His 2010 83(b) filings indicate he is still receiving compensation for services performed for (at least) Bain Capital Partners (AM) X, LLC
He had filed a declaration with the Federal Election Commission that "Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake
Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way."
But his 2010 tax returns include an 83(b) election that states that: "The interest in future appreciation of the Partnership's business to which I am entitled pursuant to my Partnership interest is subject to forfeiture if I cease performing services for the Partnership." with respect to at least Bain Capital Partners (AM) X, LP. This is not a passive investment vehicle; either it explicitly requires Mitt Romney to "perform services" on its behalf, exactly as he's stated in his filing or Mitt Romney is lying once again.
Is he still obligated to provide services for Bain? Will he be "providing services" to Bain Capital if elected and instead of working for the People of the United States?
Will he file another amendment to his financial disclosures to clarify his activities on behalf of two Bain partnerships? Providing services isn't a passive investment strategy, it indicates a direct, active involvement in the operations of a Bain Capital entity, something he's sworn he hasn't done since 1999.
the bankruptcy trustee finding the Mason jar full of nickels hidden under the floorboards in his tin shack.
They even repossessed some of his cherished aliases to pay off the "employment contracts" he entered into with the bank.
Don't blame anyone else.
The IRS looked at Mariott's tax returns too and decided that the tax cheats that Mitt had recommended they carry out as Chairman of the Audit Committee were illegal. So just because it looks complicated enough to make a poor lawyer think you can get away with it doesn't make it legal.
And your obsession with Barack Obama's arabic penmanship grades at his Indonesian Madrassa aren't likely to do much more than provide your favorite talk radio host with drivel to exercize his dulcet drone with.
26 U.S.C. 83(h)
"(h) Deduction by employer
In the case of a transfer of property to which this section applies or a cancellation of a restriction described in subsection (d), there shall be allowed as a deduction under section 162, to the person for whom were performed the services in connection with which such property was transferred, an amount equal to the amount included under subsection (a), (b), or (d)(2) in the gross income of the person who performed such services. Such deduction shall be allowed for the taxable year of such person in which or with which ends the taxable year in which such amount is included in the gross income of the person who performed such services."
The employer, Bain Capital, received notice the employee's (W. Mitt Romney) election under section 83(b) for his ongoing services to the corporation in the taxable year 2010. No matter how much you want to rant about how Mitt was just pretending to be a bag of hammers (although the allusion is rather apt in Mitt's case, which is the subject of an entirely different discussion which will sail over your empty little head as usual) Mitt is just a white collar criminal and he's never been anything else other than an autopen for the Massachusetts State Legislature briefly and the provider of a loss of jobs, employment and population to the Commonwealth under his part-time half term of floundering in the Governorship that left a 2.6 Billion dollar hole to dig ourselves out of.
When is Mitt planning on running on his record, by the way? Will it be after he "introduces" himself to us with a high production value lieography at the convention of the party whose platform he doesn't represent or agree with?
You'll pop out a good one if you try harder.
You keep trying to distract from the fact that Mitt Romney has stated very clearly that he remained in Bain Capital's employ until at least 2010. Your lack of any understanding of business, finance and the law has always been obvious in this forum as well as your lack of any of the many other areas of "expertise" you expound on in the course of your all-day, every-day POLITICAL OPINION posting sessions.
Your problem is that you're in over your head but your mouth keeps running. Nothing but nonsense comes out as usual, but still you waste your time and effort looking in the wrong places and finding the wrong answers. I'm certain that it make life quite a series of surprises for you but the fact that they're all disappointing to you for all the wrong reasons is made so clear in your epistles to the uncaring masses that it makes a pleasant hobby out of mocking your idiocy.
Read his filing.
You're not making it with what the meaning of "is" is, you can't even start.
Willard Mitt Romney has claimed employment status with Bain Capital in 2010 to run this particular tax scam. That makes his employment a fact under the law unless he wants to repudiate that and pay, along with Bain Capital, the associated penalties.
His prior tax returns would show that he was doing exactly the same thing during his tenure as Governor of the Commonwealth, something that would present him with serious legal liabilities and a significant number of them. The reasons for that may escape you, but there will be ample evidence that Willard Mitt Romney was in fact the first wholly owned subsidiary of Bain Capital Inc. to have served as Governor. He'd like to extend that service to the Presidency.
We know how your "anecdotes" clearly illustrate your lack of any point, but your "work" is failing to make much of a dent in Romney's problems as well as illustrating that you project your own ignorance of business and finance onto others while you pursue your career of twelve to sixteen hour posting sessions on this backwater financial message board.
You should reflect a moment longer on your "personal experience" anecdote while we have a bit of a good laugh at your expense.
Although Mitt was too stupid to really know it.
"Management Fee Conversion. Current law on carried interest is already a sweetheart tax deal for private equity, but why not make it better? Private equity folks are not the type to walk past a twenty-dollar bill lying on the sidewalk. In the 2000s it became common for private equity fund managers to “convert” their management fees into carried interest. There are many variations on the theme, but here’s how many deals worked: each year, before the annual management fee comes due, the fund manager waives the management fee in exchange for a priority allocation of future profits. There is minimal economic risk involved; as long as the fund, at some point, has a profitable quarter, the managers get paid. (If the managers don’t foresee any future profits, they won’t waive the fees, and they will take cash instead.) In exchange for a minimal amount of economic risk, the tax benefit is enormous: the compensation is transformed from ordinary income (taxed at 35%) into capital gain (taxed at 15%). Because the management fees for a large private equity fund can be ten or twenty million per year, the tax dodge can literally save millions in taxes every year.
The problem is that it is not legal. Because the deals vary in their aggressiveness, there is some disagreement among practitioners about when it works and when it doesn’t. But in my opinion, and the opinion of many tax practitioners, the practices that were common in the private equity industry in the 2000s became very, very questionable, and it’s unlikely that they would have stood up in court."
Mitt wasn't receiving fund distributions out of the Bain Capital Fund X limited partnership, he was participating as a manager in the Bain Capital Partners X LP and LLCs directly. That's why his management executive fees were taken as "earned income" and the 83(b) election was taken at a knowingly false zero "fair market" value to evade income taxes. Ann the "homemaker" will have her "blind trust" helpfully put the derivatives that mask the value of the underlying stock into the cookie jar (probably one of the ones that sit in a post office box in George Town) and repatriate a mix of capital gains and losses that pays for their extravagant lifestyle and zeros out their tax liability when Mitt isn't running for office, for Pete's sake.
It isn't legal, but that was never a particular problem as far as Mitt was concerned; he learned from the best, he thinks.
The problem with your theory borne of studied ignorance, is that "the income" is defined by the law that Mitt thinks he's abusing to cleverly turn his Bain Capital paychecks, taxable at 35% into "long term capital gains" and "capital losses" that he can stash in tax havens and repatriate a blend of profits and "losses" as needed to keep himself in car elevators, lobbyists and failed Presidential campaigns.
The fact that he's still a Bain Capital executive and on their payroll, just as you've had to admit, that he's lied about that for at least ten years, and that he was a Bain Capital employee / owner all throughout his part-time half-term Governorship of the Commonwealth is exactly makes him unelectable and unfit for any office.
Mitt paid ZERO Federal income and capital gains taxes for ten years straight using exactly the dodge he used with his "blind trust" and he never "retired" from Bain Capital, "retroactively" or otherwise. He's remained on the payroll and a business partner with an active conflict of interest against the public he continues to lie to in the process of his campaign to partly satisfy his limitless greed and ambition to gain power he hasn't any good intentions for.
Under § 1.83-3(f) of the Income Tax Regulations, property is transferred in connection with the performance of services if it is transferred to an employee or independent contractor (or beneficiary thereof) in recognition of the performance of services, or refraining from performance of services.
Under § 1.83-2(e), the statement must be signed by the person making the election and must indicate the election is being made under § 83(b). The statement must include the following information: the name, address and taxpayer identification number of the taxpayer; a description of each property with respect to which the election is being made; the date or dates on which the property was transferred and the taxable year for which such election is being made; the nature of the restriction or restrictions to which the property is subject; the fair market value at the time of transfer (determined without regard to any lapse restrictions, as defined in § 1.83-3(i)) of each property with respect to which the election is being made; the amount, if any, paid for such property; and a statement to the effect that copies have been furnished to other persons as provided in § 1.83-2(d).