury?

2) As a practical matter, how serious is this? I've read that it's potentially a felony. Theoretically, that means a potential of at least 1 year + 1 day in jail. Would it really come to that?

3) Again, making the assumption that there is substance to the allegation, what is the more probable outcome if this gains traction:

a) Rmoney rides it out under indictment/charges?
b) The GOP frees delegates from commitments and the convention goes wide open?
c) Rmoney picks a Veep, and then steps aside to leave the Veep as nominee?

[uponit7771]

16. At the least an investigation should be started based of ....

...the sec filings alone.

The tax issue should be raising another brow

[Swede Atlanta]

17. Me thinks..........

That if "this" issue doesn't have legs then RMoney will be forced to show his tax returns to refute them.

That will open up a new can of worms for Mr. "class warfare" as people start scouring his returns for any improprieties.

When someone is running for the highest political office in the country he/she should be subject to vigorous scrutiny. We, the voters, have a right to know as much as we can about this candidate.

Speeches, ads, debates give you only one side of the candidate. Analysis based on tax returns, business activities, etc. are much more objective about the person's character (or maybe ability to hide), experience, etc.

[caseymoz]

18. Man are Repubs in trouble.

After going through 8 other candidates, they end up with this Rmoney guy, who's going to go down in scandal before he could try for the White House!

Why is it that every successful Conservative leader appears to be corrupt, stupid, mendacious or all three? That should be an ideological question as to what it takes to get ahead as a Conservative.

It looks like it's Newt vs. Obama after all.

[sakabatou]

19. I wonder what would happen if Romney was found guilty and jailed before November elections

I don't know how it would continue.

[DCBob]

20. It does sound like something illegal in all this.

I suspect the SEC is investigating.

[DeSwiss]

22. For those of you out there who would like to visualize.....

...what Mitt Romney would look like in an orange jumpsuit if there were any justice:



- K&R

[uponit7771]

23. +1!...have you read about the Governor disclosures yet? rMoney says under oath that he

...was going back to Mass for board meetings etc...

This was an ABC breaking story...

I hope this has more legs...

[DeSwiss]

28. No I hadn't.....

...thanks 4 the Headsup!

[Igel]

30. But he was a shareholder.

You have to show operational control. I could attend meetings of AIG as a shareholder. Doesn't mean I have operational control.

In fact, I could own 100% of the stock--and at that point appoint myself CEO and take operational control (Romney would have just left out the middle bit, he was already CEO). It still doesn't get you were you need to go. It provides innuendo and makes a rhetorical point--but ultimately, you have to rely on your listener to confuse "could" and "did".

[spanone]

24. now we see the motive for romney NOT wanting to release his tax forms

[uponit7771]

25. Yeap, at some point the SEC can ask and then make rMoney force a subpena...then things REALLY

...get good because there's no lying.

If the tables were reversed rMoney would open an investigation on Obama....hell, they wanted to open an investigation for his birth certificate!!

[spanone]

26. he has to respond. i don't think this will just go away.

[mysuzuki2]

27. I can't see the SEC or any other federal agency taking any formal action

on this issue during the campaign.

[FSogol]

31. Exactly. Whether Romney is guilty or not, it'll never be prosecuted. n/t

[D23MIURG23]

29. I hope this ends in indictments... I like my re-bacon nice and crispy.

[Igel]

32. Yes.

1. I don't think it was SEC filings.

2. Bain didn't say Romney was operationally in charge of Bain. He was CEO and "sole director", but of Bain VI. Bain VI controlled Bain Investments, but that doesn't mean operational control. Our CEO was on forced leave for 17 months and was CEO, but we didn't let him have control over so much as a paperclip.

3. I don't understand what tax benefits you'd get from "operational control" or formal, non-operational control that you wouldn't get from dividends or from investment income. Linky?

[uponit7771]

33. 3. is easy, tax deduction from operating as an employee of bain just like I get as an

...employee of a company that has unannounced reimbursement of say.....internet access. He gets deductions on schedule A then it's hard to make the case that he was a stand off CEO etc.

2. That's my point of the tax returns being exposed so we can see if he was claiming ANY tax benefits from operationally working at Bain...business use of home etc. Also, control of Bain VI vs Bain = difference between off-shoring and outsourcing...it's needless onion slicing....rMoney had controlling influence, operational or not, of Bain and there's evidence he was involved in more than just influence from testimony he gave for the Mass governorship.

1. SEC and other filings...

[Igel]

34. People get reimbursed for things?

Who knew? For Bain, though, as a tax write-off it's a bit of a strange idea. 15% income tax on the income makes the reimbursement less useful.

But since he was in UT--hence the hearings in Mass. when he ran for governor--you'd expect that to be mostly airfare for board meetings unless they just bought his ticket(s). And, in any event, you're still left with the struggle to define a reimbursement as indicating operational control versus just perks for being CEO. I don' even think of board meetings as showing much operational control.

Offhand, I don't see reimbursements for a lot of things as mattering.

The smoking gun you're after involves internal documents that he'd have signed, day to day kind of stuff--or, more impressively, showing that he was added to the management committee for a firm taken over after 2/99.

[uponit7771]

37. Yes, if they're OPERATIONAL they do...and yes, if you're taking deductions for operting the company

...in any capacity a judge would have to make major twist of logic to say those are just 'quirks" and not rMoney being involved in the business.

Either way, someones lying on a criminal level

[Ruby the Liberal]

35. I would like to know if he marked passive or material activity. nt

[just1voice]

36. He's a lying criminal, that's exactly why (R)s like him

I think a lot of people miss that completely. They see sociopaths like him as idols who have figured out how to beat the system, just like their lying (R) asses are trying to do everyday.

He won't be held accountable, he's a member of the elite whom have rigged the laws so they're not accountable. Torture is fine, any bank crime is fine, tax evasion is fine, just pay the government 1/1000th of what they made and off they go to one of their 5 mansions.

The real crime is that no one is held accountable.

[icarusxat]

40. well put

but lets hope he is held

[annabanana]

39. This is the CLEAREST explanation I have seen or heard anywhere.

Fact Number One and Fact Number Two do not seem to come up much on televised reports.

[uponit7771]

41. Actually fact 2 is the FEC filings 2 months ago not SEC, post editied