As you may recall, the last time we visited Filthy Harry he had as a defender a certain david, who repeatedly insisted that we didn’t understand the nature of property transactions under an LLC. According to david, there was no there there.
Investors Business Daily seems also to be unaware of the special, Democrat-excusing qualities of the LLC in question, which is a shame, considering that it’s pitched to people who are investors, some of whom may be interested somehow in LLCs or real estate.
It seems that there are likely a number of shoes left to drop, and that the MSM’s job in this regard will be to disregard the story, at least until after the elections. IBD’s story compares the way that this story is being treated in the MSM and in Congress to Curt Weldon, Mark Foley and Newt Gingrich.
There, there, david: it seems like there’s a there there.
But….but….BUT!!
Dan, david is an expert in LLC’s! I know this because he’s said so about 3 dozen times. How can you or Investor’s Daily, which is, no doubt, a rethuglican shill rag, question the expertise of david, who is a real expert in LLC’s and Senate ethics and all things Reidian?
Because he says so, that’s why!
Hey! Politicians are dirtbags? Who’da thunk it?
Hey! Democrat dirtbag pols get a free pass from the MSM in the runup to elections? Who’da thunk it?
Just more of that Rethuglican culture of corruption, right?
What’s that? Harry Reid is a Democrat?
YOU LIE!!!11!!!
Come on, admit it. You have no idea what you are talking about. It’s obvious. You still haven’t called an accountant. Why do you guys keep doing this? You can BS your way through all the opinion stuff, but this is an actual thing that people KNOW. You sound silly.
And…like clockwork the digital looping machine that is david makes another appearance, as predicted, looping the same old, same old.
Predictability, thy name is partisan.
PS: told ya, Dan! david is one of them there experts. Y’all should just slink away from his expert brilliance.
It’s one thing for you all to disagree and argue with me, I expect that. But when you deny basic facts without even bothering to do the tiniest bit of due diligence just because the topic is unfamiliar, you embarrass yourselves. In public.
David’s response: “I can’t believe that IBD would have such strong opinions on something they know nothing about. Aren’t they embarrassed to disagree with me? Look, I’m trying to keep an open mind about this story. I could be convinced otherwise, but there’s simply no way that any Democrat ever would be corrupt in any way. This story is simply a defense mechanism practised by conservatives to allow them to ignore and deny reality, which is increasingly at odds with their worldview.”
I talked to an accountant, David, and he said he knew nothing about Senate ethics rules, that I should talk to a lawyer. I was really surprised that someone as all-knowing as you would give me such bad advice.
This is patently false.
The rest of the editorial is innuendo and conjecture, not my field.
What “other shoe” could be about to drop on this one?
Looks like Harry made a good real estate investment, as did every American who owned real estate between 1998 and 2004, but failed to report it properly.
Are you saying there’s more to this deal than meets the eye?
Not only does the Partisan Digital Looping Machine continue to run ad nauseum he’s now added a new definition of facts.
He’s a clue for you, loopy. If it’s your opinion that the nature of the ownership tranfer to an LLC is no big deal that would still be your opinion. The very fact that many people do this all the time doesn’t discount the suspicion that Reid may have deliberately hidden his interest in the transaction. The fact that he’s amending his ethics report (while, at the same time, reimbursing his campaign personally for some money paid to people at his luxury condo) confirms that he violated ethics rules.
You can continue to play the snooty, arrogant expert, but try not to get “facts” and “opinion” mixed up. One more time, in case you were too busy admiring your expertise in the hall mirror: your opinion about LLC transactions is irrelevant. What is relevant is the admitted violation of senate ethics rules and whether, as a result, there might just be some hanky-panky goin on.
No doubt my efforts are wasted and the Partisan Digital Looping Machine is resetting as we speak.
1) I’m the Expert
2) You are all clueless
3) Consult a CPA
4) These are the facts, why won’t you all just shut up?
Go ahead, loop away…
I see my work here is done. Up, up and away.
I know alot of people who bought real estate during that time, most of it was good investments. But none of them were able to triple their money because the government swapped prime real estate to them in return for swampland, and none of them had lobbyist sons who helped swing that deal and get the properties rezoned. My accountant had never heard of such a thing either. Funny that.
david, I’m beginning to see the point about you being some kind of Alinskybot.
Anyway, you’re trying to have the argument solely on your terms so you can tell us all to shut up. The fact remains that Reid avoided making the required disclosure that he had been awarded a stake in an LLC controlled by Jay Brown. It’s somewhat obvious why this might be so: To avoid transparency regarding the true extent of his financial entanglement with Mr. Brown.
No one has to be a CPA or a real estate developer to understand that.
David look here.
If that’s too broad for you, here, here, here, and here.
In case it’s too much work to clik the links the precis is this: Transferring property to LLCs is common practice and there are many people in the world who will help someone do it.
So we are left with the realization that not only does “expert” david not understand the difference between “opinion” and “fact” but also needs to brush up on “innuendo” and “conjecture.”
However, he does admit to not being an expert at something, so I guess that’s some kind of progress. (nah!)
Neither my CPA nor my lawyer is going to help me with Word Power…
Maybe david could hire actus as counsel?
I guess loopy can’t answer why the Senator in question feels it necessary to “amend” his ethics disclosure – after all he did nothing wrong and didn’t need to report any of this. He was dealing with strictly apolitical people, had nothing done the average Joe or Jane couldn’t easily have done for them, and is more than happy to discuss this with the press.
Total non-story.
One time I called a guy a fucker at a bar, and after I left found myself surrounded by him and his pals. I voluntarily offered to amend my remark, but they beat the crap out of me anyway.
And Monkyboy/chimp-anus could be their village idiot.
Beacuse, you know, it takes a village to….figure out…big words and crap.
I dunno. Consider the village.
, he said, sounding silly.
david: I thought we had already determined that you are hostile to the point of being out loud funny. Only a moron would keep coming back here to get slapped. Jane hates you, right? You must have done something wrong over a fakeliardog to pull this detail. Wanna share?
I have to agree with Dr. Steve on this one.
I isn’t illegal to lobby to have your land rezoned.
And Vegas is “the fastest growing city in America.” Having a chunk of land there appreciate $700,000 in six years doen’t seem unusual.
The “MSM” has given this story as much play as George Allen’s failure to disclose his stock options…I read about Harry’s troubles on the front pages of both The Wahington Post and The New York Times.
I don’t think there’s another shoe to drop here…
At least one difference being that Allen’s stock options are losing him money. No question that he had a nefarious plan to hide losing stock options from the ethics committee. He appears to be in technical violation of the rules and has asked the committee for a ruling.
This is not a Democratic/Republican thing. I want to see transparancy for all of congress so that we all can know who may be benefiting from any relationships. If you have been around this place, youy know that several people here have taken corrupt republicans to task.
We could probably agree that neither Reid or Allen are anywhere near Jefferson and his “frozen” thousands.
That is not true. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I think it’s very cute, this whole “pretending like you know stuff” thing you people do. Can I look forward to more clueless remarks about financial scandals from you? I hope so, because it is positively hilarious.
ps- Dr Steve, you too are obviously ignorant about this matter. I just don’t get it. Why won’t you people call someone you trust who is knowledgable about this and ask him about it? I don’t mean pretend call, like bmoe and bjtexas. I understand you want this to be a scandal and all, but, really, this is getting ridiculous.
And, by the way, where are the freaking CPAs, Lawyers and real estate developers who read this piece of crap blog? There’s got to be at least one out there. Help these guys out, please.
looping….looping…looping…looping…looping
Just plain loopy.
Face it david, you have reached the point where your comments are no better than a 2 year old’s head to floor banging tantrum in a supermarket. The only thing missing are the tear streaks and the snot balls.
As for George Allen, move on over to CNN while I quote:
If we find that he’s lying, then there might be something more nefarious. If he’s telling the truth, then admonish him for a technical violation and move on.
DrSteve, Dan, BMoe, BBH, ahem, et al, we are all “ignorant” by david’s definition. One wonders why he expends so much energy saying the same thing over and over and over and…if this blog is such a “piece of crap.” Why does he continue to contribute to the befouling by having his whiny, girlish and or toddlerish little hissy fits.
And, BTW, nimrod, in not one of my many comments on this topic did I even hint that I consulted a CPA or anyone else because, if you had actually read the comments you would know that my contention is that the technical details of transfered ownership to LLC are FUCKING IRRELEVANT to the ethical question.
Now slither away and have your girlish tantrum over at huffpo where it’s the norm.
looping…looping…looping…looping…looping
loopy
you’re right, that was bmoe 2 times. I thought the 2nd one was you. Sometimes it’s hard to tell you guys apart.
Are you feeling that feeling again. You know, the one where you are typing stuff, but not really knowing anything about the topic at hand. Think about it. Do you really understand stock option compensation? Hint: no. But, I guess you are willing to take Allen’s word. Why is that? Do you know him personally?
Again, talk to someone you trust who understands these things. I’ll give you 3 hints:
1. He didn’t lose money
2. They weren’t worthless
3. He had an undisclosed conflict of the exact type the disclosure rules are meant to expose.
You may now commence denial and stream of insults. Good luck.
By the way, I’m not saying Allen is lying. I can’t read his mind. It’s just as likely he doesn’t understand it either. However, he does have, I presume, fairly expensive advisers who do understand, and they know better. Also, Allen’s nondisclosure of a conflict of interest is clearly a more egregious offense than Reid’s overdisclosure of a legitimate transaction that posed no conflict of interest. Were you honest, and understanding of the issues at hand, you would agree.
Hey, that looks like fun, can I try?
Do you really understand the land swap and rezoning issues? Hint: no. But, I guess you are willing to take Reid’s word. Why is that? Do you know him personally?
Again, talk to someone you trust who understands these things. I’ll give you 3 hints:
1. He made alot of money
2. He is trying to amend his financial statement
3. He had an undisclosed conflict of the exact type the disclosure rules are meant to expose.
You may now commence denial and stream of insults. Good luck.
1. He made alot of money
Both ends of this deal were with unrelated parties at market value. I defy you to show me even one of your BS right wing sources that claims otherwise.
2. He is trying to amend his financial statement
No, he’s not. But if you mean his Senate disclosure form, then yes, he is changing the description of an asset, but not one dollar. (Never mind the hotel tip thing, it is unrelated , nickels and dimes, and not my area)
3. He had an undisclosed conflict of the exact type the disclosure rules are meant to expose.
Every dollar was disclosed. No one has even alleged a conflict. Of course, you can make some up, but they are as substantiated as the things I hear about you having sex with neighborhood pets.
See, if you know what you are talking about, and you are right, you can actually rebut the other guy’s BS argument. You guys might try it some time.
Have you not read any of the fucking links and quotes on here? No one has proven a conflict yet, but there are definitely allegations being made, and a definite appearance of impropriety.
Expecially if you don’t bother to read his argument, and think being a sanctimonious shithead is a valid debate technique.
from Nevada Corp Planners:
Congratulations, “jpe”. You know how to google. very impressive. Now, explain how anything to do with Reid’s transaction presents either a legal problem or an ethical issue. Oh, sorry, bald-assed guesses and made-up stuff don’t count. I’ll check back to see how you do.
If this is our threshold, perhaps you ought to start explaining that hamster abusing you’ve been up to. How do you even manage that? Physically, I mean.
well, david, you forgot me. I did consult a CPA. but mainly just about your statement that people don’t sell land to their LLC’s. which is faulty at best, it’s a common practice.
However, I tend to think (and the CPA agrees)there’s not a whole lot to this story just because i doubt Harry Reid pays that much attention to detail in all his affairs. he’s got lawyers and accountants for that. things sometimes get lost, he’s ammending his disclosure/financials/whatever.
though, this is what i find curious about it:
nice how that doesn’t generate any papework, how convenient.
“Sometimes it’s hard to tell you guys apart.”
Okkkkkkkk david…I’ll bet some of your best friends are Gay, or Black…yeh Black, or even Jewish…..real all around guy over there dav-id…
“They also said they have no documents proving Mr. Reid’s stake in the company because it was an informal understanding between friends.”
– I’m having a hard time finding a clause in the ethics rules that sets aside an informal understanding between friends. Maybe you could help me out here david.
And I eat Cheetos and live in my Mom’s basement. Christ, have you ever had a real thought in your life, dude?
</blockquote>well, david, you forgot me. I did consult a CPA. but mainly just about your statement that people don’t sell land to their LLC’s. which is faulty at best, it’s a common practice.
though, this is what i find curious about it:
Okkkkkkkk david…I’ll bet some of your best friends are Gay, or Black…yeh Black, or even Jewish…..real all around guy over there dav-id…<blockquote>
I’m Jewish.
Listen, I’ll go ahead and give you the answer, because, while this is fun, it’s becoming time consuming. The problem with the AP stories and your statement here is the characterization of the transfer as a “sale”. It is not. It is a contribution. It is not even consideration given in exchange for the member’s interest, it simply constitutes basis for deduction of losses and reduction of proceeds in calculating gain on sale. The member’s interest is governed solely by the operating agreement of the LLC. There is a relationship to the contributed assets, particularly in requirements of economic substance, but it is not direct or absolute. That explains all of the “no money” and “no tax reporting” stuff for you, and why I know the AP reporter has obviously not spoken to a CPA. As far as the paperwork, people rarely do more than is required, as is the case here. There are obscure and rare exceptions to all of the above which may be used intentionally for particular tax objectives (check the box, accelerated gain recognition, etc.), but they are irrelevant here.
Of course you find it curious. You want it to be crooked and you don’t understand it well enough to realize it’s common practice. I’m just trying to help.
I’m Jewish.
– You’re right BJT….It’a looping and starting to fall further and further behind on responses…
None of which addresses Senate ethics rules. Everyone, it seems—except you—finds that under Senate ethics rules this is improper.
I know I’m not the first to point this out. You’re trying to absolve Reid under GAAP, but he’s bound by (repeat after me) Senate ethics rules.
