Another Obama appointee ducked his taxes
By Brian Kirwin | Monday, March 2nd, 2009 | PolicyHow many appointees have to be found dodging taxes for it to reflect on the man appointing him?
Trade nominee Ron Kirk happened to never report any speaking fees as income, saving himself about $6,000 in taxes.
He also deducted $17,000 worth of Dallas Mavericks tickets (Maverick?…now, THAT’S funny)
Meanwhile, Obama skates along the hope and change highway free of any blame for the incredible coincidence of picking so many tax cheats to stand by his side.
What moral authority will Obama have on taxes when he excuses his buddies from cheating on their taxes. Not only should Ron Kirk withdraw his nomination, too, but taking into account Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s pathetic performance in his debut, he should resign, too.
Most importantly, Obama needs to tell us why he keeps nominating tax cheats.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
13 Responses to "Another Obama appointee ducked his taxes"
taxes are for everyone else, right?
I had not heard previously about the Maverick’s season tickets, but I did hear about the speaking fees.
The speaking fees mistake was understandable. He made some speeches and instead of taking compensation he asked that fees for his appearances be directly remitted to his alma mater. The IRS says this is not acceptable. That he should have accepted the fees himself, reported it as income and then donated the money if he wanted to.
I always thought this practice was common and acceptable. What the heck, if you were going to give 100% to charity anyway, why go through all of the extra paperwork to get the deduction of the income, right? I guess that is not how it works. Evidently by first reporting the fees as income before donating it, Uncle Sam gets a cut of it. Not sure how that is possible, but evidently there is some limit on how much the charitable contribution is worth as an income deduction.
That will teach Mr Kirk a lesson for being so darn generous.
What’s next? If you volunteer your time to a charitable organization without compensation you will have to claim the value of the time on your taxes? The wages your time was worth as income prior to deducting the same amount as a charitable contribution and wallah; your tax bill just increased even though no money changed hands.
New headline:
Volunteers Take Note.
Please budget the increased tax liability into your decision making process prior to volunteering your time to charitable organizations. You need to consider that along with your donated time, your taxes might go up as well. Your charitable efforts might result in increased tax obligations if you ever seek federal office and the IRS ever takes out the microscope to examine your tax returns.
You have been forewarned. Do not attempt to claim ignorance of the law. Uncle Sam gets his cut of everything and that includes a cut of philanthropy.
Here’s a novel suggestion. If you earn income, report it.
Another novel suggestion. Don’t expect me to pay your share of taxes just because your rich ass can afford to see $17,000 worth of basketball games.
Here’s another novel suggestion:
If you dare volunteer to support Habitat for Humanity first make sure you consult with a tax consultant. Your volunteer efforts might result in additional taxes and you need to consult an expert.
Hey, I wonder how much Jimmy Carter owes for all of those public appearances he made for Habitat for Humanity. Surely Uncle Sam deserves a cut.
Jimmy Carter must be forced to pay the taxes he owes for supporting charity. We can not allow that darn Democrat to get away with not paying his taxes.
We have to increase taxes on philanthropy while cutting taxes on the greedy. (Sarcasm intended.)
Besides, Ron Kirk was a lobbyist. Didn’t Obama promise not to have any of those in his administration.
And I hardly equate helping people build homes like Habitat with funnelling money to Austin College. I agree the status of college education is pretty pathetic nowadays, but I hardly consider them charity cases.
OK Brian, we should elect you to become judge of which charity cases qualify. Then we would make you happy.
The problem with Mr Kirk was not that his charitable contribution did not qualify, but that the means he chose to funnel it resulted in less (zero) money going to Uncle Sam.
But if we are going to disqualify contributions to universities I might not have a problem with that. I might enjoy it if the really wealthy had to pay taxes to get that university building named after them.
Typical BK beltway spin.
Kirk earned money to donate to charity – and donated 100% of it. Seriously, is this really the guy you want to go after? I’m just happy to have a President who has actually read the Constitution, and is hiring folks who seem to be similarly literate.
“OK Brian, we should elect you to become judge of which charity cases qualify. Then we would make you happy.”
No, because I don’t support elected judges.
However, if you’d like to appoint me judge, I’d consider it.
And universities aren’t high on my favored list. Effete self-important soak-middle-class-students-for-loans types more focused on cranking up the cost of an already overpriced education and then running to the taxpayers for a new bond for giant buildings. Education and health care are the two remaining market-immune industries, and the result is the same. Lower quality at higher cost.
Mark, where’s that BK beltway? I missed the dedication.
The tax cheat wrote off $17,000 of basketball tickets. I’ll bet at least Jack Nicholson pays his own taxes without asking me to cover his share.
Ewww Brian, you said:
“No, because I don’t support elected judges.”
So I guess only them darn elected Democrats should be allowed to appoint the judges. Better watch what you say.
I think that judges raising campaign contributions to run for judge is pretty sickening.
Brian,
That’s a good point.
I’m not sure what the answer to that problem is. But I can witness that many areas of our country do elect their judges, at least at the local level. I can not tell you how it works, I’ve only seen the campaign signs.
Appointed? Advantages and problems both. Elected? Advantages and problems both.
Leave your response