iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Mitt Romney's Tax Returns Show 13.9% Tax Rate, Highlight Challenges For Wealthy Candidates

Mitt Romney Tax Returns

First Posted: 01/24/2012 4:48 am Updated: 01/24/2012 9:47 am

WASHINGTON -- In an attempt to stop a steady stream of bad press over questions about his income, assets and tax rate, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released one year of his tax returns and an estimate for his 2011 tax returns on Tuesday morning. The disclosure comes four days after Romney's big loss to Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina primary on Saturday and after weeks of escalating questions about when he would release his tax returns and why he would not promise to disclose them.

The returns show that Mitt and Ann Romney, who are worth from $190 million to $250 million, earned $21.7 million in 2010 and paid a 13.9 percent tax rate, lower than that of a person earning $50,000. The total amount the Romneys paid in taxes in 2010 was about $3 million.

Along with releasing their tax returns from 2010, the Romneys released estimates for their 2011 taxes, which have not yet been filed. The estimates show an income of $20.9 million, with the couple paying a tax rate of 15.4 percent, closer to the estimate that Romney gave at a January 17 press conference. The Romneys' income came entirely from investments, mostly from capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than other types of income.

Those investments are littered across a series of accounts in places stretching from America to the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg and even include a now-closed Swiss bank account. Many of these accounts hold few assets.

Also revealed in the tax returns is the amount the candidate gave to charity. In total, the Romneys in 2010 gave nearly $3 million to charity, with half of that going to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormon church.

Gingrich, Romney's chief opponent in the Republican primary, released his tax returns on January 19 during a Republican debate. Gingrich's tax rate, 31 percent, is more than double that of Romney. President Barack Obama last year released his 2010 tax returns, which showed a 23 percent tax rate. Both Gingrich and Obama, while earning in the millions of dollars in 2010, made just a fraction of Romney's income.

The tax returns, while normally a routine side story to campaigns, have become a particularly salient issue over the past few weeks. The country is in the midst of the first full presidential election cycle since the financial meltdown of 2008 and the ensuing rise in unemployment and foreclosures, along with a decline in wages and economic security. The cumulative effect of these negative trend lines has led to increasing anxiety about growing income inequality and the fairness of the tax code.

Romney, one of the wealthiest men to run for president, initially refused to disclose his tax returns after being pressed by the media, President Obama's campaign and his Republican rivals in the primary race. In a January 16 debate Romney said he would "probably" disclose his tax returns, but "time will tell." Three days later Romney flubbed an entirely predictable question about the tax returns when CNN's John King asked Romney if he would follow the example of his father, onetime presidential candidate and Michigan Gov. George Romney, and release 12 years of his tax returns. Romney's boo-eliciting response was "Maybe."

The initial refusal to release his returns, followed by the drawn-out speculation about why he would not, damaged Romney's campaign, which has been premised on the argument that a very successful businessman is the only kind of person who can get America back to work. Being a very successful businessman, however, almost always means being a very wealthy businessman. At a moment when Americans are concerned deeply about the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, Romney's tax returns and his low tax rate, are ripe to become symbols of the lack of fairness that too many Americans see themselves facing.

It isn't as though Romney is the first very wealthy man to run for president, but he has a way of highlighting his wealth in a way that brings to mind the famous quip by the former Texas Gov. Ann Richards about President George H.W. Bush: "He was born with a silver foot in his mouth."

Over the course of the 2012 primary campaign Romney has made a series of gaffes that have helped create a caricature of the candidate as an aloof plutocrat. He made a flippant $10,000 bet during a televised debate. He emphatically declared to a crowd in Iowa that "corporations are people." In a statement that has been somewhat taken out of context, Romney declared, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me." When announcing that he had an estimated 15 percent tax rate, Romney glossed over the $374,327 he earned in speaking fees as "not very much."

The tax return issue is unlikely to go away for Romney. His father began the tradition of presidential candidates releasing their tax returns during his 1968 run for the Republican presidential nomination. As stated in the John King question that Mitt Romney flubbed before the South Carolina primary, George Romney released 12 years of tax returns in 1967. NBC's Brian Williams revealed in Monday night's debate that Mitt Romney had handed over 20 years of tax returns to the 2008 presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) when he was auditioning as a potential vice presidential candidate.

UPDATE: 9:40 a.m. -- On a Tuesday morning conference call the Romney campaign sought to head off questions about a Swiss bank account reported in Mitt Romney's tax returns and other investments in funds located in offshore locations, including the Cayman Islands, Ireland and Luxembourg.

"Why is there a Swiss bank account listed on the Romneys' tax return? It is listed because I set that up for diversification back in 2003," Brad Malt, Romney's tax lawyer, explained. "It earns some income ... The tax is fully paid just as if this is a U.S. bank account ... I did close this account in early 2010."

Malt further elaborated on why he closed the account, saying, "I've previously said that I regularly review Governor Romney's investments. In my periodic reviews I decided that this account was not serving any particular purpose. ...It might or might not be consistent with Governor Romney's political views. ...It just wasn't worth it and I closed the account."

Romney's advisers and lawyers pushed back against reports in the press that he held money in offshore accounts by noting that these were investments in funds held in offshore accounts by other companies and that all taxes were paid.

"There have been reports that these investments are evading taxes," Malt said. "Again that is flatly wrong. ...The blind trust's investment in the Cayman funds is taxed the same as if Governor Romney made the investments himself."

On questions about Romney's investment in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Malt said, "I'm not allowed to communicate with Governor Romney about these investments. ...There was no discussion about Freddie and Fannie investments."

During the call, Romney counsel Ben Ginsburg sought to portray continuing questions about Romney's tax returns as political machinations emanating from the campaign of President Barack Obama.

"It's an extensive disclosure that satisfies the public, if not the Obama research guys," Ginsburg said. "There are 26 people from the Chicago area listening in. So, that sort of gives you an idea of the state of play."

Browse through the Romneys' entire 2010 tax return below:

Related on HuffPost:

