Well, Sarah Palin released her tax returns on Friday afternoon. As someone who has largely done their own taxes for his own lifetime, I can still hardly sit in judgement on hers. Therefore let's turn to the experts!
As a preface to other things in this post I submit an excerpt of what Roger Olsen, Governor Sarah Palin's tax attorney, included their release of her records:
Unless employees have reason to know that the W-2 is incorrect, the IRS expects employees to rely on the employer's W-2 as prepared & filed with the IRS, as Governor Palin did. The income tax aspects of fringe benefits are complex and highly technical, and not subject to second-guessing by laymen. The State of Alaska is confident that its position is correct. Its employees were entitled to rely on that determination, So was Governor Palin.
Finally, under State law, the spouse of the Governor (or other family members on occasion) is entitled to payment of travel costs by the state when conducting official State business. I find no reason or rule of law that would lead me to a different conclusion as to his receipt of such State payments. Such payments for family members traveling on state business would not properly be included as taxable income on Governor Palin's federal tax returns.
Sounds a little defensive? No? Let's see what Paul Caron says, shall we?
Both conclusions seem problematic. If an employer mistakenly fails to include an item of income from an employee's W-2, does that really relieve en employee of her obligation to report the income on her tax return? How does Mr. Olsen's conclusion regarding the reimbursement for expenses of the Governor's spouse and children square with § 274(m)(3)? Undoubtedly the most amazing (brazen?) aspect of Mr. Olsen's opinion letter is that he cites absolutely no law in the four pages to support his conclusions -- no code or regulation sections, cases, or rulings.
Another discrepancy is the $196,531.50 income as Governor reported on her financial disclosure form (with the notation "[a]s reported to filer by State of Alaska"), compared to the $107,987 wages, tips, other compensation and $122,401.43 Medicare wages and tips reported by the state of Alaska on the W-2 attached to her tax return.
Now, I am no expert here. I freely admit that. I will tell you this, however, I insist on no wishy-washy BS when it comes to filing my tax return. That is whether I prepare, a "tax preparer" does it, or I hire a CPA. All of which have happened in my life. I want no controversy with the IRS!
Our "MaverickTM " Governor Sarah Palin, however, is willing to challenge the "man." I personally find the discrepancy between the returns and the campaign filings particularly disturbing. It's almost as if she is saying "Well...the State originally said X amount was taxable, but, since I am the Governor, I got them to say it was really only Y."
As anyone who has ever dealt with the IRS knows, no private employer, and that includes states, gets to determine, in and of itself, what is federally taxable income, except the IRS itself. They get really, really, really, really annoyed when you try to mess with them. Especially when you are just citing your own beliefs and no enforcible laws, codes or rulings to back up your belief.
Minimum expectation? Governor Palin, win or lose, can look forward to a thorough review of her returns for the last god knows how many years. The IRS has to investigate it now. It is in the public domain and it looks at least a little iffy. They don't get to take a pass now. They have to be impartial.
Now, this sort of gets me to my next point. Why were only two years released? Where is the rest?
Most of the time, you get people releasing an amount equivalent to what could be audited by the IRS. Roughly seven years worth of returns. There is no rule on this or nearly any disclosure by candidates running for public office.
The concern here is we don't have a clean, no problems, return from either of the last two years, necessarily. That makes it all the more necessary to scrutinize the previous years to see if there is a pattern. But, they are not there, like they are for every other candidate.
That, in and of itself, will invite additional questions.
Do these people think at all before they act? It makes me proud of the Carter, Mondale and Dukakis campaigns!;-)
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave. Sphere: Related Content