Which is pretty much how I thought LLC’s worked, having had my brother and father involved in them in the past. However, beyond the structure of reporting, the suspicion relates to not only the failure to report the transfer (notice I didn’t say “sale”) but also to the lack of transparancies involved in the very nature of an LLC compared to outright ownership. Also, I know that in the past LLC’s have been used in tax dodging schemes due to the less than stringent rules about reporting.
Does all of this damn Reid? No! He is doing the right thing in amending his financial disclosure form. He is also going to gain some tax advantages from the sale of the land through the LLC in additon to limiting his liability for any debt or lawsuits that may appear. However, taken in conjunction with his past dealings with the zoning board and some of the shady relationships chronicled elsewhere, we are perfectly within our rights to at least question why he would seek less transparancy with Mr. Brown’s LLC, who has his own shady areas.
Is it a big deal? Nope! But it is reasonable to ask the questions regardless of the mechanics of the transfer. These are the sorts of suspicions that are going to be raised when you endorese the “Republicans have aculture of corruption” screed. Now, David, show me that you can reply to the above without unilaterally declaring that I’m “ignorant” or “partisan” and I’ll stop the Digital Looping Machine reference. You, sir, established the tone of this debate with your pompous, superior “expert” attitude, yet you have *not* addressed the questions of transparancy or the Brown connection.
As far as stock options go, let me take a stab. My daughter works for one of the largest financial companies on earth and has passed series 6 (currently working on series 7.) Allen was given the opportunity to exercise stock options, which allow him to *buy* stock at a below market price. If he has exercised the options and the stock falls below the price that he paid, then that constitutes a loss. So, if he is telling the truth, then he has 2 sets of stocks that will net him a nice loss for his next tax return. You ignored this part of the stock option to raise suspicions about his “undisclosed conflict” which you don’t explain. That was very partisan of you.
I may be wrong, but if so explain it to me without all of the condescending bullcrap. That’s called reasonable debate. Restart the insult stream and we will all continue to mock you. It’s your choice.
He reported the land as owned personally, I would characterize thatas an excess of transparency.
You made that one up, sorry.
Name one. Oh, that’s right, you made that one up , too.
Again with the transparency?
You asked, I answered, you denied.
Done.
No, at a strike price, which may or may not be below market on any given day.
By definition, he does not exercise at a time the strike price exceeds market. After he exercises, takes the stock, holds and subsequently loses, you cannot attribute the loss to the option’s exercise, but rather to the subsequent hold. Like I said, you cannot lose money on compensatory options. If you buy options, however, you may lose the entire amount of your investment should they expire unsold, obviously not applicable here.
I didn’t see where he exercised, so he has no stock from these options. Either way, it is irrelevant.
No, I didn’t. You still don’t have a handle on this.
Ya think?
Me, earlier:
1. See above
2. While an unexercised option does not have current cash value when its strike price exceeds market, it is not worthless. As long as there is potential the market could exceed the strike at any point in the remainder of its term, it continues to have value.
3.If Allen were to write a letter on Xybernaut’s behalf that succeeded in winning the company a contract and reviving its fortunes, and the stock were to rebound while he held those undisclosed options, he stood to profit to the tune of the stock price, less $5 & change, times 110,000. As you can see, that had the potential to be real money.
I don’t mind the mocking. I understand where it is coming from.
So, you concede there was nothing improper about the transaction itself? I’m glad we are making progress.
GAAP? Why would you mention GAAP? I haven’t seen any references to GAAP? Oh, I forgot, you don’t know what you are talking about.
As far as Senate ethics rule, I believe I have already addressed that. Something about a technical violation, perfectly understandable and a matter of scale. You’ll have to look back at the first thread about this for that, I don’t want to retype everything. Thanks.
David, you and I are going to have to disagree on much of the above. There are parts of your comment that have factual merit and others that show an actus like dissembling but I’ve got this ADD problem and I’m bored of the whole thing.
We’ll catch you on the next topic that screams for your “expertise.”
Is it just physically impossible for you people to admit you were wrong? You’re like a bunch of 6 year olds.
I’m rubber, you’re glue.
Personally, I would like until we get the whole story before I make any conclusions. Is it impossible for you to admit you might not know everything about this deal right now?
So, david, when a person contributes his real property to an LLC in return for an interest in the LLC, the property remains titled in the individual’s name?
You’ve got to be fricking kidding me.
What’s the answer – does the real property remain titled in the individual or does it the LLC obtain title?
Should read “does the real property remain titled in the individual or does the LLC obtain title?”
Waiting for an answer, david.
Q: What kind of dip makes the assertion that IDB’s statement that Harry Reid hadn’t owned the property for three years is “patently false,” but refuses to answer a simple question about who holds title to property contributed to an LLC?
A: a david