how much criminal activity would donnie's taxes actually reveal?
i get that we want to see donnie's taxes because they'd likely show he's lied about how rich he is, or they'd be embarrassing to him one way or another.
but in terms of criminal activity, how much would the tax returns themselves, *absent an audit*, show?
most tax evasion/fraud i can think of would simply show a number on the actual tax forms. and unless he's incredibly stupid, it would line up with any other form the government got (w-2s, 1099s, etc.)
the real tax evasion would only be uncovered by an audit, because, e.g., donnie can always claim he had deductible expenses to reduce his taxable income down to whatever, and it's not at all obvious just from looking at the tax return that the number is wrong. it's only when you ask donnie to produce the supporting receipts that it becomes clear that he manipulated the numbers or took business deductions for personal expenses, etc.
i'm looking forward to seeing his taxes, but i think it's just yet another piece of the puzzle in terms of the criminal case against him.
the immediate impact of seeing his tax returns would be far more political than criminal, imho.
= new reply since forum marked as read
a comparison of these individual sets of documentation to determine, on paper so to speak, where purposeful deception occurred. Just the taxes, or just the finance documents or whatever will not produce hard evidence that is necessary to show that the crimes occurred. They must be compared to show discrepancies that indicate willful breaking of law.
Why is that a hard concept to grasp? 
