Sigh, another nominee who owes back taxes

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/tax-problems-haunt-another-obama-nominee-2009-03-02.html

Leading The News

Tax problems haunt another Obama nominee
By Ian Swanson
Posted: 03/02/09 03:51 PM [ET]
Another nominee to President Obama’s Cabinet is embroiled in tax issues, but it is unclear whether they will impede his confirmation by the Senate.

Former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, nominated as Obama’s U.S. Trade Representative, made several errors on his tax returns, according to a report released Monday afternoon by the Senate Finance Committee.

The report said Kirk will file an amended return next week. The panel is also postponing a confirmation hearing for Kirk, initially scheduled for Thursday, until March 9.

The report reveals that Kirk did not report $37,750 in speaking honoraria as income for tax years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Instead, Kirk asked that the honoraria be assigned to Austin College, his alma mater, to help fulfill a pledge he made for a scholarship fund.

According to the report, Kirk later determined that the honoraria should have been reported as income and deducted as charitable donations. The estimated income tax effect of these adjustments, taking into account honoraria already deducted as charitable deductions, is about $5,800, according to the report.

The report also mentions other tax problems, including season tickets to the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks that Kirk reported as a business expense. Some of those deductions did not qualify as entertainment expenses, according to the report, and as a result Kirk is adjusting his total expenses. The tax effect, the report said, would be $2,600.

Despite the problems, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the panel’s chairman, said Kirk “is the right person for this job and I will work to move his nomination quickly.”

In a joint statement, Baucus and Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), the panel’s ranking Republican, said the report and a Monday briefing for panel members would “ensure the appropriate level of transparency” to ensure all senators can assess the relevant information for Kirk’s nomination.

It is unclear whether Grassley will support the nomination.

Tax problems already tripped up Obama’s first nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who then withdrew. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was confirmed despite tax errors. Both nominees went through the Finance panel.

**ShumaGorath**

The charity donation seems like an honest mistake, also the dallas mayor reporting season tickets of his cities team could be a business expense. Though that ones pretty damn questionable. It would probably come down to what he was doing there, governmental support of local projects (keep in mind the city payed for the stadium) are often times payed for by the taxpayer. If he was there to support projects/bills/converse with stadium owners or financial representatives then its not a huge issue. If he just loves basketball then the guys a dick.

As for blocking the nomination I care a lot more about his abilities. Those tickets cost a lot less than our economy.

**sebster**

ShumaGorath wrote:The charity donation seems like an honest mistake, also the dallas mayor reporting season tickets of his cities team could be a business expense. Though that ones pretty damn questionable. It would probably come down to what he was doing there, governmental support of local projects (keep in mind the city payed for the stadium) are often times payed for by the taxpayer. If he was there to support projects/bills/converse with stadium owners or financial representatives then its not a huge issue. If he just loves basketball then the guys a dick.

While I don’t know US tax law as well as our own, entertainment is normally based on more than just the reason for the expenditure. Even if purchased for business reasons, certain types of expenditure, like season tickets, are explicitly excluded as entertainment expenses.

The honoraria spending is probably worse. You’re limited in your deductions in the US (why I don’t know), and as a result of that this guy chose to ignore payments instead. While the end result was probably more reasonable (why should anyone end up paying tax on money that is immediately paid to a charity) … it wasn’t legal and he knew would have known it.

Just from the article presented, it reads like the guy was pretty aggressive in his tax avoidance.

**Kilkrazy**

I am left wondering if there are any US politicians who haven't got some tax 'issues' waiting to be uncovered.

**Typeline**

Kilkrazy wrote:I am left wondering if there are any US politicians who haven't got some tax 'issues' waiting to be uncovered.

There aren't of a lot of American's that don't have tax issues out there. I honestly don't care, it's just a PR blunder when this happens at this point. When everyone stops riding their high horse about politics, which won't happen, people will stop caring what mistakes people have made in the past and focus more on their abilities in the present.

**sebster**

Kilkrazy wrote:I am left wondering if there are any US politicians who haven't got some tax 'issues' waiting to be uncovered.

Once your income starts being based on anything other than a straight up salary, it gets pretty hazy. It isn't that hard to still get your return right, but the temptation suddenly appears to get aggressive in your interpretations of tax law. It isn't just politicians, but just about anyone that works as a consultant, is self employed or runs a business.

Take a fine tooth comb through the tax returns of anyone like that, and you'll find a lot of dodginess. It's not that outrageous when it's done by the average guy on the street, and the system to some extent operates on the expectation of such. The question is whether you hold the potential leaders of government to a higher standard.

