The Donald said that he has a fiduciary duty to “his” employees, to pay as little federal income tax as possible. I would think that if there is any such duty, it would be that of the company, the real employer, assuming it’s not Donald himself, and that is extremely doubtful.
Let’s suppose, however, that he is the fiduciary he says he is and that it is to make the company profits as high as possible. It then might also include a duty to pay the employees the maximum about the company and other “beneficiaries” of the fiduciary duty can stand, economically speaking.
It would also seem to me that if he is a fiduciary of the employees of the company and therefore has fiduciary duties to them, they have certain rights, e.g., that he disclose the way he is managing the money at issue, the amount of taxes paid, why this or than amount is or is not paid, and so forth.
If they have such rights, then probably they have a right under the law to obtain information to see whether he behaving property. This could be pursued by means of a declaratory judgment actions, or something like that.
Most significantly, a fiduciary has the duty to place the interests of his “beneficiary” ahead of his own. One wonders whether Donald could possibly do such a thing.
Originally posted on 10/04/2016 @ 7:29 pm