Internal Revenue Service

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares69 Views

    Older Workers to Get ‘Super’ 401(k) Catch-Up Contributions in 2025

    by

    Workers who are 60 to 63 will be able to put in up to $11,250 in extra contributions, if they can afford it.Will you be age 60 to 63 next year? Lucky you! You have the option to contribute several thousand dollars more to your workplace retirement plan.That’s if you can afford it, and many workers will find it’s a stretch.Federal tax law already allows people 50 and older to make extra contributions, above the annual deferral limit, to a 401(k) or similar employer retirement plan. This year and next, that standard “catch-up” contribution is $7,500.But starting next year, the catch-up contribution limit will be higher for people in their early 60s, as part of the federal Secure 2.0 tax law passed in 2022. They can contribute up to $11,250 next year — an additional $3,750 in catch-up contributions — beyond the general 2025 deferral limit of $23,500, the Internal Revenue Service said. That means they can potentially contribute up to $34,750 in total to a workplace retirement account.This additional contribution — sometimes called an “enhanced” or “super” catch-up option — is available to workers ages 60, 61, 62 and 63. You’re eligible if you reach that age during the calendar year, said Dan Snyder, director of personal financial planning for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (Once savers turn 64, they’re no longer eligible for the extra savings but can contribute the standard catch-up amount.)The idea is to give people who are nearing retirement age, but are behind in savings, the chance to accumulate more money for their post-work lives. “This is an opportunity to make up for mistakes from the past,” said David John, senior strategic policy adviser at the AARP Public Policy Institute, which focuses on issues relevant to older Americans.Getting Americans to save more for retirement is a concern as the population ages, especially as the number of companies offering pensions dwindles. The typical household headed by people ages 55 to 64 has just $10,000 saved in a retirement account, according to an analysis of federal data by the Economic Policy Institute and the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      I.R.S. Failed to Police Puerto Rico Tax Break, Whistle-Blower Says

      by

      An insider accused the agency of failing to scrutinize a lucrative tax break in Puerto Rico designed to lure wealthy Americans to the island.For the past decade, thousands of wealthy Americans have been flocking to Puerto Rico to take advantage of a tax break that can cut their tax bills to zero. For nearly as long, there have been allegations that the benefit enables multimillionaires to avoid paying what they owe when they reap big investment profits.Now, an Internal Revenue Service insider has accused the agency of failing to police the tax break. Despite a high-profile campaign announced more than three years ago to unearth possible abuse, the agency has audited barely two dozen people and has collected back taxes from none, according to a letter that an agency insider wrote this year to lawmakers and that has been reviewed by The New York Times, as well as interviews with I.R.S. officials.Senate officials have begun an investigation into the whistle-blower’s allegations about the Puerto Rican tax benefit.“It’s been three years since the I.R.S. announced its enforcement campaign on this issue,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. “It needs to pick up the pace.”Hamstrung by decades of budget cuts, the I.R.S. has regularly struggled to crack down on tax avoidance by the wealthiest Americans and large companies. Audits of millionaires have declined more than 80 percent over the past decade, reaching record lows. The agency rarely examines giant private equity firms. And the annual “tax gap” — the difference between taxes that are owed and what is paid — is estimated to be $600 billion.In an interview, Danny Werfel, the I.R.S. commissioner, said the agency’s enforcement campaign in Puerto Rico, while still in its “early chapters,” was accelerating because of the $80 billion in new funding that the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act provided to the agency.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump May Owe $100 Million From Double-Dip Tax Breaks, Audit Shows

