Clinton Foundation to refile taxes after errors emerge

I don't care who gives what to the Clinton FOUNDATION. It's the Big Dog's charity and they do a lot of good work.

With Adelson, the Koch's and PAC's directly involved in influencing elections,
foundation gifts are comparatively far removed from influencing policy. But you would be naive to think that quid pro quo isn't the standard procedure.

 

Errors happen. Not a scandal.

 

Funny. I built a foundation website based on the model of their site.

 

I doubt it. I think the more likely reality is that they received donations from foreign governments and someone thought political enemies could potentially seize on that and manufacture a phony scandal. So they constructed their reporting in a way that didn't make it completely obvious and crossed their fingers hoping no one would notice. Of course, when someone did notice, the fact that they tried to cover it up made the whole thing look worse than it probably is.

I'm glad foreign governments are giving money to nonprofits governed by American-dominated boards. There is still a lot of work to be done, though, if someone wants to convince me that Clinton did foreign policy favors in return for donations. That's a big accusation that needs a solid case, and honestly the supposed motive doesn't look very compelling to me.

 

Wait - what taxes did she evade? Did I miss something here?

Yes.

And just to clarify, in your world, unlimited anonymous campaign contributions are OK, but foreign contributions to a related but separate nonprofit are not. Is that correct?

 

They shouldn't have gone to H&R Block to file taxes for such a large, generous, foundation.

 

It's debatable whether it matters, but come on, "errors happen?"

Yeah right. The accountants for a foundation that receives massive amounts of money from foreign governments "accidentally" told the IRS that they didn't.

It cracks me up how many people use the "errors happen" excuse when they cheat on their taxes.

 

fortunately, the NYTimes has done the work for you:

[rquoter]As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.[/rquoter]

 

So in your knowledge of nonprofit tax law, what benefit did they receive with this cheat?

 

Cheat was the wrong word from me because I don't think they were trying to cheat the IRS.

Lie is better.

They lied on the taxes because they had made public claims about not accepting foreign donations any longer while she was MSec. Her people made it a big deal during those years, stating they stopped accepting donations to avoid any conflict of interest.

 

[rquoter]Some experts in charity law and taxes said it was not remarkable for a charity to refile an erroneous return once in a while, but for a large, global charity to refile three or four years in a row was highly unusual.

"I've never seen amendment activity like that," said Bruce Hopkins, a Kansas City lawyer who has specialized in charity law for more than four decades, referring to the CHAI filings.[/rquoter]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...clinton-taxes-exclusive-idUSKBN0NE0CA20150423

 

"Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation."​

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2563476

 

So in your knowledge of nonprofit tax law, what benefit did they receive with this cheat?

 

Yes, errors happen. Come on, you tell me no one ever made an error in their tax returns? Show me motive and I'll consider changing my mind.

 

errors on this scale, with this frequency, don't happen.

 

ah, the last report i recall was.... it's highly unusual to use private email for high level government officials... until it is not

it's highly usual for Republican to cry scandal for every conceivable things until, well, humm.. a horse die 9 times. No, that didn't stop it.

 

I see, that's your criteria for scandal? Carry on.

 

Maybe so. Would be quite sloppy of them to hide it from IRS tax returns, but not hide it from public.