Hockey Mom owes back taxes!

[Magnetic Poles]

You betcha!

 

[Revmitchell]

This has been posted and it is relevant to nothing:

The state decided this week that the payments were not legitimate business expenses and that employees must treat them as income subject to taxes.

You should read past the first paragraph.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

This has been posted and it is relevant to nothing:

Just like your tiresome anti-Obama and global warming posts. :thumbs:

 

[Jim1999]

Hold it,,Isn't she Republican? They never do any wrong, do they?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Hold it,,Isn't she Republican? They never do any wrong, do they?

Cheers,

Jim

Yep. If she were a Dem, it would disqualify her from serving on the cabinet. But she's the darling of the wacky right, so it's okay. Got it? :laugh:

 

[dragonfly]

This has been posted and it is relevant to nothing:

Yea, when it's a republican, it's doesn't matter, especially when it's the darling of the conservatives! :laugh:

 

[Revmitchell]

Yep. If she were a Dem, it would disqualify her from serving on the cabinet. But she's the darling of the wacky right, so it's okay. Got it? :laugh:

So tell me what did she do wrong?

 

[Jim1999]

:laugh: :laugh: And she's a Oneness Pentecostal preacher too! The Christian all the Republicans wanted in office..........

Cheers,

Jim

At least she's not a dirty old socialist, like some of us.

 

[Steven2006]

I don't see this as being a big deal. The income in question was only $17,000.00 so that taxes owed on that amount, well lets just say we are not talking about a whole lot of money here. So it is obvious that with that minor amount it was more of an accounting issue rather than an obvious deliberate tax avoidance as we have recently seen with many democrats. I am sure her accountant did her taxes and she signed them, nothing to see here.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I don't see this as being a big deal. The income in question was only $17,000.00 so that taxes owed on that amount, well lets just say we are not talking about a whole lot of money here. So it is obvious that with that minor amount it was more of an accounting issue rather than an obvious deliberate tax avoidance as we have recently seen with many democrats. I am sure her accountant did her taxes and she signed them, nothing to see here.

Accounting issue...just like Geithner and Daschle, right?

 

[Steven2006]

Accounting issue...just like Geithner and Daschle, right?

Even though I am conservative, I often find myself in agreement with you here at BB because I think you often look objectively at an issue. So in this case I am disappointed in your stance. Daschle, owed $140,000.00 in unpaid taxes!, Geithner even though he was audited in 2006 and became well aware he should have paid additional taxes chose not to. Both of these cases are tax avoidance, the few thousand in taxes Palin just now became aware of seems reasonable was not avoidance but an error. I give her the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Even though I am conservative, I often find myself in agreement with you here at BB because I think you often look objectively at an issue. So in this case I am disappointed in your stance. Daschle, owed $140,000.00 in unpaid taxes!, Geithner even though he was audited in 2006 and became well aware he should have paid additional taxes chose not to. Both of these cases are tax avoidance, the few thousand in taxes Palin just now became aware of seems reasonable was not avoidance but an error. I give her the benefit of the doubt here.

Maybe. But she also has been caught charging the state for travel for her family, so I believe there is a bit of smoke that could indicate a fire. I was really disappointed by Daschle myself, as I still think he would have been a good candidate for the HHS slot.

 

[Steven2006]

so I believe there is a bit of smoke that could indicate a fire. QUOTE]

And if that does happen, I will rightly criticize her at that point. Right now however, with what we do know I don't think it is the same, and will give her the benefit of the doubt. We are not talking about a lot of money here, so even common sense would say error rather than malice.

 

[StefanM]

Maybe. But she also has been caught charging the state for travel for her family, so I believe there is a bit of smoke that could indicate a fire. I was really disappointed by Daschle myself, as I still think he would have been a good candidate for the HHS slot.

I'm not a Palin fan, but fair is fair. The amount represented here would only create a tax liability of a few thousand dollars.

The issue I have with the whole matter is the taking of the per diem reimbursement. It is ridiculous to get a per diem for staying at home.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I am disappointed with her. Even if it is only a little it.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I am disappointed with her. Even if it is only a little it.

I agree. A little tax cheat is still a tax cheat.

If this were Obama folks would be be screaming for his impeachment.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I would like to see her explain how it is she got caught. And if she ever hopes to get nominated for a cabinet position, she better have a good reason.

But tax cheats usually get support from the liberals. I'm surprised at their derision.

 

[Steven2006]

I agree. A little tax cheat is still a tax cheat.

If this were Obama folks would be be screaming for his impeachment.

Why are you assuming she is a cheat? We don't know that she was aware that this should have been paid. There is a difference with making a mistake on your taxes, than purposely trying to cheat. If you received a notice from the IRS and it notified you that due to an error in your calculations you owed a small additional amount from last year, would you think of yourself as a cheat? Or would you consider it an unintentional error?

I imagine her taxes are extremely complicated. In those cases for the most part you just go along with whatever your accountant has prepared. My tax returns at times have been like a little book with so many forms that years ago I had no idea even existed. I couldn't begin to start looking at one small portion of it and make corrections to my accountants work. No, I trust him to do the job he is being paid well to do, and trust in his expertise. Without evidence contrary to that I am assuming she has done the same thing and it was an error rather than purposely trying to cheat.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Why are you assuming she is a cheat? We don't know that she was aware that this should have been paid. There is a difference with making a mistake on your taxes, than purposely trying to cheat. If you received a notice from the IRS and it notified you that due to an error in your calculations you owed a small additional amount from last year, would you think of yourself as a cheat? Or would you consider it an unintentional error?

I imagine her taxes are extremely complicated. In those cases for the most part you just go along with whatever your accountant has prepared. My tax returns at times have been like a little book with so many forms that years ago I had no idea even existed. I couldn't begin to start looking at one small portion of it and make corrections to my accountants work. No, I trust him to do the job he is being paid well to do, and trust in his expertise. Without evidence contrary to that I am assuming she has done the same thing and it was an error rather than purposely trying to cheat.

Fair enough - I will happily retract my comments if this is the case.

However, if she we not the darling of the right would we see this kind of sympathy?

 

[Steven2006]

Fair enough - I will happily retract my comments if this is the case.

However, if she we not the darling of the right would we see this kind of sympathy?

I would I generally hold people I support to a very high standard, I expect more from them. Matter of fact it is a real pet peeve of mine how so many people just take the side of someone they support or criticize those they don't regardless of what the facts are. But I won't call someone a cheat unless there is proof, and right now without that proof I give her the benefit of the doubt. But I do agree if it turns out there is more to the story, I will be the first in line to criticize her for it.