Felons should be arrested and put on trial

Even Rich Mormon Republicans Are Subject To The Law

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

New Questions about Sheldon Adelson’s Casino Operations in Macau


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/new-questions-about-sheldon-adelsons-casino-operations-in-macau/

 by  Lowell Bergman, and Stephen Engelberg
A few days after Las Vegas Sands fired the president of its Macau casinos in July 2010, the company copied the hard drives of his office computers and moved the data to its headquarters in Las Vegas. In the months that followed, the company now acknowledges, its lawyers reviewed those records as they prepared to defend the casino giant against a civil suit by the executive for wrongful termination.
But when the executive, Steven Jacobs, asked in court for copies of his documents, a lawyer for the Las Vegas Sands subsidiary in Macau said it could not move files out of the Chinese enclave without permission from local authorities. The lawyer did not mention that copies of the documents were already in the United States.
Federal investigators examining Jacobs’ claims that he had been ordered to overlook illegal activity in Macau faced the same roadblock, the lawyer told a Nevada judge.
In little-noticed court filings earlier this month, however, Las Vegas Sands disclosed for the first time that the copies of Jacobs’ emails and other documents had been transferred nearly two years ago to the United States without notifying Macau authorities.
The filings did not explain the company’s previous statements to the court, noting only that the transfer of records from Macau to the United States had been done “in error.” The company also informed the judge it had destroyed at least some original files when it reused one of Jacobs’ computers in Macau.
The owner of Las Vegas Sands, Sheldon Adelson, has been in the national spotlight as the largest individual donor to Republican candidates in the 2012 campaign. Last month, Adelson and his wife gave $10 million to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney, which amounted to half of its receipts for June. The New York Times reported that Adelson is funding an effort to target pro-Romney Jewish voters in battleground states and is reportedly planning to meet with Romney in Israel on Monday.
Questions about Las Vegas Sands’ business practices in Macau have emerged as a political issue in the campaign. Democrats recently seized on an allegation in Jacobs’ legal pleadings — that Adelson tolerated prostitution at the Macau casinos — and issued press releases attacking Republican congressional candidates who accepted contributions from a PAC he supports.
Adelson adamantly denied the charge and his lawyer threatened to sue the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for libel for advancing the claim.
The company’s recent court filings raise questions about whether Las Vegas Sands has been fully cooperative with the federal investigations of the company.
At a July 2011 hearing before the Nevada judge on the Jacobs case, Patricia Glaser, a lawyer for the Las Vegas Sands subsidiary, said Macau law posed a “stone wall” to federal investigators seeking documents. Glaser said the company had not provided investigators records from its Macau operations “in any way, shape or form.”
People familiar with the federal inquiries said that Las Vegas Sands continued to make similar arguments to federal officials over the past year. The slow flow of documents hampered the case, delaying interviews of key witnesses, those people said.
A spokesman for Las Vegas Sands said the company would not respond to questions about the case, including whether it has turned over any documents since Glaser made her statements last year. The spokesman, Ron Reese, said, “These questions will be answered in due course in the most appropriate forum — namely the courtroom.”
Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez, who is hearing Jacobs’ civil suit, is now weighing financial sanctions against Las Vegas Sands for its conduct in the civil case. Gonzalez told lawyers in the case at a recent hearing that she wants to learn more about “the lack of forthrightness with respect to these documents that were taken out of Macau many years ago and which nobody’s told me about during the entire litigation.”
Gonzalez has allowed Jacobs’ lawyers to take further testimony on the handling of the Macau documents from company officials, perhaps including Adelson, before a scheduled hearing at the end of August on possible sanctions.
The company, which disclosed to investors that the federal investigations involve possible violation of U.S. laws banning bribery of overseas officials, has said it is cooperating with authorities.
It is difficult to assess precisely how delays in turning over documents have affected the federal inquiries, which involve both the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Jacobs’ lawyers have said their client turned over copies of some of his documents to federal investigators in response to requests from the Justice Department.
But federal prosecutors and SEC attorneys in such cases typically seek to assemble a complete set of files from the company and its executives before they question witnesses.
Adelson is among the world’s richest people with a personal fortune estimated at $25 billion, a substantial amount of which stems from his company’s profits in Macau, the world’s gambling capital.
* * *
The federal investigations and Jacobs’ lawsuit have their origin in a meeting at the company’s Macau offices on the morning of July 23, 2010. That day, Jacobs says in his lawsuit, he was told by Las Vegas Sands’ CEO Michael Leven that he was being immediately dismissed as president of the Macau subsidiary, Sands China Limited.
A few days later, the parent company’s deputy general counsel, Michael Kostrinsky, asked for copies of Jacobs’ emails and of the hard drive on his computer, according to an account of his deposition filed by Jacobs’ lawyers.
After a failed attempt to transfer the data via the Internet, the files were placed on a separate hard drive and delivered to the company’s Las Vegas offices. Kostrinsky then had material copied to his laptop where it was stored in a folder marked “Jacobs emails,”according to the summary of Kostrinsky’s deposition.
Kostrinsky said that lawyers with Glaser’s law firm, Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs, Howard, Avchen & Shapiro, were aware that Las Vegas Sands had copies of the documents and had access to them, the summary alleged. The summary did not identify the lawyers, and it is unclear whether Glaser was among them.
Glaser declined to respond to requests for comment but directed reporters to Las Vegas Sands.
According to the summary, Kostrinsky said that J. Stephen Peek, a lawyer from the Las Vegas office of Holland & Hart working on the case for Las Vegas Sands, came to his office and spent an afternoon reading the files on his laptop.
Peek did not respond to a request for comment.
On Oct. 20, 2010, Jacobs sued Las Vegas Sands in Nevada, arguing that he had been wrongfully dismissed after a series of clashes with Adelson over what Jacobs alleged was improper and illegal conduct. One issue cited by Jacobs involved whether the company should continue paying a Macau legislator as its local lawyer.
Jacobs said in his lawsuit he ultimately warned Adelson and other executives that continuing this arrangement posed “serious risks” of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the U.S. law that bans overseas bribery by American companies.
That assertion caught the eye of federal officials. On Feb. 9, 2011, the SEC sent a subpoena to Las Vegas Sands demanding documents in connection with possible violations of the anti-bribery law.
No copy of that document has been made public so it is unclear precisely what documents investigators are seeking. Las Vegas Sands publicly disclosed the existence of the inquiry in a filing with the SEC.
As the federal investigations moved ahead, the company mounted a vigorous defense against Jacobs’ lawsuit, which Adelson argued was based on inventions by a disgruntled ex-employee.
The company’s lawyers argued that Jacobs could not bolster his lawsuit with documents stored on his laptop because they were not his property and they contained material protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. In response, Jacobs went to court and asked Las Vegas Sands to give him the same material from its files with the privileged material removed.
Lawyers for the Las Vegas Sands subsidiary said they could not move the documents to the United States without permission from officials in Macau.
At the July 2011 hearing before Judge Gonzalez, a lawyer for the Las Vegas Sands subsidiary in Macau said the Macau Personal Data Protection Act imposed strict procedures. The lawyer, Glaser, said the company would have to send lawyers to Macau and would have to “go document by document” and might have to ask “everyone who’s named on any of these emails” to sign a form consenting to their transfer out of the country.
The documents would then have to be reviewed by Macau’s Office for Personal Data Protection that would have the final say on each record.
David Fleming, a lawyer with the company’s Macau subsidiary, said in a sworn affidavitthat he had met with officials in Macau who had threatened to impose criminal and civil penalties if the law were ignored. The company estimated that lawyers would have to spend eight to 10 weeks in Macau at a cost of more than $1 million to sift the documents.
Glaser told Judge Gonzalez that Macau’s privacy requirements were so strict, lawyers in the United States were not even allowed to review documents remotely. She said Jacobs’ requests for records had already put the company on “the cusp of violating the law.”
* * *
Nearly a year later, lawyers for Las Vegas Sands stunned the Jacobs legal team, acknowledging they had moved Jacobs’ files out of Macau and been studying them for nearly two years.
On June 28, Judge Gonzalez convened a hearing on the matter.
“Mr. Peek, I’ve got a question,” she began, addressing the Holland & Hart lawyer who had read Jacobs’ emails on Kostrinsky’s laptop.
“Why didn’t somebody tell me 11 months ago or so that the Macau Data Privacy Protection Act wasn’t going to be an issue because somehow the document had already gotten to the U.S. and geez, it was by mistake.”
Brad Brian, a lawyer for Las Vegas Sands’ Macau subsidiary Sands China Ltd., told the judge that the transfer of Jacobs’ files was “in error, it shouldn’t have happened.” It was only in late May, after months of talks with Las Vegas Sands lawyers, that Macau agreed the documents at issue, which were already in the United States, could be turned over to the Nevada court, Brian said.
Gonzalez reminded the lawyers that she had been told for months that it was not possible to negotiate directly with Macau authorities on their privacy concerns. “Nobody thought to say, ‘Gosh, Judge, we’re already talking to them because we screwed up and took this information we weren’t supposed to and we’re trying to see what we’re supposed to do now?’”
“In hindsight, if you could roll the clock back, there’s no doubt that it would have been better to advise the court of that,” said Brian, whose firm Munger, Tolles & Olson was brought into the case earlier this year and was not involved in the initial decisions on the Macau documents.
In a court filing, Las Vegas Sands lawyers detailed other instances in which the company transferred data from Macau to the United States without review by local authorities. These included five other company employees whose records might be needed for the federal investigation and data that was used by another outside law firm working for the company.
Two months after Jacobs’ attorneys delivered selected documents copied from his laptop to federal investigators, he reported a burglary at his Florida home.
According to a police report, Jacobs told investigators that someone had stolen a computer hard drive from its hiding place inside a coffee maker. Jacobs said other files were missing from a plastic crate near the door of his apartment.
Jacobs told the police nothing else was taken.
The coffee maker was sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for DNA testing.
The case remains unsolved.

