Did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid really hear from an investor in Bain Capital that Mitt Romney didn't pay income tax for 10 years? Probably not. Even if he did, what are the odds that this "information" was just uninformed speculation? Pretty good. "Now, do I know that that's true?" Reid told the Huffington Post's Sam Stein and Ryan Grim. "Well, I'm not certain." Brilliantly played. Make the accusation as broad as possible--10 years!--so that Romney will want to demonstrate that Reid (or Reid's source) is a liar by releasing tax records showing he only paid zero taxes for, say, three years. Reid shrugs, says, "I guess my guy was exaggerating." Romney's candidacy takes a huge and possibly fatal hit. Advantage: Obama.

And, then there's Salon, no friend of Romney, has this to say:

Still, Romney has refused to release more than two years of returns, prompting Democrats to accuse Romney of hiding something nefarious. But is it even possible for someone of Romney's wealth to pay nothing for 10 years?

Maybe, but probably not. David Miller, a tax attorney with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP in New York, told Salon that knowing what we know about Romney's tax returns, it's "highly unlikely" that he paid nothing. It would be easier for someone like Steve Jobs to pay zero, as most of his wealth was in company stock, which isn't taxed until sold and may never be sold, as in Steve Jobs' case, Miller said. But Romney's arrangement with Bain is different. He would have earned management fees and when Bain sold the underlying companies that it invested in, Romney would have been subject to tax on his share. "It's possible he paid very little in taxes, but I find it hard to believe that he paid none," Miller said.

Joshua Kamerman, a lawyer and CPA in New York who is president of an eponymous firm, agreed. He told Salon that while it's theoretically possible for Romney to have had zero tax liability for 10 years, Reid's claim is "preposterous." Charitable donations can shield up to only 50 percent of tax liability, while other means can lower the rate. But to pay nothing, Romney would have to sustain business operating losses, Kamerman said. The IRS lets people carry over losses for up to 20 years until they make a profit from which to deduct them. But Kamerman said this is almost certainly not the case for Romney, whom he said Reid is just trying to "embarrass." "It's just as unlikely that Romney had no income at all for 10 years and thus didn't file any returns," he said.

...the people Romney's actually deceiving...are the voters who constitute the GOP's base

The target would probably be the swing voter - those who are still able to be convinced one way or the other.

Dubya Mitt Rmoney's supporters are more-likely to rationalize the tax issue with some statement along these lines:

If you knew a thing or two about taxes you would realize there is a huge difference between not paying and not filing.  ...you can technically say he didn't pay any tax, even though he didn't owe any tax to begin with.

You know, deflecting the issue away from paying zero taxes on a huge income to not owing any taxes...on a huge income.

at least the taxes Romney paid or did not pay have some relevance to the issues going on in the counrty right now.

Lets not build a simple political attack into anything greater please. Is it a good way to attack Romney, yes.

But him refusing to not release them is evidence of nothing, and he is under no obligation to do so. It's just dumb politics. The country is in a bad spot and saying his taxes matter in regards to whats facing the country going forward is laughable, my god.

There is a difference between recognizing an attack is beneficial and accepting it be played and enveloping yourself in it and carrying it forward.