She looks like a liberal.
Posted on 02/09/2009 8:43:49 AM PST by Nachum
Amazing. Yet another Obama appointee apparently has tax problems. Pardon me, usher, but I think I’ve seen this movie before.
This time it’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. It appears that the former congressman found a handy way to save money. Most members of Congress find themselves having to support two households — one in their home district, and one in or around DC. Some members, in the past, have ended up sharing apartments or town houses. Emanuel took that one step further: he moved into the home of his colleague, Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), staying there for five years. Rent-free.
To most people, this is “imputed income” — non-financial gifts or compensation that should be reported to the IRS. Emanuel and DeLauro defend their conduct by saying that House ethics rules permit “hospitality between colleagues.”
Apparently they are not familiar with the old aphorism that “guests, like fish, start to smell after three days.”
And no, there was no impropriety or hanky-panky going on. Representative DeLauro is happily married to one Stan Greenberg. Mr. Greenberg, by the way, is not a lobbyist. No, he’s the next best thing in DC — he’s a pollster. And, by wild coincidence, Greenberg’s polling company (Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research) lists both Emanuel and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (which Emanuel headed) as clients.
Let’s see… a Democratic representative gets free housing from a pollster who enjoys some very lucrative contracts from both that representative and a very influential group said representative heads up? Why, I’d never even suggest some kind of a quid pro quo arrangement.
All through his campaign, Obama and his surrogates touted his great judgment and his commitment to change and transparency. Yet more and more of his nominees keep getting exposed for their ethical lapses, especially in the area of doing their “patriotic duty” (as Vice President Biden puts it) and paying “their fair share” of taxes.
There are numerous explanations for this pattern of behavior, but here’s a theory that’s becoming less laughable: There simply aren’t enough Democrats who are both competent and honest to fill all the vacancies in Obama’s administration
Rahm's home in Chicago is not on the tax roles either. It is owned by a not for profit "foundation" and he pays rent.
So.... when do “we the people” rise up in revolt?
There is a difference between zionism and judism. Zionist claim judism yet the jews against zionism don’t. Look up Rev 2:9 and Rev 3:9 and you will see that there are those that claim they are jews and are not. Money is the sword in this battle and we are being played like a fiddle.
The point is that legislators that live the dual-state life pay for taxes in both states. Granted while in DC some obviously rent and pay taxes through embedded fees the landlord eventually pays out. Yet the reps that buy permanent homes seem to make an investment that they will not be leaving even if booted out of office - they just become lobbyists.
Emmanuel is avoiding any taxes/fees by living with a "bud" and yet he could very well be paying his "bud" half the rent which would seem to be all fine and good and yet Emmanuel doesn't declare such an arrangement. Seems to me he is gaming the system by avoiding any residency costs that others are required to pay while at the same time seeming to be having potential conflicts of interest with the very people he is living with.
By the way I agree that this shouldn't be an issue as far as the residency requirement goes but the fact is it is the law and so Emmanuel should not be able to flaunt it.
Can you imagine the spawn that union would produce? We could have a new horror movie: Rosa’s Baby.
5 years at $1400 a month is $84,000 in untaxed income. That’s a big deal to the tune of around $18,000 in taxes he owes.
That’s just a rough estimate.
I think I also read somewhere that the house Rahm lives in in his home district is owned by a charitable corporation, The Rahm and (Mrs.?) Emmanuel Foundation. So, no property taxes, either.
However, the free use of lodging from an employer is excluded from gross income under Section 119 if the lodging is for the employer's convenience and the employee is required to accept the lodging as a condition of emplpyment.
It would not be a gift if the free rent were payment for something. For example, if a person said, if you overhaul my car, you can have free rent for six months, the fair market value of the free rent would be included in gross income under Section 61(a) as payment for the overhaul services rendered.
That is a long list. It would be great to add links to these.
I am eventually going to attempt to do that. I am hoping to have a website up with the list and links. It will become much to long to post at FR.
I wonder if he pays market value?
-Or, for example if it were payment for say... millions of dollars worth of polling business by... oh maybe... the Democratic party, ACORN, and a certain candidate running for national office.
Nachum: This list is great! Where did you get it ?Good job! Gill
I began to compile the list on the first days in office. There was so much of this during Klinton, that I wanted to keep a running tab on the new president from day one.
No, there is no monetary value to crossing the street.
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.