Tweet
If you believe Trump would ever do anything at cost, you don't understand him at all. When "no quid pro quo" actually means there was a quid pro quo (according to his Chief of Staff, the whistleblower's report, and the transcript Trump provided). When a "cease fire" means we gave Turkey the rights to occupy 2,000 square miles they've wanted to occupy for decades, and what we got in return was a promise that Turkey would allow Kurds 5 days to leave their homes without getting killed - with no enforcement provision if that was violated. Then "at cost" could mean ANYTHING.
The US hosting a major event at a property owned by the President is specifically banned in the Constitution. The semantics of "at cost" does nothing to make it legal. Determining the actual "cost" would be virtually impossible.
Holding the G7 at Doral is just another example of how Trump has operated his entire career. He blatantly ignores laws and contracts with a "so sue me" approach.
I'm not a brilliant tax accountant, but I know that if I were to do something at a resort I owned, and I was to do the event "at cost", I'd make a paper transfer of the property to another company I controlled, so accelerated depreciation could fire up. I'd make the "value" of the real assets well past the maximum value they could possibly have. Then I'd use accelerated depreciation on those assets, which means I could claim about 20% of the value of the real assets I had claimed as costs in the first year. My "costs" would include that depreciation. I'd fix the place up and claim 100% of that as a "cost" in the first year. Since I wouldn't have had to make those improvements, except for the fact that I was hosting a G7, I'd attribute every penny of any upgrades to the "cost" of the G7. That means MAJOR renovations could be made at the government's expense, but the G7 could still be said to be offered "at cost". I could clear millions in cash flow, spend millions of government $$ on improvements to my property, claim a loss for tax purposes, and claim the property was offered "at cost".
The House is responsible for oversight of the Executive Branch. That's why the House has a House Oversight Committee. The voters elected Trump. The voters also elected a Democratic House. In 2016 the voters spoke and said they wanted Trump in the White House. In 2018, the voters spoke again and said they wanted Democrats in charge of oversight of the Executive Branch. If the Dems in the House let Trump have the G7 at Doral, it's only because that would create an additional Article of Impeachment.
The US hosting a major event at a property owned by the President is specifically banned in the Constitution. The semantics of "at cost" does nothing to make it legal. Determining the actual "cost" would be virtually impossible.
Holding the G7 at Doral is just another example of how Trump has operated his entire career. He blatantly ignores laws and contracts with a "so sue me" approach.
I'm not a brilliant tax accountant, but I know that if I were to do something at a resort I owned, and I was to do the event "at cost", I'd make a paper transfer of the property to another company I controlled, so accelerated depreciation could fire up. I'd make the "value" of the real assets well past the maximum value they could possibly have. Then I'd use accelerated depreciation on those assets, which means I could claim about 20% of the value of the real assets I had claimed as costs in the first year. My "costs" would include that depreciation. I'd fix the place up and claim 100% of that as a "cost" in the first year. Since I wouldn't have had to make those improvements, except for the fact that I was hosting a G7, I'd attribute every penny of any upgrades to the "cost" of the G7. That means MAJOR renovations could be made at the government's expense, but the G7 could still be said to be offered "at cost". I could clear millions in cash flow, spend millions of government $$ on improvements to my property, claim a loss for tax purposes, and claim the property was offered "at cost".
The House is responsible for oversight of the Executive Branch. That's why the House has a House Oversight Committee. The voters elected Trump. The voters also elected a Democratic House. In 2016 the voters spoke and said they wanted Trump in the White House. In 2018, the voters spoke again and said they wanted Democrats in charge of oversight of the Executive Branch. If the Dems in the House let Trump have the G7 at Doral, it's only because that would create an additional Article of Impeachment.
Comment