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump used a dubious accounting maneuver to claim improper tax breaks from his troubled Chicago tower, according to an Internal Revenue Service inquiry uncovered by The New York Times and ProPublica. Losing a yearslong audit battle over the claim could mean a tax bill of more than $100 million.The 92-story, glass-sheathed skyscraper along the Chicago River is the tallest and, at least for now, the last major construction project by Mr. Trump. Through a combination of cost overruns and the bad luck of opening in the teeth of the Great Recession, it was also a vast money loser.But when Mr. Trump sought to reap tax benefits from his losses, the I.R.S. has argued, he went too far and in effect wrote off the same losses twice.The first write-off came on Mr. Trump’s tax return for 2008. With sales lagging far behind projections, he claimed that his investment in the condo-hotel tower met the tax code definition of “worthless,” because his debt on the project meant he would never see a profit. That move resulted in Mr. Trump reporting losses as high as $651 million for the year, The Times and ProPublica found.There is no indication the I.R.S. challenged that initial claim, though that lack of scrutiny surprised tax experts consulted for this article. But in 2010, Mr. Trump and his tax advisers sought to extract further benefits from the Chicago project, executing a maneuver that would draw years of inquiry from the I.R.S. First, he shifted the company that owned the tower into a new partnership. Because he controlled both companies, it was like moving coins from one pocket to another. Then he used the shift as justification to declare $168 million in additional losses over the next decade.The issues around Mr. Trump’s case were novel enough that, during his presidency, the I.R.S. undertook a high-level legal review before pursuing it. The Times and ProPublica, in consultation with tax experts, calculated that the revision sought by the I.R.S. would create a new tax bill of more than $100 million, plus interest and potential penalties.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      QAnon Supporter Pours Cash Into a Legal-Defense Fund for Trump Allies

      by

      The fund, meant to help pay the mounting legal bills of people connected to investigations into Donald Trump, has raised more than $1.6 million, a new filing showed.A supporter of the QAnon conspiracy theory whom the Trump campaign distanced itself from in 2020. A real-estate developer and Trump megadonor. A funeral home company.Those were among the top contributors to a legal-defense fund established by allies of Donald J. Trump to help pay the mounting legal bills of people connected to the various investigations into the former president. The fund is not intended for Mr. Trump’s own bills.The fund, the Patriot Legal Defense Fund Inc., raised a total of $1,624,360 from July through early December, according to documents the group filed with the Internal Revenue Service on Tuesday. The group made another filing on Wednesday that showed zero contributions and expenditures. It was unclear why.The biggest donation in the I.R.S. documents filed Tuesday — $1 million — was from the Caryn L Hildenbrand Living Trust. Ms. Hildenbrand is also known as Caryn Borland. She and her husband, Michael, gave more than $1 million in campaign-related contributions to Mr. Trump’s re-election effort in 2020. Their sharing of memes and social media posts about the QAnon conspiracy theory led Mike Pence, then the vice president, to cancel a fund-raiser with them. Efforts to reach the couple were unsuccessful.The conspiracy theory, embraced by a segment of Mr. Trump’s supporters, involves false claims that top Democrats are Satan-worshiping pedophiles and that the former president was recruited to break up the global pedophile cabal. Mr. Trump has increasingly nodded to the movement and its memes in his social media posts.The filing on Tuesday listed just 21 contributors, with one donation as low as $60. One donation of $34,000 was from the Cleveland Funeral Home Inc. Another was from Robert Zarnegin, a wealthy real-estate developer in California who has been a frequent donor to Mr. Trump.Michael Glassner, a longtime political aide to Mr. Trump who is leading the effort, said the group had been “gratified at the early support” it had received. He said the criminal cases against Mr. Trump from the Justice Department, which he insisted were politically weaponized, had “required many innocent supporters of President Trump to require attorneys, and the Legal Defense Fund is able to assist them with these costs.”Kenny Williams, who co-owns the Cleveland funeral home that made the $34,000 donation, said via text message that his associate had a personal relationship with Mr. Trump, but he declined to answer additional questions about that associate. “We still stand behind him!” he wrote of Mr. Trump. “He is a man of his word.”None of the money has so far been allocated to people with legal bills, according to the filing. The largest expense paid by the defense fund was $18,136 to Mr. Trump’s members-only club and residence, Mar-a-Lago. The Florida club hosted a dinner for the defense fund on Nov. 29 that Mr. Trump attended.Most of the money raised appears to have been in connection with that event.Another Trump-aligned group, a political action committee called Save America, has burned through tens of millions of dollars to help pay legal fees for the former president and a number of people connected to the web of investigations and court cases he is facing. By the middle of this year, the last time the group was required to file with the Federal Election Commission, Save America had spent more than $20 million in legal fees.The amount was so large that Save America, after sending $60 million to a different outside group supporting Mr. Trump’s campaign, requested a refund. Save America has been steadily getting money sent back to it from that other outside group, the super PAC called MAGA Inc., according to two people familiar with the matter.The crush of legal bills, which has grown as Mr. Trump has prepared for four possible trials in four different jurisdictions after being charged with 91 felony counts, has been a source of strain within the former president’s orbit. That’s especially the case because Mr. Trump does not like spending his own money on lawyers. Kitty Bennett More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      With Poll Results Favoring Trump, Should Biden Step Aside?