**Waaagh_Gonads**

Kilkrazy wrote:I am left wondering if there are any US politicians who haven't got some tax 'issues' waiting to be uncovered.

At least on the democratic side....

**ShumaGorath**

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:I am left wondering if there are any US politicians who haven't got some tax 'issues' waiting to be uncovered.

At least on the democratic side....

Of course, someone had to say it. Hey, at least we don't claim dead guys adventure stories about saving people in disasters.

**Frazzled**

Typeline wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:I am left wondering if there are any US politicians who haven't got some tax 'issues' waiting to be uncovered.

There aren't of a lot of American's that don't have tax issues out there.

Thats absolute bull

.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:I am left wondering if there are any US politicians who haven't got some tax 'issues' waiting to be uncovered.

At least on the democratic side....

Of course, someone had to say it. Hey, at least we don't claim dead guys adventure stories about saving people in disasters.

Just imaginary flak attacks and snipers right?

**sexiest_hero**

Or we can be the chaimpion of anti-child Molestation, and get caught doing just that. Or be against gay rights while getting freaky in the "men's room".

Let's not start tossing stones when we all live in glass houses.

**Frazzled**

I don't. Fire away. Here, let me get our patented ShotFlingerI out.

*Champion fiscal responsibility and then submit the largest budget in US history (pick a party). Oh wait-better choose both parties on that one.

*Force the Banks to reduce credit standards and then whine when they do that, and then whine when they tighten up. Barney Frank

*Have a male prostitute living and doing business in your house. Barney Frank

*Bewail lobbying and insider business, yet get special interest mortgages from mortgage companies that YOU REGULATE. Chris Dodd

*Spend levy money on important non-levy items like financing casinos and then complain when your 80 year old levy cracks under a hurricane. Louisiana politicians

*Say Texans help Texans and then whine and say you can't do trash cleanup because FEMA won't give you money. Texas politicians

And so on and so on.

Clearly we need new leadership, a firm, steady hand that will get the job done.

Vader for President. He'll make the

ing trains run on time.

**sexiest_hero**

So what do we do, over throw the government, become warlords and tear each other apart? Split into 4 countries? Politicians will aways do stupid crap, until the price of ripping people off is beheading. The only reason scum make it into office is because people get hung on on things like childern out of wedlock, or eating meat when looking for a leader.

**reds8n**

On the plus side if Obama simply keeps nominating people the back taxes look like they might sort out the deficit on their own.

**Frazzled**

Good point there reds8n.

**Frazzled**

sexiest_hero wrote:So what do we do, over throw the government, become warlords and tear each other apart? Split into 4 countries? Politicians will aways do stupid crap, until the price of ripping people off is beheading. The only reason scum make it into office is because people get hung on on things like childern out of wedlock, or eating meat when looking for a leader.

Vote them out. When you haev the same two exact groups remain in power for 30+ years you get this sort of PRI/one party government. Term limits, real limits on lobbying, that sort of thing. A new revolution is needed, but a peaceful one.

**Kilkrazy**

I've said it before but it bears repeating. The USA has two major political parties, the Republicans, who are like our (UK's) Conservatives, and the Democrats, who are like our Conservatives.

**Frazzled**

I disagree. Three

*The Washington Party. The names on the executive side switch around every few years but thats about it.

*The Local Democratic Party. These consist of those who would like to be in the Washington Party.

*The Local Republican Party. These consist of those who would like to be in the Washington Party.

"All politics is local." Tip ONeil.

**dietrich**

Just wait. The Dems will have some blunders and lose Congress. My guess is that the Dems lose Congress but Obama is re-elected, both in 2012. Congress is actually more hated than George W. Bush.

There's a lobbyist scandal threatening John Murtha (well known for getting earmarks for his District's defense contractors, also accused in the scandal), a Democrat.

At least this nominee's tax errors are fairly minor. While most Americans don't have tax problems, most Americans have fewer 'things' to report. Considering that the IRS has caught none of these nominees prior to their nomination says a lot (about both the nominee and the IRS).

**Frazzled**

Obama's negatives have risen substantially in the last 30 days. I think we'll see a sea change in 2010. The Repubs are still trying to sort themselves out. If the economy has not improved by mid 2010 the Democrats will be in as much trouble as the republicans were in 2008. Americans vote with their pocket books.

Just wait until cap and trade gets publicized. The blowback will begin at that point-nothing like a bill that ends US manufacturing.

**ShumaGorath**

You're all such optimists.

**Nofasse 'Eadhunta**

I can expect another d6 of cases like this.