My thread is an attempt to discredit Palin? :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I didn't realize my threads had such influence. I figured it was just for our entertainment and discussion. You swallow that damn kool-aid hard man.
Printable View
My thread is an attempt to discredit Palin? :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I didn't realize my threads had such influence. I figured it was just for our entertainment and discussion. You swallow that damn kool-aid hard man.
he has loans? Or do you mean his campaign never repaid the loan he made to it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
IRS:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
However, if an employer pays expense allowances that exceed the federal per diem rates, the excess amounts are subject to income tax and employment tax if they are not repaid to the employer, unless the employee actually substantiates all of the expenses covered by the per diem allowance.
He has loans and/or spend his own money. Most likely both.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2centsworth
All that means is that the employee has to justify it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ploto
Strike 2.
This story won't stick with americans because Palin is middle class. If she were rich then maybe.
Well, there's that and, the fact that it is entirely possible there's absolutely nothing wrong with her tax returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
I think the issue that there's nothing wrong has been put to bedQuote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Quote:
ack Bogdanski, There's No Debate: Palins Owe Thousands in Back Taxes:There is no serious debate (at least, none that has been brought to our attention) about the fact that at least the amounts paid for the children's travel -- $24,728.83 in 2007, according to the Washington Post -- are taxable. The campaign's tax lawyer has got at least that much of the law, and perhaps more, wrong. ... The Palins, who had their tax returns done by HR Block, simply got it wrong. And the fact that the state payroll office got it wrong, too, doesn't erase the Palins' unpaid tax liability.Bryan Camp, A Brief Analysis of Governor Palin's Tax Returns for 2006 and 2007:
The release of an opinion letter by attorney Roger M. Olsen dated September 30, 2008, has stirred up the pot once again about the accuracy of Sarah and Todd Palin’s 2006 and 2007 tax returns. Not only that, but Mr. Olsen’s letter raises a couple of new issues.
This paper focuses on five problems: three raised in the tax returns and two new ones raised by Mr. Olsen’s letter. Here’s a summary of the five problems and my conclusions, for those who want to cut to the chase. My analysis will follow.
- The Palins did not report as income some $17,000 that Governor Palin’s employer (the State of Alaska) paid her as an “allowance” for her travel. Can they do that? Yes, most likely.
- The Palins did not report as income some $43,000 that the State of Alaska paid the Governor as an “allowance” for her husband and children’s travel. Can they do that? No, most likely not.
- The Palins deducted $9,000 on their 2007 return, claiming it was a loss from Mr. Palin’s snow machine racing activity. Can they do that? Most likely not, but more info could make the deduction o.k. If any of the above issues goes against the Palins they then risk getting hit with the section 6662 penalty for “negligence or disregard of rules or regulations.”
- Can the Palins avoid the section 6662 negligence penalty by claiming that they reasonably relied either (a) on the W-2’s sent to them by their employer, which did not reflect either the $17,000 or the $43,000, or (b) on their tax return preparer H&R Block, or (c) on Mr. Olsen’s opinion letter dated September 30, 2008? The three reliance defenses are unlikely to succeed, but more info may make the (b) defense a good one.
- Does Mr. Olsen have any exposure to sanctions by the IRS because of his letter? I believe Mr. Olsen’s letter probably violates 31 C.F.R. section 10.35. If so, he would be exposed to possible sanctions from the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/
No, it does not. There are certain expenses that are not allowable. Period. If someone has a per diem and he uses part of it to pay for my airfare to go along on the trip, then that is taxable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Actually, it appears not. The attorney, who now faces a legal consequence himself, said there may be an affirmative defense to all of the issues raised.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
I think it's a non-issue. If they owe back-taxes because of an oversight, either by them or their preparer or the state (who produced the w-2), they'll pay back taxes and penalties. I think HR Block has some kind of insurance or warranty on these type matters, no?
K
Oh shucks, I'm such maverick Washington outsider and hockey mom, I don't have time to figure out all these silly taxes correctly -- but I'll get right back to you on this, you betcha! *wink*
I'd say the material Manny quoted has the best chance of being correct. HR Block screws up all the time. I this type of case, unless the Palin's withheld something from HR Block, it is HR Blocks fault. The Palin's will still have to settle a tax debt, but there is still no indication of fraud.
Anyone have any good facts, or are you still just grasping at straws because of your own spite?
This is not an authentic impersonation. There need to be far more "mavericks" in that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
cuban should sue the bitch. as it stands now, i'll have to mute the tv during any mavs game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shastafarian
I heard someone say on the radio that she's in big trouble with the IRS and will do jail time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Is Al Frankin still on the air?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I can back up my radio claims as well as you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I was just asking if Al Frankin was back on radio. It sound's like the type of rumor he would propagate. I guess it could be from Whoppi Goldberg, Randi Rhodes, or some other liberal pundit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Maybe Thom Hartmann... Yes. Sounds like some slander he would say.
Who said it?
You really don't get sarcasm, do you?
Of course he does, he's in the 99.9999999999 percentile.
this is a non-story
Oh look, there's another.
i caught it lateQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
At least you caught it.