Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: fightinJAG

Charlie will just say that his expenses were greater than the rental revenue and thus he had losses for the periods in question. He didn’t want to burden the American taxpayers with his personal problems so, rather than using these losses to partially offset his salary, he just ignored the whole thing.


9 posted on 08/31/2008 1:12:08 PM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree (Abortion is to family planning what bankruptcy is to financial planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: TruthShallSetYouFree

Ask Wesley Snipes about that.


11 posted on 08/31/2008 1:14:58 PM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
He needs to document his losses in order to be able to shelter his rental income. The IRS does not take someone's word for it.

Furthermore, his ability to claim loss on the property is subject to all kinds of limitations depending on his use of the property for personal use or for investment, and his tax fling status. As rental income is “passive income” his ability to deduct losses may be further circumscribed. The IRS rules are clear. Charlie is a tax scofflaw. An ordinary person would be audited and stuck with back taxes and penalties. Ironically Charlie is the kind of guy he loves to reinvent the tax code to punish.

16 posted on 08/31/2008 1:59:57 PM PDT by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson