Wednesday, October 16, 2019

Something to Know - 16 October

From the emerging Santa Monica News Bureau, we have, this morning, a forwarded document from ProPublica that unearths documentation that the Trump Organization, appears to have operated property in New York City at 40 Wall Street with two sets of books.   One that showed that they were worth more in one set of books to lenders, and one to the City of New York, tax assessor,  that the worth was much less.  Financial observers, and other money followers say that there appears to be " vision of fraud" going on.   After years of legal wrangling and appeals, these records are now public, and will be investigated by Congress and be part of the portfolio that Trump is acquiring under the label of "high crimes and misdemeanors" 

Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major Inconsistencies

The president's businesses made themselves appear more profitable to lenders and less profitable to tax officials. One expert calls the differing numbers "versions of fraud."

Documents obtained by ProPublica show stark differences in how Donald Trump's businesses reported some expenses, profits and occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than they provided to New York City tax authorities. The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings' property tax.

For instance, Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017. He also gave conflicting occupancy figures for one of his signature skyscrapers, located at 40 Wall Street.

Lenders like to see a rising occupancy level as a sign of what they call "leasing momentum." Sure enough, the company told a lender that 40 Wall Street had been 58.9% leased on Dec. 31, 2012, and then rose to 95% a few years later. The company told tax officials the building was 81% rented as of Jan. 5, 2013.

A dozen real estate professionals told ProPublica they saw no clear explanation for multiple inconsistencies in the documents. The discrepancies are "versions of fraud," said Nancy Wallace, a professor of finance and real estate at the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley. "This kind of stuff is not OK."

New York City's property tax forms state that the person signing them "affirms the truth of the statements made" and that "false filings are subject to all applicable civil and criminal penalties."

The punishments for lying to tax officials, or to lenders, can be significant, ranging from fines to criminal fraud charges. Two former Trump associates, Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort, are serving prison time for offenses that include falsifying tax and bank records, some of them related to real estate.

"Certainly, if I were sitting in a prosecutor's office, I would want to ask a lot more questions," said Anne Milgram, a former attorney general for New Jersey who is now a professor at New York University School of Law.

Trump has previously been accused of manipulating numbers on his tax and loan documents, including by his former lawyer, Cohen. But Trump's business is notoriously opaque, with records rarely surfacing, and up till now there's been little documentary evidence supporting those claims.

That's one reason that multiple governmental entities, including two congressional committees and the office of the Manhattan district attorney, have subpoenaed Donald Trump's tax returns. Trump has resisted, taking his battles to federal courts in Washington and New York. And so the question of whether different parts of the government can see the president's financial information is now playing out in two appeals courts and seems destined to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Add to that a Washington Post account of an IRS whistleblower claiming political interference in the handling of the president's audit, and the result is what amounts to frenetic interest in one person's tax returns.

ProPublica obtained the property tax documents using New York's Freedom of Information Law. The documents were public because Trump appealed his property tax bill for the buildings every year for nine years in a row, the extent of the available records. We compared the tax records with loan records that became public when Trump's lender, Ladder Capital, sold the debt on his properties as part of mortgage-backed securities.

ProPublica reviewed records for four properties: 40 Wall Street, the Trump International Hotel and Tower, 1290 Avenue of the Americas and Trump Tower. Discrepancies involving two of them — 40 Wall Street and the Trump International Hotel and Tower — stood out.

There can be legitimate reasons for numbers to diverge between tax and loan documents, the experts noted, but some of the gaps seemed to have no reasonable justification. "It really feels like there's two sets of books — it feels like a set of books for the tax guy and a set for the lender," said Kevin Riordan, a financing expert and real estate professor at Montclair State University who reviewed the records. "It's hard to argue numbers. That's black and white."

The Trump Organization did not respond on the record to detailed questions provided by ProPublica. Robert Pollack, a lawyer whose firm, Marcus & Pollack, handles Trump's property tax appeal filings with the city, said he was not authorized to discuss the documents. A spokeswoman for Mazars USA, the accounting firm that signed off on the two properties' expense and income statements, said the firm does not comment on its work for clients. Executives with Trump's lender, Ladder Capital, declined to be quoted for the story.

