Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
"FELONY" Lawrence O'Donnell uses the "F" word-Romney won't release his tax returns because he can't
On tonight's Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell said it:
Romney won't release his tax returns because he can't. The "F" word is "Felony".
Romney (and wife Anne) released returns for 2010, and said they'd release 2011. They're under enormous pressure to release several years more, but they're steadfastly refusing to budge.
Imagine if they relented and released 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011. Would anyone notice what's wrong with this picture? The answer is that they won't release more records because they can't.
Did the Romney's avail themselves of the one-time tax amnesty http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/17/romney_s_tax_returns_is_the_2009_swiss_bank_account_amnesty_what_he_doesn_t_want_us_to_see_.html to come clean on their Swiss bank account? I'm banking on exactly that scenario. It would explain why they've so stubbornly held out amidst increasing pressure to release more records. The amnesty would get them off the hook legally, but politically it would be poison.
Why won't the Romneys release more tax returns? The answer is numeric, and it isn't "Forty-Two".
2009! 2009! 2009!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/15/1120701/-Lawrence-O-Donnell-uses-the-F-word
****************************
When attempting to engage in baseless speculation over what it is that's in Mitt Romney's tax statements that's so embarassing he'd rather take the heat for non-disclosure, I think it's important to remember that he was actively running for president in 2007 and 2008. That means it's relatively unlike he was doing anything during those years that he thought couldn't withstand scrutiny. So why not release a nice even five years of tax data? Perhaps because of something that happened in 2009.
Something like this:
Wealthy U.S. taxpayers, concerned about an Internal Revenue Service crackdown on the use of secret overseas bank accounts as tax havens, are rushing to meet a Thursday deadline to disclose those accounts or face possible criminal prosecution. The concern was triggered this summer when Switzerland's largest bank, caught up in an international tax evasion dispute, said it would disclose the names of more than 4,000 of its U.S. account holders.
The decision shattered a long-held belief that Swiss banks would guard the identities of its American customers as carefully as they did their money, and it raised concern that other international tax havens might be next. Under an amnesty program, the IRS is allowing taxpayers to avoid prosecution for having failed to report their overseas accounts. As a result, tax attorneys across the nation have been besieged by wealthy clients who are lining up to apply even though they will still face big financial penalties.
The decision shattered a long-held belief that Swiss banks would guard the identities of its American customers as carefully as they did their money, and it raised concern that other international tax havens might be next. Under an amnesty program, the IRS is allowing taxpayers to avoid prosecution for having failed to report their overseas accounts. As a result, tax attorneys across the nation have been besieged by wealthy clients who are lining up to apply even though they will still face big financial penalties.
Romney might well have thought in 2007 and 2008 that there was nothing to fear about a non-disclosed offshore account he'd set up years earlier precisely because it wasn't disclosed. But then came the settlement and the rush of non-disclosers to apply for the amnesty. Failing to apply for the amnesty and then getting charged by the IRS would have been both financially and politically disastrous. So amnesty it was. But even though the amnesty would eliminate any legal or financial liability for past acts, it would hardly eliminate political liability.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/17/romney_s_tax_returns_is_the_2009_swiss_bank_account_amnesty_what_he_doesn_t_want_us_to_see_.html
15 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
...and he HAS NOT!
If I were involved in any way with the Rmoney campaign, that would translate into 82 sleepless nights.
