eisely Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Some republican nominees for cabinet level positions have had nanny problems, but I do not recall any republican nominees cheating on their taxes the way Geithner and Daeschle have. It is not that there aren't tax cheats among republicans. Most likely those republicans who might have been offered appointments and knew they had cheated, simply passed on the opportunities. If anybody has contrary information, please provide it. I find these episodes more amusing than shocking. I think these two people should not have been appointed, but then this is the change we have been waiting for. Obama's tolerance for tainted appointees probably stems from his growing up in the political environment of Chicago, where everybody is presumed to be dishonest to some degree and it is tolerated. Nobody has accused Obama of any personal impropriety as far as I am aware, but I suspect his lenient attitude towards these matters reflects his experience. Regarding charitable deductions for scouting activities, it is legitimate to deduct as a charitable contribution unreimbursed expenses, such as uniform costs. You can also deduct unreimbursed mileage on your car, but not at the business mileage reate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal_Crawford Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I don't think it is anything new. I have been taking mileage deductions for years. I deduct uniforms etc when I remember to keep the receipts. You can't deduct the cost of your son's scouting experience but you can much of deduct yours. My wife is a figure skating judge which is a volunteer position (judges, like the skaters must maintain amateur status). When she goes to a training course at least some of the costs are deductible. She hasn't taken one recently so I don't know this years rules but mileage, air fare, lodging etc. It may be that trips to PTC are deductible. I'm no expert, check with your tax preparer for accurate and up to date information. Hal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 No one is above the law. These clowns should be treated like every other tax evader! No breaks! Make an example out of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 My memories of the "Nanny issues" is that those with Nanny issues either withdrew or had their names withdrawn from consideration of whatever post they were up for, no one paid the back taxes or were allowed to make it "right" so they could be in the position Course I could have it wrong, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eisely Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 OGE, Your recollection is the same as mine. As I recall, Nanny problems first came up with Clinton's first two nominees for Attorney General, both of whom withdrew. I don't know if those nominees paid any of the back taxes they may have owed, because their candidacies became moot. Then we go Janet Reno - not exactly an improvement, but certainly no nanny problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljnrsu Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 When did all this happen? How about mileage? What does "within reason" mean, anyway? Pack, its nothing new, been around for the 30+ years Ive been either an IRS Field Agent or currently a Tax Accountant. IRS Publication 17: Your Federal Income Tax or Publication 526: Charitable Deductions explains what can be deducted such as uniforms, mileage etc. Please check with your tax advisor or preparer as to what applies in your specific case. If Mr. Geithner was applying for a job with the IRS (which as Secretary of Treasury he is in charge of) an error of that magnitude would disqualify his employment. All Mr. Geithner or his tax preparer need to do was some research or visit a local IRS office and this would have been avoided. My duty as a tax preparer is not knowing all the answers off the top of my head but knowing how and where to look for them. If Mr. Geithner or Mr. Daschle were Republicans the Democrat Congress critters would be demanding their names be removed from nomination. But since they are Democrats, nominated by a Democrat, and a Democrat Congress anything goes. The only change will be left will be in our pockets once Congress finishes their spending spree and we pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 packsaddle, If your 1040 book is the same as mine, turn to page A-7, middle column. "Contributions can be in cash, property, or out-of-pocket expenses you paid to do volunteer work for the kinds of organizations described earlier." Boy Scouts happenes to be one of them. Instructions for amending returns is found on page 82; you need form 1040X. :-) See, if you took WB 21 Century, you would have known about the tax deductions. We cover that in the MBA section of the course. [the last comment was a joke, primarily for Kudu] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 That was a great joke, I got it too. You know, I'm in a quandry. I would like to get those deductions...but there are few things I dislike more than filing tax returns. what to choose.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 So the Nanny issue ran across both parties, its funny that the Clinton Administratin was in this regard more "moral" then how the Obama Administration is shaping up, the Clinton Administration, more moral than another administration, who saw that comming? I didn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 "You should know better than to take campaign rhetoric seriously from any candidate on either side." SR540Beaver, Yes, I should have known better. "Change you can believe in" is nothing but campaign rhetoric. The only thing we can believe in from this administration is SS, DD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fgoodwin Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Speaking as a die-hard conservative and Republican (not always the same thing, by the way), I say: can't we give the new guy a chance? He won, fair and square. Our guy had eight years to get it right, now its the new guy's turn. Its time to move on . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK-Eagle Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 yeah I'll give him exactly the same amount of chances Pres. G.W. Bush got zip zero nada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I voted for GWB. Gave him years of support, and years of benefit of da doubt. Was disappointed, then appalled. I intend to be just as patriotic and support President Obama. That's what citizens do when they care more about the country than their political party, eh? After four years, I'll make a call about whether I'm disappointed or not. Beavah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fgoodwin Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 AK-Eagle, so you plan to spend the next four years playing "gotcha"? Knock yourself out . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwd-scouter Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Hmmm, seems to me GWB was given very good chances. He was reelected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now