In response to ProPublica's questions about the disparities, Laura Feyer, deputy press secretary for New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, said of the Trump International Hotel and Tower, "The city is looking into this property, and if there has been any underreporting, we will take appropriate action."


Taxes have long been a third rail for Trump. Long before he famously declined to make his personal returns public, a New York Times investigation concluded, Trump participated in tax schemes that involved "outright fraud," and that he had formulated "a strategy to undervalue his parents' real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns." Trump's former partners in Panama claimed in a lawsuit, which is ongoing, that Trump's hotel management company failed to pay taxes on millions in fees it received. Spokespeople for Trump and his company have denied any tax improprieties in the past.

In February, Cohen told Congress that Trump had adjusted figures up or down, as necessary, to obtain loans and avoid taxes. "It was my experience that Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes," Cohen testified, "and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes."

The two Trump buildings with the most notable discrepancies shared a financial trait: Both were refinanced in 2015 and 2016 while Trump was campaigning for president. The loan for 40 Wall Street — $160 million — was then the Trump Organization's biggest debt.

The fortunes of 40 Wall Street have risen and fallen repeatedly since it was constructed in 1930. Once briefly in the running to become the world's tallest skyscraper (before being eclipsed by the Chrysler Building and then others), the 71-story landmark had an illustrious history before falling into disrepair as it changed hands multiple times.

Trump says in his book "Never Give Up" that he took over 40 Wall Street for $1 million during a down market in 1995. Others have reported the price as $10 million. Trump gave the property his signature treatment, decking out the lobby in Italian marble and bronze and christening it "The Trump Building." Tenants such as American Express moved in.

But the rent rolls suffered when big-name tenants fled to Midtown in the years after the Sept. 11 attacks. Less blue-chip operations replaced them. In recent years, there were more setbacks. About two years ago, for example, high-end food purveyor Dean & Deluca canceled plans to locate an 18,500-square-foot emporium on the higher-priced first floor. The space remains empty.

The building at 40 Wall was underperforming, charging below-market rents, according to credit-rating agency Moody's. Its profits were lagging.

Trump's company, which has sometimes struggled to obtain credit because of his history of bankruptcies and defaults, turned for relief to a financial institution where Donald Trump had a connection: Ladder Capital, which employs Jack Weisselberg, the son of the Trump Organization's longtime CFO, Allen Weisselberg. Ladder is a publicly traded commercial real estate investment trust that reports more than $6 billion in assets. In 2015, and still today, Jack Weisselberg was an executive director whose job was to make loans.

Trump and Jack Weisselberg had history together. Jack was at UBS, in its loan origination department, in 2006, when the Swiss bank loaned Trump $7 million for his piece of the Trump International Hotel and Tower. Allen Weisselberg had bought a condo from Trump in one of his buildings for a below-market price of $152,500 in 2000. He deeded it to Jack three years later for about $148,000. Jack sold the unit for more than three times as much in 2006. (Jack Weisselberg declined to comment on Ladder's loans or his relationship with the Trump Organization.)

Even with a sympathetic lender, the struggles at 40 Wall Street would normally raise questions. Trump's representatives needed to demonstrate signs of the building's financial health if they wanted a new loan with a lower interest rate.

They had a compelling piece of data, it seemed. Trump's team told Ladder that occupancy was rebounding after registering a lackluster 58.9% on Dec. 31, 2012. Since then, Trump representatives reported, the building had signed new tenants. Income from them hadn't fully been realized yet, largely because of free-rent deals, they said. But after 2015, they predicted, revenues would surge.

"That's a selling point for people in the business," said Riordan, who was previously the executive director of the Rutgers Center for Real Estate. Borrowers "want to show tremendous leasing momentum." The steepness of such a rise in occupancy at the Trump building was unusual, Riordan and other experts said.

Documents submitted to city property tax officials show no such run-up. Trump representatives reported to the tax authorities that the building was already 81% leased in 2012.

