Sebelius admits errors, pays $7,000 in back taxes

[sciwizam]

AP : Sebelius admits errors, pays $7,000 in back taxes

In her letter to Baucus and Grassley, Sebelius wrote that the accountant discovered these errors:

_Charitable contributions over $250 are supposed to include an acknowledgment letter from the charity in order for a deduction to be taken. Out of 49 charitable contributions made, three letters couldn't be found.

_Sebelius and her husband took deductions for mortgage interest that they weren't entitled to. The couple sold their home in 2006 for less than what they owed on the mortgage. They continued to make payments on the mortgage, including interest. But since they no longer owned the home they weren't entitled to take deductions for the interest. The same thing happened with a home improvement loan. Sebelius said they "mistakenly believed" the payments were still deductible.

_Insufficient documentation was found for some business expense deductions.

While not on the same scale of Geithner and Daschle, it seems she has now met the requirements of a Cabinet position.

:laugh:

 

[Fear No Evil]

ANOTHER one? Jesus.. Can ANY democrats pay their taxes? The house stuff seems like a reasonable mistake, but the charitable contribution thing seems like they were caught. Come on, you have NO proof of them? $7000 in back taxes means they were probably deducting in the range of $25,000 they shouldn't have.

 

[mugs]

Wow, she's such a terrible person that she apparently made 49 charitable contributions over $250, and she paid off a mortgage that was under-water rather than doing a walk-away foreclosure.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Still seems odd she is claiming in the neighborhood of 25,000 in deductions she was not qualified for.. Come on, you are a high ranking government official - Hire someone.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Still seems odd she is claiming in the neighborhood of 25,000 in deductions she was not qualified for.. Come on, you are a high ranking government official - Hire someone.

What if they found their mistakes? It would sort of hurt to pay somebody to tell you you owe another 7 thousand, no? These people only write the tax laws for special interests. They don't memorize them.

 

[BigJelly]

YADTCT

:Q but not really

more change we can believe in :roll:

EDITED:
Guess my sig fits this thread pretty well

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: mugs
Wow, she's such a terrible person that she apparently made 49 charitable contributions over $250, and she paid off a mortgage that was under-water rather than doing a walk-away foreclosure.

This is the stuff they caught, imagine what they didn't catch.

 

[da loser]

i'd give a pass for this.

The couple sold their home in 2006 for less than what they owed on the mortgage. They continued to make payments on the mortgage, including interest.

assume most of it is due to the mortgage, but if it's mostly the business expenses, then it'll get hairy.

geithner is inexcusable, i mean come on, a treasury secretary can't figure out how to pay taxes?

and daischle was obviously cheating on his taxes.

what i want to know is how do these people get away with not paying penalties? is it because the IRS didn't catch them?

or are they getting immunity as a condition for employment?
sorta like how paulson paid 0 taxes on his $300M stock sell.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Budmantom


This is the stuff they caught, imagine what they didn't catch.

leave the republicans out of this

 

[FerrelGeek]

Look. She most likely had someone else do her taxes. This garbage in inexcusable. But the dems are always willing to excuse their own. Maybe I should cheat on my taxes and see if I could get away with just an apology. Better not; I have this clutzy tendency to drop the soap in the shower.

 

[DealMonkey]

It makes me wonder if we ever vetted appointees this thoroughly in the past? For example, were Bush appointees scrutinized at the same level? How about Clinton appointees?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It makes me wonder if we ever vetted appointees this thoroughly in the past? For example, were Bush appointees scrutinized at the same level? How about Clinton appointees?

Was Obama vetted? I bet he didn't pay taxes.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It makes me wonder if we ever vetted appointees this thoroughly in the past? For example, were Bush appointees scrutinized at the same level? How about Clinton appointees?

Was Obama vetted? I bet he didn't pay taxes.

maybe resko paid them?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It makes me wonder if we ever vetted appointees this thoroughly in the past? For example, were Bush appointees scrutinized at the same level? How about Clinton appointees?

Was Obama vetted? I bet he didn't pay taxes.

maybe resko paid them?

Obama has a way of picking the right friends and the right people for jobs.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It makes me wonder if we ever vetted appointees this thoroughly in the past? For example, were Bush appointees scrutinized at the same level? How about Clinton appointees?

With the radical left hating him? Absolutely.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
ANOTHER one? Jesus.. Can ANY democrats pay their taxes? The house stuff seems like a reasonable mistake, but the charitable contribution thing seems like they were caught. Come on, you have NO proof of them? $7000 in back taxes means they were probably deducting in the range of $25,000 they shouldn't have.

Par for the course. :laugh:

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It makes me wonder if we ever vetted appointees this thoroughly in the past? For example, were Bush appointees scrutinized at the same level? How about Clinton appointees?

With the radical left hating him? Absolutely.

Really? You have a link or something?

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It makes me wonder if we ever vetted appointees this thoroughly in the past? For example, were Bush appointees scrutinized at the same level? How about Clinton appointees?

With the radical left hating him? Absolutely.

Really? You have a link or something?

are you really this dense or is my sarcasm meter broken?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BigJelly
are you really this dense or is my sarcasm meter broken?

I'm serious - I want to know that previous administration appointees underwent the same scrutiny that Obama appointees do. So again, you have a link?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It makes me wonder if we ever vetted appointees this thoroughly in the past? For example, were Bush appointees scrutinized at the same level? How about Clinton appointees?

With the radical left hating him? Absolutely.

Really? You have a link or something?

are you really this dense or is my sarcasm meter broken?

He is that dense and possibly a bit more as you will soon see.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: BigJelly
are you really this dense or is my sarcasm meter broken?

I'm serious - I want to know that previous administration appointees underwent the same scrutiny that Obama appointees do. So again, you have a link?

A link to what?

'Bush appointees have 100% record of successfully paying their federal taxes' wasn't really a newsworthy story in 2001.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

While kinda funny that there is another, those are all not a big deal at all. Any audit would show those things.

Yes you're supposed to be able to substantiate business deductions, but 99% of people guesstimate.

You use a notepad every single time you drive your car? Know anyone that does? Know how many miles you drove before June 30th last year?

That's probably the sort of stuff that's getting kicked out when going under the microscope. If they had 46 of their 49 contribution letters, I doubt they are trying to get away with anything.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
While kinda funny that there is another, those are all not a big deal at all. Any audit would show those things.

Yes you're supposed to be able to substantiate business deductions, but 99% of people guesstimate.

You use a notepad every single time you drive your car? Know anyone that does? Know how many miles you drove before June 30th last year?

That's probably the sort of stuff that's getting kicked out when going under the microscope. If they had 46 of their 49 contribution letters, I doubt they are trying to get away with anything.

I also think it's kind of funny, the party that imposes higher taxes on you and me has such a hard time paying them.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: BigJelly
are you really this dense or is my sarcasm meter broken?

I'm serious - I want to know that previous administration appointees underwent the same scrutiny that Obama appointees do. So again, you have a link?

Are you a son of a fisherman? Why are you looking for red herrings in a forum?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It makes me wonder if we ever vetted appointees this thoroughly in the past? For example, were Bush appointees scrutinized at the same level? How about Clinton appointees?

You think? Bush couldnt wipe his ass incorrectly without a headline and 8 days of investigation. Yes Bush's appointee's went through the same process, and unbelievably they paid their taxes!!!!!!!!!