I wasted time skimming through "26 USC Section 469"...Damn you F for making me read though that drudgery instead of just quoting what you were talking about.
Are you really crying about educating yourself and having an informed opinion?
Looks to me like Forbes is correct, Salty is correct, my intuition is correct, and Franklin is misleading us. The code indicates that a passive loss can be used sooner or later to offset other gains, even non-passive. Franklin, if there is some condition in there I missed that changes this, (other than the IRS deciding that the whole thing was a cheating tax dodge), feel free to be more specific.
Good. Now that you're a section 469 expert you're capable of explaining where I misunderstood. Go.
You're the one who doesn't seem to get it. You're so busy arguing the semantics that you're missing the overall point. It doesn't matter if you call it a credit, deduction, write off, illegal tax evasion, or any other term that may have been floated around in this thread. In all instances, the end result is the same: the federal government had less money because Romney got some sort of discount.
If this is acceptable to you then that is fine. I have no problem with it either. But if you think it's acceptable for this to happen, and you have a problem with people getting "free stuff" from the government (meaning food stamps for the poor) then it is you who is worthless to this discussion
Are you stating that 1) we should get rid of corporate profit and loss taxes, or 2) profits should be socialized and expenses privatized?
Are you going to cry when the Romneys pay taxes on the $25,000 per shot of sperm they get from this horse?