Guest Gichin13 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 HAHAHAH you would crush me if i posted a lawyer from Newsmax saying anything..Please try and be consistant. If needby, put tape over the section on the TV that has the ® (d).... Tell you what, you can quote me. I am not a tax lawyer, but I am a lawyer and own my own law firm (set up as a Virginia PLLC). I can tell you from personal experience, both with my own LLC and setting up LLCs for others, that what Chom's lawyer quoted seems accurate to me. My understanding of the entire point of S corporations and closely held LLCs is to gain the benefit of protection from personal liability afforded by a corporation while still not having separate corporate tax for retained earnings. An LLC's profits and losses go straight as an attached schedule C to the owner's 1040 return as opposed to separate. The IRS does not treat the transfer of property into the LLC as a taxable event. Multiple member LLCs are again treated just like partnerships in terms of splits of taxable losses and gains. Contributions by partners, of cash or property, are treated as capital contributions into the entity. Sounds like Reid did that here -- they transferred ownership into the LLC, he kept showing as personal as opposed to LLC, but the valuation split was correct. Where this story gets messy to me is that no one knew the record title owning LLC was his. Theoretically, Reid could be lobbying for regulatory and legislative action involving that entity and the public would not know due to lack of disclosure. That is a problem in my book, but unless I am misunderstanding the story, I am missing how the land sales part is somehow illegal ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Chom's funny cartoons Is this what they call turn the attention back the other way? What's it called "deflection" "misdirection"? Something like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Is this what they call turn the attention back the other way? What's it called "deflection" "misdirection"? Something like that? You referring to chom's cartoons? Or the article that's at the top of this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 You referring to chom's cartoons? Or the article that's at the top of this thread? Refer to the quoted section. The article at the top of this thread is a story about the shady dealings of an elected representative. Is that misdirection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 if this was any Republican the national media would be tearing him to shreds by now. but there is no liberal media bias more articles on Harry Reid's corruption: http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-reid-land-windfall,0,3712980.story http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:nCzx1IrH4DYJ:www.westlx.org/HarryReid.pdf+%22Rory+Reid%22+zoning+commission+Las+Vegas+Whittemore&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Is this what they call turn the attention back the other way? What's it called "deflection" "misdirection"? Something like that? Did you read Gichin13's post? If so, please comment. We all agree - if Reid did something bad, punish him. What we are having a little trouble with is the cart before the horse thing: the "Yell that Reid must have done something really bad and then maybe we will figure out exactly what it was he actually did later on" approach that is being taken here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Did you read Gichin13's post? If so, please comment.We all agree - if Reid did something bad, punish him. What we are having a little trouble with is the cart before the horse thing: the "Yell that Reid must have done something really bad and then maybe we will figure out exactly what it was he actually did later on" approach that is being taken here. I did read his post. It it tells me Reid did nothing illegal. I posted as much earlier. It is a shady deal. He was involved in getting approval for the land transfer that he ended up purchasing. He was involved in getting the land rezoned prior to the sale. Putting the cart before the horse? I wish there was a cart and horse smiley so I could post it everytime the cart goes before the horse around here. There are plenty of people that share your basic ideology and have no problem putting carts before horses. But explain to me how Chomerics and his Page Cartoons(which some carts may have gone before some horses with that whole thing) adress this issue? Should negative stories about Dem's be simply a case of "diverting attention" or should they be reported also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 In Diehard's defense, I'll point out that Foley didn't do anything illegal, either. ----- Now, though, Diehard, I'll point out that the article at the top of this thread is a smear job, hiding under a headline which the article itself says isn't true. Now, yes, after a page or two of this thread, we've had some folks post some things that do look dirty. (To me.) Which doesn't change the fact that this thread started as a smear job. (And likely one who's purpose is "look over there!") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I did read his post. It it tells me Reid did nothing illegal. I posted as much earlier. It is a shady deal. He was involved in getting approval for the land transfer that he ended up purchasing. He was involved in getting the land rezoned prior to the sale.Putting the cart before the horse? I wish there was a cart and horse smiley so I could post it everytime the cart goes before the horse around here. There are plenty of people that share your basic ideology and have no problem putting carts before horses. But explain to me how Chomerics and his Page Cartoons(which some carts may have gone before some horses with that whole thing) adress this issue? Should negative stories about Dem's be simply a case of "diverting attention" or should they be reported also? I'm not sure I am following you here. The Foley scandal started with Foley resigning after inappropriate stuff came out. Then Hastert said he didn't know anything. Then people started popping up saying "Yes Hastert did know I warned him myself." Then Hastert said "well I knew some things last year." Then more people popped up saying "No I told Hastert to look out 6 years ago." And then Hastert said "well yes, I knew something all along but I had no idea how bad it really was." And now nobody knows what to think. That is how the Foley/Hastert thing got so big. That is how scandals tend to progress: excuses are made that don't fly, new details come out, the baying hounds sense blood and move in for the kill. In contrast, this Reid "scandal" started out with a Headline that Reid did something obviously illegal - got paid for land he did not own! Now it has progressed to, well, Reid did something that looks kind of sleazy somehow. That is why this "scandal" appears to be artificially manufactured for political purposes. Does that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 In Diehard's defense, I'll point out that Foley didn't do anything illegal, either. But there is a big difference. The Foley scandal is not really about Foley - it is about Hastert and whether he ignored Foley's actions for political purposes. The Democrats would be facing a similar scandal if, say, information came out that Nancy Pelosi KNEW that Jefferson was taking bribes down in Louisiana and covered it up to keep a Democrat in office. But there isn't any reason to think that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.