D’oh! ABC:
Romney Failed to Disclose Swiss Bank Account Income
Mitt Romney’s campaign is amending the financial disclosure form he filed in 2011 to acknowledge that a Romney trust earned interest income from a Swiss bank account, a detail that had been missing from the report. … The discovery that the Romneys had $3 million in an account with the Swiss bank UBS came only after the Republican presidential candidate released his tax returns for 2010 on Tuesday.
And of all the banks in the world, of course, UBS is perhaps the worst possible one in which to have a hidden bank account. Wikipedia:
In July 2008, a United States Senate panel accused Swiss banks, including UBS and LGT Group, of helping wealthy Americans evade taxes through offshore accounts. … UBS agreed on February 18, 2009 to pay a fine of $780 million to the U.S. government and entered into a deferred prosecution agreement on charges of conspiring to defraud the United States by impeding the Internal Revenue Service. … The day after settling its criminal case on February 19, 2009, the U.S. government filed a civil suit against UBS to reveal the names of all 52,000 American customers, alleging that the bank and these customers conspired to defraud the IRS and federal government of legitimately owed tax revenue.
Oh, Mitt. Never enough, never enough.
jconway says
Wheres the balloon?
David says
Al says
that he can’t have things like Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island investments because he’s running for office, and it looks bad, even if it’s strictly legal.
Bob Neer says
If you continue to page 2 of the ABC story:
Impressively, this judgment call is now being used against Romney by critics:
David says
… for Pete’s sake! 😀
Patrick says
Then he must have to amend previous years as well, right?
So, Mitt is in the same case as Geithner. This should be interesting.
SomervilleTom says
Mitt Romney exemplifies the extent to which our tax system has been bought and now serves the very wealthy. Everything Mitt Romney has done is perfectly legal, as his campaign goes to great length to emphasize.
For example, consider the gift/estate tax. For the 99%, gifts from an aging parent to a child are generally limited to $13K/yr before triggering gift tax consequences. Not for the very wealthy, like Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney wanted to provide for his sons. Instead of giving money directly (and triggering gift tax provisions), he instead gave $100M worth of his profit interest from Bain — more of his 15% “carried interest” bounty. According to tax laws, that gift is valued at — wait for it — zero. Yup. So he transferred a “worthless” asset that pays $100M/yr and paid ZERO gift tax on it.
This is perfectly legal. These perfectly legal tax avoidance mechanisms are why the disparity between the very wealthy and the rest of us is at historic levels. These perfectly legal tax avoidance mechanisms are why we are in the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression.
The GOP has wired the US tax system to enrich the wealthy, bankrupting America in the process. The GOP, never satisfied with what they have, want more.
That is the aspect of Mitt Romney’s finances that we should seize and highlight in this campaign.
centralmassdad says
Same thing people yell and scream about with respect to the tax rate for hedge fund managers.
But why is there the notion of carried interest? It is to avoid giving an unfair tax advantage to financial interests.
A knows a lot about running an office building, but has limited financial resources. B knows nothing about running a building, but has resources. So they make a partnership: B funds the acquisition of the building, and A does all the work. They split the profits.
When the tax man comes, B gets to deduct all of the interest they pay on the financing. So if they structure the loan skillfully, much of B’s income is offset by the financial expenses. A didn’t have financial expenses, and so doesn’t get to deduct anything. Result: The taxes in the 50-50 partnership are unequal, favoring the financial interest.
When they sell the property, and A’s work improving the building increases the value, B has a small capital gain, A has a big capital gain from a zero basis. B’s zero labor is rewarded, A’s much labor penalized. Carried interest is intended to equalize the treatment of the financial and “sweat equity” treatment such that A’s investment of time is treated in the same way as B’s investment of money.
So, I suppose we could give an advantage to financial interests in order to make sure hedge fund managers pay more in taxes, but seems like a way of making sure that there are ultimately fewer rich people, rather than a way of making sure rich people pay more.
SomervilleTom says
If A and B know that they will pay different tax rates, then A will strive for a different split, so that A ends up receiving what A sees as a fair return. No tax subsidy of A is required. Meanwhile, even more handsprings are needed to attempt to rationalize treating the value of profit interest given to children as “0” for purposes of the gift tax.
This is a tax system bought and paid for by the wealthy that benefits the wealthy. If the result of changing it is fewer rich people, then the wealth of those no-longer-rich people (like hedge fund managers) will be more equitably distributed among the not-so-rich.
The fact that the very wealthy have structured the tax system to plunder the rest of us even more completely than before is not the result of some fundamental law of nature. It is instead the result of conscious and explicit manipulation, aided and abetted by rationalizations that, at the end of the day, always benefit the very wealthy.
There is no defending the indefensible.
HeartlandDem says
I was under the impression that Seamus was a big dog (Irish Setter).
Big money, big family, big dreams, big unmet expectations by Mitt’s father. I am more concerned about his psychological profile than his bank accounts as a potential, no make that “desperately aspiring,” POTUS.
marc-davidson says
This one’s his knocking-around-the-house-etc dog.
HeartlandDem says
“It’s a dog’s life for US – if you vote Mittens for POTUS”
John Tehan says
He was quite the notable twit!
His doggie, named Seamus,
Would later be famous,
For covering Mitt’s wagon with shit!
Sorry, but for me, that one never gets old. I suppose it may lose its luster if Mitt ever stops running for president…
David says
Surely, that limerick needs to be famous.
John Tehan says
…back when I first heard the story of Seamus. Every time Romney’s dog comes up, I make sure to use it, whether online or in meatspace. I’m blessed with Darth Vader’s voice, and I don’t seem to have a whisper mode – last week on the train, I had about 12 people laughing at that limerick!
John Tehan says
This was supposed to be a reply to David, above
HeartlandDem says
Move over Seamus it’s Judge Tuttman’s turn to get Hosed!