Robert Redford sues to get his $1.6 million back from the Fair Share pot in NY

posted at 9:21 pm on August 6, 2014 by Mary Katharine Ham

People like Redford claim the way to make America work better is to pass laws forcing people like them to pay more in taxes. Then, the state of New York forces Redford to pay more in taxes, and my does that tune change.

Actor Robert Redford is suing the state of New York for what he says are unfair taxes from the sale of the Sundance Channel.

Mr. Redford, a Utah resident, sued the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance in Albany County Supreme Court on July 30, claiming that he’s being doubly taxed on money his company made when it sold off its portion of the channel in 2005, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

New York is taxing the actor-director $845,066 plus $727,404 in interest owed — roughly $1.57 million — for the money he made in the sale, but Mr. Redford said he already paid taxes on the revenue in Utah.

Imagine how many wind farm subsidies this could fund! Or, film festivals! Look, I have no particular desire to see Redford’s income taxed twice, but I am not an activist for the ideology that loves the estate tax and refuses to recognize that when, say, Mitt Romney pays a lower effective tax rate on income from dividends, it’s partly because that income has already been taxed once.

Further, being that Redford likely falls into the ultra-rich category that would theoretically be made to pay more taxes under the fanciful Buffett Rule President Obama suggested but never had a plan for passing, why not just consider this his fair share tax? He and his super-rich, ideological brethren have been sitting around waiting for the government to force them to pay more, and New York has obliged Mr. Redford. He should count himself lucky.

More on the details of the tax dispute:

In the lawsuit filed last week, Redford’s attorney claims the actor paid the proper taxes in his home state of Utah. The Sundance Channel is a limited liability company registered in New York, but Redford’s stake in the company was through what is known as an “S corporation,” which requires shareholders to claim losses or gains on their income-tax returns.

Perhaps Redford thinks he could better forward the causes of environmentalism and the arts with his $1.6 million instead of the state. If so, I say join the club. He’s less detestably hypocritical than Michael Moore and the Rev. Al Sharpton on this issue, at least. To bolster his case, Redford cites something called the New York State Constitution, according to the Washington Times, so perhaps we can hope he’ll be reading other founding documents to inform his other policy preferences in the future.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Somebody call him a waaaahmbulance!!!!

ladyingray on August 6, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Why does Redford hate the poor people of New York that depend on this money???

faraway on August 6, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Poor baby. Robert Redford needs to pay his fair share!

rbj on August 6, 2014 at 9:26 PM

Look, I have no particular desire to see Redford’s income taxed twice,

Oh I do. And more. Make that self righteous, global warming, hypocrite pr1ck pay. Shake him upside down by the ankles for a quarter like they do us.

arnold ziffel on August 6, 2014 at 9:26 PM

Given the hypocrisy on the left, if Redford was able to enlist Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio to his cause to pressure the tax regulators in Albany to write off the $1.5 million charge, it wouldn’t be a shock (and you’d hear the mayor and governor talk about how New York needs to keep attracting Hollywood business to the city and state, blah, blah, blah…)

jon1979 on August 6, 2014 at 9:28 PM

Look, I have no particular desire to see Redford’s income taxed twice,

I do. Redford has always wanted this sort of nation, this sort of government, and now he gets to see it in real-time.

This is the same fud who builds one hell of an estate on his ranch and then spends every waking minute demanding that everyone else live in peat huts.

Bishop on August 6, 2014 at 9:29 PM

It`s always tax the rich. But when they ask a rich liberal to pay it`s “I didn`t mean ME!!”

ThePrez on August 6, 2014 at 9:31 PM

Enjoy the suck, Bob.

Cody1991 on August 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM

arnold ziffel on August 6, 2014 at 9:26 PM

Bishop on August 6, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Yeah! What you guys said!

Brat on August 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM

Shut up Redford. Bend over, grab them ankles, and pay up you hypocritical POS.

307wolverine on August 6, 2014 at 9:35 PM

Schadenfreude pure!

ShainS on August 6, 2014 at 9:35 PM

Maybe one of Gov.Corruptomo’s aidescan get them to retract the tax bill

freemarketer on August 6, 2014 at 9:36 PM

It`s always tax the rich. But when they ask a rich liberal to pay it`s “I didn`t mean ME!!”

ThePrez

Well, of course. “We” need to do that to keep those evil, whascally Wepublicans in line … these rules were never meant to affect the “good” people like Redford, et al ….

BD57 on August 6, 2014 at 9:37 PM

The STING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on August 6, 2014 at 9:37 PM

This is the same story over and over again…scratch a tax cheat (Sharpton) or dodger (Redford) and find a socialist.

AUINSC on August 6, 2014 at 9:37 PM

Pay up, whiny liberal b1tch.

Jaibones on August 6, 2014 at 9:38 PM

He and his super-rich, ideological brethren have been sitting around waiting for the government to force them to pay more, and New York has obliged Mr. Redford.

Well, it’s like this; limo liberals like Redford don’t mind TALKING about paying more in taxes, they just object to ACTUALLY PAYING more in taxes.

Just ask Buffett.

Or the Kennedys.

Or John Kerry.

Or Charlie Rangel.

GarandFan on August 6, 2014 at 9:38 PM

Shake him upside down by the ankles for a quarter like they do us.

arnold ziffel on August 6, 2014 at 9:26 PM

.
LOL

ExpressoBold on August 6, 2014 at 9:38 PM

He’s worth around $180 million and still earns $5 million per year yet bleeds liberalism from every pore.

You lefties want to explain this, why would a dude worth this much be squabbling over 20% of a single year’s earnings when there are so many New Yorkers struggling just to put food on the table?

Bishop on August 6, 2014 at 9:39 PM

The STING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on August 6, 2014 at 9:37 PM

Very good. How does it feel bob? The sad thing is, the amount is chump change to him but the mofo fights like it would really hurt.

arnold ziffel on August 6, 2014 at 9:41 PM

I wonder which of Redford’s movie scripts are most like this real-life State of NY tax shakedown… Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid…
or The Sting?

Seriously, didn’t the Prezzie just address this issue of “econonomic patriotism”? Was Bob not listening?

Dolce Far Niente on August 6, 2014 at 9:41 PM

The STING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on August 6, 2014 at 9:37 PM

LOL! Excellent!

Brat on August 6, 2014 at 9:42 PM

Look, I have no particular desire to see Redford’s income taxed twice…

I do.

Bishop on August 6, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Me too.

Actually, I’d like to see his money taxed three or four times.

Jaibones on August 6, 2014 at 9:43 PM

It will happen this way. You may be walking. Maybe the first sunny day of the spring. And an IRS staff car will slow beside you, and a door will open, and someone you know, maybe even trust, someone like Lois Lerner, will get out of the car. And she will smile, a becoming smile. But she will leave open the door of the car and offer to give you a lift.

Bishop on August 6, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Ahh yes, serve him up a plate of schadenfreude! Hey Robert, shut up and eat your peas! You want all the middles class and poor to bend over and live with your lefty environ_-crazy idea’s and want us to live like serfs, you want higher taxes but not for you. What a douche!

Bakokitty on August 6, 2014 at 9:45 PM

hahahahahahahahaha. F— him, hope they throw his arse in the last castle at rikers.

Raquel Pinkbullet on August 6, 2014 at 9:48 PM

The STING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on August 6, 2014 at 9:37 PM

I declare this the thread winner! Ding,Ding,Ding!
Excellent l2g

Bakokitty on August 6, 2014 at 9:48 PM

Mr. Redford, a Utah resident, sued the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance in Albany County Supreme Court on July 30, claiming that he’s being doubly taxed on money his company made when it sold off its portion of the channel in 2005, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

New York is taxing the actor-director $845,066 plus $727,404 in interest owed — roughly $1.57 million — for the money he made in the sale, but Mr. Redford said he already paid taxes on the revenue in Utah.

He’s waited nine years, folks, before filing a lawsuit about this…

In the lawsuit filed last week, Redford’s attorney claims the actor paid the proper taxes in his home state of Utah. The Sundance Channel is a limited liability company registered in New York, but Redford’s stake in the company was through what is known as an “S corporation,” which requires shareholders to claim losses or gains on their income-tax returns.

And therein lies the rub…

Poitard. Hoist. Redford.

Newtie and the Beauty on August 6, 2014 at 9:51 PM

Newtie and the Beauty on August 6, 2014 at 9:51 PM

Ha! So he has horrible accountants and lawyers to boot!

Brat on August 6, 2014 at 9:55 PM

What’s a poitard?

Bishop on August 6, 2014 at 9:58 PM

He needs the money to write a fat check to Hamas so they can, you know, built more tunnels and rockets.

AshleyTKing on August 6, 2014 at 9:59 PM

Yo, Gatsby ! Pay up old sport.

viking01 on August 6, 2014 at 10:00 PM

There were a couple rookie football players that were whining on Twitter about this tax last year. Pissing and moaning why their paycheck was less when they played in New York.
I laughed.

lowandslow on August 6, 2014 at 10:02 PM

Make that self righteous, global warming, hypocrite pr1ck pay. Shake him upside down by the ankles for a quarter like they do us.

arnold ziffel on August 6, 2014 at 9:26 PM

Obviously, Redford must be a RACIST! /

S. D. on August 6, 2014 at 10:13 PM

What’s a poitard?
Bishop on August 6, 2014 at 9:58 PM

A corruption of “petard,” Bishop ;-)

Newtie and the Beauty on August 6, 2014 at 10:15 PM

Ha! So he has horrible accountants and lawyers to boot!
Brat on August 6, 2014 at 9:55 PM

You get what you pay for… ;-)

Newtie and the Beauty on August 6, 2014 at 10:17 PM

The Sundance Channel is a limited liability company registered in New York

First stupid mistake. Unless you are headquartered in NY or any other tax-savage state, you don’t register/organize your corporation in them. You do it in Delaware or offshore, anyplace but NY. But I hope beyond hope that Redford has to pay out the gazoo for whatever decision he and his advisors made. Couldn’t happen to a better shill for the Dem plantation.

TXUS on August 6, 2014 at 10:26 PM

Another source reported the total sale as 496 million. So he’s whining about a tax rate of 0.2% on the sale.

My heart bleeds.

talkingpoints on August 6, 2014 at 10:30 PM

NEWSFLASH!!

Hypocritical liberal being a hypocritical liberal! It’s amazing how they (liberal progs) believe everyone should share the wealth, that is until it is their wealth that is to be shared!

Liberal progs are the most hypocritical and stupid people on the face of the earth!

Liberty or Death on August 6, 2014 at 10:48 PM

I’m no Redford fan, but from what little facts I’ve been able to find on the sale, I see no basis for NY’s imposition of tax.

Historically, for state income-sourcing purposes, gain on the sale of shares in a corporation or gain on the sale of an interest in an LLC (I’m not sure what Redford’s interest was) is not considered taxable in any state other than the state in which the owner of the interest resides. Unlike real estate or tangible personal property, a share of stock or an LLC interest is considered an intangible asset that is viewed as located only in the state in which the owner resides.

Redford owes income tax only to Utah, not to New York. No hypocrisy, no lousy advice from his advisers. NY has a state income tax publication (Publication 35) that seems as if it might have the definitive answer, but it isn’t available. If NY takes the position that it can tax the gains in question, it would be a very aggressive position. We’ll see.

BuckeyeSam on August 6, 2014 at 10:57 PM

There were a couple rookie football players that were whining on Twitter about this tax last year. Pissing and moaning why their paycheck was less when they played in New York.

