Replies

Thanks for the (((((PING)))) ... ;-)
I did catch this on another thread - different source same subject.

Now don't get mad (kidding) but I think this 'imputed tax' thing and Rahm may be, wrong.

From my interpretation of the Tax Code₍₁₎ it's not Rahm, but the Apartment OWNER (forget her name) who has the "Imputed Income" obligation.

It was she who let Rahm live rent free while she could have rented the same space to 'Joe Blow' for $x,xxxx.xx per month. As reported, over five years she would have had an additional 'real' income $100,000.00 to pay taxes on. That is "Imputed Income" and would be her responsibility.
That being said, Rahm's tax obligation for living rent free, if any, would be as if he had a 'Company Car'. In the good old days a Company Car was a tax free benefit for execs and top managers. Then Congress closed the "loophole"(/s) and the Value of the Car is now taxable. Companies then stopped 'giving' the cars and replaced that with 'car allowances'. Rahm would then have to file, IRS form 2106 Employee Business Expenses.
EXCEPT he's not getting the 'Free Rent' from his Employer. So I don't think he owes anything. Unless of course we go into the "GIFT TAX" section?!?

Wow, this is getting complicated. Maybe 'we' should check with the guy who writes the tax laws... Charlie Rangel! ....

(1) I'm not a CPA but I play one every April ;-)

No no no no.

She gets the imputed income as she should have made (and paid taxes on) that $100,000.00 she could have earned.

AND

He gets the imputed income as he received (and should have paid taxes on) that $100,000.00 worth of value he didn't have to pay out of his own pocket...

Wow, Rahm's tax situation is getting complicated. Maybe 'we' should check with the guy who writes the tax laws--------Charlie Rangel............

RETSIGNMAN PHOTOSHOPPING---"IT'S GETTING CROWDED AT RANGLE'S BEACH"

Little Tommy's warming his buns on Tax-Cheat Beach, too.