Former Trump Org CFO testifies he didn’t pay taxes on $1.76 million in personal expenses, nor did Trump Org pay required taxes

[essentialsaltes]

Former Trump Org. CFO testifies he didn’t pay taxes on $1.76 million in personal expenses​

Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg testified Tuesday that he knew he should have paid taxes on hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits he received annually, including a company-paid Manhattan apartment that he said former President Donald Trump suggested he move into.

Under questioning by prosecutor Susan Hoffinger, Weisselberg answered “yes” as the prosecutor went through each of personal expenses he received from the Trump Org. – and that the company didn’t pay taxes on them from 2005 through 2017.

He acknowledged that he knowingly unreported his income on his tax forms to get the fringe benefits tax free, and he hid that information from the accountants at Mazars, he said, because he thought they would refuse to sign his tax returns had they known about it.

Trump Organization Controller Jeff McConney knew the practice was illegal when he generated the false W-2 and 1099 tax forms on Weisselberg’s behalf, according to Weisselberg.

Two Trump Organization entities are charged with nine counts of tax fraud, grand larceny and falsifying business records in what prosecutors allege was a 15-year scheme to defraud tax authorities by failing to report and pay taxes on compensation provided to employees. The former president is not a defendant in the case and is not expected to be implicated in any wrongdoing.

ETA: Trump Org guilty on all charges. [Weisselberg likely to get 5 months for his own crimes.]

 

[DaisyDay]

he former president is not a defendant in the case and is not expected to be implicated in any wrongdoing.

Yeah, I don't get this part.

 

[Blade]

Well just before president Trump said he was running and now after.. these stories will increase. For me the "CNN" says it all.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Well just before president Trump said he was running and now after.. these stories will increase. For me the "CNN" says it all.

We been hearing about Trump illegal activities for years.

 

[Brihaha]

Isn't there an argument about the phrase "in behalf of" rather than "on behalf of"?
This seems like one of the loopholes Trump has exploited for years to escape accountability. I thought it was funny when McConney was treated as a hostile witness.

 

[stevil]

Yeah, I don't get this part.

Agree, yes. How can such a large and prolonged tax evasion scheme like this not be tied to the CEO and owner of the business? Surely any payments and gifts from the company to the CFO gets visibility and approval from the CEO and owner.

Anyway, I'm sure more details will come out on this as most people will be asking the same questions.

EDIT:

Trump’s Longtime CFO Implicated Him in Yearslong Tax Fraud Scheme Hours Before 2024 Announcement

Allen Weisselberg told a Manhattan Supreme Court jury that Trump “authorized” the payments at the heart of the criminal case against the Trump Organization.

www.vanityfair.com

Weisselberg told a jury that Trump was not only aware of the untaxed benefits at the heart of the government’s criminal case against the Trump Organization, but he was the guy who authorized them.
...
In her opening statement to the jury, assistant district attorney Susan Hoffinger said that Trump had “personally” bankrolled the tuition, which Weissleberg backed up on Tuesday, noting, that while he could authorize small expenses, Trump was the one to sign off on larger ones. Asked if the private school tuition was personally paid for by Trump, Weisselberg answered: “Correct.” Of the apartment he lived in rent-free, Hoffinger asked Weisselberg, “It’s your understanding that was authorized by Mr. Trump?” to which Weisselberg responded, “That was my understanding, yes.”

 

[Tinker Grey]

Agree, yes. How can such a large and prolonged tax evasion scheme like this not be tied to the CEO and owner of the business? Surely any payments and gifts from the company to the CFO gets visibility and approval from the CEO and owner.

Anyway, I'm sure more details will come out on this as most people will be asking the same questions.

EDIT:

Trump’s Longtime CFO Implicated Him in Yearslong Tax Fraud Scheme Hours Before 2024 Announcement

Allen Weisselberg told a Manhattan Supreme Court jury that Trump “authorized” the payments at the heart of the criminal case against the Trump Organization.

www.vanityfair.com

Weisselberg told a jury that Trump was not only aware of the untaxed benefits at the heart of the government’s criminal case against the Trump Organization, but he was the guy who authorized them.
...
In her opening statement to the jury, assistant district attorney Susan Hoffinger said that Trump had “personally” bankrolled the tuition, which Weissleberg backed up on Tuesday, noting, that while he could authorize small expenses, Trump was the one to sign off on larger ones. Asked if the private school tuition was personally paid for by Trump, Weisselberg answered: “Correct.” Of the apartment he lived in rent-free, Hoffinger asked Weisselberg, “It’s your understanding that was authorized by Mr. Trump?” to which Weisselberg responded, “That was my understanding, yes.”