      by

      More from our inbox:Reducing I.R.S. FundingHealth Insurance, SimplifiedPoll results show President Biden losing to Donald J. Trump by margins of four to 10 percentage points in key battleground states.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Voters in 5 Battlegrounds Favor Trump Over Biden” (front page, Nov. 6):When will the Democratic Party stop sitting on its hands and do something about the dire reality of the coming presidential election?The most recent New York Times/Siena College poll has President Biden behind Donald Trump in five of six swing states while his approval ratings among youth and minorities — two essential demographics for the party — continue to plummet.There comes a time when we have to say, “Dad, you’ve been a wonderful father and we love you dearly, but we are taking away the car keys.”We can all see it: the shuffle, the drifting focus, the mental confusion during a news conference in Vietnam. Mr. Biden’s handlers keep him under close wraps now, but the gasps among the electorate are going to be frequent when he gets out on the campaign trail debate circuit.This is no time to nominate an octogenarian who refuses to acknowledge his visibly dwindling abilities. The fact that Mr. Trump is only three years younger is irrelevant. Facts, logic and even multiple criminal proceedings are nonfactors when your opponent is a cult figure whose worshipers are willing to follow him blindly into authoritarianism.What the Democrats need to win is vigor, freshness and the hope of positive change. This is no time to cling to gentlemanly traditions of incumbency.Mr. Biden should go down in history as the president who led us out of our darkest hours, but if he refuses to pass the torch to a younger generation, he will be remembered as just another aging politician who refused to let go.If the Democratic Party sits back idly, pleading helplessness in our moment of need, it will prove that this country has not one but two dysfunctional parties.Bill IbelleProvidence, R.I.To the Editor:I read this headline, “Voters in 5 Battlegrounds Favor Trump Over Biden,” and was shocked; then I looked at the charts and graphs in the paper, and was depressed, and turned to my application for Canadian citizenship. Then finally, on Page A13 (they will have to pry the print paper out of my dying hands), I see in large print: “Polls have often failed to predict results of elections this far out.”I really hate polls, but believe they have the power to sway people significantly. So, why publish them this far out if they are lousy predictors at this stage?Betsy ShackelfordDecatur, Ga.To the Editor:The media’s coverage of President Biden is the principal reason the latest poll shows him behind Donald Trump in five of six critical states.Mr. Biden inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and the gravest public health crisis in a century. He got off to the fastest start of any president since F.D.R., creating over six million jobs in his first year and reaching his goal of the vaccination of over 200 million Americans in fewer than 100 days. Yet the bulk of the reporting for most of his presidency since then has involved inflation and his age.Underreported is the impact of Mr. Biden’s other achievements: the largest investment in green energy in American history; a $1 trillion investment in infrastructure; the first federal gun safety legislation in nearly three decades; and the biggest expansion of veterans’ benefits in over three decades.Michael K. CantwellDelray Beach, Fla.To the Editor:The latest polls showing President Biden losing support from minority and youth voters should prompt leading Democrats to urge him not to seek a second term. It’s time for a high-level delegation, including Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, to visit the White House for a reality check.Yes, Joe Biden is a patriotic American and a good president. But the specter of Donald Trump back in the Oval Office demands that he step aside and pass the torch to preserve our democracy.Judith BishopMiami BeachTo the Editor:Your article about the latest poll was frightening but not surprising. How many times and in how many ways does the leadership of the Democratic Party have to be told that President Biden is unpopular?Are they backing him because, according to the book, an incumbent is more electable than a challenger? Are they relying on the fact that Mr. Biden defeated Donald Trump in 2020? If so, they need to take another look at that election.I am a lifelong Democrat surrounded by the same, but neither I nor any of my friends voted for Mr. Biden; we all voted against Mr. Trump. That may not be enough in 2024.It’s entirely possible that many of the people I know — and large sections of the electorate — won’t vote at all. And very few of us have the energy and enthusiasm it takes to campaign effectively.Claudia Miriam ReedMcMinnville, Ore.To the Editor:“Why Biden Is Behind, and How He Could Come Back,” by Nate Cohn (The Upshot, nytimes.com, Nov. 5), misses a critical point.It seemingly assumes that any Biden loss of voter support from 2020 will only move to the Donald Trump column. I believe there is an increasing possibility that a significant portion of any Biden losses will instead go to a third party. Not since Ross Perot in the 1992 election have I perceived such support for a viable third-party candidate.The No Labels movement seems to be making genuine progress and gaining increasing public awareness, if not outright support.While the Democrats are panicking that any gain in No Labels support will come from their candidate, I’m not so sure, as there is evidence that Mr. Trump’s numbers may be just as affected, if not more.Mr. Cohn should start digging deeper into the third-party movements and their likely impact on the election outcome.Kenneth GlennLangley, Wash.Reducing I.R.S. Funding Kenny Holston/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Holding National Security Hostage to Help Tax Cheats,” by Paul Krugman (column, Nov. 3):As usual, Mr. Krugman provides a valuable perspective on an important initiative with serious policy as well as economic implications. I believe that there is a longer-term goal that the Republicans are serving by a proposed reduction in funding for the I.R.S. in addition to protecting tax cheats and suspect enterprises.Part of the funding for the I.R.S. is also scheduled to be used for major upgrades in equipment and staffing so that the I.R.S. operates more efficiently and effectively, including being available to answer questions and assist ordinary taxpayers.By reducing the funding for the I.R.S., the Republicans are deliberately undermining improved, consumer-helpful government services so that ordinary taxpayers (and voters) become increasingly frustrated with, and resentful or angry at, the I.R.S.Sowing and fertilizing dissatisfaction with government services among the voting populace appear to be a “growth industry” for the Republicans in Congress.David E. JoseIndianapolisHealth Insurance, Simplified Haik AvanianTo the Editor:Re “It’s Just This Easy to Lose Your Health Insurance,” by Danielle Ofri (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 31):Dr. Ofri rightly condemns the “illogical patchwork of plans and regulations” of the American health care system.The solution, as Dr. Ofri suggests, is to make fundamental health insurance automatic for all Americans, allowing them to opt out but not requiring them (as happened to Dr. Ofri) to opt in.Paul SorumJamaica Plain, Mass.The writer is professor emeritus of internal medicine and pediatrics, Albany Medical College. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Mike Lindell’s Lawyers Say He Owes ‘Millions’ in Fees

