Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 1
Whistleblower X was revealed today. Here's what his remarks were with respect to Hunter and the IRS.
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/202...In Early August of 2022, federal prosecutors from the Department of Justice Tax Division drafted a 99-page memorandum. This memorandum recommended approving felony and misdemeanor charges for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 tax years. If the Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss followed DOJ policy as he stated in his most recent letter, Hunter Biden should have been charged with a tax felony, and not only the tax misdemeanor charge. We need to treat each taxpayer the same under the law.
'.
In early 2020, Hunter Biden's unfiled and delinquent tax returns were being prepared, which included his 2018 tax return. During the 2020 time period, by Hunter Biden's own account he was sober, newly married, and writing his memoir. Hunter Biden's accountants requested that he sign a representation letter stating that all deductions were for business purposes and were being reported appropriately. Statements Hunter Biden made in his book completely contradicted what was being deducted as business deductions on his 2018 tax return. While writing his memoir. Hunter Biden stated, 'I holed up inside the Château for the first six weeks and learned how to cook crack.' For this time period, Hunter Biden claimed business deductions for payments made to the Château Marmont, a hotel room for his supposed drug dealer, sex club memberships (falsely referenced on the wire as a golf-membership), hotels he was blacklisted from, and a Columbia University tuition payment for his daughter. All of these items were used to support the willfulness element for felony tax evasion and false return as they would be in any case involving any other taxpayer. These false deductions claimed by Hunter Biden caused a false return to be prepared that underreported his total income by approximately $267,000 causing a loss to U.S. Treasury of $106,000. This loss is referred to as a 'tax deficiency'.
With respect to the 2014 tax year, Hunter Biden did not report any of the money he earned from Burisma for the 2014 tax year, which would have been a tax loss to the U.S. Treasury of $124,845. According to my previous testimony, Hunter Biden did not report this income to the IRS or pay tax on this source of income.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Dope1: If the Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss followed DOJ policy as he stated in his most recent letter, Hunter Biden should have been charged with a tax felony ... Hunter Biden claimed business deductions for payments made to the Château Marmont, a hotel room for his supposed drug dealer, sex club memberships (falsely referenced on the wire as a golf-membership), hotels he was blacklisted from, and a Columbia University tuition payment for his daughter.
So lemme get this straight.
Republicans are outraged because a Trump appointee and lifelong republican, David Weiss, turned down charging felonies for a couple tax write offs?
Yet you same republicans refused to join the democrats in supporting the $80b for the IRS that was included in the Inflation Reduction Act to catch tax cheats?
And we've said this a million times already, but here comes a million and one: we have no sympathy for Hunter Biden, who has been an albatross around his family's neck his entire adult life.
Gee, with these House Committee dog and pony shows it's almost like somebody big is gonna' have a giant federal conspiracy-to-defraud-the-US hammer come down hard on him, shortly followed by another big hammer blow in Georgia.
No. of Recommendations: 2
And we've said this a million times already, but here comes a million and one: we have no sympathy for Hunter Biden, who has been an albatross around his family's neck his entire adult life. = CO,?I>
-----------------
DOJ indifference to Hunters crimes is a separate and much bigger issue than Hunters scumbaggery.
No. of Recommendations: 4
bighairymike: DOJ indifference to Hunters crimes is a separate and much bigger issue than Hunters scumbaggery.
What indifference? He was charged and pled guilty. And again, by Trump's hand-picked guy. You charge what you know you can prove in court. What, you got a "whistleblower" who insists that US Atty David Weiss was ham-strung (again, Weiss was appointed by Trump -- who praised him -- and hand-selected for case by AG Bill Barr, who expressed full confidence in Weiss and said Weiss handled it responsibly) even though Weiss has publicly stated that's a lie?
President Biden never questioned or challenged the case.
President Biden didn't fire Weiss or ask for his resignation (as is customary when administrations change).
AG Garland didn't interfere and gave Weiss full reign in any jurisdiction.
C'mon fellas', you're making my head hurt.
No. of Recommendations: 1
DOJ indifference to Hunters crimes is a separate and much bigger issue than Hunters scumbaggery.
It doesn't have to be indifference. On the IRS side, if they can get the fines, penalties and interest, get the money and... on to the next.
No. of Recommendations: 2
It doesn't have to be indifference. On the IRS side, if they can get the fines, penalties and interest, get the money and... on to the next.
-------------------
The IRS and DOJ stood by as the statute of limitations ran out on Hunters $400,000 of 2014 income that he claimed was a loan payment but had no promissory note to back up that assertion. Burisma booked that $400,000 as payment for an expense (and therefore income to the payee) as it should be. The $125,000 of taxes due but avoided by Hunter will never be collected and Hunter can never be prosecuted for tax avoidance either.
No. of Recommendations: 4
bighairymike: The IRS and DOJ stood by as the statute of limitations ran out on Hunters $400,000 of 2014 income that he claimed was a loan payment but had no promissory note to back up that assertion.
You do realize there's nothing to substantiate those claims but the whistleblower say so, right? Or do you have evidence that "Burisma booked that $400,000 as payment for an expense"? If so, please provide a link.
No. of Recommendations: 2
You do realize there's nothing to substantiate those claims but the whistleblower say so, right? Or do you have evidence that "Burisma booked that $400,000 as payment for an expense"? If so, please provide a link. = co
----------------
Well you got me there. Whistle blowers only have credibility when they are reporting something negative about republicans.
No. of Recommendations: 2
bighairymike: Well you got me there. Whistle blowers only have credibility when they are reporting something negative about republicans.
Well, look, another one of those statements with no names, no facts, no links, and no evidence. If you mean Alexander Vindman, that's not the burn you think it is.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The IRS and DOJ stood by as the statute of limitations ran out on Hunters $400,000 of 2014 income
I read the above, looked, and the article said his income of $1.2 million that year included the $400,000. As such if you assert fraud, there is no statute of limitations. I'm wondering. The IRS would not pass that up. So I looked again. This is from the Hunter Biden laptop? The provenance on that is questionable at best. There is no statute of limitations, but you have to be right. If you are wrong- bad move. Bad dog! Bad dog!
But they can look at the return and see if Burisma shows up. So my best guess is that we are not seeing everything and what is stated is different from what they are seeing.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well you got me there. Whistle blowers only have credibility when they are reporting something negative about republicans.
BMH, has someone done research? :) Probably not true for whistle-blowing but fraudulent voting seems to be Republican-centric.
No. of Recommendations: 0
bighairymike: Well you got me there. Whistle blowers only have credibility when they are reporting something negative about republicans.
Well, look, another one of those statements with no names, no facts, no links, and no evidence. If you mean Alexander Vindman, that's not the burn you think it is. - CO
---------------
Apparently you aren't a big believer in sworn testimony over general rumors that a whistleblower said something. Lying under oath to congress can lead to serious consequences unless you are Merrick Darland.
