Hillary Also Exploited Provisions To Lessen Her Tax Burden, NYT Did So As Well

Posted: Oct 04, 2016 1:05 PM

Oh my god, Trump had a $916 million loss and therefore could have avoided paying taxes for 18 years, thanks to our absurdly long tax code that has many labyrinths for anyone who has the resources to find deductions and other means to avoid paying the full bill, which is a) totally legal; and b) not all that uncommon. This week is bound to be a frustrating circus of media folks crying foul over something that isn’t illegal. I have no problems with people finding ways to reduce their tax burden. In fact, if we all could, every American would be exploiting the various provisions that afford these legal deductions.

This clown show started when The New York Times published Trump’s 1995 tax return over the weekend, a move that was possibly illegal, though The Resurgent’s Erick Erickson argues otherwise. It’s three pages, offers an incomplete financial profile of the Republican nominee, and shows that Trump did nothing wrong. We still don’t know Trump’s tax history. Yet, getting back to returns and the Clinton campaign’s attack on Trump, it appears that Hillary may have utilized a similar "scheme" by declaring a capital gains loss to avoid paying more in taxes. The financial blog Zero Hedge has more from her 2015 return, where she declared a $699,540 loss. They also showed how The New York Times did some tax law maneuvering of their own:

While not on the scale of Trump's business "operating loss", Hillary Clinton - like many 'wealthy' individuals is taking advantage of a legal scheme to use historical losses to avoid paying current taxes.

In the words of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, "this bombshell report reveals [Hillary Clinton's] past business failures... and may show just how long [Hillary Clinton] may have avoided paying taxes."

Finally, as we noted previously, the NYT itself is also perfectly happy to take advantage of the US tax to minimize the amount of money it pays to the government: in 2014 the company got a tax refund of $3.6 million despite having a $29.9 million pretax profit, an effective negative tax rate for 2014, which it explained was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations.

Of course, the guys at Hedge are spinning Mook’s statement. Yet, there seems to be a lot of noise over something that is perfectly legal, which is utilized by Trump, Clinton, and even The New York Times. Everyone needs to take a Xanax…or three, especially for those on the Left.

Oh, and before we forget, the Clinton campaign is hitting Trump over his $916 million loss. Have we forgotten that she misplaced $6 billion while she was secretary of state?

Editor's Note: Headline tweaked for clarity.