LinkedIn’s Hoffman Offers $5M for Trump’s Tax Returns
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
*edit: I'm getting a lot of replies saying there's nothing keeping him from releasing his returns while being audited. I'm well aware, but as has been pointed out by talmand, having the IRS sign off on his audit helps shore up his defense if anything in there looks questionable to people. Also, he obviously doesn't see any reason to give people potential ammunition. He stands to gain almost nothing from releasing his tax returns. Even if they're flawless and he's paying 60% tax (we obviously know that isn't the case), at best people would shrug and move on. At worst, they would find something to hammer him on, whether valid or not, and the audit would still be pending, giving him little defense to the accusations.
[0]: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/...
For one, he's using it as a negotiating tactic in attempt to get something out of someone else he wishes to be made public. I believe it has come up with "release your medical records" or "release the transcripts" and "I'll release my tax returns".
For a guy like this and what he does, it is most likely there is something the IRS will complain about in the return. It could be something small or something big, it does not necessarily mean it is proof of wrong-doing. Mistakes are made all the time with complicated returns. There have been examples of the IRS giving incorrect advice on complicated returns after all. So, why not wait until the audit is done and all the IRS complaints have been addressed before releasing? Why hand over talking points to partisan political hacks that would likely make every little incorrect thing to be an example of alleged illegal activities?
For all the conspiracy theories that's he attempting to hide something in his returns assumes that the IRS is complicit or incompetent. I am more than satisfied that if the IRS finds something illegal they will be more than happy to conduct a criminal investigation. They have done so before with much less.
Generally, the IRS can include returns filed within the last three years in an audit. Additional years can be added if a substantial error is identified. Generally, if a substantial error is identified, the IRS will not go back more than the last six years.
My guess:
There are probably some questionable things on the return. Perhaps they're perfectly legal, but there's no doubt that anything out of the ordinary is going to be scrutinized by the public, therefore, if he waits until the audit is complete, it gives him another leg to stand on in defending his legality (provided they don't find anything in the audit).
"Even the IRS found it to be perfectly legal."
Of course, there's always the possibility he's just saying that in hopes that we will have forgotten about it by then or that the election will have already taken place.
Straight up saying that he is never going to release them would probably be a big problem, which could explain the attempt to slide away from it, if the above theory is true.
There is nothing legally binding Trump
...an executive editor at Bloomberg who has seen those reports was sued for libel (which case was dropped) after which Trump obtained a court order banning any revelation of their contents.
As far as I'm aware of, none.
The typical voter doesn't care, or assumes that Trump uses the same kind of bookkeepers and legal loopholes that his political opponents do. It's the partisans and political wonks who are salivating over this.