Palin told to pay back taxes

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Wow, OP, your post shows a serious serious lack of reading comprehension and reasoning skills. In fact, she has done absolutely nothing wrong or criminal. Go read it again, maybe this time you can comprehend what you're reading and realize that in no way shape or form does is make her a tax cheat. Also, in no way or form will she be the 2012 republican candidate either.

Excuse me, but I never said she did anything wrong or criminal. Talk about lack of reading comprehension.

Uhhh.... cheating on your taxes is a criminal offense. Give up now, you've been owned.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Cheating isn't illegal. It may not even be "wrong." There are gray areas in the tax code, is there not?
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cheating isn't illegal. It may not even be "wrong." There are gray areas in the tax code, is there not?

Tell that to your wife :laugh:
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Alaska officials have told Gov. Sarah Palin she must pay back taxes on the thousands of dollars she received in state per diem funds while living at her home in Wasilla.

As a tax professional I find this a bit odd.

First, the taxability, or non-taxability, of per diem is a federal tax issue. I have no idea how "Alaska officials" have any say in the matter.

Secondly, under fed tax law it would appear her 'home' is in the capital, where her job is. Fed tax law doesn't care about any other home a person might have. Your home is generally where your job is, and considering the governorship is 4 year job (not a short-term 'away-from-home' type assignment) her home is in Juneau. So, while away from her (tax) 'home' in Juneau and working in Wasilla any per diem should be non-taxable (assuming the other tax rules about per diem are followed).

Fern

 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Alaska officials have told Gov. Sarah Palin she must pay back taxes on the thousands of dollars she received in state per diem funds while living at her home in Wasilla.

As a tax professional I find this a bit odd.

First, the taxability, or non-taxability, of per diem is a federal tax issue. I have no idea how "Alaska officials" have any say in the matter.

Secondly, under fed tax law it would appear her 'home' is in the capital, where her job is. Fed tax law doesn't care about any other home a person might have. Your home is generally where your job is, and considering the governorship is 4 year job (not a short-term 'away-from-home' type assignment) her home is in Juneau. So, while away from her (tax) 'home' in Juneau and working in Wasilla any per diem should be non-taxable (assuming the other tax rules about per diem are followed).

Fern

What you say might be true if she was in Wasilla because the job required her to be there. I think she was in Wasilla because she wanted to be there, not because her job required her to be there.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
She'll be in the primaries for 2012.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Sexism in this country is greater than racism. Way Hillary was treated combined with Ms. Palin is just partial proof. But really - talk to women they hate other chicks and guys don't think they are up to the task for the most part despite what they say. Granted Ms. Palin does not come across as statesmen like but I was ashamed of way Americans treated her. In sum tax problems or not we'll see another black man before a woman president - remember black men got the right to vote before women,

Edit- I should have said 'statesperson like' ...see even our vocabulary is male centric.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
More Palin gold.

She charged the state's taxpayers $60 per phone call in her per diem expense report.

That's interesting. Was she making a collect call to Siberia from her personal cell phone or something?

That $60 number appears often in her expense report. It seems like if there was a entry in her day planner, she managed to tack on a $60 charge to the taxpayers.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,949
1,624
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
More Palin gold.

She charged the state's taxpayers $60 per phone call in her per diem expense report.

That's interesting. Was she making a collect call to Siberia from her personal cell phone or something?

That $60 number appears often in her expense report. It seems like if there was a entry in her day planner, she managed to tack on a $60 charge to the taxpayers.

from the article:

Taken as a whole, these expenses constitute a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of dollars Palin charged for the work she did while living at her personal home. They also seem to fall within the legal confines of appropriate per diem billing

:confused:

 

wetech

Senior member
Jul 16, 2002
871
6
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
More Palin gold.

She charged the state's taxpayers $60 per phone call in her per diem expense report.

That's interesting. Was she making a collect call to Siberia from her personal cell phone or something?

That $60 number appears often in her expense report. It seems like if there was a entry in her day planner, she managed to tack on a $60 charge to the taxpayers.

The $60 pops up often because it's the standard meals and incidental expense reimbursement rate for working travel days.

Link

In December, she took a 5 day trip to Anchorage, and worked 4 of those days. When you fill out expense reports, do you put in every little detail of what you did that day? Wrote an email to xxx, made a copy of doc yyy, etc?


 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Funny but she is no candidate in 2012 anyways. And this isnt really the same thing as not paying unemployment insurance or letting Turbo Tax screw up your income tax return when you are about to run the IRS.

The state has decided to treat this as regular income and thus subject to taxation after the fact.
Um, no.

The state did NOT count the per diem as reportable income because normally those payments are intended to cover the costs that a governor would be expected to incur running an EXTRA household (that is, by living in the governor's mansion). The PALIN'S decided NOT to live in the governor's mansion for the first 19 months of her administration, yet still INAPPROPRIATELY accepted the per diem payments.

This is analogous to an employee of a company receiving per diem payments for going on a business trip, but actually working from home the entire time. Accepting per diem payments under such circumstances is FRAUDULENT.

 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Genx87
Funny but she is no candidate in 2012 anyways. And this isnt really the same thing as not paying unemployment insurance or letting Turbo Tax screw up your income tax return when you are about to run the IRS.

The state has decided to treat this as regular income and thus subject to taxation after the fact.
Um, no.

The state did NOT count the per diem as reportable income because normally those payments are intended to cover the costs that a governor would be expected to incur running an EXTRA household (that is, by living in the governor's mansion). The PALIN'S decided NOT to live in the governor's mansion for the first 19 months of her administration, yet still INAPPROPRIATELY accepted the per diem payments.

This is analogous to an employee of a company receiving per diem payments for going on a business trip, but actually working from home the entire time. Accepting per diem payments under such circumstances is FRAUDULENT.

Sorry, I don't buy that for a second. If accepting these payments were fraudulent, then the state wouldn't have simply issued a W2 for those payments and would have instead demanded their repayment.