      by

      The disclosure, made in a court filing this week, is a sign that the pillow magnate and leading supporter of the election denial movement is facing financial stress.For nearly three years, the pillow entrepreneur Mike Lindell has been one of the leading financial supporters of the election denial movement, a tireless promoter of false claims that Donald J. Trump won the 2020 election and of efforts to change how Americans vote.But recent public records, as well as interviews with Mr. Lindell and others, suggest that he is facing financial troubles.Lawyers defending Mr. Lindell in several defamation lawsuits this week filed to withdraw from the cases, citing “millions” of dollars in unpaid fees. The withdrawal would leave Mr. Lindell without a lawyer in lawsuits where plaintiffs are seeking more than $1 billion in damages.In an interview, Mr. Lindell said he didn’t blame his lawyers for dropping him. “They have to feed their families,” he said. He said that his activism related to the 2020 election had contributed to his financial woes.In a filing late on Friday, Smartmatic, one of the firms suing Mr. Lindell for defamation, said it did not object to the withdrawal of lawyers but expressed concern that he was using the news “as an opportunity to fund-raise for his election fraud campaign.” The voting equipment firm noted that Mr. Lindell had already sent out a fund-raising email seeking $200,000 from supporters that invoked his lawyers’ motion.Since 2021, Mr. Lindell, the chief executive of the bedding company MyPillow and a Trump associate, has financed conferences, legal efforts and even his own digital media venture to further unproven or debunked conspiracy theories regarding the use of voting machines to steal the 2020 election.He has worked with state-level groups across the country, and continues to speak with activists on weekly conference calls. And he has used MyPillow advertising to support a range of conservative and right-wing media, including many outlets that amplify his claims.Mr. Lindell says he has directly spent as much as $60 million on his political endeavors.Days after Jan. 6, 2021, Mr. Lindell was photographed entering a brief meeting at the White House with Mr. Trump, carrying notes on which the phrase “martial law if necessary” was visible. That month, MyPillow lost brick-and-mortar distribution contracts with major big-box retailers. (The stores offered a variety of explanations unrelated to Mr. Lindell’s politics.) Last year, after Walmart pulled the company’s products from its stores, it recorded a loss of $7 million, according to Mr. Lindell. MyPillow is a private company, and these figures could not be independently verified.Property records show that one of the two residences he owns through a limited-liability corporation is under an Internal Revenue Service lien for $4.6 million in unpaid taxes from 2020. Mr. Lindell said the lien was related to an ongoing negotiation over a tax write-off for an investment in a pharmaceutical company.In April, an arbitration panel ordered Mr. Lindell to pay $5 million to a software engineer who took up Mr. Lindell’s challenge to debunk data he claims proves that the 2020 election was hacked. Mr. Lindell has refused to pay the engineer, Robert Zeidman, and both men have filed lawsuits over the matter.In August, Mr. Lindell said, American Express cut his line of credit to $100,000 from $1 million, effectively ending his ability to pay his lawyers in the defamation suits. The decision, he said, was an “absolute hit job” related to his political activities, though he said the company had not said as much.American Express did not comment on Mr. Lindell’s credit, but said in a statement that it “does not make customer decisions based on personal views or political affiliations. Our risk and underwriting models take into account a number of financial factors, including business inflows and outflows, and credit history.”On Thursday, Andrew Parker, a lawyer at the Minneapolis firm Parker Daniels Kibort who has represented Mr. Lindell in many of his recent legal battles, filed motions to withdraw from the defamation suits filed by Dominion Voting Systems, Smartmatic, and Eric Coomer, the former director of product strategy and security at Dominion.Mr. Parker did not respond to requests for comment. In court filings, he stated that Mr. Lindell started falling behind on payments early this year, and on Oct. 2, Mr. Lindell informed the firm that he and his company were “not able to get caught up or make any payment” on the “millions of dollars” owed to the firm.Dominion also sued Fox News on similar grounds, and this April it reached a $787.5 million settlement with the media company. Asked if he had considered settling his own suit, Mr. Lindell said, “Absolutely not.”It remains to be seen how Mr. Lindell’s finances will affect the broader election denial movement or the conservative news media, which he had helped finance on multiple fronts.In emails and interviews, several influential activists said that Mr. Lindell continued to be an important figure in the movement, though some noted that their financial support came from other backers. Other donors contributed about one-third the cost of a conference Mr. Lindell hosted in Missouri in August, Mr. Lindell and other participating activists said.MyPillow’s advertising and revenue-sharing agreements with conservative media have been a major source of support for right-wing figures, such as Stephen K. Bannon, the former Trump adviser who has a revenue-sharing agreement to promote MyPillow on his “War Room” podcast. Such promotions have increased slightly in the last year, according to the analytics companies iSpot.tv, which covers television advertising, and Magellan.ai, which covers podcasts.Mr. Bannon has been highlighting Mr. Lindell’s financial woes on his show, portraying Mr. Lindell as the victim of corporate and government overreach and imploring viewers to buy more pillows to support him, which boosts sales. He is planning to host his show from Mr. Lindell’s Minnesota factory in the coming weeks, he said.Susan Beachy More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      I.R.S. Puts Lien on Giuliani’s Palm Beach Condo for $550,000 Tax Debt

