特朗普是美國地產業避稅的縮影

Donald Trump loves to disregard political rules. Now he is trying to break yet another: although it has long been customary for American presidential candidates to release their tax returns, Mr Trump is refusing to comply.

唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)不把政治規則放在眼裏。如今他又試圖打破一條規則：美國總統競選人公佈納稅申報單是早已有之的慣例，但特朗普拒絕這麼做。

He says this is because these need to be audited by the Inland Revenue Service; critics say he has something to hide. Either way, the row is becoming poisonous — not least because polls suggest that two-thirds of Americans think he should release those returns.

他說這是因爲國內稅收署(IRS)正在審計他的納稅申報單；批評者指責他有隱情（專家們都認爲即使申報單正在接受審查也不妨礙公佈）。不管是哪種情況，這場爭議正產生負面影響——主要因爲民意調查顯示，三分之二的美國人認爲他應當公佈納稅申報單。

As the mudslinging intensifies, it is not just the issue of Mr Trump’s tax returns that should make American voters angry. The bigger scandal is the way the corporate tax code treats those who own or develop real estate, and construction groups in a wider sense.

隨着這場揭發祕辛的戲碼愈演愈烈，美國選民應該感到憤怒的不只是特朗普不肯公佈納稅申報單這件事情。公司稅法中針對擁有房地產或從事房地產開發的個人以及建築集團的規定隱藏着更大的醜聞。

For if it were to emerge that — as his critics suspect — Mr Trump has paid little (or no) tax in recent years, the dismal truth is that he is not alone. On the contrary, there are so many loopholes that an audit of most property groups would show rock-bottom tax rates. Or, as one powerful real estate titan recently observed to me (in private): “If you are a developer who is paying tax, you have to be pretty dumb.”

因爲，如果事情真的就像批評者所懷疑的那樣，特朗普近年裏只繳了很少的稅（或者根本沒有繳稅），那麼，一個令人沮喪的事實是，不只是他一個人這樣做。相反，由於相關稅法中漏洞衆多，對多數地產集團的核查將顯示它們的稅率居然很低。或者，正如一位有影響力的房地產巨頭近來（私下裏）對我提到的那樣：“如果你身爲地產商還納稅，那你肯定是個大傻瓜。”

Normally, these loopholes do not attract much attention. Corporate tax is fiendishly complex and many large property companies are privately held. The type of scrutiny that publicly listed companies face in relation to tax has rarely troubled big construction groups.

在正常情況下，這些漏洞沒有怎麼引起注意。公司稅極其複雜，而許多大型地產公司屬於私人所有。大型建築公司很少碰到上市公司在稅法方面受到的那種審查。

The row about Mr Trump’s returns has served the public interest by casting a spotlight on some of the practices. Some of these are quite colourful: a property classified as “agricultural” or “environmentally protected” can often escape certain federal and municipal taxes. It recently emerged that Mr Trump got a $39.1m tax deduction on a New Jersey golf course in 2005 because he donated the land for “conservation easement” — and installed some goats to claim it as farmland too.

特朗普納稅申報單所引起的爭議於公衆有益，因爲它使人們關注一些稅務操作手法。有些手法是相當多姿多彩的：一個地塊如果被歸類爲“農業用地”或者“環保用地”，往往就可以免交某些聯邦和市政稅款。不久前有消息稱，2005年特朗普在新澤西州一處高爾夫球場獲得了3910萬美元免稅，因爲他把那塊地捐贈出去用於“保護地役權”，並養了一些山羊、聲稱那裏也是農田。

The most important loopholes cannot be easily photographed. Developers can depreciate the value of their properties to reduce their tax liabilities, or appraise values in opaque ways. Another recent revelation is that Mr Trump claims for tax purposes that one of his golf courses in Ossining is worth a mere $1.35m — while local realtors have suggested a figure of $50m is more appropriate.

一些最重要的漏洞不是三言兩語就能說明白的。開發商可以貶低其地產的價值，以減輕稅務負擔，或者以不透明的方式估值。最近還曝光了一件事，特朗普在報稅時聲稱他在奧斯寧(Ossining)一處高爾夫球場的價值僅爲135萬美元——而當地房地產經紀人暗示，說它價值5000萬美元比較合適。

If real estate groups organise themselves into partnerships, they can write off mortgage interest payments against tax. They can also use the “1031 clause” in the property code, which stipulates that such partnerships can defer tax on a real estate sale if they “swap” their holding for another piece of property.

如果房地產集團採取合夥制，那麼它們在納稅時可以扣減按揭利息支出。它們也可以運用稅例“第1031條款”。該條款規定，這類合夥制企業如果把自己的房產“交換”另一處房產，則可以遞延繳納房地產銷售的利得稅。

President Barack Obama tried but failed to curb the use of the clause. Even if a developer still faces a tax liability, they can almost always arrange their affairs to ensure that the gains are taxed as capital gains, not income WHY IS THIS SO?. For top earners, this cuts the tax rate from 39.8 per cent to 23.8 per cent.

美國總統巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)嘗試限制該條款的使用，但沒有成功。即便一家開發商仍負有納稅義務，它們幾乎總是可以進行相關安排，確保他們的收益按照資本利得而不是收入來繳稅。對於收入最高者而言，這麼做稅率會從39.8%降到23.8%。

Such loopholes are not unique to the world of property, or America. But decades of lobbying has made the US real estate pattern particularly extreme. While it is unclear how much revenue is being lost as a result, some hint of the pattern can be seen by looking at some number crunching recently performed by colleagues on FT Alphaville.

這些漏洞並不是房地產行業或者美國所獨有的。但幾十年的遊說，使美國房地產業的稅務漏洞變得尤爲極端。儘管這樣導致的稅收損失有多大是個未知數，但FT Alphaville的同事們不久前進行了一些數據運算，從中可以看到一些蛛絲馬跡。

Using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, they calculate that between 2011 and 2014 residential real estate was the single most profitable American business sector, ahead of non-residential and construction. If you look at the amount of tax paid, the construction sector was third from bottom, while the non-residential and residential sectors sat well below their profit rankings too. That means that real estate is producing profits, much of which are escaping the tax net. <- -CAN WE REPHRASE THIS

他們使用美國經濟分析局(Bureau of Economic Analysis)的數據進行計算，發現2011年至2014年期間住宅房地產業是美國盈利水平最高的行業，領先於非住宅地產和建築業。再來看一下納稅情況，建築業排在倒數第三，而非住宅地產和住宅地產行業的納稅排名也遠低於它們的盈利排名。這意味着，房地產行業在創造利潤，但很大一部分利潤逃脫了稅收大網。

From a policy perspective, this looks bizarre — and wrong. There may have once been good reasons why governments felt the need to support the real estate industry: to encourage urban development, or offset the impact of high interest rates, say. But today, rates are rock bottom, and property developers are some of the wealthiest people in the country.

從政策角度來說，這看起來很怪異，也是錯誤的。政府過去或許有充分理由支持房地產行業：比如鼓勵城市開發，或者抵消高利率的影響。但如今利率非常之低，而地產開發商是美國國內最富有的羣體之一。

So perhaps it is time for Mr Trump’s critics to widen their attack. Yes, it is interesting to speculate about how little tax Mr Trump has paid; and yes he has probably been more “creative” than most. But the really interesting question is what Mr Trump — or Hillary Clinton — would do in office. Will either of them actually abolish those real estate loopholes? Or just crack down on more visible targets such as hedge funds, banks or technology companies? No prizes for guessing the answers. And therein lies another outrage.

所以，現在特朗普的批評者或許應該擴大攻擊。是的，猜測特朗普只繳了多少稅是很有趣；他也大概確實比大多數人都更有“創造力”。但真正耐人尋味的是，特朗普——或希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)——上臺的話會怎麼做？他們中有哪一個人能夠確實地堵上房地產行業的這些稅務漏洞？還是隻會打壓那些更明顯的目標，比如對衝基金、銀行或科技公司？猜中答案並無獎品。這是另一個讓人憤怒的地方。