I laughed.

lowandslow on August 6, 2014 at 10:02 PM

Worthy of laughter, but at least the “performed services” in New York–and other states as well. This is a pain in the neck for professional athletes. Most teams, I believe, enter into agreements with state and local taxing authorities where teams play away games to fine a consolidated nonresident return on behalf of the teams players. Assuming that they have no other income from that state, they don’t need to file an individual nonresident return for playing just one game in, say, Chicago, when they play for the Giants.

Redford’s case is different, however, because it doesn’t appear that he was an employee performing services in New York. If he had, that compensation would be taxable in NY, as would flow-through income from the NY entity. But NY is trying to tax the gain on his sale of his interest in the entity. I don’t care how much gain he had on the sale. General state income-tax sourcing rules say that gain would be taxable only in the state in which the owner resides.

BuckeyeSam on August 6, 2014 at 11:06 PM

A very lucky guy, indeed. Benefiting purely on his looks, this guy made gazillions as an actor. And a bad one at that.

HiJack on August 6, 2014 at 11:07 PM

A very lucky guy, indeed. Benefiting purely on his looks, this guy made gazillions as an actor. And a bad one at that.

HiJack on August 6, 2014 at 11:07 PM

I agree, I never care for his acting ability, or lack thereof, Paul Newman made him look good!

Liberty or Death on August 6, 2014 at 11:10 PM

There are adverts for firms that will fight on your side to cut state an fed taxes owed…

socalcon on August 6, 2014 at 11:14 PM

General state income-tax sourcing rules say that gain would be taxable only in the state in which the owner resides.

BuckeyeSam on August 6, 2014 at 11:06 PM

While that may be true people like Robert and the rest of his elitist Hollywood friends are constantly stoking the “share the wealth” “We are the 99%” and “the rich don’t pay enough taxes” and “income equality” BS memes so if he had any sense of being true to his beliefs he would let NY keep the money so they can help all those people he thinks are being treated so poorly, all in the name of social justice of course!

I love it when these hypocritical elites get hung by their own petard!

Liberty or Death on August 6, 2014 at 11:16 PM

Bishop on August 6, 2014 at 9:44 PM

LMAO! Perfect movie quote.

PatriotGal2257 on August 6, 2014 at 11:16 PM

It will happen this way. You may be walking. Maybe the first sunny day of the spring. And an IRS staff car will slow beside you, and a door will open, and someone you know, maybe even trust, someone like Lois Lerner, will get out of the car. And she will smile, a becoming smile. But she will leave open the door of the car and offer to give you a lift.

Bishop on August 6, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Good stuff! My favorite Redford movie. But only because of Max von Sydow.

Mitoch55 on August 6, 2014 at 11:22 PM

Bishop on August 6, 2014 at 9:44 PM

OK, he’s a douche and has it coming. But that was a good movie.

iurockhead on August 6, 2014 at 11:22 PM

Another source reported the total sale as 496 million. So he’s whining about a tax rate of 0.2% on the sale.

My heart bleeds.

talkingpoints on August 6, 2014 at 10:30 PM

Sure, he’s a Libtard and all, but I don’t think he (or anyone else) should have to pay such taxes. In the long run, the state’s just going to piss away what they forget to steal for themselves.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 6, 2014 at 11:26 PM

I love it when these hypocritical elites get hung by their own petard!

Liberty or Death on August 6, 2014 at 11:16 PM

OK, somebody has to say it:

“Hoist by his own petard” refers to a bomb called a petard, which was placed on a door or gate to blow it open. Hoist by said petard means getting blowed up by your own bomb that was intended to blow up others.

Nitpicking/off

iurockhead on August 6, 2014 at 11:26 PM

Rules for thee, but not for me.

warmairfan on August 6, 2014 at 11:45 PM

OK, somebody has to say it:

“Hoist by his own petard” refers to a bomb called a petard, which was placed on a door or gate to blow it open. Hoist by said petard means getting blowed up by your own bomb that was intended to blow up others.