      by

      The action by federal tax officials is the latest sign of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s growing financial troubles.The I.R.S. has placed a lien on a Florida property owned by Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and lawyer for Donald J. Trump, because he owes roughly $550,000 in income taxes, according to a court filing.The property, a lakeside condominium in Palm Beach, sits less than three miles from Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s private club and residence. Mr. Giuliani and his ex-wife had tried to sell it for $3.3 million in 2019, but never found a buyer, according to The Palm Beach Daily News.The existence of the court filing in Palm Beach County was first reported by The Daily Mail.The action by federal officials over Mr. Giuliani’s 2021 income taxes is the latest sign of his growing financial troubles. He is entangled in numerous legal battles and has been racking up bills for his defense in criminal investigations, private lawsuits and legal disciplinary proceedings stemming from his bid to keep Mr. Trump in office after the 2020 election.He faces a racketeering charge, among others, in Georgia for his role in that effort, as well as a defamation case brought by two election workers in the state. In July, Mr. Giuliani put his Upper East Side apartment in New York City up for sale for $6.5 million. His lawyer, Adam Katz, said at the time that his client was “close to broke.” At one point in August, Mr. Giuliani was said to owe nearly $3 million in legal expenses. Robert J. Costello, once a protégé of Mr. Giuliani, is suing him for unpaid legal fees. And last week Hunter Biden sued Mr. Giuliani for his role in spreading personal information about Mr. Biden.Mr. Giuliani has repeatedly asked Mr. Trump to pay him millions of dollars he believes he is owed for his role in the effort to keep Mr. Trump in office. After entreaties from people close to Mr. Giuliani for a financial lifeline, Mr. Trump hosted a $100,000-per-person fund-raiser at his club in Bedminster, N.J., last month to aid the former mayor.Kirsten Noyes More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Wanted a Special Counsel Investigation of Hunter Biden. Now Many Oppose It.

