Why hasn't Mitt Romney's Damn Dancing Horse been a bigger part of recent political discourse

$78K Federal Tax deduction for a dancing fucking horse!

WHAT THE FUCK!

10/24/2012 6:27:46 PM

Have you seen the horse?
It's fantastic.

10/24/2012 6:29:00 PM

10/24/2012 6:44:12 PM

The NFL got a $40,000,000 tax deduction for claiming itself as a nonprofit organization.

10/24/2012 6:48:24 PM

[Edited on October 24, 2012 at 6:51 PM. Reason : ssd]

10/24/2012 6:48:38 PM

10/24/2012 6:53:23 PM

Quote :

"The NFL got a $40,000,000 tax deduction for claiming itself as a nonprofit organization."

Hahaha people don't even pay attention to your bullshit anymore

10/24/2012 7:09:42 PM

And yet... ^

10/24/2012 7:10:49 PM

Nobody should give a fuck if Romney has a dancing horse, or a whole stable full of dancing horses, no matter how much they cost.

10/24/2012 7:21:40 PM

clearly several people give a fuck

10/24/2012 7:25:22 PM

^^i don't care if he has horses, but he shouldn't get tax deductions

10/24/2012 7:27:00 PM

Quote :

"SEVERAL FUCKS GIVEN"

10/24/2012 7:27:46 PM

10/24/2012 7:32:20 PM

10/24/2012 7:42:01 PM

Quote :

"Nobody should give a fuck if Romney has a dancing horse, or a whole stable full of dancing horses, no matter how much they cost."

Did you read... what I typed?

10/24/2012 7:42:02 PM

anyone here who wouldn't take a 78k tax deduction if they could get it?

romney doesn't write the rules, and he certainly isn't handling his own taxes.

apparently, being rich automatically makes you evil if you're a democrat.

10/24/2012 7:49:52 PM

no, being evil makes you evil

duh

10/24/2012 7:53:23 PM

I'm not blaming Romney am I?

It's the simple fact that rich douchebags can claim fucking dancing horses for $100K tax deductions is ridiculous. And these bastards are the people that are considering getting rid of the tax credit for new home buyers. sheeeeiiiiiiiit

So FUCK you, cunt.

10/24/2012 7:56:06 PM

^so tuff.

10/24/2012 8:06:55 PM

[Edited on October 24, 2012 at 8:24 PM. Reason : safd]

10/24/2012 8:18:18 PM

So how does this tax credit work? Can it be any horse or does it have to be a dancing horse? Does the IRS come and certify the dancing abilities of your horse? Can I write off my grandmother's horse on my taxes?

10/25/2012 8:52:32 AM

It's not a deduction you dumb fucking idiots.

Read a book.

10/25/2012 9:29:31 AM

A deduction is EXACTLY what it was. Mitt Romney lowered his adjusted income by $77K for the "cost" of making his fucking horse dance.

What do you think it was? A dancing horse credit???

You fucking dumb-ass

10/25/2012 9:55:40 AM

Read a book? Dancing horses? Horse_ebooks!


https://twitter.com/Horse_ebooks

10/25/2012 10:00:45 AM

^^^ That guy right there is stupid

10/25/2012 3:02:51 PM

Read a book.

10/25/2012 3:07:04 PM

Hey I remember that book; it was excellent.

In other news... "Hey look everyone! terpball is a fucking idiot that doesn't understand taxes. Let's all have a laugh at his expense!"

Har.

10/25/2012 10:04:12 PM

LIVE BY THE GUN IMMA DIE BY THE GUN--FLOCKA

10/25/2012 10:47:11 PM

Craig Sager

10/25/2012 11:59:01 PM

Quote :

"Hey I remember that book; it was excellent. In other news... "Hey look everyone! terpball is a fucking idiot that doesn't understand taxes. Let's all have a laugh at his expense!" Har."

So you still don't think it (Rafalca's expenses) was a deduction is what you're saying? And you're telling me that I don't understand taxes? I notice you wouldn't answer my question... if it isn't a deduction, what is it?

lol, shut the fuck up before I embarrass you.

[Edited on October 26, 2012 at 8:51 AM. Reason : ]

10/26/2012 8:45:34 AM

Wonder what kind of shit ol' Harry is deducting from his taxes?

10/26/2012 9:45:05 AM

And a double-post.

Some training expenses for Olympians can be used as tax deductions. This horse was slated to compete in London. Its possible this was the route they were taking.

10/26/2012 9:48:21 AM

Rafalca is also likely an investment.

His winnings are taxable. Anne Romney is also most likely taking a loss on the investment.

10/26/2012 10:11:51 AM

It's a $77,731 loss from Rob Rom Enterprises LLC, which owns Rafalca.

Of that they got to deduct $50.

Keep in mind that was 2010, and doing things the way they were, they could have potentially taken a deduction if they made a profit off of the horse or its offspring. I suppose you could argue that would have potentially made them punks.

Fast forward to 2011 and now that they're trying to alleviate people like terpball's blood pressure, they're simply regarding the horse as a hobby and not a potential business venture.

You're complaining about something that could have happened in 2010 had they decided to turn a profit on the horse, but they didn't. Now that they've reclassified this it's a non-issue.

Oh yeah, except for pretty much the only issue ignorant college kids have with the Romneys... The fact that they can afford things that you cannot.

Fair enough, but go be jealous elsewhere. The only reason Ann Romney got started in horses was as part of her Multiple Sclerosis therapy.

Maybe if you didn't read dailykos and/or had money/brains you would understand how all this worked. Not surprising given the other folks that made the same stupid mistake as you. Al Gore even said it was a tax credit, which is even more ludicrous than a deduction.

Fine company to be in, dickbag. Do you really think in an election this close with the media drawing attention to every stupid trivial thing that this would be largely overlooked if it had any merit?

10/26/2012 11:00:24 AM

^thank you

10/26/2012 11:02:07 AM

Quote :

"Oh yeah, except for pretty much the only issue ignorant college kids have with the Romneys... The fact that they can afford things that you cannot."

10/26/2012 11:17:06 AM

^^^ That was a pretty sound pwning

10/26/2012 11:18:26 AM

Quote :

"It's a $77,731 loss from Rob Rom Enterprises LLC, which owns Rafalca."

OK, so how did they account for this loss, for tax (not accounting) purposes, on Mitt Romney's income tax?

IT IS CALLED A MOTHERFUCKING DEDUCTION

YOU FUCKING DUMBASS

Quote :

"Of that they got to deduct $50."

They only "got to" deduct $50? Why is that? Are they rolling over the loss? Is there a statute that only lets them deduct $50 when the loss is from dancing horses?

Why am I asking you? You don't know what the fuck you're talking about so I'll just explain it to you. Mitt Romney realized a $77K loss from his dancing horse. For tax purposes, he cal roll this "hobby loss" over to this tax year, or next tax year, or even roll it back to a year where he didn't release his tax returns. Just because he didn't offset it in 2010 doesn't mean shit.

Either way, yes, it is a deduction.

^ You seem like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about either. Big surprise.

[Edited on October 26, 2012 at 11:25 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 26, 2012 at 11:30 AM. Reason : ]

10/26/2012 11:22:11 AM

You're right, I don't. But he has made a better case than you thus far.

10/26/2012 11:22:55 AM

This is getting pretty rich actually.

I knew he would make an ass of himself, but not understanding the difference between losses and deductions is pretty staggering.

Plus he doesn't recognize the difference in the tax code between business and hobby expenses.

He's either really that stupid or he's upset that the Romneys did indeed get to deduct $50 as a result of the horse.

Given the all caps I'm betting stupid.





Courtesy of Forbes:

Quote :

"The Romneys’ 2010 return shows $2,276,385 in losses from various passive activities, including a loss of $77,731 from Rob Rom, but just $2,120 in passive income. Since the taxpayer must allocate passive income proportionately against passive losses, only $49 of their passive horse loss could be used."

[Edited on October 26, 2012 at 11:30 AM. Reason : -]

10/26/2012 11:27:59 AM

For that tax year, at Romney's choice. You don't think he used it to offset another gain of his? Do you really think that's how MITT ROMNEY would do his taxes?

And you think I don't know the difference between a loss and a deduction, but you have no basis for that. Not that I give a shit, we'll get back to the issue here...

Do you really think Mitt Romney only offset $49 with his Rafalca loss in all the years he could spread that loss to? That's how you think Mitt Romney operates?

10/26/2012 11:34:55 AM

Considering that he's Mitt Romney he's probably cultivating a big future deduction since the horse is an Olympian.

Sounds like a rich person structuring his investments to me.

Hobby losses can also be carried forward.

On the other hand in 2011 they didn't report the horse as a business, just a hobby, so I think they decided to eat this little scheme.

If you want to keep bitching about what Mitt Romney might do in the future that's just fine. The point of my responses here is that you're talking about hypotheticals and using the fact it's "just a horse" to draw attention to the (non) issue.

If you want to scream like an ape then how about about the hypothetical President Romney getting us into the hypothetical WW3? That's probably as likely as the Romneys selling this horse's offspring to generate the income that 78k loss can offset.

But whatever. I'm done talking about this because the internet has already thoroughly hashed it out. It's basically the left's much less interesting version of birthers or something. You should get Gloria Allred on this case instead since her Staple's dirt-digging fell through.



[Edited on October 26, 2012 at 11:47 AM. Reason : -]

10/26/2012 11:45:54 AM

Mitt Romney would have to be an idiot to not take the deduction, and he would also have to be an idiot to use the deduction in 2010. There is no dirt digging here, and he never did anything illegal with his deductions so I don't see why you'd bring a lawyer's name up.

To a dumb-ass like you, because he didn't use the total loss to offset gain on the year off the loss... that means it isn't a deduction. To the people who might even pretend to know what they're talking about, the deduction is as good as taken already. But hey, you read an article and at least thought you could say it wasn't a deduction, so I'm sure you really felt like you totally pwnt someone there for a while, so good for you!

Why won't you tell me again how I don't know the difference between a loss and a deduction and back that up with something that I actually said!

http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-rafalca-horse-tax-deduction-2012-9

Quote :

"Back in 2010, Mitt Romney deducted the cost of maintaining (feeding, brushing, training) his wife's show horse, Rafalca, as a business expense. A lot of people ridiculed the idea that Rafalca was a business, arguing that, because Rafalca didn't generate any revenue, the horse was merely a hobby. But, assuming Rafalca was actually a business, that's kosher. Maybe the Romneys regarded Rafalca as a startup enterprise that would eventually produce revenue, or an asset that might eventually be sold at a gain. In any event, the Romney's apparently no longer regard Rafalca as a business. How do we know this? Because the Romneys didn't deduct the cost of Rafalca's care and feeding from their 2011 tax return. So, what changed? Why was Rafalca a business in 2010 and a personal hobby in 2011? Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-rafalca-horse-tax-deduction-2012-9#ixzz2AQD6D7gK"

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

It's OK, he can still keep getting those deductions though!

[Edited on October 26, 2012 at 12:05 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2012 11:58:05 AM

How many deductions did Romney not take to get above 14% on his taxes?

Tons.

Again, you only think this story is noteworthy because it involves a horse. Just like people thought a dog strapped to his car was noteworthy because it shit itself.

For everything that could possibly be complained about in Romney's goddamn taxes you picked something where a tangible deduction has not yet been made.

Quote :

"In any event, the Romney's apparently no longer regard Rafalca as a business. How do we know this? Because the Romneys didn't deduct the cost of Rafalca's care and feeding from their 2011 tax return. So, what changed? Why was Rafalca a business in 2010 and a personal hobby in 2011?"

Well gee whiz what changed hmm? Oh yeah he's running for President and wanted to minimize stupid shit that people like you could have a coronary over. People that write articles like that are real geniuses.

Maybe you should just keep your fingers crossed that his horse isn't successful? I mean that's how people like you operate anyway right? Romney, his horse, Staples, etc... fuck em all. If it puts you ahead in the world according to rules you didn't write it must be bad. If Romney can buy a million dollar horse we should all be able to! blah blah

blah

Again, Google "romney horse tax deduction" and find anything that supports your conclusions.

Note: your next post cannot discuss the future in any way.

10/26/2012 12:40:52 PM

um..why are people getting mad at Romney for taking a stupid ass tax deduction that is available...what is he supposed to say, no, I think I'll pass on that deduction. wtf.

If this is a stupid ass tax deduction why hasn't Obama or any other president in our history gotten rid of it? Shouldn't they be the people we are mad at? Just saying. It's all W's fault

10/26/2012 12:44:38 PM

Quote :

"a tangible deduction"

haha, this phrase pretty much sums up willy's stupidity

10/26/2012 12:47:50 PM

He shoulda taught Rafalca to play ping pong.

10/26/2012 12:50:15 PM

^lol

10/26/2012 12:58:15 PM

settledown, I'm sorry if you havent noticed, but on TWW you've historically only been associated with stupidity.

Your padding is second only to BubbleBobble, so any critique you have of me is welcome and ill take as a compliment. I'm more than happy to annoy idiots like yourself and terpball.

Now on one hand I can understand terpball's point of view, especially since I'm not the biggest fan of Romney in the first place.

You've got bigger things to worry about besides him kicking hypothetical horse profits down the road. Again, the horse isn't even a business asset anymore. Maybe this is one of the loopholes Romney is going to close!

That's a joke btw, before one of you writes an entire paragraph about it.

Quote :

"The IRS regularly challenges business deductions for horses. The U.S. Tax Court decided a case July 23 on that issue in ruling against a Texas couple who tried to claim deductions for horse expenses. “While a series of losses during the initial or startup stage of an activity may not necessarily indicate a lack of a profit motive, a record of large losses over many years is persuasive evidence that a taxpayer did not have such a motive,” wrote Judge Mary Ann Cohen in a decision that weighed the facts of that case against rules for defining business activity. “The many years of losses without a meaningful plan for recouping them are most persuasive.” Passive Investment The Romneys classified their horse involvement as a passive investment. In general, that means that they didn’t spend 500 hours a year on the activity, said Grace, who specializes in the passive loss rules. Because it is considered a passive investment, they can claim deductions only up to their total passive income, which comes from the horse business as well as other investments in real estate and trusts, according to the Romneys’ tax return. Those losses are suspended and then can be available in subsequent years. They can be used against future passive income from any of the couple’s other investments. “It all goes back into one big pot or basket,” Grace said. The deductions also can be taken in full if the Romneys were to leave the horse business. “If they never made a profit, in the future, they could still at some point, use those losses, once they get out of the business,” Davis said. "

Good thing as of 2011 they've left the horse business. You guys are a bunch of johnny-come-latelys.





[Edited on October 26, 2012 at 1:06 PM. Reason : -]

10/26/2012 1:03:46 PM

10/26/2012 1:09:21 PM