Name:   CRD - Subject:   CRD Date:   9/29/2020 8:38:23 PM

They have not looked at any "returns".  Read the story closely, they report they have tax return "data".  Huge difference. Could be a spreadsheet or limited tax account summary.  They equate a business loss as business failure.  There are thousands of ways to deduct expenses as a business loss and still be cash strong. 

Depreciation has multiple sets of rules.  If you read the Times, they assume only one, get the result they like and hammer Trump.  They have no idea what set of depreciation rules, such as, bonus depreciation, that Trump used, therefore their conclusions are suspect at best.

Having "debt forgiven", is not akin to not paying your bills, which Trump has been accused of.  Billionaires like Trump can default on loans and still be in good standing with their lenders because they understand the accounting that went into just a descriptive term that gets the low IQ voter's attention.  

You still have not commented on the finding that Trump did pay 2016 and 2017 taxes the USTreasury in the amount of 5.2million.  Most of that was rolled forward.  The 750$ was EXTRA.  In 2005, Trump payed 36million in taxes and owed only 2.  

There are so many tax professionals commenting on the lunacy of this article that it is laughable.  That there are those who are reading this as serious journalism is alarming.