Nitpicking/off

iurockhead on August 6, 2014 at 11:26 PM

Well thank you Phrase Police…I’m certain everyone got the meaning…now go grab a beer and chill…or a pastry, ’cause cops love pastries!

Liberty or Death on August 7, 2014 at 12:00 AM

Redford always was a cheezeball.

Diluculo on August 7, 2014 at 12:03 AM

Nitpicking/off

iurockhead on August 6, 2014 at 11:26 PM

Also, that phrase may have referred to a bomb back in the day it was coined but as happens with many phrases its meaning and use changes with the times, much like the phrase “rule of thumb.” When I use that phrase today I don’t use it to show someone a stick they can use that’s not bigger than their thumb so they can beat their wife.

In other words, many phrases from the distant past are not used in the same way today, but thanks for the history lesson.

Liberty or Death on August 7, 2014 at 12:09 AM

I just promoted Redford from Turd to Major Turd.
Congratulations, Redford, ya scumbag.

justltl on August 7, 2014 at 12:39 AM

Liberals dont get what they stand for when it affects them

jaywemm on August 7, 2014 at 1:14 AM

Redford: wise up, son. They gonna take it ALL. What did you expect.

Kenosha Kid on August 7, 2014 at 1:41 AM

It will happen this way. You may be walking. Maybe the first sunny day of the spring. And an IRS staff car will slow beside you, and a door will open, and someone you know, maybe even trust, someone like Lois Lerner, will get out of the car. And she will smile, a becoming smile. But she will leave open the door of the car and offer to give you a lift.

Bishop on August 6, 2014 at 9:44 PM
Good stuff! My favorite Redford movie. But only because of Max von Sydow.

Mitoch55 on August 6, 2014 at 11:22 PM

I thought that was Seinfeld, Newman talking to Kramer when Kramer was protesting against the post office…Then later it happened just the way Newman said it would!

fitzsweetpea on August 7, 2014 at 2:05 AM

Citing the New York State Constitution?
Has he no shame?

Another Drew on August 7, 2014 at 3:17 AM

Bobby Redford – Living the lie!

Old eagle on August 7, 2014 at 5:07 AM

Socialists just want everyone else to pay.
Put your money where your mouth is Bob, or, come out shootin’ Sundance.

kregg on August 7, 2014 at 5:25 AM

What’s a poitard?
Bishop on August 6, 2014 at 9:58 PM

A corruption of “petard,” Bishop ;-)

Newtie and the Beauty on August 6, 2014 at 10:15 PM

…only it’s made out of ground-up taro root.

bigmacdaddy on August 7, 2014 at 6:30 AM

Good for Redford. Perhaps other liberals will wake up and find out that we are all taxed too much.

SC.Charlie on August 7, 2014 at 7:11 AM

Shut up and eat your arugula, Robert.

22044 on August 7, 2014 at 7:21 AM

I love the smell of snark first thing in the morning.

Nice work, Mary Kate.

Toocon on August 7, 2014 at 7:30 AM

Everybody else has to do it. Limousine liberals think they’re better than everybody else.

ezspirit on August 7, 2014 at 8:40 AM

New York is taxing the actor-director $845,066 plus $727,404 in interest owed — roughly $1.57 million — for the money he made in the sale, but Mr. Redford said he already paid taxes on the revenue in Utah.

They’re trying to charge him 85% interest on unpaid taxes? He should call Elizabeth Warren and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They would be all over this outrageous case of usury.

SD on August 7, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Azzes like Redford follow the law only when it suits their pecuniary or ideological purposes.

vnvet on August 7, 2014 at 9:44 AM

(Redford)’s less detestably hypocritical than Michael Moore and the Rev. Al Sharpton on this issue, at least.