"What is bizarre is that you have these tax filings that are totally different," Riordan said. A gap of at least 10 percentage points between the two occupancy reports persisted for the next two years, before the figures in the tax and loan reports synced in January 2016.

The portrayal of a rapid rise in occupancy, and the explanation that income would soon follow, were critical for the refinancing. Indeed, Ladder's underwriters were predicting that 40 Wall Street's profits would more than double after 2015. Having reviewed Trump's financial statements and rent roll, they estimated the building would clear $22.6 million a year in net operating income.

Ladder needed credit ratings agencies like Moody's and Fitch to endorse its income expectations and give the loan a favorable rating, which would in turn make it easier for the next step of the plan: to package the loan as part of a bond, a so-called commercial mortgage-backed security, and sell it to investors. Without the expected rise in income, Riordan said, the loan size or terms would likely have needed to be renegotiated to satisfy the ratings agencies and investors, which would mean less favorable terms for Trump and Ladder. "There was a story crafted here," Riordan said. "It's contradicted by what we see in the tax filings."

Wallace, the University of California professor, added: "Especially in underwriting loans, you are supposed to truthfully report." Both the lender and the borrower are required to supply accurate information, she said.

Moody's and Fitch analysts found the underwriter's projections slightly too rosy, but Fitch conferred an investment-grade rating on the loan, allowing it to proceed as planned. Trump ultimately received a 10-year loan with a lower interest rate than the building previously had as well as terms that would allow him to defer paying off much of the principal until the end of the loan.

Once granted, the loan to 40 Wall Street ran into trouble: The year after it went through, the loan servicer put it on a "watch list" because of concerns that the building wasn't making sufficient profit to pay the debt service with enough of a margin. It stayed on the list for three months. (Trump's company has continued making payments.)

As of 2018, the most recent year available, the building had never met the underwriters' profit expectations, trailing by more than 8%, according to data from commercial real estate research service Trepp. Experts say that, given the amount of research underwriters do, a property typically meets their expectations fairly quickly.


The 40 Wall Street documents contain discrepancies related to costs as well as to occupancy. Generally, there are "more opportunities to play games on the expense side," said Ron Shapiro, an assistant professor at Rutgers Business School and a former bank senior vice president, "particularly because there are many more kinds of expenses."

Comparing specific expense items in both sets of records is challenging, because accountants may group categories differently in reports to tax and loan officials. But some differences on 40 Wall Street documents elicit head-scratching.

For example, insurance costs in 2017 were listed as $744,521 in tax documents and $457,414 in loan records.

Then there was the underlying lease. Trump technically doesn't own 40 Wall Street. He pays the wealthy German family that owns the property for the right to rent the building to tenants. In 2015, both Trump's report to tax authorities and a key loan disclosure document asserted that Trump's company paid $1.65 million for these rights that year. But a line-by-line income and expense statement, which Trepp gathered from what the company reported to the loan servicer, reported the company paid about $1.24 million that year.

"I don't know why that would be off," said Jason Hoffman, who is chair of the real estate committee for a professional association of certified public accountants in New York state. Like other experts, he said there are legitimate reasons why tax and loan filings might not line up perfectly. But Hoffman said the firm where he works makes sure the numbers match when it prepares both tax and loan documents for a client — or that it can explain why if they don't.

Financial information for the Trump International Hotel and Tower raises similar questions. Trump owns only a small portion of the building, which is located on Columbus Circle: two commercial spaces, which he rents out to a restaurant and a parking garage. Trump's company told New York City tax officials it made about $822,000 renting space to commercial tenants there in 2017, records show. The company told loan officials it took in $1.67 million that year — more than twice as much. In eight years of data ProPublica examined for the Columbus Circle property, Trump's company reported gross income to tax authorities that was typically only about 81% of what it reported to the lender.

Trump appeared to omit from tax documents income his company received from leasing space on the roof for television antennas, a ProPublica review found. The line on tax appeal forms for income from such communications equipment is blank on nine years of tax filings, even as loan documents listed the antennas as major sources of income.

Trump has an easement to lease the roof space; he doesn't own it. But three tax experts, including Melanie Brock, an appraiser and paralegal who has worked on hundreds of New York City tax cases, told ProPublica that the income should still be reported on the tax appeals forms.

