Larry Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 What taxes were his problem?There is no statue of limitations on income tax evasion. I'd read somewhere (and it must have been on ES, since I haven't read anywhere else on the subject) that the reason he paid the more recent taxes, but not the older ones, was because the Statute had run out on the older ones. Maybe there's no Statute on failing to declare income? (Or on failing to file?) But that simply mis-reporting income is a different rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Yeah, but did he apologize for wearing these stupid glasses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted February 3, 2009 Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 As I understand it (I really haven't been paying much attention), nobody can "come after him". The Statute of Limitations had run out. He could not be legally compelled to pay those back taxes, no matter what. Interesting. Any particular source on that? His tax problems were 2005-2007...I can't imagine that is outside the statute of limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Interesting. Any particular source on that? His tax problems were 2005-2007...I can't imagine that is outside the statute of limitations. Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong tax evader. The guy I'm thinking of got caught declaring some income, but failing to pay the "self-employment tax" on the income, for a few years. He paid the taxes that he got caught at, but he'd made the same "mistake" for a few years before he got caught. He paid those, earlier, taxes, later, like one day before his nomination was announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Yeah, but did he apologize for wearing these stupid glasses? He mugged Sally Jesse Raphael and stole them off her face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Interesting. Any particular source on that? His tax problems were 2005-2007...I can't imagine that is outside the statute of limitations. He also had problems in about 00-02 I believe,but that one was from a IRS audit I think Larry is confused with Geither(he had the S/E tax issue) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakkhim Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 If people like us owed that much in taxes, we could potential face jail sentences. Politicians are so cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted February 3, 2009 Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 He also had problems in about 00-02 I believe,but that one was from a IRS auditI think Larry is confused with Geither(he had the S/E tax issue) Keeping up with the tax cheats in the new administration is tough...especially when you get them confused with the lobbyists;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong tax evader. Getting kind of hard to keep them all straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Dammit. Slow to hit that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 It's great that his wife is also an expert in the health field and that they both have spent decades dedicated to studying and thinking about how to improve health policy in this country.But the way it was looked at was far more sinisterly. I don't think it was looked at sinisterly (nice word ). His wife is a lobbyist. I don't think lobbyists are sinister. The lobbying industry makes a lot of sense to me. But she is what she is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Really? I remember a number of people who implied that the money she received was a sneaky way of paying Tom under the table for political favors. and thanks... I like wordsmithing... all thought grumpitude is better than sinisterly. I think there has been a lot of grumpitude concerning Daschle by people who'd been grinding an axe for a looong time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Really? I remember a number of people who implied that the money she received was a sneaky way of paying Tom under the table for political favors. Maybe I missed that. No, I don't think it was anything so benevolent as paying Tom back for PAST favors. They paid her because she got them access to the politicians that benefitted their companies. But that's not sinister at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Maybe I missed that. No, I don't think it was anything so benevolent as paying Tom back for PAST favors. They paid her because she got them access to the politicians that benefitted their companies. But that's not sinister at all. Agreed. That's just regular ole lobbying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Maybe I missed that. No, I don't think it was anything so benevolent as paying Tom back for PAST favors. They paid her because she got them access to the politicians that benefitted their companies. But that's not sinister at all. Actually, I keep remembering a scene, and a line, from a Donald Westlake crime story. The central character of the book is "The Top Cop in the City of New York". Specifically, he holds the highest job in the NYPD that a cop can rise to. (As opposed to being a political appointment.) He's working with a young FBI agent. About halfway through the book, as the Cop is on his way home, his car is forced off the road, into an ambush which had been set for him in advance. His car is surrounded by masked men with automatic weapons. One person approaches his car. Tells him to stay away from the case. And tosses an envelope into the car. Bad guys leave. Cop looks in the envelope. $100K in cash. Cop puts the cash in the glove box, drives home. After making sure his family is OK, he calls the FBI guy, and tells him about what happened. At one point, the FBI guy interrupts him. "And you didn't take the money?" Cop pauses, takes a deep breath, and continues. He explains that he went straight home because he was concerned about his family. And that now that he's home, he really doesn't feel like driving all the way back downtown, just so he can fill out paperwork and be interrogated. He called the FBI guy, because he wanted to let him know that he might be receiving a visit, too, and so that if the cop should, say, be machine gunned in his sleep, he didn't want his widow to be interrogated about why her husband, the cop, had $100K in cash locked in the glove box of his car. He hangs up the phone, and then he sighs. "You didn't take the money?" What is it with the FBI? Where do they get these college kids, who have no experience at all in the Real World? Where do these kids get their ideas about what it's like to be a Real Cop? Doesn't anybody actually educate them about how things work in the real world before they pin a G-Man badge on them and send them out to Fight Crime? "You didn't take the money?" You don't get to be the Top Cop in the City of New York by taking bribes from strangers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 "I think this was a mistake. I think I screwed up. And, you know, I take responsibility for it and we're going to make sure we fix it so it doesn't happen again,'' he said. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25006843-5005961,00.html Wasn't only yesterday...... The president, when asked in a brief session with reporters at the White House whether he stood by Daschle even after reports of the nominee's tax-related problems, replied, "Absolutely." http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/02/america/daschle.4-421511.php So shouldn't it be, "I absolutely made a mistake"?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 "I think this was a mistake. I think I screwed up. And, you know, I take responsibility for it and we're going to make sure we fix it so it doesn't happen again,'' he said.http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25006843-5005961,00.html Wasn't only yesterday...... The president, when asked in a brief session with reporters at the White House whether he stood by Daschle even after reports of the nominee's tax-related problems, replied, "Absolutely." http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/02/america/daschle.4-421511.php So shouldn't it be, "I absolutely made a mistake"?! I am glad he took at least some responsibility for it. Now if he would only admit that his executive order banning lobbyists...and all his grandstanding that went along with it....may have been mistakes also. And maybe apologize for his fear mongering commercials about McCain and his ties to lobbyists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.