Fair   59.0F  |  Forecast »
Bookmark and Share Email this page Email Print this page Print

Hedge fund insider looks at Romney’s tax returns

Oct 30, 2012 - 09:10 AM

Against the advice of others, I am going to weigh in on Mr. Romney’s decision to release only his 2010 and 2011 tax returns.

  To quote the Republican nominee, “That’s all that’s necessary for people to understand something about my finances.” He is “simply not enthusiastic, about giving the Obama campaign, “hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort and lie about.”

  Romney has known he was going to run for President for several years now. The tradition that all presidential candidates and their cabinet members release 10 years of tax returns is not news.

  This standard for disclosure was set by Mitt’s father, the widely respected George Romney Jr. The senior Romney released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for the Republican nomination against Barry Goldwater in 1964.

  Since 1964, if you wanted to be confirmed by Congress to serve in the president’s cabinet, you had to pony up 10 years of returns. Romney can be our president but he would never be confirmed as a member of his own cabinet. What irony.

  Two years of tax returns is a terrible standard. It would allow and encourage any rich guy to pick any rising political star who shares his views and pay him an annual “consulting fee” of a million dollars a year. The candidate’s job would be to go out and build the base to be elected.

  Two years before running for office, the contributions would stop. The candidate then releases two years of tax returns and the public would be no wiser for it.

  I am willing to bet the ranch that Romney’s team required the vice president nominee, Paul Ryan, to release more than two years of tax returns

  The reason Romney is not releasing more returns is because tax experts would be able to prove he utilized aggressive tax strategies that would prove toxic to his campaign, rendering him unelectable.

  Mr. Romney has an IRA account that is worth between $20 million and $101 million. Mr. Romney started at Bain in 1977. He claims he left to head up the Olympics in Salt Lake in 1999. The maximum contribution you could make to an IRA during that time was $30,000 to $50,000.

  It is easy to assume Romney put in the maximum into his IRA each year.

  The math works something like this: 22 years, times $50,000, equals $1,100,000. How does $1.1 million grow to more than $20 million in 34 years? Romney placed undervalued assets into his IRA. When the assets reached their fair value, he sold.

  When I was in the hedge fund business, I saw any number of managers place the hot IPOs into their personal IRA accounts instead of their hedge funds where they belonged. (Full disclosure: I never owned a stock outside of my hedge fund because, without disclosure to the client, it is dishonest and unethical.)

  Since Romney was in the private equity business, he would have to put his IRA into an offshore account to avoid the “unrelated business income tax” at a 35 percent rate.

  That is what most hedge fund managers did. That is not illegal.

  While I have no doubt Romney paid every penny of tax under the law, I have grave doubts about his campaign’s claim that he did not benefit from his offshore accounts. Otherwise, these numbers don’t add up. And all of us who worked on Wall Street know it.

  If Romney releases all 10 years, we will find he took advantage of the tax laws and nothing else. But if Mitt did what I am accusing him of doing, I don’t think his father would approve and he should not be our President.

• • •

  Joe Aaron is a retired hedge fund manager and current software finance-investor. He lives in Sonoma.

 

Please note: Your full name will be published with your comment.

Old to new | New to old
Oct 30, 2012 01:13 pm
 Posted by  Wayne Hardy

Correct me if I am wrong but won't Romney pay 35% tax
on the IRA's once he starts drawing on it at age 70.5?

Oct 31, 2012 07:34 am
 Posted by  Phineas Worthington

With regards to tax law, in Federalist no. 62 Madison stated,"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."

Ten IRS agents can have ten different interpretations of the code. It is astonishing that a free society tolerates such a byzantine complex code that embraces and codifies inequality.

If all individuals were equally taxed, this would likely be a non-issue.

Oct 31, 2012 01:34 pm
 Posted by  Tom Sokolowski

Intriguing letter Joe, thanks for shedding a little light on Romney’s secret financial world. For all of Romney’s bragging about his business expertise, when it comes to his personal wealth, he sure is bashful. As Newt Gingrich put it during the primary season, “I don’t know of any American president who has had a Swiss bank account.” To be fair though, Romney also has secret accounts in the Caymans and in Bermuda.

Phineas, our current progressive tax systems tries to address our inequalities of income. Your suggestion of a “flat tax” isn’t fair to the poor. It would have to be at least a 20% to 24% tax, which would be a big tax increase for our two lowest tax brackets: 10% & 15%. It would also be a big tax break for the upper brackets: 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%. How is that fair?

Also, a flat tax as a percentage of income would affect the poor unfairly. A 20% tax on a family that earns $34,000 or less (40% of American families) is a greater percentage burden than on a family that earns $100,000.

Fortunately, our progressive tax system allows those with the least amount of money to keep a little more of it. Most economists agree that the best use of money is to put it into the hands of those with least amount of money, because they will put it right back into the economy. When you give the super rich another tax break, they just start another business in China. A progressive tax, like the one we currently have, is simply good economics.

Oct 31, 2012 02:48 pm
 Posted by  Wayne Hardy

Tom is forgetting that those lower income brackets get
back nearly every dollar that was taken out of their
checks in the form of a refund. And, in many cases
they get a refund that was larger than the Fed. Income
Tax that was withheld from them for the year.

Oct 31, 2012 08:18 pm
 Posted by  Phineas Worthington

Tom, only a progressive could argue that equality is unfair.

Nov 1, 2012 08:21 am
 Posted by  Lou Sylvestri

Those grapes are really "SOUR"!

Add your comment: