Posted on 06/29/2002 2:19:22 AM PDT by kattracks
Martha Stewart may be the diva of domesticity, but there's one New York judge who thinks she's the queen of lies.
In a January 2000 opinion, Administrative Judge Thomas Sacca hammered Stewart for a "lack of credible testimony" in her bid to get out of paying New York $221,000 in back taxes from 1991 and 1992.
In his 40-page ruling, Sacca repeatedly shot down Stewart's attempts at proving she lived in Connecticut and not in New York — using material from her magazine and book to contradict her statements.
In one case, Stewart argued she "rarely visited New York," but the judge noted that the jacket of her 1991 book on gardening stated that Stewart "lives in Connecticut and New York, and is presently creating a new garden on Long Island."
Taxes and Penalty
Stewart ultimately was ordered to pay the back tax bill, plus an unspecified penalty for "negligently failing to retain necessary records."
The doubts about Stewart's credibility take on new meaning as she faces the ImClone insider-trading scandal.
Federal prosecutors, securities regulators and Congress are investigating Stewart's tale of why she suddenly dumped her ImClone shares in December, a day before the stock tanked.
She said she had a verbal agreement with her Merrill Lynch broker to sell if ImClone dropped below $60, but the broker's assistant has told Merrill lawyers that no agreement existed, sources say.
The broker and the assistant have been suspended while investigators sort things out. Stewart is a target of an ongoing criminal probe, sources have told the Daily News.
Where Was Home?
In 1999, Sacca had to sort things out when Stewart appealed a 1997 state decision requiring that she pay the $221,000 in New York income tax.
With documents, witnesses and her own testimony, Stewart insisted she didn't owe New York a dime because her "primary residence" was a sprawling manse on South Turkey Hill Road in Westport, Conn. — not her "summer home" on Lily Pond Lane in East Hampton, L.I.
Stewart told tax investigators her East Hampton home was uninhabitable because of construction in 1991 and 1992.
Yet she signed a notarized form admitting she lived there during those years.
Stewart's assistant, who filled out the form that Stewart ultimately signed off on, claimed she had "no idea how to fill the form out."
Stewart used limousine receipts to try to prove she was in Connecticut on certain days.
But some receipts were for driving props from her show or other staff members. One receipt was for a trip that was canceled.
Even Stewart's driver couldn't back her up.
He testified "he could not specify where [Stewart] spent most of her time, Connecticut or New York, it was a mixture of the two.
This is in contrast to [Stewart's] testimony that she was hardly ever in New York."
In one case, Stewart "emphatically denied" being on NBC's "Today" show in 1991.
The judge pointed out that her magazine, Martha Stewart Living, cited her 1991 "Today" show appearances.
"This is another example of the lack of credible testimony to support [Stewart]," Sacca wrote.
In the end, the judge ruled Stewart could not prove her case.
He found that she spent more than half her year — 184 days — in New York and couldn't prove where she was on 45 other days.
Stewart's spokeswoman, Susan Magrino, who was also a witness in the tax case, did not return calls seeking comment.
With Joe Mahoney
Case Closed
In January 2000, Martha Stewart was ordered to pay $221,000 in back taxes to New York State after a judge didn't buy her story that she lived year-round in Connecticut. Some excerpts from the ruling:
****
Stewart had premium-level cable TV installed in July 1991 in a Hamptons house she called uninhabitable. She said it was for testing the home's audio visual system.
"This degree of cable service appears to be more than that required to test a stereo and audiovisual system and is more consistent with an occupied residence," wrote Administrative Judge Thomas Sacca.
****
Stewart testified the East Hampton mansion and an accompanying three-bedroom cottage used by her daughter were renovated and thus uninhabitable during 1991-92.
But a spring 1991 Martha Stewart Living story depicted photos of the daughter's cottage with text describing it as "well furnished and lived-in."
"The cottage appears to be habitable and clearly had already been renovated by the time the photographs were taken," the judge noted.
****
Stewart argued that she "rarely visited New York," but the judge noted the jacket of her 1991 book on gardening stated that she "lives in Connecticut and New York, and is presently creating a new garden on Long Island."
Stewart Stockwatch
Martha Stewart's stock is rising — about as slowly as one of her homemade loaves of bread.
Shares of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia were up 47 cents yesterday, closing at $11.47.
Stewart, who owns 31 million shares of the company, gained $14.5 million herself.
But the stock is still $7.76 lower than its pre-scandal price.
For Stewart, that means a $240 million loss on paper.
With a worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars, she still has to cheat to keep an extra 200,000.00+.
Hope her lawyers take her to the cleaners for no other reason than being an old, ugly, greedy, stupid moron. She deserves whatever she gets, and I'll continue to sleep well at night.
BTW, is there any indication she donated her used underwear to charity for a write off?
No but she probably made her daughter wear it until it was in tatters before a charity got it.
She had this coming.
Can't stand her show. The cold 'fake' smile, monotone voice, and totally humorless attitude make me think she is either 'looney tunes' or heavily medicated.
No one could stand her. At least those who knew her. Yet the people by the millions loved her show and her products. And now, the Comeuppance!
She was a big, big liberal and a friend of the Toons. Folks, there is a reason why we have "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Because, as this whole affair proves, there is a God!
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Let's not gloat too much over this.
The same vultures who will pick her clean would just as much turn their sites on any of us when they're done.
The idea of charging property taxes upon ever-increasing tax assessments is a heinous evil.
We have become so de-sensitized, yet, the colonists would never have put up with such an outrage, despite the fact that under King George they got to keep 99.9 percent of their incomes and paid no property taxes.
Now we have taxation with representation and we willingly bend over for a royal screwing!
The government fondly refers to it as "voluntary compliance".
Agreed.
Still, there is this aroma of the Leona Helmsley "little people" thing . . .
At least Martha worked for some of what she has. Bill and Hillary just talk and expect cash. And that's what they have received for so long they think it's the way things work. Why? Because they are "special" and they deserve it. And there is always some "smart" moron willing to give the cash for whatever they can provide they never had that really belonged to all of us.
Sorry to ramble. I'm sick of those that can't seem to work. What ever happened to the "work ethic"?
Indeed she is, and it was that revelation a few years ago that led me to disregard her show and magazine. I read your comments that as a charter subscriber to her magazine, news of her fundraising for Clinton led you to cancel your subscription, too.
But note the lack of calling her "big democratic donar" or the "close personal friend of..." qualifiers.
My opinion is the press has no choice but to report this story. They must see that the events unfolding will proceed and they can't be caught totally ignoring it as MS may very well face some serious consequence for her actions.
No, like other stories involving democrats, the press will report the story and minimize any association between her and politicians the press supports.
coffee, please!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
