特朗普是美国地产业避税的缩影

 Donald Trump 1 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.

唐纳德?特朗普(Donald Trump)不把政治规则放在眼里。如今他又试图打破一条规则：美国总统竞选人公布纳税申报单是早已有之的惯例，但特朗普拒绝这么做。
He says this is because these need to be audited 4 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.
他说这是因为国内税收署(IRS)正在审计他的纳税申报单；批评者指责他有隐情（专家们都认为即使申报单正在接受审查也不妨碍公布）。不管是哪种情况，这场争议正产生负面影响——主要因为民意调查显示，三分之二的美国人认为他应当公布纳税申报单。
As the mudslinging intensifies 5, 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 6 tax code treats those who own or develop real estate, and construction groups in a wider sense.
随着这场揭发秘辛的戏码愈演愈烈，美国选民应该感到愤怒的不只是特朗普不肯公布纳税申报单这件事情。公司税法中针对拥有房地产或从事房地产开发的个人以及建筑集团的规定隐藏着更大的丑闻。
For if it were to emerge that — as his critics suspect — Mr Trump has paid little (or no) tax in recent years, the dismal 7 truth is that he is not alone. On the contrary, there are so many loopholes that an audit 3 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.”
因为，如果事情真的就像批评者所怀疑的那样，特朗普近年里只缴了很少的税（或者根本没有缴税），那么，一个令人沮丧的事实是，不只是他一个人这样做。相反，由于相关税法中漏洞众多，对多数地产集团的核查将显示它们的税率居然很低。或者，正如一位有影响力的房地产巨头近来（私下里）对我提到的那样：“如果你身为地产商还纳税，那你肯定是个大傻瓜。”
Normally, these loopholes do not attract much attention. Corporate tax is fiendishly complex and many large property companies are privately 8 held. The type of scrutiny 9 that publicly listed companies face in relation to tax has rarely troubled big construction groups.
在正常情况下，这些漏洞没有怎么引起注意。公司税极其复杂，而许多大型地产公司属于私人所有。大型建筑公司很少碰到上市公司在税法方面受到的那种审查。
The row about Mr Trump’s returns has served the public interest by casting a spotlight 10 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 11 on a New Jersey 12 golf course in 2005 because he donated the land for “conservation easement” — and installed some goats to claim it as farmland too.
特朗普纳税申报单所引起的争议于公众有益，因为它使人们关注一些税务操作手法。有些手法是相当多姿多彩的：一个地块如果被归类为“农业用地”或者“环保用地”，往往就可以免交某些联邦和市政税款。不久前有消息称，2005年特朗普在新泽西州一处高尔夫球场获得了3910万美元免税，因为他把那块地捐赠出去用于“保护地役权”，并养了一些山羊、声称那里也是农田。
The most important loopholes cannot be easily photographed. Developers can depreciate 13 the value of their properties to reduce their tax liabilities, or appraise 14 values in opaque 15 ways. Another recent revelation is that Mr Trump claims for tax purposes that one of his golf courses in Ossining is worth a mere 16 $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两语就能说明白的。开发商可以贬低其地产的价值，以减轻税务负担，或者以不透明的方式估值。最近还曝光了一件事，特朗普在报税时声称他在奥斯宁(Ossining)一处高尔夫球场的价值仅为135万美元——而当地房地产经纪人暗示，说它价值5000万美元比较合适。
If real estate groups organise 17 themselves into partnerships 18, they can write off mortgage interest payments against tax. They can also use the “1031 clause” in the property code, which stipulates 19 that such partnerships can defer 20 tax on a real estate sale if they “swap” their holding for another piece of property.
如果房地产集团采取合伙制，那么它们在纳税时可以扣减按揭利息支出。它们也可以运用税例“第1031条款”。该条款规定，这类合伙制企业如果把自己的房产“交换”另一处房产，则可以递延缴纳房地产销售的利得税。
President Barack Obama tried but failed to curb 21 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.
美国总统巴拉克?奥巴马(Barack Obama)尝试限制该条款的使用，但没有成功。即便一家开发商仍负有纳税义务，它们几乎总是可以进行相关安排，确保他们的收益按照资本利得而不是收入来缴税。对于收入最高者而言，这么做税率会从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 22 recently performed by colleagues on FT Alphaville.
这些漏洞并不是房地产行业或者美国所独有的。但几十年的游说，使美国房地产业的税务漏洞变得尤为极端。尽管这样导致的税收损失有多大是个未知数，但FT Alphaville的同事们不久前进行了一些数据运算，从中可以看到一些蛛丝马迹。
Using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, they calculate that between 2011 and 2014 residential 2 real estate was the single most profitable American business sector 23, 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 24 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
他们使用美国经济分析局(Bureau of Economic Analysis)的数据进行计算，发现2011年至2014年期间住宅房地产业是美国盈利水平最高的行业，领先于非住宅地产和建筑业。再来看一下纳税情况，建筑业排在倒数第三，而非住宅地产和住宅地产行业的纳税排名也远低于它们的盈利排名。这意味着，房地产行业在创造利润，但很大一部分利润逃脱了税收大网。
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 25 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.
从政策角度来说，这看起来很怪异，也是错误的。政府过去或许有充分理由支持房地产行业：比如鼓励城市开发，或者抵消高利率的影响。但如今利率非常之低，而地产开发商是美国国内最富有的群体之一。
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 26.
所以，现在特朗普的批评者或许应该扩大攻击。是的，猜测特朗普只缴了多少税是很有趣；他也大概确实比大多数人都更有“创造力”。但真正耐人寻味的是，特朗普——或希拉里?克林顿(Hillary Clinton)——上台的话会怎么做？他们中有哪一个人能够确实地堵上房地产行业的这些税务漏洞？还是只会打压那些更明显的目标，比如对冲基金、银行或科技公司？猜中答案并无奖品。这是另一个让人愤怒的地方。