Wednesday, May 29, 2019

GO BLUE: Stephen Ross Gets Busted For Stealin' From Our Most Precious Treasures

I was in awe with the legal magnitude of this decision, of the D.C Court of Appeals, of the Tax Court, on stealin'.

I prefer the term Corporate Shape Shifter.

Michelle Obama prefers the term corporate layering.

This is what the Detroit Land Bank Authority did under TARP, except there was a situation of such gross negligence in their racketeering of fake LLCs for the simple fact that University of Michigan actually teaches the virtues of the Michigan land bank model and falsely advises in crafting legislation.

I could go into detail, or I could just send you to my database of their antics.

Get to know Stephen Ross because he was the one who came up with the hustle of scamming the Treasury by claiming to help "The Poors" in housing while generating substantial profits in Corporate Shape Shifting through foreign corporations in tax adverse lands.

It seems he has amassed a $15 billion dollar fortune from the trafficking of tiny humans with investments from the Children's Investment Fund Foundation, EB-5, Brookfield, with Japanese and Israeli financial interests.

The entire philanthropic community has become nothing more than an operation of Social Impact Bonds, a residual of the peculiar institution.

I see another transposable legal model.

I also see another building block in the justice chain.


Appeals court denies $33M charitable deduction by UM donor Ross, partners

Washington — A federal appeals court has ruled that real estate developer Stephen M. Ross and his partners may not deduct as a charitable contribution $33 million for commercial land donated to the University of Michigan in 2003.

In so ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a 2017 decision, below, by the U.S. Tax Court and a 40-percent penalty imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Ross is UM's largest alumni donor, with hundreds of millions in pledges to the university and with his name on the university's business school.

According to the court, RERI Holdings LLC, of which Ross is a member, had acquired and donated a future interest in a piece of commercial property to UM in 2003.

RERI had argued that the donation was a bona fide deduction valued at $33 million, but the IRS had maintained that RERI artificially inflated the property value to offset the tax liability of its owners.

RERI had paid $2.95 million in 2002 for a remainder interest in the property at issue, later gifting that remainder interest to UM in 2003 as part of Ross' pledge to donate $5 million to the university.
UM later sold the property to HRK Real Estate Holdings LLC — indirectly owned by another RERI member — for $1.94 million, which was credited toward Ross’s pledge to UM, according to the court.

On its 2003 tax return, RERI claimed a charitable contribution deduction of $33 million for the transfer of the property.

After an audit, the IRS rejected $29 million of RERI’s deduction, finding the property was worth only $3.9 million. The IRS also imposed a penalty equal to 20 percent of the tax underpayment.

In the Tax Court, the IRS later asserted that RERI was entitled to no deduction for a charitable contribution on the grounds that the transaction was “a sham for tax purposes or lacks economic substance.” It also revised its penalty to 40 percent of the tax underpayment.

The Tax Court after a four-day trial sided with the IRS, concluding that RERI had failed to substantiate the value of the donated property as required by federal regulations.

The tax court judge also concluded that RERI had "grossly" misstated the property's value, which the judge found was worth just $3.46 million on the date of the donation to UM.

The Tax Court noted a “significant disparity" between the property's claimed fair market value of $33 million and the $3 million that RERI had paid to acquire it just 17 months before gifting it to the university.

"In short, we agree with the Tax Court that RERI fell short of the substantiation requirements by omitting its basis in the donated property," the appeals panel wrote. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

No comments: