OT: Again?!?! The White House Nominates Another Tax Cheats?

[93legendti]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090331/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/sebelius_taxes

I know, I know, she's "indispensable".

[Louis]

IMO the better question is not "What % of the recent nominees have tax issue?" but rather, "What percentage of the US population as a whole, if subjected to 100x magnification tax scrutiny, would have problems?"

I think answer is that we've all probably messed up (intentionally or not) at some point in time.

Daschle was an egregious case of inside-the-beltway feelings of entitlement. No question about that.

Louis

[BumbleBeeDave]

The information was released by the White House and the story you cite explains that the errors were found and admitted by Sebelius herself, who hired an accountant specifically to identify any problems with her taxes before her hearing and, I personally would assume, before someone from the opposing party found the the errors themselves in her publicly released returns and used them for maximum smear value. That's simply the way politics works--unfortunately.

The same story lists the errors . . . The boldface is mine for emphasis.

_Charitable contributions over $250 are supposed to include an acknowledgment letter from the charity in order for a deduction to be taken. Out of 49 charitable contributions made, three letters couldn't be found.

_Sebelius and her husband took deductions for mortgage interest that they weren't entitled to. The couple sold their home in 2006 for less than what they owed on the mortgage. They continued to make payments on the mortgage, including interest. But since they no longer owned the home they weren't entitled to take deductions for the interest. The same thing happened with a home improvement loan. Sebelius said they "mistakenly believed" the payments were still deductible.

_Insufficient documentation was found for some business expense deductions.

None of these mistakes sound to me as if they were the result of cavalier disregard for tax laws or deep, dark plots to cheat the IRS. They sound like exactly the kind of mistakes that might be found in any of our personal tax returns--including mine, Louis', and yours, Adam--if each of us had H&R Block or similar outside help do our overly complicated tax returns annually because the tax code is so convoluted and complex that we don't have the time or the expertise or the patience to wade through them ourselves.

Using the criterion you seem to be using to define a "tax cheat" then I'm sure most of us would meet the requirements for "tax cheatness." I'd also be willing to bet money that if every member of every administration--from both parties--were analyzed the way Sebelius's tax returns have been, then many, many of them would similarly meet the definition.

Stokers of the outrage machine from both parties have seized upon the smear value of this reality and too often use it to full unjustifiably exaggerated effect.

BBD

[RPS]

IMO the better question is not "What % of the recent nominees have tax issue?" but rather, "What percentage of the US population as a whole, if subjected to 100x magnification tax scrutiny, would have problems?"I've only been audited once and had no issues whatsoever; and I used TurboTax. Count me in the "I'm being a sucker and not claiming enough deductions" group. :crap: :rolleyes:

BTW, when the IRS screwed up many years ago and mailed my refund check to the wrong address I never got my money. They make mistakes too.

[cloudguy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033003415.html?nav=hcmodule

[bozman]

Look at it this way, when the goal is offer a more transparent government you are bound to find more potential issues.

Three years ago I decided to try turbo tax instead of my regular accountant. I plugged in the same set of numbers three times and got three different results. I went back to my accountant.

If Obama vetted his nominees the way Bush or Clinton did then we would probably not be hearing about any of this.

[Louis]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033003415.html?nav=hcmodule

I'm with you, but it won't last forever. If things don't start to turn up say, some time this year, folks will start to turn on him. You can't blame him for the mess we're in, but if the Rx chosen does not have the intended effect watch out. (Aside: We agree that the intent of the plan is to help, but if you listen to Rush, the intent is for the GOVT to control every single aspect of the economy.)

BTW, as much as I disagree with him much of the time, I wouldn't put Adam in the "troll" category. Provocateur, yes, but not a troll.

Louis

[slowgoing]

BTW, as much as I disagree with him much of the time, I wouldn't put Adam in the "troll" category. Provocateur, yes, but not a troll.

Louis

Broken record category.

[ti_boi]

As much as I appreciate a good trolling....I love the fact that our new leader is attacking the issues at hand and articulating his approach in a logical fashion. Count me as one who is grateful for the new leadership. To err is human.