It's hard to guess what might explain every inconsistency, said David Wilkes, a New York City tax lawyer who is chair of the National Association of Property Tax Attorneys. But, he added, "My gut reaction is it seems like there's something amiss there."

Tax records for Trump personally and for his business continue to be subjects of contention in multiple investigations. The Justice Department has intervened in the investigation by the Manhattan district attorney, whose office has sought Trump's personal tax returns. Congressional lawmakers investigating his business dealings have sought documents from his longtime accountant, Donald Bender, a partner at Mazars. Trump is fighting the subpoenas in court. (Bender did not respond to requests for comment.)

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has said the committee is seeking to determine if Cohen's testimony about Trump inflating and deflating his assets was accurate. Cummings asked for Mazars' records related to Trump entities, as well as communications between Bender and Trump or Trump employees since 2009.

Such communications, the subpoena stated, should include any related to potential concerns that information Trump or his representatives provided his accountants was "incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise unsatisfactory."

You can contact us via Signal, WhatsApp or voicemail at 347-244-2134. Here's more about how you can contact us securely.

You can always email us at tips@trumpincpodcast.org.

And finally, you can use the Postal Service:

Trump, Inc. at ProPublica
155 Ave of the Americas, 13th Floor
New York, NY 10013

Doris Burke contributed to this report.




 
****
Juan

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

- Kris Kristofferson

Tuesday, October 15, 2019

Andy Borowitz


Trump Accidentally Calls Biden Looking for Dirt on Biden

Photograph by Aude Guerrucci / Alamy

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In the latest embarrassing communications slipup for the White House, Donald Trump called Joe Biden over the weekend looking for dirt on Joe Biden.

Reportedly, the phone call began with ten to fifteen minutes of pleasantries before Trump, who apparently did not realize he was speaking to the former Vice-President, asked Biden to investigate "Sleepy Joe and his crooked son, Sleazy Hunter."

Understandably, Biden took umbrage at this request, and only then did it become clear to Trump that he had called the wrong person.

After Biden was unmasked, Trump was urged to quickly hang up by Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Bill Barr, Betsy DeVos, and a half-dozen other senior Administration officials who had been listening in on the call.

Later in the day, the White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, attempted to put the errant phone call in context by explaining that the former Vice-President's phone number was "extremely similar" to that of Stevo Pendarovski, the President of North Macedonia.

On the lawn of the White House, Trump lashed out at those criticizing his call to Biden, arguing, "Other than the fact that I did not know who I was talking to, that phone call was perfect."



--
****
Juan

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

- Kris Kristofferson

For Those Who Are Beyond Middle Age and Dependent On Medical Services

If you are like me (age 78) or of similar vintage, and have some condition that requires regular medical evaluation or treatment, you may experience the same thoughts as listed below.   This is an online conversation between college alumni (on year behind my graduation date), and the return of one individual from a near fatal experience, and two others in his class.   This is an open discussion, however please consider as such, but respect the privacy by not broadcasting the names of the individuals:

Robert J Biggar rjbiggar@gmail.com via listserv.pomona.edu 

8:53 AM (1 hour ago)
 to CLASSOF1964
I shared with you some of my experiences with end of life care, something we all face at our age. Mostly, it was a message that I am okay and hope to recover fully. 

However, there is more to this story that may be worth sharing. I emerged from this horrendous ordeal with at least a prospect of full recovery. I have peripheral neuropathy that may never go away, which amounts to fuzzy toes when I move them. These are minor issues. Mainly, my brain is intact so far as I know. I have retrograde amnesia, which is a blessing as I remember nothing of going to hospital ore the surgery or post-surgery recovery. It must have been painful but I don't recall ever having any pain. I am told it not unusual. Nature is kind in this way.

I have, however, a sense of guilt that I survived. The cost of my care was well over a million dollars. I don't know how much because bills are still coming in. Fortunately, I have Medicare, as we all do, and also secondary coverage from my 30+ years of service time (Tricare for LIfe) which should pick up most of the remaining costs. In this I am lucky. 

For those who have not gone through the Medicare experience, I learned that Medicare covers 80% of the costs and Tricare the rest (assuming Tricare is accepted--I found out that isn't always the case). Medicare is limited, however, For a given event (defined as continuous hospitalization or recurrent hospitalization with a gap of less than 2 months between admissions), you have 60 days worth of full coverage and 30 days of lifetime coverage. I was in for 68 days, meaning I lost 8 days of lifetime coverage I cannot get back. However, assuming I don't return to the hospital for two months, my 60 days of recovery renews.

That's the legalese. The guilt comes from the notion that I am not worth the million dollars (or more) spent to save me. At 77-years-old, I have nothing more to contribute to society and the money would be better spent on more worth social programs. Of course, I wasn't in control of any decision making. It happened and I am through to the other end.

But in the course of rehabilitation, I observed those around me. So many of them have no realistic prospect of recovery: 300-pound women with strokes paralyzing half their body, 95-year-old men with terminal heart failure or metastatic tumors in their brain. Yet they too get all the attention and effort the rehab hospital can offer, their own million-dollar terminal care package, before being sent to an assisted living, skilled nursing facility. Even the physical therapist I worked with (I had one, but others had 3 or 4) acknowledged to me privately that it would be a futile exercise.  I dn't know what they do if they don't have secondary insurance to pay the 20% Medicare doesn't cover.

I don't have answers. These folks have every right to the same 90-day care effort that I had, regardless of their prospects of recovery. Still, I fret about the cost to society. We have limited resources and they should be used to better advantage.

Frederick Lukoff

9:16 AM (1 hour ago)
 to CLASSOF1964
Very interesting post, Bob.  The medical profession often runs the machine in cases where you wonder about the utility.  There is the question of cost to society, but also simply the well-being of the patient.  When my mother was 92, she broke a hip getting out of bed, and after a month or two of a variety of complications, it was clear to me at least that there was no light at the end of the tunnel.  Yet we received a proposal to do several thousand dollars of dental work on her!  I don't know about you, but I'm not really fond of the dentist's chair.  Anyway, I declined, and she died within a month, dental matters having been the least of her problems.  We recently had wills and the equivalent of living trusts prepared here, which include instructions for possible times of dementia.  There are also instructions filed with the family physician not to revive under specified circumstances.

You refer to the insurance aspects of your case, but it seems to me that you were the victim of a medical fault.  Severing the mammary artery  when closing up a patient, thereby damaging his lungs and leaving him a month in a coma, seems like a clear case of medical malpractice that should result in liability of the physician's insurance, thus not yours.  What do I not understand?

From the language of your post, it seems clear that the brain is functioning just fine.  Welcome back!

Fred

Rebecca Novelli rjnovelli@comcast.net via listserv.pomona.edu 

9:34 AM (1 hour ago)
 to CLASSOF1964
Bob raises an important question, one that I'm pondering as I, too, am the beneficiary of costly and ongoing medical interventions. I don't think I'm worth saving now either, but I'm grateful to continue living and find in life a delight that I didn't experience earlier. I'm currently participating in a clinical trial. I wonder if this outrageously expensive care, some of it covered by a drug company, could perhaps yield information that will ultimately benefit others? If so, our care is potentially worth something. Further, the philosophical and ethical questions raised by denying treatment to people who are long past their sell dates may be more than most humans can address. Surely, there must be classmates who deal with these policy questions. I hope they will provide a better perspective.
Becky

--
****
Juan

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

- Kris Kristofferson

Something to Know - 15 October


Following up on yesterday's piece on our "Attorney General" and his curiously religious screed, Paul Krugman is here today to clarify what this is all about:   Please scroll through the blank blocks, because if I were to eliminate them, the Gremlins would win:



God Is Now Trump's Co-Conspirator

Bigotry, both racial and religious, is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Paul Krugman

By 

Opinion Columnist

  • Oct. 14, 2019
CreditCreditGetty Images

Listening to the speech William Barr, the attorney general, gave last week at the University of Notre Dame Law School, I found myself thinking of the title of an old movie: "God Is My Co-Pilot." What I realized is that Donald Trump's minions have now gone that title one better: If Barr's speech is any indication, their strategy is to make God their boss's co-conspirator.

Given where we are right now, you might have expected Barr to respond in some way to the events of the past few weeks — the revelation that the president has been calling on foreign regimes to produce dirt on his domestic opponents, the airport arrest of associates of the president's lawyer as they tried to leave the country on one-way tickets, credible reports that Rudy Giuliani himself is under criminal investigation.

Alternatively, Barr could have delivered himself of some innocuous pablum, which is something government officials often do in difficult times.

But no. Barr gave a fiery speech denouncing the threat to America posed by "militant secularists," whom he accused of conspiring to destroy the "traditional moral order," blaming them for rising mental illness, drug dependency and violence.



Consider for a moment how inappropriate it is for Barr, of all people, to have given such a speech. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion; the nation's chief law enforcement officer has no business denouncing those who exercise that freedom by choosing not to endorse any religion.

ImageAttorney General William Barr speaking at the University of Notre Dame Law School last week.
Attorney General William Barr speaking at the University of Notre Dame Law School last week.CreditRobert Franklin/South Bend Tribune, via Associated Press

And we're not talking about a tiny group, either. These days, around a fifth of Americans say that they don't consider themselves affiliated with any religion, roughly the same number who consider themselves Catholic. How would we react if the attorney general denounced Catholicism as a force undermining American society?

And he didn't just declare that secularism is bad; he declared that the damage it does is intentional: "This is not decay. It is organized destruction." If that kind of talk doesn't scare you, it should; it's the language of witch hunts and pogroms.

It seems almost beside the point to note that Barr's claim that secularism is responsible for violence happens to be empirically verifiable nonsense. America has certainly become less religious over the past quarter century, with a large rise in the number of religiously unaffiliated and growing social liberalism on issues like same-sex marriage; it has also seen a dramatic decline in violent crime. European nations are far less religious than we are; they also have much lower homicide rates, and rarely experience the mass shootings that have become almost routine here.



Nonetheless, William Barr — again, the nation's chief law enforcement officer, responsible for defending the Constitution — is sounding remarkably like America's most unhinged religious zealots, the kind of people who insist that we keep experiencing mass murder because schools teach the theory of evolution. Guns don't kill people — Darwin kills people!

So what's going on here? Pardon my cynicism, but I seriously doubt that Barr, whose boss must be the least godly man ever to occupy the White House, has suddenly realized to his horror that America is becoming more secular. No, this outburst of God-talk is surely a response to the way the walls are closing in on Trump, the high likelihood that he will be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Trump's response to his predicament has been to ramp up the ugliness in an effort to rally his base. The racism has gotten even more explicit, the paranoia about the deep state more extreme. But who makes up Trump's base? The usual answer is working-class whites, but a deeper dive into the data suggests that it's more specific: It's really evangelical working-class whites who are staying with Trump despite growing evidence of his malfeasance and unsuitability for high office.

And at a more elite level, while a vast majority of Republican politicians have meekly fallen in line behind Trump, his truly enthusiastic support comes from religious leaders like Jerry Falwell Jr., who have their own ethical issues, but have called on their followers to "render to God and Trump."

Patriotism, Samuel Johnson famously declared, is the last refuge of scoundrels. But for all his talk of America first, that's not a refuge that works very well for Trump, with his subservience to foreign autocrats and, most recently, his shameful betrayal of the Kurds.

So Trump is instead taking shelter behind bigotry — racial, of course, but now religious as well.

Will it work? There is a substantial minority of Americans with whom warnings about sinister secularists resonate. But they are a minority. Over all, we're clearly becoming a more tolerant nation, one in which people have increasingly positive views of others' religious beliefs, including atheism.

So the efforts of Trump's henchmen to use the specter of secularism to distract people from their boss's sins probably won't work. But I could be wrong. And if I am wrong, if religious bigotry turns out to be a winning strategy, all I can say is, God help us.

--
****
Juan

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

- Kris Kristofferson