2

casey casey

January 30, 2020
SECURITY

In their response letter, the government’s ethics experts also strongly advise against transferring property rights to adult children, as this would not be enough to avoid conflict, it said.

In their response letter, the government’s ethics experts also strongly advise against transferring property rights to adult children, as this would not be enough to avoid conflict, it said.

Critics fear that Trump could mix state and private deals. Trump wants to move into the White House in just over a month and his business as an entrepreneur is still not in order. Two letters are now appearing in the media that show the growing concern: one is from 23 Democratic senators, the other directly from the government’s ethics department, both of whom are committed to the entrepreneur’s business and his further plans – as far as they are known are – for highly problematic. When Trump takes office on January 20, “serious conflicts” are programmed between the interests of the country and the financial interests.

In order to avoid conflict and uphold constitutional principles, MPs are calling on Trump to sell his companies and put the proceeds into an independent-managed trust. They strongly advise against family members taking over the business. The submission for this letter was provided by the government ethics authority, which is National Public Radio (NPR).

Tom Carper, who represents the US state of Delaware in the US Senate and has chaired the Committee on Homeland Security since 2013, had made a request to the authority. He is one of the signatories of the letter to Trump. In their response letter, the government’s ethics experts also strongly advise against transferring property rights to adult children, as this would not be enough to avoid conflict, it said. “The full extent of (Trump’s) finances remains unclear, partly because he was the first presidential candidate to refuse to publish his tax return.” Given the importance of the office, they too advise that the future president stay away separating conflicting assets or transferring them to a holding company. The bureau had no way against Trump to force him to do so, but “every modern president has accepted the recommendations so far.” The statutes of the authority for ethics are not legally binding on the president.

In return, however, a clause in the US Constitution applies, according to which “companies are not allowed to accept payments or gifts from foreign state-owned companies,” as Senators Trump reminded. According to research by CNN, the multi-billion dollar real estate entrepreneur has a network of over 500 companies worldwide. Either they belong to him or he has a position there. So far he has made no move to separate his office from his company and his family. Trump wanted to transfer his business to his sons Donald Jr. and Eric.

He himself wanted to stay out of business matters during his tenure. He promised that in the election campaign. Sales were not an issue, and the concrete plans for how his empire should continue should be presented at a major press conference on Thursday.write my biology essay service But as Trump announced on Twitter a day before the MPs wrote, this has now been canceled. Instead, he announced a press conference “in the near future”.

These are “busy times,” he writes. Elijah Cummings, who represents the US state of Maryland in the US House of Representatives, finds the announcement “very worrying”. Trump cannot even keep to his own schedule, CNN quoted the Democrats as saying. The elected president seems to be pushing the issues aside.

But by the time he took office he had to clarify the matter. Today, Wednesday, Cummings invites you to a briefing with other ethics experts. Norman Eisen, the ethics advisor to US President Barack Obama, and Richard Painter, ethics lawyer under US President George Bush, find in an open letter in the ” Washington Post “harsh words for Trump’s plan to appoint his sons as his governors in his empire: handing business over to sons is” a common route in corruption. ” Busy or not, Trump will have to come up with something. Source: ntv.de “” “Mar-a-Lago: 118 rooms, golf course, five tennis courts.

Trump is said not to have saved on the interior either: the finest marble and lots of gold. (Photo: REUTERS) As US President, Donald Trump has hit rock bottom. For the businessman, however, things could hardly be better. His private club in Florida is earning more than ever – largely thanks to his ministry. The Trump effect seems to have fizzled out: the dollar is sinking, the promised job miracle is not in sight and instead of the economic boom that has been promised, the US economy is now growing more slowly.

On top of that, Donald Trump’s political faux pas are now increasing. The US president’s reputation has hit rock bottom. He should be all the more pleased that his business with the President’s Bonus is at least going better than ever. The best example is his club in Mar-a-Lago, Florida.

The swanky Spanish-style palace not only serves the US President as a winter residence, as a refuge from the cold days in Washington D.C. He also invites you to press conferences there and receives state visits, such as China’s President Xi Jinping most recently. In addition, the “Southern White House”, as observers now call the place, is an exclusive club for the rich and famous of the country. And they are happy that since this year they have not only been able to indulge in luxury in return for their substantial membership fees, but also have the chance to catch a glimpse of the club owner from time to time, who is none other than him President of the USA himself. That has its price.

While interested parties had to shell out $ 100,000 just for admission to the club in 2016, it has doubled since this year. That doesn’t bother anyone. Not only does the club benefit, and with it the owner Trump. The many charities that organize their charity events here are also happy.

Their tickets have been in much greater demand since the owner has also been President of the USA – a pound that the organizers are using unrestrainedly. Trump is the big draw for visitors. If you are lucky, you will catch a charity dinner where the president himself speaks. Even that is possible. The organizers are satisfied. An association against ovarian cancer raised $ 425,000 this year, up from $ 371,000 the year before, writes the Washington Post.

Lunch cost the club 60,000, compared to $ 45,000 last year. “I’ve got a lot of people from Miami that I haven’t had in the past. I think they just wanted to see what Mar-a-Lago is all about,” the paper quotes Jennifer McGrath, director of ” Hearing the Ovarian Cancer Whisper “. Wall Street representatives were also guests at the club this year. Although Trump was still campaigning against hedge funds in March, Mar-a-Lago hosted the Palm Beach Hedge Fund Association and an investment congress within just three days in March. In the near future, the money machine will be running slower because the large crowd is leaving Florida for the north.