Monday, July 23, 2012

Mitt Romney Never Thought He'd Have To Release Tax Returns: Bain Sources


Now, that shit is unbelievable, isn't it?

Forum Post: Willard Mitt Romney's FBAR FUBAR- Did Romney participate in an IRS amnesty for tax evaders? He could clear that up.

Posted 4 minutes ago on July 23, 2012, 2:33 p.m. EST by fiftyfourforty (724) | edit | delete
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Romney could clear some of this matter about tax evasion up with a copy of his FBAR for 2009. That is the year his bank came to an agreement with the IRS whereby UBS client names in Switzerland were given over after the clients had the opportunity to take an amnesty from criminal charges. If Romney was complying with the law back then he would have filed on time an FBAR with the IRS (technically not a part of his tax return but a report to the IRS of foreign bank accounts.) If indeed he was evading taxes illegally the FBAR would either not be there or would have been filed late, as in after the amnesty. If Romney tried to illegally evade taxes, got caught and took an amnesty from criminal charges, as seems very likely, that's something the world ought to know about, given the job he is applying for.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewcampione/2012/07/19/what-could-mitt-romneys-pre-2010-filings-tell-us/
There is however a bunch of other stuff that could prove to have been illegal, even felonious.
http://arrestmittromney.blogspot.com/2012/07/mitt-romney-voter-fraud-too.htmlhttp://arrestmittromney.blogspot.com/2012/07/daily-kos-blogger-makes-case-for.html
http://arrestmittromney.blogspot.com/2012/07/did-romney-make-false-statement-on-his.html
He could clear all this stuff up one two three and then move on. Why is he so damned stubborn about this stuff? Here in the Huffington Post the intelligence of the American voter gets royally insulted with the statement that Romney never thought he'd have to show tax returns to the electorate. Wow!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/mitt-romney-tax-returns_n_1682539.html
Here's the headline, can you believe that?
Mitt Romney Never Thought He'd Have To Release Tax Returns: Bain Sources

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Mitt Romney -- Voter Fraud too?


