What We Still Don’t Know About Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns

With Jeb Bush planning to release a decade of information, the pressure is on Romney to come clean.

Steven M. Falk/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


If Mitt Romney runs for president in 2016, he may have to confront a ghost that haunted him in 2012: his tax returns. Romney was hounded with requests to release detailed tax filings that would disclose the details of his fortune—which is at least in the hundreds of millions. Ultimately, he only revealed two years of information, and was roundly criticized for his lack of transparency. Jeb Bush reportedly plans to avoid a “Romney problem”  by releasing 10 years of tax returns. If he runs, Romney will be under heavy pressure to do the same.

In 2012, Mother Jones pointed out that based on his two years of reports, the taxes Romney paid on his adjusted gross income didn’t fully cover all his wealth. Two years later, what do we still not know?

How much does he actually make? In 2010 and 2011, tax filings revealed that Romney made around $22 million each year. The vast majority of his income came from Romney’s capital gains and investment interests, and this amount presumably covered the reported total of $374,000 in speaking fees he received in 2010 and 2011. (The two years of tax filings he released did not specify exact sources of income.) Two years after the election, it’s unclear how much Romney earns annually, and it’s unknown exactly how much sits in his various accounts.

What does he actually pay? During the 2012 election, Romney was criticized for paying a relatively low tax rate: In 2010, he paid a rate of 13.9 percent, and in 2011, 15.3 percent. Those rates are far less than the 30 percent that the top 1 percent of earners pay, and his 2010 rate was even lower than the 14.2 percent a household making $64,500 per year pays. The gap between what Romney paid and earned is far greater than that of previous presidents.

Romney paid such a low rate mainly because the tax code is more generous with investment income than it is with income earned from working. However, Romney intentionally took fewer deductions to pay a higher rate in 2011 than he had to—presumably to provide less ammo to those who assailed him as a plutocrat. (Good news: He’s able to reclaim those deductions and get money back if he wishes.) Nevertheless, if Romney still pays around the same rate he did in 2010-11, it could pose a political problem for him if he mounts a third presidential bid. In 2012, Obama used Romney as an example of the unfairness of the tax code.

How much did he pay in taxes before 2010? The issue of what Romney paid in the years before 2010 was never settled. Sen. Harry Reid’s assertion that Romney paid “no taxes” for 10 years is likely inaccurate. But instead of releasing detailed pre-2010 tax returns, Romney’s camp offered an “average annual effective federal tax rate” of 20.20 percent for the years 1990-2009. That’s a little more in line with what top earners are meant to pay, but as the Washington Post pointed out, the method used to calculate that rate was fishy: It’s possible that, in some years, Romney earned more but paid a lower rate, which means the 20 percent figure may not be an accurate rendering of his tax burden. 

How do offshore accounts fit into all of this? If Romney was hiding something by not releasing his tax returns, as the Obama campaign and plenty of others suggested, what might it have been? Some observers speculated it was the role of offshore tax havens in building and protecting his fortune. Romney’s limited filings did reveal that he had accounts in Switzerland, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands—all well-known havens where the enterprising rich have protected their money from US taxes for decades. And then there was Romney’s massive IRA: By using a Cayman device called a “blocker corporation” to protect his $100 million retirement fund, Romney would have been able to avoid the 35 percent tax on IRAs held in the United States.

Romney strongly denied using any kind of tricky instruments during the campaign, saying, “There was no reduction, not one dollar of reduction in taxes, by virtue of having an account in Switzerland or a Cayman Islands investment.” There is no proof that Romney’s offshore accounts are a smoking gun. But former George H.W. Bush Treasury Department official Michael Graetz called Romney an “Olympic-level athlete at the tax avoidance game.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate