http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/03/palins-tax-return-mystery_n_131791.html
In typical news-dump fashion, the McCain campaign put out the last two years of Sarah Palin's tax returns late Friday afternoon.
The information contained a few interesting revelations in what was, otherwise, a fairly mundane filing. Palin, it appears, did not pay taxes on the more than $60,000 of travel reimbursements that she and her family members reportedly billed the state during her 18 months as governor. There is a fairly wonky debate over whether she should have been charged for these trips or whether it was accounted for in her salary. John Bogdanski, a tax professor at the Lewis and Clark Law School, told the Huffington Post's Seth Colter Walls that they did qualify as taxable income.
It does not appear that such deductions would have been allowable for any amounts attributable to travel by her husband and children. Section 274(m)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code strictly forbids deductions for bringing spouses and dependents along on business travel unless the spouses and dependents (a) are employees of the taxpayer (here, the taxpayer is the governor), (b) are traveling for a bona fide business purpose, and (c) would otherwise be entitled to deduct the travel on their own tax returns. Unless Palin's spouse and kids are also her employees and she can show that they were away on their own businesses, their expenses would not be deductible by the governor. And therefore she cannot exclude from income any per diems attributable to any of them. (By the way, since she's the employee, the income would be required to be reported on her own return, not her kids'.)
Overall, the Palins reported a gross income of $127,869 in 2006, and paid taxes amounting to $11,944 (an effective rate of 9.3 percent). In 2007, the family reported earning a gross income of $166,080 ($107,987.00 of which came from Gov. Palin) and paid taxes totaling $24,738, for a rate of 14.9 percent.
But there is some discrepancy with the latter number. According to an accompanying 2007 personal financial disclosure report, Palin's "income" as governor of Alaska was $196,531.50, well above the $107,987.00 that was noted on her W2 form from that same year. An email was sent to the McCain campaign for clarification. And this story will be updated should aides reply.
Palin's personal financial disclosure form also showed a moderate amount of assets. The family has ownership or interest in several properties, including tracts on several Alaska fishing spots. And Todd made between $50,000 and $100,000 from British Petroleum's retirement plan.
You would think that McCain would have asked these questions in the vetting process.
Oh, I forgot...
Yawn.
2X Yawn
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.....
I'm a left-leaner and I agree...
Yawn.
For what it is worth, most tax attorneys agree that she does owe back taxes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122334021713509963.html
It might not be a scandal, but she should pay back the government now that it has been pointed out that she owes money.
Unless, of course, she and her Alaskan friends decide to secede from the US instead.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
For what it is worth, most tax attorneys agree that she does owe back taxes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122334021713509963.html
It might not be a scandal, but she should pay back the government now that it has been pointed out that she owes money.
Unless, of course, she and her Alaskan friends decide to secede from the US instead.
She's not the only one who probably owes taxes. Her running mate dumped his returns to the public as well. A CPA on HuffPo noticed this little tidbit. Mac is a well known gambler. Loves craps. Was seen gambling publicly on at least one occasion in 2007 yet no itemized amounts of winnings and losses as required by tax law. Even if you break even, you cannot subtract out your losses from winnings and simply not report either one.
He would simply prefer that the general public not know about his penchant for gambling.
^^Gambling, belonging to secessionist organizations, flubbing on taxes is all part of being mavericks.[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
^^Gambling, belonging to secessionist organizations, flubbing on taxes is all part of being mavericks.[;)]
"Why look honey, it's a canard!"
(http://www.freefoto.com/images/01/08/01_08_18---Duck_web.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
^^Gambling, belonging to secessionist organizations, flubbing on taxes is all part of being mavericks.[;)]
Every time I hear that word now I only hear it in the context of Tina Fey from last week's SNL.
"...for those Joe Sixpacks playing a drinking game....maverick!"
[:D]
I really cringe now every time I hear the word "maverick."
Interestingly, so does the Maverick family.
For those who don't know (I'll admit to my stupidity on this), the word "maverick" comes from the term used for unbranded cattle in Texas. In the 1800s, the Maverick family of south Texas chose not to brand their cattle, and therefore cattle who did not have any brand on them were simply known as "mavericks."
Descendents of the family have been known for the strong left-leaning politics--one of the grandsons of the original Mavericks was labeled a communist. Another defended draft dodgers and atheists. One family member still lives in south Texas, but is anything but a McCain supporter. In fact, she is a board member of the ACLU.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/weekinreview/05schwartz.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Maverick&st=cse&oref=slogin.
Makes you wonder about McCain's claim to be one of the "original mavericks."
IMO, this is much more concerning than simply owing back taxes:
As governor, Palin at times bonds church and state quote:
The camera closes in on Sarah Palin speaking to young missionaries, vowing from the pulpit to do her part to implement God's will from the governor's office.
What she didn't tell worshippers gathered at the Wasilla Assembly of God church in her hometown was that her appearance that day came courtesy of Alaskan taxpayers, who picked up the $639.50 tab for her airplane tickets and per diem fees.
An Associated Press review of the Republican vice presidential candidate's record as mayor and governor reveals her use of elected office to promote religious causes, sometimes at taxpayer expense and in ways that blur the line between church and state.
Since she took state office in late 2006, the governor and her family have spent more than $13,000 in taxpayer funds to attend at least 10 religious events and meetings with Christian pastors, including Franklin Graham, the son of evangelical preacher Billy Graham, records show.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/palin_church_and_state;_ylt=AtM91HlwvpNkxZplAb2dGvBI2ocA
Using taxpayer money for religious purposes shows that she does not understand the concept of separation of church and state.
1. Clinton used tax payer money to meet with the pope!!!one!@!!eleven!!11!!! i can;'t believe it.
2. Obama used federally tax exempt money to pray at the Western wall in Jerusalem.
I can't believe these people.
Really? That's it? Possible back taxes and spending $600 legally to go talk at a church.
I'm about non-religious as you can get, but this is just petty. There are much more important issues and more troubling signs of her zealous nature than this crap. The separation of church and state does not prohibit the spending of public money for a governor to speak at a church - on my list of concerns that is way, way down there.
The obsession with Sarah Palin is just amazing.
This all went bad starting with
quote:
In typical news-dump fashion, the McCain campaign...
. Unbiased reporting if I have ever seen it. Everyone in Washington does such a news dump. The Friday news dump is very well known and done by all.
People in Washington have news they don't want scrutinized and try to hide it. GASP. Show me the headline where Huffington has a similar headline for someone on the left... "News." [;)]
You don't understand pmcalk and Palin, CF. It's not about consistency or fairness or rational thought.
It's all about:
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y31/Fredcat/Cats%2007/Cats-CatFightingNextOnJerrySpringer.jpg)
She just can't stand the fact that Palin is a hardcore conservative.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You don't understand pmcalk and Palin, CF. It's not about consistency or fairness or rational thought.
It's all about:
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y31/Fredcat/Cats%2007/Cats-CatFightingNextOnJerrySpringer.jpg)
She just can't stand the fact that Palin is a hardcore conservative.
Sounds like some of those hardcore conservatives don't like her either....unless your name is Rich Lowry.
[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
1. Clinton used tax payer money to meet with the pope!!!one!@!!eleven!!11!!! i can;'t believe it.
2. Obama used federally tax exempt money to pray at the Western wall in Jerusalem.
I can't believe these people.
Really? That's it? Possible back taxes and spending $600 legally to go talk at a church.
I'm about non-religious as you can get, but this is just petty. There are much more important issues and more troubling signs of her zealous nature than this crap. The separation of church and state does not prohibit the spending of public money for a governor to speak at a church - on my list of concerns that is way, way down there.
The obsession with Sarah Palin is just amazing.
This all went bad starting with quote:
In typical news-dump fashion, the McCain campaign...
. Unbiased reporting if I have ever seen it. Everyone in Washington does such a news dump. The Friday news dump is very well known and done by all.
People in Washington have news they don't want scrutinized and try to hide it. GASP. Show me the headline where Huffington has a similar headline for someone on the left... "News." [;)]
Of course politicians are free to charge taxpayers for attending religious services, as long as that attendance was part of their job. Palin charged taxpayers to attend her hometown church, for herself and her family.
I never said that her tax evasion was such a big deal. I don't think it was intentional. Nor do I think the per diems for religious purposes is a huge issue--I said it concerned me more than owing back taxes. It's simply another of many, many reasons that show she has no business running for VP.
PS--my source was not Huffingtonpost--it was the AP wire. I wouldn't use Huffingtonpost as a source.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You don't understand pmcalk and Palin, CF. It's not about consistency or fairness or rational thought.
She just can't stand the fact that Palin is a hardcore conservative.
I can't stand that she is an entirely unprepared, incompetent who thinks she can get by with a couple of winks and "gosh darnits" to compensate for her complete lack of knowledge. When have you ever had a consistent, rational thought, mr. "I'm a lawyer, but I don't know what the right to privacy means"?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You don't understand pmcalk and Palin, CF. It's not about consistency or fairness or rational thought.
She just can't stand the fact that Palin is a hardcore conservative.
I can't stand that she is an entirely unprepared, incompetent who thinks she can get by with a couple of winks and "gosh darnits" to compensate for her complete lack of knowledge. When have you ever had a consistent, rational thought, mr. "I'm a lawyer, but I don't know what the right to privacy means"?
Yeah...I don't agree with you that we should slaughter children in the name of "privacy rights." How dare I.
[xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You don't understand pmcalk and Palin, CF. It's not about consistency or fairness or rational thought.
She just can't stand the fact that Palin is a hardcore conservative.
I can't stand that she is an entirely unprepared, incompetent who thinks she can get by with a couple of winks and "gosh darnits" to compensate for her complete lack of knowledge. When have you ever had a consistent, rational thought, mr. "I'm a lawyer, but I don't know what the right to privacy means"?
Yeah...I don't agree with you that we should slaughter children in the name of "privacy rights." How dare I.
[xx(]
Admit it, IP, you're no lawyer. You didn't even know that the right to privacy was the foundation of Roe v. Wade, nor do you understand the concept of Federalism. You arguments consist of nothing but ad hominem attacks, because you have no real knowledge of which you speak. Unlike CF or Conan--whom I disagree with, but recognize they actually have a clue--you are incapable of having a discussion that resorts in anything other than a elementary school-level name calling session.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You don't understand pmcalk and Palin, CF. It's not about consistency or fairness or rational thought.
She just can't stand the fact that Palin is a hardcore conservative.
I can't stand that she is an entirely unprepared, incompetent who thinks she can get by with a couple of winks and "gosh darnits" to compensate for her complete lack of knowledge. When have you ever had a consistent, rational thought, mr. "I'm a lawyer, but I don't know what the right to privacy means"?
Yeah...I don't agree with you that we should slaughter children in the name of "privacy rights." How dare I.
[xx(]
Admit it, IP, you're no lawyer. You didn't even know that the right to privacy was the foundation of Roe v. Wade, nor do you understand the concept of Federalism. You arguments consist of nothing but ad hominem attacks, because you have no real knowledge of which you speak. Unlike CF or Conan--whom I disagree with, but recognize they actually have a clue--you are incapable of having a discussion that resorts in anything other than a elementary school-level name calling session.
You complain about me using ad-hominem attacks while simultaneously engaging in an ad-hominem attacks against me. Well played. You must work for the Obama campaign.
I have a great idea. If you don't like what I have to say, put me on Ignore.
Don't you have a Palin thread to tend to somewhere?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You don't understand pmcalk and Palin, CF. It's not about consistency or fairness or rational thought.
She just can't stand the fact that Palin is a hardcore conservative.
I can't stand that she is an entirely unprepared, incompetent who thinks she can get by with a couple of winks and "gosh darnits" to compensate for her complete lack of knowledge. When have you ever had a consistent, rational thought, mr. "I'm a lawyer, but I don't know what the right to privacy means"?
Yeah...I don't agree with you that we should slaughter children in the name of "privacy rights." How dare I.
[xx(]
Admit it, IP, you're no lawyer. You didn't even know that the right to privacy was the foundation of Roe v. Wade, nor do you understand the concept of Federalism. You arguments consist of nothing but ad hominem attacks, because you have no real knowledge of which you speak. Unlike CF or Conan--whom I disagree with, but recognize they actually have a clue--you are incapable of having a discussion that resorts in anything other than a elementary school-level name calling session.
You complain about me using ad-hominem attacks while simultaneously engaging in an ad-hominem attacks against me. Well played. You must work for the Obama campaign.
I have a great idea. If you don't like what I have to say, put me on Ignore.
Don't you have a Palin thread to tend to somewhere?
I'm betting you don't know what Ad Hominem means either.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You don't understand pmcalk and Palin, CF. It's not about consistency or fairness or rational thought.
She just can't stand the fact that Palin is a hardcore conservative.
I can't stand that she is an entirely unprepared, incompetent who thinks she can get by with a couple of winks and "gosh darnits" to compensate for her complete lack of knowledge. When have you ever had a consistent, rational thought, mr. "I'm a lawyer, but I don't know what the right to privacy means"?
Yeah...I don't agree with you that we should slaughter children in the name of "privacy rights." How dare I.
[xx(]
Admit it, IP, you're no lawyer. You didn't even know that the right to privacy was the foundation of Roe v. Wade, nor do you understand the concept of Federalism. You arguments consist of nothing but ad hominem attacks, because you have no real knowledge of which you speak. Unlike CF or Conan--whom I disagree with, but recognize they actually have a clue--you are incapable of having a discussion that resorts in anything other than a elementary school-level name calling session.
(http://www.axiomfiles.com/Files/77675/owned3.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You don't understand pmcalk and Palin, CF. It's not about consistency or fairness or rational thought.
She just can't stand the fact that Palin is a hardcore conservative.
I can't stand that she is an entirely unprepared, incompetent who thinks she can get by with a couple of winks and "gosh darnits" to compensate for her complete lack of knowledge. When have you ever had a consistent, rational thought, mr. "I'm a lawyer, but I don't know what the right to privacy means"?
Yeah...I don't agree with you that we should slaughter children in the name of "privacy rights." How dare I.
[xx(]
Admit it, IP, you're no lawyer. You didn't even know that the right to privacy was the foundation of Roe v. Wade, nor do you understand the concept of Federalism. You arguments consist of nothing but ad hominem attacks, because you have no real knowledge of which you speak. Unlike CF or Conan--whom I disagree with, but recognize they actually have a clue--you are incapable of having a discussion that resorts in anything other than a elementary school-level name calling session.
You complain about me using ad-hominem attacks while simultaneously engaging in an ad-hominem attacks against me. Well played. You must work for the Obama campaign.
I have a great idea. If you don't like what I have to say, put me on Ignore.
Don't you have a Palin thread to tend to somewhere?
I'm betting you don't know what Ad Hominem means either.
Read your previous post, it's riddled with them. Unless you consider telling someone that they "have no clue" is a substantive response. I guess in liberal la-la land that's considered "substance"...
Here, read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
But I guess if we all had to interpret everything through the pmcalk Reality-to-Bull**** translator, you're probably right.
As I told you before, if you don't like what I post, put me on ignore. Just let me know if you need help finding the button.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
OMFG. DU3D!!! Totally PWn3Ded...ur so kewl!!!
The only thing more pathetic than pmcalk's failure to see irony in her own post is the e-pimp that thinks someone go PWNED by it...
I'm gonna side with Hoss and pmcalk on this one...you didn't show the best understanding of some of the fundamentals of the court case, yet felt compelled to act like you were the expert.
When shown ignorant, you brought in cat-fight pictures and the phrase "slaughter children". Then you proceed to encourage them to ignore you.
When proven wrong, you lose credibility.
Wasn't this thread about Palin cheating on her taxes?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I'm gonna side with Hoss and pmcalk on this one...you didn't show the best understanding of some of the fundamentals of the court case, yet felt compelled to act like you were the expert.
When shown ignorant, you brought in cat-fight pictures and the phrase "slaughter children". Then you proceed to encourage them to ignore you.
When proven wrong, you lose credibility.
Wasn't this thread about Palin cheating on her taxes?
Wow, you're going to side with the other libs? Color me surprised.
I think you're a bit confused. My response to PM was in response to her complaint about me using ad hominems while simultaeously doing the same.
The catfight picture had nothing to do with a discussion on abortion, it was related to pmcalk's obsession with Palin. As for my "slaughter children" comment I stand by that statement whether doing so infringes her "right to privacy" or not. The dissent in RvW clearly thought the "right to privacy"
angle was nonsense as did numerous scholars. Although, I don't think I argued my complaint very clearly, which is my fault.
As for Palin and her taxes, she must be using Charlie Rangel's CPA...