(MONEY Magazine) – THIS MONTH: --How to invest your tax refund --Schwab helps you pick a money manager --New: The Website of the month

IN RECENT MONTHS WE'VE PUBLISHED ARTICLES on the finances of President Clinton and his Republican opponent, Bob Dole, that challenged both candidates' public images. (See our March and February 1996 and October 1995 issues.) In the interest of equal time, we now turn to the other major Republican presidential hopefuls. Our findings: When it comes to their major economic campaign pitches, there is a considerable gap between their rhetoric and reality. For example:

--Multimillionaire magazine magnate Steve Forbes' flat tax proposal might spark the economy, as he vows it will. But even if it doesn't, it would surely save him and his family taxes, perhaps upwards of $1.4 billion.

--Former Tennessee governor Lamar Alexander touts his "new ideas." But his botched effort to enact one of those notions cost taxpayers money while nonetheless allowing his wife to make a $137,000 profit.

--Former TV commentator and Reagan speechwriter Pat Buchanan pledges to erect barriers to foreign competition in order to save U.S. jobs. But his proposals would almost surely harm workers instead. In addition, his personal $1.4 million investment portfolio is loaded with the stocks of multinational companies that have laid off hundreds of thousands of workers.

FORBES: A $1.4 BILLION REASON FOR PUSHING A FLAT TAX

When MONEY reported in January that a 17% flat tax could shave nearly $194,000 off Steve Forbes' personal 1995 income tax bill, the centimillionaire publisher and would-be U.S. President just scoffed. The $25 million he's already spent on his campaign, the self-proclaimed Scotsman pointed out, far outpaces what he'd save under a flat tax. Good comeback, Steve--but it's not true.

In reality, according to new MONEY estimates, the Forbes family could actually save $1.4 billion or more under his flat-tax plan. That's because the really generous flat-tax savings for business owners like Forbes would come from the elimination of the 37% to 55% federal estate tax, plus the expansion of certain lucrative corporate deductions. Says a former Forbes employee: "For a true picture of how Steve Forbes would benefit from a flat tax, you cannot separate his finances from the company's."

Unfortunately, getting citizen Forbes to reveal how companies, including his own, would fare under his sketchy flat-tax plan is about as easy as unlocking the Clintons' Whitewater secrets. The Forbes campaign could give MONEY no specifics on what tax deductions a business could take under the Forbes reform. And when we asked the candidate face to face about how Forbes Inc. would fare under his flat tax, he replied, "I have no idea."

Well, we do. Based on interviews with economists and accountants knowledgeable about the premise behind the flat tax, MONEY has identified four ways that Forbes stands to gain an amazing windfall under his proposal. The most prominent: We estimate that his family's estate-tax savings on his 35% stake in Forbes Inc. alone could ultimately total at least $1.4 billion in 40 years, based on the life expectancy for both Forbes and his wife. (That's the equivalent of $442 million in today's dollars.) Not a bad return on a $25 million investment in a quixotic campaign.

The payoff doesn't stop there, either. While you'll lose your mortgage-interest and property-tax deductions under his plan, he'd still be able to write off his corporate jet and a whole lot more. Here is a quick rundown on a few ways Steve Forbes and other business owners might feast on a flat tax:

--Corporate entertainment expenses would become fully deductible. Forbes modeled his tax reform proposal after the flat-tax plans of House majority leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) and Stanford economists Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka. Both of those plans would allow businesses to write off 100% of the cost of business meals and entertainment, up from 50% today. Expanding this deduction could amount to a hefty annual tax cut for a company like Forbes, which is renowned for luxurious entertaining aboard its $6.5 million, 134-seat 727 Boeing jet, named the Capitalist Tool; on its $14 million, 133-foot Highlander yacht; and at its $2.3 million townhouse adjacent to Forbes' Manhattan headquarters.

--Companies could immediately write off the cost of all new equipment. Businesses must now deduct the cost of an investment such as a new building over as many as 39 years. But the flat-tax proposals would allow companies to take the entire deduction in the first year. So if Forbes were to replace the present Capitalist Tool with, say, a new Boeing 737-400, the $42 million price tag could reduce the company's taxable income dollar for dollar in the year of purchase--five times more than it could write off under current rules.

--Businesses also might be able to write off purchases of art, antiques and other collectibles. Forbes Inc. has acquired a vast collection of art and collectibles, including 15 Faberge eggs valued at an estimated $60 million. Most tax experts agree that the only way to deduct such purchases today would be to donate them to a museum or charity. Under a flat tax, however, Forbes and other companies might be able to write off artwork without giving it away.

The Armey flat-tax bill, for example, lets companies deduct the cost of property used "in connection with a business activity." That raises a question: If Forbes Inc. buys Faberge eggs or other art that is used, say, to decorate the corporate headquarters, would the cost be deductible as part of a business activity? "Under today's tax laws I would say no," says Tom Ochsenschlager, a partner with the Washington, D.C. accounting firm Grant Thornton. "But the flat-tax bill seems to be saying all property used in a trade or business would be deductible, so I would think art is."

The fact is, until Steve Forbes comes clean with a lot more details on how his flat tax works, voters will have a right to ask this question: To what extent is his cry to "scrap the tax code" motivated by self-interest rather than the public good?

--Walter L. Updegrave