But the trend is likely to continue in the coming year. Organizers are already planning the 2018 season. And they have a particularly keen eye for dates that could coincide with a possible Trump stay in the club. Trump will – if he is still in office – remain a ticket magnet. There is no telling that he will stop playing the generous host. It’s too obvious that he is enjoying his role.

Instead of making himself scarce in order not to offer a target for allegations about a possible conflict of interest, he looks for the spotlight at some events with no restraint. In February, Trump was the speaker at the Versailles themed ball of the American Red Cross. While he was at the lectern, waiters and musicians wandered around wearing wigs from the Marie Antoinette era. “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a room that looked nicer – maybe at our wedding – right, Melania?” Trump asked his wife in front of the assembled guests. The former reality TV star loves the role of entertainer. The “Washington Post” has counted 45 events in Mar-a-Lago since its inauguration, including ten major events. In the high season between December and March, Trump visited nine of them as president.

The season has also shown that the Trump effect could turn into the opposite, the newspaper reports. Some Trump critics, in some cases demonstratively, did not buy tickets to express their distance from the president. However, the proportion of critics seems to be significantly smaller than those who are attracted by a potential encounter with the president, so in the end a stale taste remains. A US president who sits down somewhere and thereby drives the money machine of his own company is an absolute novelty, writes the Washington Post.

It makes no difference that he has given up the management of his economic empire. It is still his property and he is still the beneficiary. Mar-a-Lago is the best evidence that exactly what business ethicists feared has happened: Donald Trump’s property harbors a major conflict of interest with his office. That is precisely why the US ethics authority had demanded that the future president should sell his billion-dollar empire. But after more than 100 days in office, that is no longer an option. On the contrary, Trump seems to prefer nothing more than to throw his celebrity factor in the balance and gild his name further. The Association against Ovarian Cancer had no luck with Trump this year.

The president was not included. Next year, the organizers will take a more strategic approach. Then the benefit dinner should not take place on Thursday, but on Friday.

It is a better day for guests and the chances of getting the Trump bonus are greater, they say. “If Trump comes on Friday afternoon, I guarantee he’ll snow in,” said cancer association chair McGrath. “I mean, it’s only one floor up.” Source: ntv.de “For a long time, the banks knew of harmful share transactions for taxpayers. (Photo: picture alliance / dpa) In the scandal of dubious share transactions, one thing emerged: the banks have known for decades that the tax authorities are paying extra on certain deals. Perhaps the masterminds deliberately let the taxpayer bleed. The louder the MPs ask, the more quietly Matthias Geurts speaks. The lawyer of the commercial law firm Noerr whispers into the microphone so softly that the audience is on the Have to bend forward the gallery of room E400 in the Paul-Löbe-Haus in order to understand it.

This is where the committee of inquiry set up by the Bundestag for questionable share deals by banks meets. With the so-called cum-ex deals, the financial houses are said to have cheated the tax authorities by up to 12 billion euros for more than a decade, experts estimate. The finance ministries under Hans Eichel (SPD), Peer Steinbrück (SPD) and Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) knew about the deal, but only closed the loophole in tax law at the beginning of 2012.

The committee of inquiry should clarify why. At their first interrogation on Thursday, the MPs interrogated the former leaders of the banking association (BdB), including Geurts. He is one of the hitherto unknown masterminds of the scandal, a silent co-inventor of the laws that cost the state billions.

First he worked as a consultant in the banking association, then as a tax expert at Deutsche Bank. There he co-designed the crucial templates that were later sent to the Ministry of Finance. Whenever details are involved, Geurts refers to gaps in memory. Nevertheless, it emerges from his statements and the statements of the other BdB representatives as well as the documents that the committee has made public: The banks have known for decades that unlawful tax certificates can arise when trading stocks around the dividend date, with which the tax authorities can be cheated. There is much to suggest that they deliberately bleed the state.

At first the banking association hesitated for years to propose a solution. Then he presented a draft that did not solve the fundamental problem, but continued it. In the meantime, the banks have knitted a business model out of the loophole in the law. The banking association warned its members 30 years ago that there could be problems with certain share deals: “Such cases” must “be handled with great care” in order to “avoid liability of the credit institute because of an incorrectly issued tax certificate “, it says in a BdB letter from 1980.

The MPs criticize that there is hardly any mention of protecting taxpayers in the BdB documents. As long as someone buys a share directly, everything is good: on the reporting date, the buyer receives a share of the company’s profits, the so-called dividend. The company pays the tax on it, and his bank issues a certificate that the tax has actually been paid. It only becomes problematic when resourceful stockbrokers start to cheat: They trade the paper on the due date via short sales. The seller undertakes to deliver a share that he did not have at the time of sale. The buyer therefore buys a share with (cum) dividend entitlement before the reporting date, but only receives it after the reporting date without (ex) dividend. The short seller must therefore make a compensation payment.

Because he bought the stock before the cut-off date, his bank issues him a tax certificate too – even though he never paid the tax, so the banks start selling billions of shares around the cut-off date for purely tax reasons. The deals only serve to plunder the state by double certification and reimbursement of capital gains tax once paid. The profits of the banks were financed exclusively by the tax authorities. This is made possible by a system error in tax law: the payment and certification of the tax are carried out by various bodies.

In this way, it is not possible to check whether everyone who submits a certificate has actually paid – the banks recognize the problem. As early as May 1997, Deutsche Bank wrote a letter to the BdB suggesting that the tax authorities should be presented with a proposed formulation. But that didn’t happen until December 2002 – more than five years later. MEPs want to know why that took so long. Geurts has no answer to that.

Just as little as his then boss at the BdB, Hans-Jürgen Krause. At that time, duplicate certificates only occurred in individual cases. “I haven’t heard that individual banks have knitted a business model out of it,” says Krause.

casey casey