Download

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- In an attempt to stop a steady stream of bad press over questions about his income, assets and tax rate, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released one year of his tax return...
WASHINGTON -- In an attempt to stop a steady stream of bad press over questions about his income, assets and tax rate, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released one year of his tax return...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5,664
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (101 total)
03:47 PM on 10/24/2012
don't be disengenuous. You know earnings from capital gains is not the same as a person earning wages or salary. The capital gains tax rate is 13.9% He already PAID taxes on the money when it was first earned. He paid what is due under the law! If the capital gains tax rate is 14% on YOUR earnings, would YOU pay more? Of course not! And did YOU give anywhere near 19% of your income away in any given year? BTW, the Obamas gave 5%. So stop with the class envy.
01:51 AM on 10/23/2012
Fact: with all the loopholes deductions and ways to dodge paying a fair tax rate closed the top 10% of the country could in one year pay off our entire defecit. You all seem to forget it is extremely easy to open up a charity and one of the oldest and easiest ways to launder money as well. The system certainly favors the rich because the rich own the system (which is inevitable in a capitalistic society because money becomes the ultimate objective) and they have since money was created out of shiny rocks and metals that were thought to be "pretty". The fact is that humans are an extremely intelligent species. The way we currently survive is by exploiting any and all resources our big rock (earth) has to offer without thinking of the consequences. Humans for the win.
11:18 AM on 10/17/2012
Mr Romney paid $3,009,766 in 2010, Mr. Obama paid $186,589 in 2011. At that rate, it will take Mr. Obama 16 years to pay as much as Mr. Romney paid in one year. My question is, which contributed the most to our great country?
01:43 PM on 09/26/2012
Mr. Mitt Romney will lose the election if he does not show voters of his Tax Returns for the past 10 years. Act now.
09:37 PM on 09/21/2012
The issue I have is that he actually should have paid around 9% in taxes. His return shows $4million in charitable donations in which he only claimed and took the credit for $2.25 million. He had to do this in order to "work backwards" and get to the tax rate that he had been claiming he paid last year. In essence he chose his preferred tax rate which was manipulated to be higher. He will file an amendment to the return and take the additional credit. But right now he can't. Also he stated his return was completed by a blind trust, whom is actually his personal attorney and privy to client-attorney privilege. This always his attorney to manipulate his returns without having to disclose due to privilege. Frankly without the manipulations to his return, most millionaires pay around 25% in taxes. How is he over 10% lower? I would account the 28 investment accounts in foreign countries which has allowed him to evade the IRS. Why not show the returns From other years as opposed to a self reported summary. Give me a break! I guess he believes the 47%'s are stupid too!
09:27 PM on 09/21/2012
I issue I have is that he actually paid a higher tax rate than he should have, in essence choosing his preferred tax rate. He reported $4 million in charitable donations but only claiming $2.25 million which resulted in the higher tax rate instead of the 9% had he indeed claimed his full exemptions. Couple that with his "blind trust" whom is actually his personal attorney and privy to client-attorney priveledge
04:01 PM on 09/21/2012
As one of the millions of Americans who pays taxes based on work and Romney makes money based upon millions of people working (even the supposed 47% that neither pay his nor our kind of taxes---except some years Mitt appears to have been among the 47%), how do we get his tax rate or better yet join him during some of his years in the 47%?
03:22 PM on 09/21/2012
When you are poor, the middle class gave you a break. Now you are rich , you want to break the
middle class. I see how it is.
Hindus
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robin Rae Overholt
roverho2
12:11 PM on 06/02/2012
GOP middleclass have now seen who Willard is in bed with In every since of the word and you still trust this guy? Where are all the jobs at? What was the object of extending the Bush tax cuts? You blame Obama for no jobs yet they have sat on their fortunes for what? What is it going to take to make you realize it has never been about you? This is a Congress holding the middleclass hostage so they can have a puppet who is rich enough not to care about any of you! Sure they will throw you some crumbs but you are risking your livelihood for the future. Nothing Obama has put forth is different than what they once embraced. It is over wages here in a Global economy that they are after. Wake up!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
A 1 Percenter
What Difference at This Point Does it Make
01:08 PM on 03/08/2012
This is a big yawn. THE story would be if he failed to pay his taxes (read Tim Geither). Romney followed the law. Isn't that what we're all supposed to do? Now, if you don't like the law, don't blame Romney. BHO had the WH, House and Senate all to himself for two years and were in a position to change things. Ya'll must be so disappointed with the annointed one.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Villano
American Patriot
08:00 PM on 04/18/2012
This is the only way they can continue the division among the masses. Huffington writters are not a friend of the American sys of free speech...only leftest marxist kind of onesided speech.. Theirs!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robin Rae Overholt
roverho2
12:13 PM on 06/02/2012
I notice you failed to mention Congress! You miss the point on purpose?
05:46 PM on 01/25/2012
I am confused... The article states: (Romney) paid a 13.9 percent tax rate, lower than that of a person earning $50,000.

In 2010, the tax rate was 10% on the first $16750 and 15% on $16750 to $68.000 (for married filing jointly). The tax for a couple earning $50,000 would be $1675+ $4987.5 =$6662.5 (assuming they had no deductions). This results in a tax of 13.3%
02:52 PM on 01/27/2012
If you put the numbers through the 1040-EZ form, you'll see that your numbers are wrong because you ignored the personal exemption. Their actual tax is $3861, or 7.7% of their income.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Julian Cicone
12:29 AM on 03/19/2012
Yea but you are just referring to couples and people married who file jointly. You have gay couples who can't file jointly, you have married couples who don't file jointly, you have single people who are not married so they can't. I'm single, I made about 50,000 dollars in 2010, my tax rate was 14.6%. Now Romney filed taxes jointly with his wife, however even though I'm single and he is married and filed jointly, should my taxes still be higher despite being single and Romney being married and filed jointly? Because Romney's income was over 20,000,000, mine was 50,000, I feel that even with myself being single, Romney's tax rate still should of been higher.
07:08 PM on 03/27/2012
You probably earned your income via your job (e.i. salaries, wages, etc.). Romney earned most of his income through capital gains. Capital gains are taxed much lower because they are gained off of income already taxed.
05:41 PM on 01/25/2012
I'm confused. The article states: (Romney) paid a 13.9 percent tax rate, lower than that of a person earning $50,000.