http://thevotingnews.com/blogs/romney-voter-fraud-allegations-loom-as-general-election-liability-the-daily-caller/
Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney has survived the heated GOP nominating contest so far without attracting significant attention to what may become a general election issue: allegations that he committed voter fraud in 2010.In January 2010 the former Massachusetts governor proudly cast a ballot for Republican Scott Brown in the special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. He didn’t own property in the state at the time, and had registered to vote listing his son’s unfinished basement as his residence.Massachusetts law defines a residence for voter registration purposes as “where a person dwells and which is the center of his domestic, social, and civil life.” Anyone found guilty of committing voter fraud faces up to five years behind bars and a fine of $10,000.The issue was first raised last year, after long-shot GOP candidate Fred Karger traveled to Romney’s former community of Belmont and interviewed members of his former church — who informed Karger that the Romneys had moved — and their former realtor, who told him, “Oh, they moved to California.”Additionally, Karger claimed that Ann Romney told him that the couple lived in California.Karger filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s Elections Division and the allegations received breathless coverage on “The Rachel Maddow Show.” However, a representative of the Elections Division told The Daily Caller in June 2011 that “the time to bring this up was when he voted.”Maddow gleefully quoted on her show a Belmont town clerk who told a local publication: “Since he is an active voter, he proves that this is where his residency is” — to which she retorted, “If he has been voting illegally, does the fact that he is voting illegally a lot make it not illegal?”


Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney has survived the heated GOP nominating contest so far without attracting significant attention to what may become a general election issue: allegations that he committed voter fraud in 2010.In January 2010 the former Massachusetts governor proudly cast a ballot for Republican Scott Brown in the special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. He didn’t own property in the state at the time, and had registered to vote listing his son’s unfinished basement as his residence.Massachusetts law defines a residence for voter registration purposes as “where a person dwells and which is the center of his domestic, social, and civil life.” Anyone found guilty of committing voter fraud faces up to five years behind bars and a fine of $10,000.The issue was first raised last year, after long-shot GOP candidate Fred Karger traveled to Romney’s former community of Belmont and interviewed members of his former church — who informed Karger that the Romneys had moved — and their former realtor, who told him, “Oh, they moved to California.”Additionally, Karger claimed that Ann Romney told him that the couple lived in California.Karger filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s Elections Division and the allegations received breathless coverage on “The Rachel Maddow Show.” However, a representative of the Elections Division told The Daily Caller in June 2011 that “the time to bring this up was when he voted.”Maddow gleefully quoted on her show a Belmont town clerk who told a local publication: “Since he is an active voter, he proves that this is where his residency is” — to which she retorted, “If he has been voting illegally, does the fact that he is voting illegally a lot make it not illegal?”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/23/romney-voter-fraud-allegations-loom-as-general-election-liability/#ixzz213iTVdBc

Despite the initial lack of interest in the issue, if Romney secures the Republican nomination — which appears increasingly likely — supporters of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign are bound to seek out low-hanging fruit to blemish the former governor’s squeaky-clean public image.Election law experts contacted by The Daily Caller explained the possible legal justifications for Romney registering to vote at his son’s house, but also noted that significant facts must be established before the presidential candidate can be vindicated of wrongdoing.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/23/romney-voter-fraud-allegations-loom-as-general-election-liability/#ixzz213isGTE4 
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/23/romney-voter-fraud-allegations-loom-as-general-election-liability/#ixzz213iTVdBc

Justin Levitt, an election law expert at Loyola Law School, told TheDC that the statute of limitations for prosecuting the alleged crime is likely five years in Massachusetts and five years for federal charges.Residency for voting purposes “gets tricky in the context of moves,” cautioned Levitt. “One can acquire domicile very, very quickly (if the place where you are is the place you principally call “home”, at the moment), and once acquired, you need to have the intention to firmly call somewhere else “home” (at least for the moment) in order to establish domicile somewhere else.”For example, said Levitt, “[if] I sell my house, and move in with my family, my family’s house may become my legal ‘home.’ And even if I leave the next week on an extended trip — days or months or years — and even if I have other houses that I’ve purchased elsewhere, if I don’t intend another location to be ‘home,’ but think of myself as still traveling, my family’s house may still be my legal domicile years later, even if I only actually slept there for a week.”Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a former member of the Federal Election Commission, explained that “lots of people own second homes in other states but remain registered in their home states.”“If he intended to maintain his residency at his son’s home and did not take up the accouterments of residency elsewhere, he would still be legal,” said von Spakovsky.Von Spakovsky, who also worked at the Justice Department on voting issues, noted that one important piece of evidence in establishing Romney’s legal right to vote would be his tax returns. “Election officials will also look at tax returns as crucial evidence in residency disputes,” he said. “Where an individual declares himself to be a resident for tax purposes, thus subjecting himself to applicable state income taxes, is usually decisive on this issue.”J. Christian Adams, a former voting rights specialist at the Justice Department, told TheDC that voter registration fraud is “very tough” to prosecute. Adams, who has tried similar cases, added that “you need almost something as absurd as the photo to win them.”

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Daily Kos blogger makes the case for prosecuting Romney



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/15/1110182/-Mitt-Romney-is-a-felon-Arrest-him


Mitt Romney is a felon. Arrest him.


I'll be quick about this.
On August 12, 2011, Mitt Romney filed this report with the Federal Election Commission. On the 27th page it states:
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 rolewith any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.
This statement is false. A lie.
As Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshal reported on July 10th, Securities and Exchange Commission filings show Romney listed as the CEO, president, and sole owner of Bain capital. You are not "retired" if you are the CEO and president of a company. Other SEC docs indicate that Mitt Romney drew a salary of "over $100,000" for being CEO of Bain. That, by definition, is not being retired. These SEC documents also state that Romney's "principal occupation" was being the CEO of Bain Capital. That, by definition, is not being retired.
Being CEO and President is not having" any active role" or not being involved "in any way". If you are the sole owner of a private entity, you are legally responsible for that entity. You are "involved" in that entity. Had Bain Capital participated in an illegal action, Mitt Romney would have been held financially and possibly criminally liable for that action.
Even with this just this evidence, Mitt Romney ought to be arrested for lying to a federal agent. A crime that carries a penalty of 5 years maximum in prison.
More beyond the cover for those who seek it.
But for all the legal twisting and squirming that Mitt's surrogates have been doing to protect him from the legal jeopardy that he put himself in- they cannot escape the fact that Mitt Romney, in sworn testimony to Massachusetts election officials, stated that he served on the board of the LifeLike corporation and returned to Massachusetts to serve in that capacity after he left "retired" in 1999 to save the Olympics. Presumably and almost certainly, he served on its board because he owned shares in the company through his ownership of Bain Capital.
That by definition is "being involved" in a Bain Capital entity. Even he served on LifeLike's board in the capacity of an individual investor (and not in his Bain capacity), he would still be "involved" with this Bain entity as an individual investor.
There is much, much more evidence out there to contradict Romney's claim (which came today in the form of Ed Gillespie's PREPOSTEROUS claim that Mitt Romney "retired retroactively" from Bain Capital. But that's not what this blurb is about.
This blurb is about arresting Mitt Romney.
Either he lied to the SEC and state of Massachusetts in the early years of the past decade, or he lied to the FEC on August 12, 2011. Mitt Romney from the information available to us, is guilty of a federal crime. He needs to go to court to defend his innocence.
Now, I'm not suggesting anyone attempt a citizen's arrest of Mitt Romney (the Secret Service would quickly stop you). What I'm suggesting is that we start asking questions of the FEC and Justice Department. Perhaps we should start by phoning in, and asking the FEC these questions:
1) Has the FEC investigated the discrepancies between Mitt Romney's FEC filing in 2011 and Bain's SEC filings in the early 2000's?
2) If the FEC has not begun an investigation (or the person on the phone won't state whether they have or not) ask whether this person knows about these discrepancies.
3) If they do not know, inform them of the discrepancies by stating: "In the early 2000's Bain Capital listed Mitt Romney as their owner and CEO, who drew a salary of over $100,000. Yet in 2011, Mitt Romney filed a document with the FEC stating that he retired from Bain in 1999. It appears likely that Mitt Romney lied to the FEC in 2011. The FEC should investigate these discrepancies."
4) If they do know of the discrepancies, ask why they have yet to launch an investigation, and state that they should launch an investigation.
I believe we should start a political and organizational movement to give the government the political will to arrest Mitt Romney. I should state upfront that I don't necessarily want to lead that movement, but I am willing to lend my voice and limited knowledge of politics to it. I will also add that the Obama campaign is absolutely NOT the correct vehicle to express this frustration through or toward. Asking a sitting president to call for the arrest of his political opponent looks weak and in the long run could set a dangerous precedent.
I believe the correct vehicle for this movement is the Occupy movement. Think about it. A wealthy member of the 1 percent believes he is above the law and would have us sit idly by while he clearly and flagrantly violates the law. If Joe poor man lies to the DEA during a drug bust, he goes to jail- even if he was just a witness to the illegal activity. However, if Mitt Romney lies to the FEC just because he wants to be president, he goes on scott-free, possibly to the presidency. We should at least expect the people running to lead us to be truthful.
If we don't demand some type of justice here, then what are we about? What is this nation about? Would it be lies, and justice for everyone but the privileged?
That is all.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Boston Globe isn't the first media outlet to point out that it sure looked like Mitt was fibbing about leaving Bain Capital in February 1999, but it's getting more attention this time, since they've got the Bain Capital documents to prove it and it looks like that little lie might actually be a big felonious whopper. According to the Globe, although Mitt Romney states on his federal financial disclosure forms that he left the company before the Y2K panic came and went, the company's filings with the SEC tell a different story — they show that Romney was listed as Bain's CEO until 2002.
But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed [after 1999] by Bain Capital state he remained the firm's "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president."
Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney's state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain "executive" in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.
So, why does this matter? First, it shows that it sure looks like Romney was actually involved in activities that the GOP Presidential candidate has disavowed — that thing about the fetus disposal company, layoffs and downsizing and outsourcing of jobs — even though the paper trail shows that his income as a CEO was, according to a former Bain employee, suspiciously low. For Romney's sake, let's hope that this all gets sorted out, because according to FactCheck, if Romney had falsified federal financial disclosure forms, he's got some 'splaining to do. Because that's a felony.


Massive Romney IRA Still Sparks Unanswered Questions--$100,000,000? in a tax deferred IRA account??? It's Incredible!!





Posted: 
Romneyira
Romney's Massive Retirement Account Remains Unexplained
As Mitt Romney’s refusal to release further tax returns becomes a central issue in the presidential race, a related question first raised in January remains stubbornly unanswered: How did Romney build such a massive Individual Retirement Account?
The size of the GOP presidential candidate's IRA is "very unusual," said Rebecca Wilkins, senior counsel for federal tax policy at the non-profit advocacy group Citizens for Tax Justice. "The Romney campaign has not been that forthcoming."
According to Romney’s disclosure documents, the candidate has between $20.7 million and $101.6 million parked tax-free in his IRA -- a significant proportion of his total wealth, as noted by Mark Maremont in the Wall Street Journal.
It’s a whopping sum by most standards; according to the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute, the average IRA held $67,438 dollars in 2010.
Since that figure was first reported, questions about Romney's IRA have continued to dog his campaign; a recent column by William Cohan in Bloomberg View and a thorough investigation of Romney's finances in Vanity Fair both cast a skeptical eye on the account.
There are limits to the amount of money individuals can contribute to their IRAs. Before Romney was elected Massachusetts governor, federal law capped annual pre-tax IRA contributions at $2,000 and annual 401(k) retirement contributions at $30,000 with a company match as the Journal notes. Cohan reported that Bain used what’s known as a SEP-IRA during Romney's time as head of Bain, which has a slightly higher yearly maximum contribution of $30,000.
Given these contribution limits, experts are scratching their heads about the rapid growth of the account in the decade since Romney officially left the private equity firm Bain Capital.
“It’s extremely unusual,” said George Yin, a professor of law and taxation at the University of Virginia and former chief of staff of the U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Taxation. “The IRA, since its inception, has had very clear limits on the amount that can be contributed each year. And it's way less than $100 million.”
The Romney campaign has offered little explanation; Andrea Saul, a Romney campaign spokesperson, did not respond to a request seeking comment for this story. In the Journal report, a Romney aide said the IRA accumulated 'through annual contributions, rollovers of sums in other retirement plans, and successful investments."
But there are a few specific theories that attempt to explain the account's growth.
The first is that Romney acquired stock from his Bain investments -- specifically high-risk, high-reward shares that had a low initial value (and thus didn’t violate the contribution limits) but paid off when the companies became more profitable. If he filled his IRA with these stocks, that could account for some of the exponential growth, as Cohan notes.
“Even though the contribution limits are small, if the stock growth is tremendous, you could possibly get up to something close to [$100 million],” said Yin, adding “though it still seems amazing to me.”
If that's the explanation, than Romney’s partners at Bain would likely have seen similar returns, and might even have similar amounts in their IRAs. “Why aren’t all the Bain partners coming forward and saying ‘yeah, we all have 100 million IRA’s too?” Cohan asked in an interview with The Huffington Post.
Another possible explanation, noted by Felix Salmon in a recent Reuters blog post, is that the growth is not from shares in Bain investments Romney shoved into his IRA, but rather shares in the private equity firm itself of which Romney was the sole shareholder until he left in 2002.
A sophisticated but legal method of shielding income from taxes, which involves investing an IRA in what is known as “blocker corporations,” as pointed out in Vanity Fair, may also have played a role.
By law, most investment income that flows into an IRA is tax-free with the notable exception of income that comes from running a business, said Ed Slott of Ed Slott and Co., a tax expert who specializes in IRAs. That income is subject to a special tax known as the Unrelated Business Income Tax.
But one way to avoid that tax is to set up a blocker corporation, an intermediary company that on paper own the companies. That allows income received from the investments to be counted as an investment dividend and thus avoids taxes.
“It’s an extraordinary maneuver,” said Slott.
If Romney's IRA does indeed use blocker corporations, it means “he created this buffer, this intermediary entity to turn what would be taxable income into tax-deferred income in the IRA,” Slott said. "That’s not what most people [are able to] do.”
There’s another big question that leaves experts scratching their heads: Why does Romney have all that money in a retirement account to begin with?
While IRAs are tax exempt now, by law Romney must begin withdrawing cash by age 70 and a half. When he does, “the withdrawal receives no special tax breaks. It is subject to ordinary income tax rates, which right now are as high as 35 percent,” said Slott.
“I think it is unusual to earn these profits in IRA accounts,” for precisely this reason, said Richard Bronstein, a tax lawyer at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. “It’s more common to earn this in taxable accounts, because capital gains rates are not really high.”
It the money came from his income as a private equity chief, it would be taxed at the current carried interest rate of 15 percent, rather than the income rate of up to 35 percent.
What’s more, said Bronstein, “if he has $100 million in his IRA, it’s not very accessible. You accumulate a fortune in a tax-exempt account, but you can’t use it to buy a boat or an elevator for your car.”
So far, Romney has said little publicly about his retirement account, leaving experts and the public with little information beyond speculation. “Nobody really knows what the explanation is,” said Slott. “Everybody’s guessing.”
One thing is clear. While most Americans have the ability to open an IRA, very few have the opportunity to engage in the sort of scrupulous tax planning Romney has shown.
“Romney is an aggressive tax planner,” said Wilkins.”He’s not just collecting his paycheck and dividends from Bain, he’s planning his affairs in the most tax advantageous [way possible].”
Still, Wilkins added, “I used to be a C.P.A. in private practice. It was not unusual for someone to roll over a $3,000 IRA. But $20 or $100 million? It’s unfathomable.”

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Is Romney Stupid?










caveat ... Bad News Does Not Get Better With Time--Dan Rather

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy