% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Microsoft Corporation Message Board

  • truth_in_government truth_in_government Aug 21, 2012 6:19 AM Flag

    Mitt romney says he still worked for Bain Capital in 2010

    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.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • 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.

    • to be receiving management fees in the form of restricted zero strike stock options in newly minted Bain Capital entities in 2010 contingent on his future performance for the "companies" while he's telling the FEC that he's had no dealings with any Bain Capital operations since his 2002 retroactive retirement that he backdated to 1999.

      The Mitt is approaching the fan.

      Maybe you should find other "employment", since the Rah Rah Romney message board market is looking shaky. Just like the constant CC Media Hate yakker din.

    • 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.

    • was quite impressed when you told her that you weren't defaulting on your loans but you had actually fired the banks you were "employing" too.

      But returning to Mitt Romney's problem of his own making, perhaps a clue might be Mitt's declaration of his occupation as being "executive", just as his occupation has been for the years after his alleged 2002 "retirement" that he recently backdated to 1999.

      In fact, Mitt is still a Bain Capital executive receiving his compensation in restricted stock that he launders through his wife's "blind trust". So it's not me who you should get your undies in a bunch over, since it's much more likely that Mitt "let the veil slip" a bit by disclosing that through the year 2010 he was occupied as an executive and gave quite clear indication of the scheme he's used for many years to convert his pay into long term capital gains to cheat the government out of taxes he owes.

    • emptying the contents of his "capacious" intellect into pithy one liners lately, so we may as well carry on without his "deep insights" into what he characterizes as being "business" or "the law".

      Beyond Mitt's continuing obligations in service to Bain Capital in an executive capacity, for which he was paid in restricted stock as was usual for the interval during which he was working post-"retroactive retirement" and was laundered through one of several "blind trusts" that were set up prior to his leveraged buy-out of the Governorship of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for precisely that money laundering purpose, there are interesting features to the 2010 return itself that make it a bit clearer why there's no doubt at all that Mitt paid ZERO Federal income and capital gains taxes during the years 1999 and 2009 and decided that his 2010 return would need to be "punched up" a bit during the customary extension interval for political purposes.

      Mitt carried a bit of baggage with him from his prior tax strategies, before he was running for President for Pete's sake, that give a bit of insight into what we can expect to see in tax returns for the years during which he continued to work at Bain Capital after his "retroactive retirement" and during his Governorship hobby / racket and his continuing eighteen year campaign to buy out the Presidency and achieve his ultimate racketeering goals.

    • like the chiggers that infest your adult diaper.

      Too bad about losing one of your aliases again. Must be some kind of Anglo-Irish conspiracy against you.

    • executive employee or contractor to file the 83(b) election.

      He has to be an ongoing employee or contractor for the cause of his election to be true.

    • 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.


      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).

    • View More Messages
48.18-1.65(-3.31%)2:52 PMEDT