What documents did The New York Times review to calculate the $413 million figure and are they publicly available?

1. What the Times says it reviewed: “more than 100,000 pages” of financial documents

The Times’ reporting, as summarized by contemporaneous outlets, states explicitly that its $413 million figure is grounded in an examination of “more than 100,000 pages of financial documents, including confidential tax returns from the father and his companies” — language repeated in multiple reports citing the Times’ investigation ^{[1] [3] [2]}. That description names two broad categories: voluminous financial paperwork (bank records, internal corporate documents and valuations are implied by the broader reporting) and confidential tax returns, which the Times singled out as a key source for tracing transfers and reported valuations ^[1].

2. How those records were used to reach $413 million (as reported)

According to the Times’ narrative quoted in these summaries, reporters used the trove of records to track transfers, identify undervaluations and trace mechanisms the family allegedly used to avoid gift and estate taxes — for example, by routing assets and concealing value through family-controlled entities — and then summed transfers and imputed values to arrive at the $413 million total ^[1]. The summaries emphasize that the investigation contradicts Donald Trump’s account of a single $1 million loan from his father by documenting steady, large transfers across decades ^[1].

3. Are those documents publicly available? — what the reporting shows and doesn’t show

The accounts supplied here say the Times reviewed confidential tax returns and other financial records but do not assert that the full documents were published or deposited into a public record; the phrasing “confidential tax returns” implies they were not public documents in ordinary circulation ^[1]. The sources in this packet do not include a link to a public database or an explicit NYT release of the raw files, and thus do not confirm public availability of the underlying 100,000+ pages ^{[1] [2]}. Reporting elsewhere or primary NYT materials would need to be checked to determine whether the Times released redacted source files, posted exhibits, or made them available to authorities.

4. Pushback, official responses and ongoing scrutiny

The reporting collected here records immediate pushback: lawyers for the Trump family called the Times’ conclusions “extremely inaccurate” and denied fraud or tax evasion, while New York authorities said they were reviewing the allegations and could pursue investigation — a procedural response consistent with reporting that relied on confidential tax records ^{[2] [1]}. The fact of a government review underscores both the seriousness of the reporting and the sensitivity of the underlying documents; it also explains why raw tax returns would remain confidential unless subpoenaed, seized, or otherwise released under legal process ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Limits of available reporting and why transparency matters

From these sources it is clear the Times based its $413 million calculation on an extensive internal review of family financial material — notably confidential tax returns — but these summaries do not show that the underlying document set was made publicly accessible; readers must therefore rely on the Times’ reporting and any subsequent official disclosures for granular verification ^{[1] [2]}. Given the centrality of confidential tax records to the claim, the question of public availability is consequential for independent audit or legal follow-up, and the documents’ non-public status (as described) preserves both privacy and the need for legal processes before full disclosure ^[1].