How many Americans make so much money that they could forget about $83,000 of it in a year?

I thought I did once. But then I woke up.

Oops, I just read that the 1099 that he received was incorrect? However, surely Daschle had a set of books for his business that would have recorded the income anyway.

SC.Charlie on February 1, 2009 at 7:26 PM

Let’s be clear. Daschle was under a contract in 2007 that be paid a total of $1 million for that year, payable at $83K (and change) a month–and he admits that he did receive all $1M, eventhough the 1099 reported only, say, $917K to him for 2007. The report says that the payor’s normal accounts payable clerk was on maternity leave in May 2007, and her replacement mischaracterized Daschle’s payment for that month. That sounds quite plausible because I’m sure the Daschle’s compensation presented a special situation because he was treated as an independent contracter (who receives a 1099) rather than an employee
(who receives a W-2).

But you’re correct. Daschle had a duty to inquire and to get a corrected 1099. He knew damned well he was getting paid exactly $1 million a year, yet he got a 1099 showing $917K. The payor might be subject to a $50 fine for a mistaken Form 1099, but that’s it.

sethstorm on February 1, 2009 at 8:57 PM

Put up or shut up: I’ve requested links from you to establish you allegation that Republicans (only) are guilty of using tax havens. You’re a phony.

You betcha! What’s worse is that the Health and Human Services secretary nominee neglected to disclose this information until a month after his nomination. No, I take that back. What’s worse is the fact that the Democrats are defending his actions. S…

Guess legalized tax evasion paying taxes is just for the little guy Republicans.

Chessplayer on February 1, 2009 at 8:54 PM

FIFY.

Seth so this is what we will get with your man of change? the same old thing? you my boy are a dupe.

Jamson64 on January 31, 2009 at 8:58 PM

At least he’s not a mindless Reaganite. I’ll take that and a China-hostile Geithner over the current GOP. I’d like to see Her Majesty of Alaska have those kind of credentials. That’s how you get the deep blue around the Manufacturing belt to go red, not by killing their way of life for years on end.

Here, Daschle didn’t include $83K that he was paid but was not reported on a Form 1099. He still had an obligation to report the income and, as far as I’m concerned, though it was the payor’s mistake, Daschle should have sought to get a corrected Form 1099.

That he did not receive a 1099 should be followed-up, too. Those that paid him violated our tax laws by not issuing him a 1099-miscellaneous form. I am of the opinion that all members of Congress should be audited on a regular basis.

Will Wesley Snipes be Obama’s next appointee?

One thing this demonstrates is that the tax code is so ludicrous and inexplicable that even its most ardent supporters ignore it when convenient, hypocritical though that may be.

***

NNtrancer on February 1, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Sorry, Daschle’s problem doesn’t prove your point. Even under the “fair tax,” you still have the threshold issue of what is “income.” Here, Daschle didn’t include $83K that he was paid but was not reported on a Form 1099. He still had an obligation to report the income and, as far as I’m concerned, though it was the payor’s mistake, Daschle should have sought to get a corrected Form 1099.

As for the car use income, same point. It’s the same issue under the current system or the “fair tax.”

From what I’ve seen, the “fair tax” would have eliminated only the issue relating to the charitable contributions.

I understand your point, but, again, Daschle’s problems don’t prove your point.

How many Americans make so much money that they could forget about $83,000 of it in a year?

The WSJ had a link to the current Senate Finance Committee report. Among other things, the reason Daschle couldn’t seem to keep track of this $83,000 is that that was the monthly amount that he received from this payor. He was under a contract for $1 million a year for three years, it seems. In his “defense,” the payor issued him a Form 1099 that was shy by $83,000. It appears that the payor had an employee who screwed up the coding on the payment so that it wasn’t classified as compensation paid to Daschle. That said, he and his accountant knew damned well what his annual compensation was, and they didn’t inquire to get the Form 1099 to match the compensation he actually received for that year.

Another problem he has is that when he filed his amended returns on January 2, he didn’t pay any Medicare tax on the additional income from the use of the car service–that’s another 2.9% and interest he still owes.

Still another problem he has is that for many of the charities to which he made contributions, he has only canceled checks, but not the required donee acknowledgments. I admit that these acknowledgments are a dopey requirement, but they’re the law. Thus, he may still have more charitable deductions disallowed.

Finally, he also received a great deal of free use of a corporate jet from a “non-profit” outfit. The Senate Finance Committee is still trying to determine whether that use should be taxable income to Daschle too.

In the end, Daschle still has a lot of explaining to do.

Plus, Daschle claimed almost $15,000 in charitable donations over three years to organizations that don’t qualify for the deduction.

Remember Clinton’s underwear write-offs, and don’t forget Pelosi…they all seem to “forget” to do their taxes correctly, but they never forget to tax us.

The foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since 2001, while dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period.

Clinton’s spokesman said her failure to report the existence of the family foundation and the senator’s position as an officer was an oversight. Her office immediately amended her Senate ethics reports to add that information late yesterday after receiving inquiries from The Washington Post.

Hillary Clinton’s decision to amend her Senate disclosures comes after several other high-profile politicians came under scrutiny for omitting family foundations from their financial disclosure reports, including former Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). They amended their disclosures, and neither was penalized.

They list their donations of used underwear, but don’t list a charity they run on Hillary’s Senate “financial disclosure” forms?

Pelosi, from 2007

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and two other prominent Democrats have failed to disclose they are officers of family charities, in violation of a law requiring members of Congress to report non-profit leadership roles.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the fourth-ranking House Democrat, and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana also did not report they serve as family foundation directors, according to financial disclosure reports examined by USA TODAY.

Gee, they just seem to “Overlook” the law just before elections…

They don’t pay taxes.

At that point he and the rest of the kleptocracy will be able to go hog wild. $100 dollar steaks will be a thing of the past as being too commonplace and cheap.

Also, watch to see him do everything possible to bribe, coerce, threaten and cajole the media into either burying future stories like this and/or putting a mind boggling spin on it.