Midnight dreary pondering of gift taxes

by liberal japonicus

I hear Crow and think Raven, so I wonder what Harlan is going to be thinking about Ron Wyden's tapping at his door.

It would be high-larious if this sunk him. A thread for your graft related observations.

Comments

[liberal japonicus]

The Onion is on the case!

https://www.theonion.com/clarence-thomas-promises-to-adopt-code-of-ethics-for-th-1850409408

[Hartmut]

"Your excuses are pathetic, robed in black, devoid of ethics!
Do repent, abstain of vices, chase corruption from your door!
Leave no longer that appearance that you welcome interference
(you that put to death preclearance) that your are of rich men whore
that you bend to highest bidder, barely cloak your being a whore!"
Quoth the SCOTUS: "Nevermore"

[wj]

It occurs to me that gift taxes are required to be paid by the giver, not the recipient. So, did Crow pay such taxes? The IRS ought to be prepared to speak to that, should the Congress ask.

Of course, if they were not gifts, but payment for services, well that's a different discussion. Starting with what those services might have been.

[ral]

Professional services.

[liberal japonicus]

Thanks Hartmut, I tried for a version, but was stuck.

wj, I think that is the gist of Wyden's letter. I wasn't clear about who was getting sunk, but I was thinking Harlan Crow. For Thomas to get sunk, it would be poetic if the money his wife got would be the nail in the coffin.

[wj]

ral, "professional services" needs unpacking, I would say.

Although, since Mr Justice Thomas is on the Supreme Court (i.e. that is his profession), something akin to payment for "obstruction of justice" could be assumed.

I was interested to stumble across something called Travel Act Bribery here:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-judge-convicted-bribery-and-obstruction
FYI, the International Travel Act of 1961 (18 U.S.C. § 1952) makes foreign or interstate travel to "promote, manage, establish, carry on" an unlawful activity a separately indictable crime. Bribery being explicitly included in "unlawful activity".

Crow should be nervous. And I wonder if there is precedent for indicting and convicting a Supreme Court Justice. (I understand that this would not require him to resign. Kicking him off the Court would require Congressional impeachment and conviction, which is a totally seperate process.)

[hairshirthedonist]

But what about George Soros?

[wj]

But what about George Soros?

If he's been giving big gifts to Supreme Court Justices, he should be paying taxes on those, too. Awaiting anything resembling, you know, evidence that he has done so.

[Girl from the North Country]

Oh, this (Wyden's letter) is excellent news. Proper procedures must continue to show (in many examples, not just the SCOTUS) how very far previously accepted norms have been debased. I didn't see this thread til today..

[hairshirthedonist]

wj, when you can provide evidence that George Soros didn't create whatever evidence there is against Crow while also hiding all the evidence that he, himself, has been buying off justices, we can talk. Stop being so naive!

[wj]

Evidence against Crow:
Mr. Justice Thomas himself acknowledged receipt of the various gifts.

[Michael Cain]

IANAL, but wonder what the case law is on, "The jet was going to Indonesia anyway. The incremental cost to have Clarance and Ginni on it was much less than $17,000."

The tuition thing strikes me as much more difficult to explain away.

[hairshirthedonist]

Mr. Justice Thomas himself acknowledged receipt of the various gifts.

Soros hypnosis. It just goes to show how good George is a this.

[wj]

Soros hypnosis. It just goes to show how good George is a this.

If he was that good, he would already have taken over.

That's the flaw in most conspiracy theories: if the conspiracy was as good (or, in the case of the "deep state", as widespread) as alleged, resistance would be futile. Just a fadt path to irrelevance.

[bobbyp]

If he was that good, he would already have taken over.

What makes you think he hasn't?

-The Illuminati

[hairshirthedonist]

bobbyp has opened his third eye.

[wj]

What makes you think he hasn't?

The fact that the accusations still get published. Those with total control, or even an approximation of it, routinely seize control of media content precisely to avoid negative publicity.

[wj]

Obsidian Wings, where we see a conservative defending Soros. :-)

[nous]

The media attention is just a false flag operation meant to provoke a backlash and justify a crackdown. The controlled leak of truth is there just to relieve epistemological pressure while They tighten the vice another notch.

All hail Hypnotoad.

[wj]

I yield! (My mind just isn't sufficiently attuned to conspiracy theories to cope.)

[hairshirthedonist]

You've been the victim of mind-control, wj. That's not something I have to worry about!

[byomtov]

It occurs to me that gift taxes are required to be paid by the giver, not the recipient. So, did Crow pay such taxes? The IRS ought to be prepared to speak to that, should the Congress ask.

Gift taxes are sort of the same thing as estate taxes. Crow, just like the rest of us in the US, has an $11.7M ($23.4M for a married couple) lifetime exemption on the two combined. So, just like you and I, he can give that amount in gifts to others without incurring an immediate gift tax.

He is, however, supposed to file a report with the IRS.

[Pro Bono]

Meanwhile, and off topic, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh at Jacob Rees-Mogg's hand wringing over the Conservative Party's foray into voter suppression.

[wj]

Still, the most potentially damaging bit of Wyden's letter is where he asks Crow if any of his companies recorded payments, etc., to Justice Thomas as a business expense for tax purposes. That, it seems to me, would scream "bribe!" Although, admittedly, it would still be necessary to show Crow's interest in a case which came before the Court.

[byomtov]

it would still be necessary to show Crow's interest in a case which came before the Court.

It would, but that's not hard unless you take an extremely narrow view of what it means to have an interest.

If you define it as being an actual party to the case, which Thomas' defenders seem to want to do, you can say he didn't have an interest. But if you define it as being strongly on one side of the case, of being involved in advocacy, then it's easy.