Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32
you should put a Mrs. in front of the Romney part because you make it seem like Mitt sold the horse.
|
Naw. Mitt just got Ann's name taken off the complaint at the settlement, and used the deduction on his tax return.
The owner's
legal agent was fully complicit in this fraud. The Romneys knew the horse was lame. The Romney's knew the horse couldn't do upper level dressage any more. The Romney's sold the lame horse for $125,000 as an upper level dressage horse, after it was drugged to go sound.
Quote:
|
Why would the buyer not use a vet they trusted for the pre purchase exam?
|
When you fly in to look at horses, you have to use local vets for the intial stuff (blood draw, rads, etc). The vet screwed her, and yes, he should be held responsible for his gross ethical breech he participated in - with the owner's agent.
The buyer did the wise and common thing, and had a second opinion back home. Good thing,too, as it caught the fraud.
Quote:
|
This whole thing is very very shady, but it doesnt seem to have anything to do with Mr. Romney.
|
Except he writes the checks. I'll guess that $125,000 profit on the lame horse Ann couldn't ride any longer helped offset the farm business deduction losses (like that $77,000), to make one of those 2 out of 7 years profitable on Mitt's tax return. So he can continue to claim the horses as a business, rather than an unprofitable hobby.