      by

      Although some G.O.P. lawmakers see the appointment of David C. Weiss as a vindication of their strategy, others criticize the now-scuttled plea deal he struck with Mr. Biden.Congressional Republicans have for months repeatedly written to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland demanding he appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, the president’s son, over his business dealings.Some even demanded that a specific man be named to lead the inquiry: David C. Weiss, the Trump-appointed Delaware U.S. attorney who has long investigated the case.But on Friday, after Mr. Garland elevated Mr. Weiss to special counsel status, Republicans in Congress reacted publicly not with triumph, but with outrage. “David Weiss can’t be trusted and this is just a new way to whitewash the Biden family’s corruption,” Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee wrote on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.The reaction was a notable political development, one that underscored both how Mr. Weiss, a Republican, has fallen in conservative circles, and how deeply it has become ingrained in the G.O.P. to oppose the Justice Department at every turn.“The reality is this appointment is meant to distract from, and slow down, our investigations,” said Representative Jason Smith, Republican of Missouri and chairman of Ways and Means, one of three congressional committees looking into the Biden family’s finances.But in interviews, away from social media and television appearances, the reaction of many Republicans to Mr. Weiss’s appointment was more nuanced. Privately, some in the G.O.P. were chalking up the development as a victory.The party had worked for years to elevate the Hunter Biden case — which Democrats have long dismissed as a partisan obsession of the right — to a scandal equivalent to those dogging former President Donald J. Trump, who has faced two impeachment trials, two special counsel investigations and three indictments totaling 78 felony counts against him. Those indictments include charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and willfully retaining national defense information after he left office.By contrast, Hunter Biden has thus far been accused of two misdemeanor crimes stemming from his failure to pay taxes on more than $1.5 million in income related to his overseas business deals, and one felony count of illegally possessing a firearm while being a drug user.After leaving his job as a lobbyist while his father was running to become vice president more than a decade ago, Hunter Biden, a Yale-educated lawyer, and partners entered into a series of international business relationships, often with firms seeking influence and access within the United States. Mr. Biden was paid handsomely, even as he descended into drug addiction, and Republicans have accused him and his family of corruption. But they have not produced evidence that any of the overseas money went to President Biden or that the president influenced U.S. policy to benefit his son’s business partners.“This appointment is meant to distract from, and slow down, our investigations,” said Representative Jason Smith, Republican of Missouri and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which is looking into the Biden family’s finances.Brendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesEven as they objected to Mr. Weiss, some Republicans said the appointment appeared to be an acknowledgment that the allegations they had made deserved a serious investigation. It promised to keep Hunter Biden’s misdeeds in the news — and in the courts — for longer than Democrats would like as the 2024 presidential election heats up. And it ensured that in the minds of some voters the names Trump and Biden would both be linked to scandal, even if Republicans have not proved any wrongdoing by the current president.In an interview with Newsmax, a top Trump adviser, Jason Miller, appeared to echo both sentiments, and foreshadowed coming attacks.Mr. Miller said the appointment of Mr. Weiss “stinks” and accused the prosecutor of sitting on his hands for years. But, he added, ”I do want to make sure that my Republican brethren” don’t ”lose sight of the big prize here.”He described the appointment of a special counsel as “a direct acknowledgment that Hunter Biden did something wrong,” and he recalled President Biden saying in a 2020 debate with Mr. Trump that he had not done anything wrong.Since Mr. Weiss announced a proposed plea deal in June with Mr. Biden — an agreement that would have allowed him to avoid jail time on tax and gun charges but has since fallen apart — Republicans in Congress have sharply criticized the government, accusing the Justice Department of leniency with the president’s son as they conduct their own investigations in an effort to tie his overseas business dealings to the president. House Republicans have also brought forth two I.R.S. agents who worked on Mr. Weiss’s investigation and claimed there had been political interference.One allegation made by the I.R.S. agents was that Mr. Weiss had sought to bring charges against Hunter Biden in Washington and California but had been rebuffed by prosecutors in those jurisdictions who declined to partner with him. The order appointing Mr. Weiss to special counsel authorizes him to bring charges in any jurisdiction.Alyssa DaCunha, a co-chair of the congressional investigations practice at the law firm WilmerHale, said she believed House Republicans’ investigations and their criticisms of the proposed plea deal had “caught the attention” of the Justice Department.“There’s a real need to make sure that whatever charging decisions are made are very, very well supported and the department can really stand behind them,” Ms. DaCunha said. “It seems like this will extend the life of the investigation, and so there are lots of ways in which this is going to complicate the narrative for Democrats moving forward and give the Republicans lots of leverage.”Some House Republicans close to Mr. Trump acknowledged they were pleased with the announcement of the special counsel. For Mr. Trump, in particular, it provided him with the investigation he has long desired to be able to depict the Biden family as corrupt, even as Hunter Biden’s alleged crimes are significantly less severe than the charges Mr. Trump is facing.Mr. Trump’s statement did not suggest that he viewed the appointment of a special counsel as a bad development, merely that it had come late, something his advisers also argued in private.Hunter Biden’s plea deal on tax and gun charges fell apart in court last month.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesMike Pence, the former vice president who is now running against Mr. Trump, was among the few well-known Republicans to openly praise Mr. Weiss’s appointment.But other Republicans were worried the development could be used to block their investigations. Mr. Weiss had pledged to testify on Capitol Hill this fall, but those Republicans predicted he could now cite the special counsel investigation to refuse to do so.The announcement also gives President Biden and Mr. Garland some political cover against Republican accusations that Mr. Trump is a victim of a two-tier system of justice, placing the investigation outside the normal workings of the Justice Department. It could also undercut Republican arguments that an impeachment inquiry of the president is necessary.“In the near term, it gives Republicans the ability to say it legitimizes what they’ve been looking into and it helps give more momentum to their different oversight activities,” said Michael Ricci, a former top communications official to two Republican House speakers and a current fellow at Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service. “But in the longer term, the White House will absolutely use this as an argument against any kind of rush into impeachment.”Several Republicans said their respect for Mr. Weiss had declined after he entered into the plea deal with Hunter Biden.Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who had once called for Mr. Weiss to be made special counsel, said he no longer stands by that belief. “Given the underhanded plea deal negotiated by the U.S. attorney from President Biden’s home state, it’s clear Mr. Weiss isn’t the right person for the job,” Mr. Grassley said.Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, had once called for Mr. Weiss to be made special counsel but said the plea deal changed his mind. Kenny Holston/The New York TimesBut Democrat-aligned groups saw something else in the Republicans’ about-face: disingenuousness.“House Republicans’ opposition to Trump appointee David Weiss’s appointment as special counsel is nothing more than another political stunt,” said Kyle Herrig, the director of the Congressional Integrity Project, an advocacy group that defends President Biden from congressional investigations. “After months of calling for this, their dismay makes clear that they will stop at nothing to weaponize Congress to interfere with an ongoing investigation and harm Joe Biden.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Asked About I.R.S. Inquiry of F.B.I. Officials, Ex-Aide Says Under Oath

      by

      In a court filing, John Kelly, who was a chief of staff under Donald Trump, said the former president had asked about having the tax agency look into Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.John F. Kelly, who served as former President Donald J. Trump’s second White House chief of staff, said in a sworn statement that Mr. Trump had discussed having the Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies investigate two F.B.I. officials involved in the investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia.Mr. Kelly said that his recollection of Mr. Trump’s comments to him was based on notes that he had taken at the time in 2018. Mr. Kelly provided copies of his notes to lawyers for one of the F.B.I. officials, who made the sworn statement public in a court filing.“President Trump questioned whether investigations by the Internal Revenue Service or other federal agencies should be undertaken into Mr. Strzok and/or Ms. Page,” Mr. Kelly said in the statement. “I do not know of President Trump ordering such an investigation. It appeared, however, that he wanted to see Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page investigated.”Mr. Kelly’s assertions were disclosed on Thursday in a statement that was filed in connection with lawsuits brought by Peter Strzok, who was the lead agent in the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation, and Lisa Page, a former lawyer in the bureau, against the Justice Department for violating their privacy rights when the Trump administration made public text messages between them.The disclosures from Mr. Kelly, made under penalty of perjury, demonstrate the extent of Mr. Trump’s interest in harnessing the law enforcement and investigative powers of the federal government to target his perceived enemies. In the aftermath of Richard M. Nixon’s presidency, Congress made it illegal for a president to “directly or indirectly” order an I.R.S. investigation or audit.The New York Times reported last July that two of Mr. Trump’s greatest perceived enemies — James B. Comey, whom he fired as F.B.I. director, and Mr. Comey’s deputy, Andrew G. McCabe — were the subject of the same type of highly unusual and invasive I.R.S. audit.It is not known whether the I.R.S. investigated Mr. Strzok or Ms. Page. But Mr. Strzok became a subject in the investigation conducted by the special counsel John Durham into how the F.B.I. investigated Mr. Trump’s campaign. Neither Mr. Strzok nor Ms. Page was charged in connection with that investigation, which former law enforcement officials and Democrats have criticized as an effort to carry out Mr. Trump’s vendetta against the bureau. Mr. Strzok is also suing the department for wrongful termination.Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page exchanged text messages that were critical of Mr. Trump and were later made public by Rod J. Rosenstein, then the deputy attorney general under Mr. Trump, as he faced heavy criticism from Republicans on Capitol Hill who were trying to find ways to undermine him.The sworn statements from Mr. Kelly are similar to ones he made to The New York Times in November, in which he said that Mr. Trump had told him that he wanted a number of his perceived political enemies to be investigated by the I.R.S., including Mr. Comey, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page.Mr. Kelly told The Times last year that Mr. Trump’s demands were part of a broader pattern of attempts to use the Justice Department and his authority as president against people who had been critical of him, including seeking to revoke the security clearances of former top intelligence officials.In the sworn statement, Mr. Kelly said that Mr. Trump had discussed having the security clearances of Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page revoked, although Mr. Kelly did not take action on the idea. Mr. Kelly said that his notes showed that Mr. Trump discussed the investigations of the two on Feb. 21, 2018.“I did not make a note of every instance in which then President Trump made a comment about Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page,” Mr. Kelly said. “President Trump generally disapproved of note-taking in meetings. He expressed concern that the notes might later be used against him.”Mr. Kelly said that he never took any steps to follow through on Mr. Trump’s desires to have his enemies investigated.Mr. Trump has said he knew nothing about the audits of Mr. Comey and Mr. McCabe and their spouses. The I.R.S.’s inspector general found last year that Mr. Comey and Mr. McCabe had been randomly selected for the audits, though the inspector general’s report acknowledged some deviations from the I.R.S.’s rigorous rules for random selection when the agency made final selections of the returns that would be audited.Mr. Kelly told The Times last year that Mr. Trump had at times discussed using the I.R.S. and the Justice Department to address others in addition to Mr. Comey, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page.They included, Mr. Kelly said, the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan; Hillary Clinton; and Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and the owner of The Washington Post, whose coverage often angered Mr. Trump. More