Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (668209)	8/19/2012 9:31:49 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583869

Gee, this guy must be the most inert executive in history...he is the CEO of bain years after he left the company and has no responsibility for the conduct of the company even as he signs its financial documents The point is ridiculous to begin with. It is very common for owners of businesses to cede control but continue to hold a position as a corporate officer requiring a signature from time-to-time. I've done it myself and I've had many, many clients who did the same thing. But beyond that, it is a ridiculous allegation because Bain has, after all, not done anything wrong, as Bill Clinton pointed out, Romney has a "sterling" business reputation, and this is all about politics directed at the ignorant and the idealogically committed. It never had any basis in fact to begin with -- so what if some Bain clients outsourced jobs. Who doesn't? And why wouldn't they? Romney could not very well stand up, in the middle of a campaign, and say, "Yes, I think everyone should outsource." But that's the reality of the global economy, and anyone with a lick of business sense knows that. and is the head of the audit committee of a company that is found to have used fraudulent tax reporting, but he didn't have any role in that either....parks money in bermuda and the caymans, but not for the purpose of avoiding taxes, according to you....i suppose we'll take out of the ranks of the undecided, eh? It is important to understand that these Son of BOSS shelters are, like other tax shelters, not illegal until a court somewhere decides they are. Even if the IRS says they are, that doesn't make it so until a court says it is. Furthermore, tax shelters are not "fraud" unless there is an "intent to defraud", which is a very difficult standard of proof, and I'm not aware of the Marriott case involving fraud; the Claims Court decision didn't address it, I don't believe. It was, in every sense, a run-of-the-mill tax shelter case -- not unlike the one Willie Nelson and other entertainers fell for back in the 80s. It wasn't Romney's responsibility, as a member of the audit committee, to even KNOW about it, let alone, to understand the complexities of IRC Sections 701, et.seq., which are among the most complex section of the tax code. No person on an audit committee would be expected to know about or understand, for example, the concept of "substantial economic effect" or a partner's guaranteed payments. These are solely the domain of highly specialized individuals and it is THEIR job to give the correct advise to Marriott or Willie Nelson. It is also their job to advise on the risk that a court will disagree with a position they take in their tax returns. Suggesting that Marriott was guilty of fraud, or worse, that Romney was complicit in it, is just one more element of the smear job. If Romney was in any way complicit in tax fraud, the IRS would have gone after him for it at the time. Nothing makes the IRS happier than a well publicized fraud conviction. There isn't the slightest indication Romney has ever entered into a transaction of this nature and frankly, I've been over the 2010 return three times now and I haven't seen a damned thing in it that was unusual. Perhaps you've reviewed more tax returns than I have, but you still haven't given me one shred of evidence the man has done anything other than behave in a totally above-board fashion. Realistically, had he entered into such transactions there would have been evidence of it in his 2010 return even if it had happened several years before.