No Mary Katherine, you are wrong about that. He’s your typical leftist hypocrite and he sucks to high heaven. I refuse to watch or read anything he produces no matter who his co-stars may be. (They should pick better partners.)

earlgrey on August 7, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Also, that phrase may have referred to a bomb back in the day it was coined but as happens with many phrases its meaning and use changes with the times, much like the phrase “rule of thumb.” When I use that phrase today I don’t use it to show someone a stick they can use that’s not bigger than their thumb so they can beat their wife.

In other words, many phrases from the distant past are not used in the same way today, but thanks for the history lesson.

Liberty or Death on August 7, 2014 at 12:09 AM

Which is good since that isn’t the origin of that phrase, either.

(Feminist rewriting of history notwithstanding.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb

makattak on August 7, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Listen, the state of New York is doing him a favor by redistributing those funds to people the state deems in need. That’s the Socialist way and what does Redford have against a typical socialist requirement. Doesn’t he understand that he makes too much money and must share that wealth?

regmgr on August 7, 2014 at 10:31 AM

No Mary Katherine, you are wrong about that. He’s your typical leftist hypocrite and he sucks to high heaven. I refuse to watch or read anything he produces no matter who his co-stars may be. (They should pick better partners.) – earlgrey on August 7, 2014 at 10:02 AM

How so? I truly detest both Al Sharpton and Michael Moore.

SC.Charlie on August 7, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Fox News contributor David Webb, a while ago: “Welcome to the TEA Party, Mr. Redford!”

Priceless!

GGMac on August 7, 2014 at 11:05 AM

Notwithstanding BuckeyeSam, my understanding would have been. Note, I am not a tax expert.

Sundance, LLC was supposedly formed in NY. It probably functioned as a partnership of which Mr. Redford’s Type S Corporation, formed in Utah, was a partner (or more correctly, a member of the LLC). Sundance, LLC could be a manager-managed LLC so the other members could be more passive and not involved in day-to-day operation. The LLC would normally have to file with NY taxing authority as to the distribution of expenses and income to its members.

Sundance, LLC, as a partnership, would pass-through expenses and income to the members. In the case of Mr. Redford’s Type S Corporation, it too would pass-through expenses and income to the various shareholders in the Corporation. Presumably, the Corporation would file with Utah tax authorities the distribution of expenses and income to its shareholders.

NY would expect the members of Sundance, LLC to file tax returns with NY, since the income, expenses, and tax obligations were pass-through to the members. Since Mr. Redford’s Type S Corporation was a member and, on its level, a pass-through entity to its shareholders, the income, expenses, and tax obligations (from NY) would also get passed along.

Therefore, Mr. Redford would be expected to file income tax returns with NY, paying the appropriate taxes, and file tax returns with Utah, noting the taxes paid to NY and, if Utah allows, claiming then a credit against Utah taxes on the income in question which would reduce his Utah income tax liability for the NY income (assuming Utah’s tax rate is greater than NY’s).

Presumably, sale of Sundance, LLC would result in a pass-through of the “gains” (whether net or in combination with expenses associated with the sale plus possibly any cost basis) to the members of the LLC which should then result in pass-through of the “gains” to the shareholders of the Type S Corporation member. In this case, the shareholders would file income tax returns with NY which would account for the capital gains resulting from the sale (as well as any pass-through income/expenses of that tax year) and may also claim a credit against their Utah taxes for the NY taxes paid.

While tax laws vary, it certainly sounds like he didn’t pay income tax to NY much less any capital gains, if any, as well.

Russ808 on August 7, 2014 at 4:54 PM

That’s the reason I’ve never paid any attention to those so-called celebrities. They always talk the talk but never walk the walk, this bunch of hypocrites.

jacobim on August 7, 2014 at 7:11 PM

Just pay your “fair share” and shut up Bobby.

usmc8511 on August 7, 2014 at 9:08 PM