In 2010, the tax rates for married filing jointly were 10% on the first $16,750 and 15% up to $68,000 (for married filing jointly). The tax would be 1675+4
12:21 PM on 01/25/2012
Now I am curious, what is George Soros's tax rate?
And how much does he give to charity? Not political organizations, but actual directly helping the poor charities?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BeckyJustice
Stop the frickin Fracking. NOW!
11:37 AM on 01/26/2012
George Soros is running for President???

"Also revealed in the tax returns is the amount the candidate gave to charity. In total, the Romneys in 2010 gave nearly $3 million to charity, with half of that going to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormon church."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41431550/ns/us_news-giving/t/very-poor-year-giving-rich/
"Leading the list was Soros, the hedge-fund manager, who gave $332 million to his Open Society Foundations. The foundations support democracy and human rights in more than 70 countries. (Soros’ brother and sister-in-law, Paul and Daisy M. Soros, also made the list, tied for No. 41)."


"On Sept. 19, President Obama rolled out his jobs plan, calling for individuals making more than $250,000 to pay higher taxes for the sake of paying down the deficit and funding the president’s jobs plan. As the president has pitched the plan to the country, he has repeatedly invoked the name of the Omaha Oracle as a selling point — dubbing his proposal as “The Buffett Rule.” Senate Democrats proposed an alternative solution: A 5 percent surtax on any income a person earns beyond $1 million a year — including capital gains. The president threw his support behind the measure.

Most of those who did respond to Salon’s question seemed to have strong opinions. Liberal philanthropist, George Soros (Net worth: $22B), expressed approval."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robin Rae Overholt
roverho2
12:31 PM on 06/02/2012
Enough said there. Mormans at the table first! We will have to check that out!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:30 AM on 01/25/2012
A tax system where it's common for someone making 32 million dollars to pay a lower tax rate than someone making 32 thousand dollars is an unjust, immoral system. If any of the republican nominees is elected, their own announced ideas on taxation would lower the 13.9% rate of Mr. Romney even more, making taxation even more unjust and more immoral. Just the facts folks, just the facts.
12:19 PM on 01/25/2012
I agree, the top rate for everyone should be 15%
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:44 PM on 01/25/2012
Which means government couldn't function.
06:33 PM on 01/29/2012
@oafishcad - Go fish dude. Try re-thinking that post. Someone making $32,000 will certainly NOT pay a higher tax rate! Please take another look. It simply can't be any higher than 11%! Just the facts dude. Just the facts. "Think, men. Think!"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Julian Cicone
12:34 AM on 03/19/2012
That's not true. What about gay couples who even if married can't file jointly therefore they have to pay their taxes single. An entire group of people in this country are forced to pay more taxes because of their sexual orientation. There are many people making 32,000 that are paying more due to being single or gay
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TXLADY44
ITs all about Forward
02:41 PM on 09/21/2012
Romeny needs to pay the same rate a someone who make 32K. Those loop holes need to be closed!
12:06 AM on 01/25/2012
The wealthy should get no tax cuts, breaks or credits at all. The only breaks should be for the poor (and i dont mean anything at all like letting the live off welfare forever or us paying to support lazy people). And for anyone with a worth below $1mil or what ever the decided # would be, for buying their first home, first New or certified used car or for starting their first business. As for capital gains the risk is their but people risk it to make the big bucks and it should be taxed as if it were income because it is income = to 9-5 job tax rate.
11:17 PM on 01/26/2012
Many times when an investor is trying for the "big bucks", they end up with no bucks. If you tax capital gains as income there will be very little incentive to invest. If no one takes the risk then no one wins and that will eventually trickle down to all of us. The tax rate on capital gains should be ZERO. Money would flow in from all over the world, it would surely have a much larger payoff than the measly 15% the Feds are collecting now.
01:42 AM on 01/27/2012
Im not sure exactly how anybody else would be any better off if Mitt paid zero $ in taxes? Look at california, probably the richest state and its broke im thinking if the rich paid their taxes like the poor they may just be way better off. Regardless risk vs reward doesnt work without risk! Pretty much pay to play
03:56 AM on 06/17/2012
This is bunk. If a person feels an investment is a good investment, they will make it. They may figure in tax rates in seeing if an investment is a good one, but they are not going to forego profit to stick their tongue out at the taxman.