Skip to main content

And before anybody tees off on Kathleen Sebelius over her taxes...

... let me suggest you get a life.

I don't agree with Governor Sebelius' policy views, and I don't like the agenda she's been picked to pursue.

But that's neither here nor there regarding the question of her tax problems.

At first, like everybody else, I groaned when I saw the headlines and the figure of around $7,800 in back taxes and interest.

Then I read that this amount comes from the combined total of three different years, and breaks down as follows:

-- 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.


She found 46 of 49 acknowledgement letters from charitable contributions dating back to 2005? Which doesn't mean that she didn't make the contributions (notice, she didn't lack the canceled checks or proof that she made the donations), it just means she couldn't properly document it to the letter of the law.

Likewise, some business expense deductions were found not to be fraudulent or illegal or evasive, but just to lack sufficient documentation. Big whoop.

Finally, that mortgage interest thing: I was in a somewhat similar situation twelve years ago, and got four different opinions on what that statute actually said (three from accountants; one from the IRS--which told me I could take the deduction, by the way).

Anybody--anybody--making above $250K who had to turn in three years of tax returns to get scrubbed would frankly be thrilled to come out of the process owing less than $8K.

It has nothing to do with your morality and pretty much everything to do with a tax code that makes criminals of us all.

So here's my final answer on Kathleen Sebelius: grill her over policy and positions all you want.

But if you're trying to gin up an issue over her taxes, you're part of the problem.

Comments

kavips said…
Nice Job, on bringing this to our attention..

I agree.
I agree.

If anything, the people in the administration with tax issues can serve as poster children for simplification of the tax code.

If they can't understand it, who can?

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...