Could President Trump sell his business tax free?

The law is ambiguous, but the chances that Donald Trump could avoid paying tax on any profits from the sale of his businesses are 50/50 in the view of one policy expert.

Evan Vucci/AP/File
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, accompanied by (l. to r.) Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Trump, Melania Trump, Tiffany Trump, and Ivanka Trump, holds up a ribbon during the grand opening ceremony of the Trump International Hotel- Old Post Office, in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 26, 2016. Several experts in government contract law say that President-elect Trump will have to give up his stake in his prized Washington hotel if he wants to be president.

Yesterday, President-elect Trump tweeted he would leave his businesses “in total” to reduce his potential conflicts as President. The Office of Government Ethics (“OGE”), tweeted its praise for his remarks, and encouraged him to divest his interests rather than merely transfer control. But could Trump avoid paying tax on any profits from the sale of his businesses?  Surprisingly, the answer may be yes. The law is ambiguous; a 50/50 proposition in my view.

In the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Congress strengthened a variety of ethics rules, including those that prohibited federal officials and employees (other than the president and vice-president) from participating in official acts in which they have a financial interest.  To soften the blow, Congress added Code section 1043, which allows officers or employees of the executive branch (including political appointees) to sell property, deferring taxation, to avoid potential conflicts if they reinvest the proceeds in either Treasuries or diversified mutual funds (and carryover their basis from the prior property). The deferral has been especially valuable to appointees like former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who had large concentrated holdings that appreciated over many years.

Very little of the ethics law extends to the president or vice president, because of concerns over the separation of powers. But Code section 1043 does not expressly exclude the president or vice president from its benefits, including the ability to sell assets tax-free. The President only needs a written determination that divestiture of specific property is “reasonably necessary” to comply with any Federal conflict of interest statute, regulation, or rule (including those from the Ethics Act).  And who issues those written determinations? The President himself or the Director of the OGE. So, in theory, Trump could write his own determination—or direct OGE to do so.

It might be hard for Trump to justify a written determination as “reasonably necessary” to comply with a conflict-of-interest rule from which he is generally exempted. But the spirit of the rules applies and, in its tweets (and in prior opinions), OGE asserted the President should act as if the letter of the law applies as well. 

President Trump might also argue that divestiture is reasonably necessary under the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which prohibits the acceptance of payments by foreign officials or governments, or by the prohibition against accepting bribes. Both apply to the president (and might be characterized as conflict-of-interest rules). Unfortunately, there is little guidance on Code section 1043, which is administered by OGE rather than the IRS.

Applying section 1043 to the president would be novel. It would be enormously controversial, and might be considered aggressive.  And, thanks to this law’s ambiguity, it may be his choice. But, to maintain public confidence, perhaps Trump should simply defer to OGE, or to another agency, like the IRS (or, perhaps, to a new, and more independent, person or body to review).

This story originally appeared on TaxVox.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Could President Trump sell his business tax free?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today