“In this case, it doesn’t matter what his citizenship was.”
I agree.
Did you get that link from the comment below? The link doesn’t work anymore (for me anyway).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2991236/posts?page=229#229
To: SvenMagnussen
Lolo Soetoro, Indonesian National, used SSN 575-52-3935, 1973 Federal tax return indicates no dependents/exemptions.
http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/94hl2qbfk011akkj/images/168-94eae5fa1b.jpg
1973 HI Income Tax Return, 1 dependent child identified as “Maya.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2908395/posts?q=1&;page=251
see post 274— only 1 dependent Maya under Exemptions Section.
Both returns prepared by professional tax preparer.
I know the Federal return only shows exemptions for the two adults, but the line is blank for total exemptions. By exploring further, it’s obvious that one dependent child was claimed on the Federal return, just like the Hawaiian return. If you check the IRS instructions for the 1973 Form 1040 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040—1973.pdf), it’s obvious that Tax Table 3 on page 23 was used to figure the income tax. For an adjusted gross income of $4,250 - $4,300, the tax for married filing joint with three exemptions is $102.
As to why the child was not included on the line where she should have been? Having prepared returns in that era, I can see how that would happen. Ann had two children, but she and her husband weren’t earning very much. According to Wikipedia, Ann’s folks were paying for Obama to attend a private school. In order to claim a child on your tax return, you have to provide over 1/2 of their support. Since Ann’s folks were paying at least part of his tuition, they were probably providing over 1/2 his support and, as such, claimed him as a deduction on their tax return. At their income level, it was a greater benefit to them than to Ann, so it made sense. Back to why the exemption line was blank? My guess is that the preparer left that blank while they gathered data to see who could claim Obama on their tax return and never remembered to return to fill that line out. Nowadays computer programs won’t let you forget things like that, but computer prepared returns weren’t nearly as common back then. An easy mistake to make.
229 posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:41:14 PM by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
Did you get that link from the comment below?
no, never saw it before. So, this information was already posted to Sven way back on February 26, 2013?
Why would he be making up this BS nonsense now, since he already knows that the IRS document is available online for anyone to read? Is he really that ignorant?
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2991236/posts?page=234:
OBOTS and ConcernedFreepers insist this is proof the Dunhams claimed Obama as a dependent on their tax returns, yet no proof has been published.
Nobody's insisted that. Who cares?
I maintain Obama could not have been a dependent on the Soetoro’s or Dunhams’s 1973 tax returns because he was in the legal custody of Catholic Social Services of Connecticuts with Madelyn Dunham appointed as his legal guardian.
We still haven't seen any evidence of that, much less any proof!
I do remember seeing that post now that I looked through the thread, just never took the time to read that closely.
1973 HI Income Tax Return, 1 dependent child identified as “Maya.”
As to why the child was not included on the line where she should have been? Having prepared returns in that era, I can see how that would happen...
Back to why the exemption line was blank? My guess is that the preparer left that blank while they gathered data to see who could claim Obama on their tax return and never remembered to return to fill that line out.
The fact remains that a copy of their Hawaii return would not have been sent in to the IRS. So the error should have been caught.
Note that their state refund was more than they paid:
