SJC Thomas didn't disclose $680,000 (to wife) from conservative think tanks

[waggy]

When I work for a company and they pay me I get some kind of form to file my taxes. Maybe his wife failed to submit some kind of form for the payment or it was just overlooked. Personally I think I would remember receiving a big paycheck, unless his wife never mentioned it. Might be time for a divorce if that happened. Still, I believe that Snipes was probably offerred a chance to come clean befor his jury trial started. So unless there is a trial, no one is guilty of anything yet. Until it gets to that point it is just a civil issue. Taxes are so complicated these days, and I blame that on the Government.

Now if the check was made out to him, it would be an open and shut case of responsibility. It is hard when it was the wife of the judge that was paid. It is hard to prove where the fault lies in this case.

I wish I had $650,000 and I could claim it was just a filing error. Makes it kind of hard to believe. I could understand it if they kicked him off the bench.

You do know that supreme court justices dont hear a case until their clerks have written separate opposing viewpoints for each and every case?????

lol yeah being able to forget about $650k would be well nice.

I am not positive its 100% him trying to deceive people. though i don't have all teh facts. though it sure in the hell looks bad.

I doubt they impeach him.

 

[werepossum]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...by-falsifying-disclosure-forms-115002859.html

Well its good to see that a supreme court justice can violate the law and just say opps I didn't know! I wonder how many people get caught cheating on their taxes get to adjust their forms 20+ years back instead of going to trial?

----------------------
Note: this is not related at all to their taxes - income was reported to IRS

Common Courtesy
AT Admin

Too bad he actually paid the taxes, else he'd be qualified to run the Treasury Department.

 

[Fern]

People, this has nothing to do with Thomas' income taxes.

The amount of money his wife made is irrelevent. It doesn't even have to be reported on the form. The only thing that need be reported is the name "Heritage Foundation". There is no place on the form to even insert an amount.

Thomas himself did receice money from the Hertitage Foundation, and it is reported on the form.

There is nothing wrong with his wife's working for the Heritage Foundation. There is no conflict of interest. However, were a case to come before the court with the Heritage Foundation as a party I imagine he'd have to recuse himself. This hasn't happened as far as I can see.

In years passed his wife employment with the Heritage Foundation WAS reported on his forms. It was ommited for several years. But you can be sure everyone in DC knows she works there, it is not a secret.

Anybody thinking this is some big deal is setting themselves up for a major dissapointment.

Edit: The thread title is terribly misleading. The $680k can NOT be disclosed on the form. There is no place for it, it is not required. The thread title implies otherwise.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

In years passed his wife employment with the Heritage Foundation WAS reported on his forms. It was ommited for several years. But you can be sure everyone in DC knows she works there, it is not a secret.

Anybody thinking this is some big deal is setting themselves up for a major dissapointment.

Damn, that's a truly obfuscational apologism. Everybody in DC knows she works there, particularly Justice Thomas, right? And he entered information correctly on the forms for several years, indicating he understood the very simple instructions, right?

But at some point he started checking the "none" box on the form, indicating that such was deliberate or that he's suddenly too stupid to be a supreme court justice...

 

[shira]

So let's get this straight: A justice of the United States Supreme Court sees an item on his annual income disclosure forms that says:


“Spouse’s Non-Investment Income”


and this Justice claims that he "did not understand" that he was supposed to list income that his spouse received that came from sources other than investments?

Clearly, this disclosure item is highly confusing. How could anyone without a PhD in tax law understand that "spouse" in this case means "the wife of Clarance Thomas" and "non-investment income" in this case means "income from other than investments?" How could Clarence Thomas possibly have understood that payments his wife received from the Heritage Foundation or the salary she received as the CEO of Liberty Central were "non-investment income?"

On the other hand, this justice is obviously a great legal mind who is able to read, understand, and make coherent arguments about arcane principles of the U.S. Constitution and case law.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe he should just file separately.
He should probably have a professional do his taxes.

 

[sportage]

Some of you have a problem understanding the difference between disclosure rules and tax reporting/payment. He paid his taxes (at least from what we know), he just failed to disclose something. Should he have? Of course. Does it change anything? Of course not, it's a non-issue.

Thats like saying "he "just" shot somebody, thats all".
Using the word "just" just doesn't make breaking the law just.

 

[manimal]

Maybe he should just file separately.
He should probably have a professional do his taxes.

If you have a big enough estate you should definitely get a pro to do your numbers....to do otherwise would show a definate lack of judgement which cant be the case since SCOTUS members get to wear a special jacket and get immunity from oversight...

 

[hal2kilo]

People, this has nothing to do with Thomas' income taxes.

The amount of money his wife made is irrelevent. It doesn't even have to be reported on the form. The only thing that need be reported is the name "Heritage Foundation". There is no place on the form to even insert an amount.

Thomas himself did receice money from the Hertitage Foundation, and it is reported on the form.

There is nothing wrong with his wife's working for the Heritage Foundation. There is no conflict of interest. However, were a case to come before the court with the Heritage Foundation as a party I imagine he'd have to recuse himself. This hasn't happened as far as I can see.

In years passed his wife employment with the Heritage Foundation WAS reported on his forms. It was ommited for several years. But you can be sure everyone in DC knows she works there, it is not a secret.

Anybody thinking this is some big deal is setting themselves up for a major dissapointment.

Edit: The thread title is terribly misleading. The $680k can NOT be disclosed on the form. There is no place for it, it is not required. The thread title implies otherwise.

Fern

I'm amazed that in this depth of the thread some people are still clueless between the difference between disclosure and reporting income for tax purposes.

 

[JS80]

Loliberals in this thread make me lol