Well the question I have is whether it matters that Trump authorized the payments. Wouldn't he have to know and approve of a 'scheme' that would get Weisselberg the benefits with out taxes and that this would benefit the company?

Good luck proving what Trump knew.

 

[stevil]

Well the question I have is whether it matters that Trump authorized the payments. Wouldn't he have to know and approve of a 'scheme' that would get Weisselberg the benefits with out taxes and that this would benefit the company?

Good luck proving what Trump knew.

They have his longtime loyal CFO saying in court, under oath that Trump approved of the payments.
Most companies have safe guards so that high up people that usually sign off on things e.g. a CFO signing off on large payments and purchases, would themselves need others to sign off on payments to themselves, such as salaries, salary increases, perks, business expenses incurred e.t.c. I'm sure they will be asking about the company policies on these matters.

 

[Tinker Grey]

They have his longtime loyal CFO saying in court, under oath that Trump approved of the payments.
Most companies have safe guards so that high up people that usually sign off on things e.g. a CFO signing off on large payments and purchases, would themselves need others to sign off on payments to themselves, such as salaries, salary increases, perks, business expenses incurred e.t.c. I'm sure they will be asking about the company policies on these matters.

I didn't say he didn't know about the payments. The questions is whether Trump knew of the scheme to avoid taxes.

 

[DaisyDay]

I didn't say he didn't know about the payments. The questions is whether Trump knew of the scheme to avoid taxes.

I would certainly think so.

 

[stevil]

I didn't say he didn't know about the payments. The questions is whether Trump knew of the scheme to avoid taxes.

OK.
Typically would the CEO and owner of a business be accountable for tax payments and tax evasion (if tax evasion is happening?) or does the buck stop at the CFO?

It is inconceivable to me that the CEO wouldn't need to sign off on perk payments to staff and if the perk payments to the CFO are structured vastly different to perk payments to other key executives then that should trigger some alarm bells. Also, this was going on for 15 years, don't they get audits done. What company was auditing them?

 

[Tinker Grey]

OK.
Typically would the CEO and owner of a business be accountable for tax payments and tax evasion (if tax evasion is happening?) or does the buck stop at the CFO?

It is inconceivable to me that the CEO wouldn't need to sign off on perk payments to staff and if the perk payments to the CFO are structured vastly different to perk payments to other key executives then that should trigger some alarm bells. Also, this was going on for 15 years, don't they get audits done. What company was auditing them?

I would certainly think so.

Yes, I suspect Trump knew about the scheme. But, that Trump knew about and authorized payments is not evidence of knowledge the scheme. And even if the CFO claims the CEO knew about the scheme (not just the payments), would that be enough to put Trump on trial? Maybe? I don't know.

Certainly the guy receiving the benefits without paying taxes is accountable.

What I've read is that if part of the plan was that the company benefits from the payments, then they are liable for the fraud. The claim was giving the CFO the benefits was in lieu of a raise because the raise would have had to have been enough to the cover the benefits plus the taxes on the paycheck.

So yes, it's quite possible that both the CFO and the company are in big trouble. But is Trump? I don't know. But probably only as much as shutting his company down hurts him.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Trump Organization found guilty on multiple counts of criminal tax fraud​

A Manhattan jury has found two Trump Organization companies guilty on multiple charges of criminal tax fraud and falsifying business records connected to a 15-year scheme to defraud tax authorities by failing to report and pay taxes on compensation for top executives.

The Trump Corp. and Trump Payroll Corp. were found guilty on all charges they faced.

 

[stevil]

I find the whole thing quite strange. Admittedly I don't know much about how legal matters and criminal culpability operate.
It seems the guilty verdict results in simply a financial penalty for the company, the article mentions there might be repercussions for the company with regards to its ability to do business or obtain loans or contracts. I don't know if this means when they do loans or contracts that they need to disclose their criminal convictions.
Alan Weisselburg it seems will get 5 months prison sentence (amazing how white/blue collar criminals get extremely light sentences) and it doesn't seem that any other Director of the company is held personally accountable.
Very strange how the organisations are saying that Alan was rogue but they continue to keep Alan on the payroll and keep paying him through this. (is this a bribe? Is this saying that they condone criminality in their employees?, I'm sure if a pleb committed a crime, they would be out, fired on the spot. Again amazing how the elites are treated)

Does anyone know if this guilty verdict can be used to substantiate or support other related court cases if anything is brought up against other directors or owners of the business with regards to Tax fraud?

 

[DaisyDay]

Does anyone know if this guilty verdict can be used to substantiate or support other related court cases if anything is brought up against other directors or owners of the business with regards to Tax fraud?

Very likely as there was a lot of sworn testimony as to who knew and approved of this malfeasance.