my butt feels fine, would just rather have hillary as my president than donald.
Anybody watching the debate...
- Thread starter TigerPrice03
- Start date
i like that she speaks in complete well structured sentences, I think she has a greater grasp of the issues, i believe she is dedicated to public service and to making america better.
i grade them essentially the same on honesty, I find hillary clinton inherently dishonest in that she is constantly trying to hide the truth, i find donald trump inherently dishonest in that he seems to have no regard for data, facts, or the concept of truth... tapping into sentiments, real or imagined is his modus operandi, facts and truth are secondary to his ability to gain following. Donald Trump ascended to his role by cementing the deplorables in his corner, he's then progressively moderated himself to try to capture centrists, but the approach he took to getting there, a muslim ban, proposals of a wall with mexico, those things essentially left me strongly feeling that as terrible as hillary clinton is, morrally she is far superior to trump, even if every conspiracy and scandal about her was accurate, i think i'd still find her more honest, intelligent, and trustworthy than mr trump.
I believe that Hillary Clinton has the ability to make america slightly better, not very much, but i think she has the ability to make the smallest marginal improvements and i think that the republican house and senate will prevent her from making large sweeping changes.
i think donald trump has no ability to make any improvements to this country. He had great success as a real estate developer once upon a time, since then he has bled marketshare in his hometown, run countless companies into the ground, and survived not by creating quality products but by being a brand and salesman. i cannot think of a single good thing to say about the man. i fear greatly for our country should he be elected, whereas with hillary, i only feel embarrassed for our country.
i hope you've found explanation of my viewpoint sufficient.
I did and appreciate your response. What I'm concerned about is the Supreme Court at this point. I don't like either one. Do you think she will appoint better Justices than he will? The Scalia replacement is a big deal to me and I believe that if the replacement is a bad one, the Constitution may very well be a thing of the past.
Trump directed $2.3 million owed to him to his tax-exempt foundation instead
Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems]
Did Trump, in fact, pay income tax in the cases where he directed his own fees to the Trump Foundation?
The first time The Washington Post asked, Trump’s campaign denied that any of the transactions had taken place.
“He’s never directed fees to the foundation,” said Boris Epshteyn, a senior adviser to Trump, who responded on the campaign’s behalf in a phone interview on Saturday. Epshteyn said that what Trump did was provide a service, renounce any fees, and then merely suggest that the other party make a donation to a charity of their choosing.
“He’s waived fees from time to time,” Epshteyn said. “He’s never directed it to a specific charity.”
The Post later presented Epshteyn with the Comedy Central and Ebers examples during the same interview. Epshteyn acknowledged the Comedy Central case had occurred but refused to comment on the others.
“To my knowledge, Mr. Trump has followed all applicable rules and regulations,” Epshteyn wrote in an email Sunday after being presented with The Post’s reporting on the donations from Ebers. “The rest is pure speculation and worthless conjecture on your part.”
Previously, The Post reported that the Trump Foundation appears to have violated laws against “self-dealing,” which prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to help themselves. In particular, Trump appeared to use $258,000 from the charity to help settle lawsuits involving a golf course and an oceanside club. Trump also spent charity money to buy two portraits of himself, including one that he hung in the bar of one of his golf resorts in Florida.
[How a Univision anchor found the missing $10,000 portrait that Trump bought with his charity’s money]
“This is so bizarre, this laundry list of issues,” said Marc Owens, the longtime head of the Internal Revenue Service office that oversees nonprofit organizations who is now in private practice. “It’s the first time I’ve ever seen this, and I’ve been doing this for 25 years in the IRS, and 40 years total.”
The laws governing the diversion of income into a foundation were written, in part, to stop charity leaders from funneling income that should be taxed into a charity and then using that money to benefit themselves. Such violations can bring monetary penalties, the loss of tax-exempt status, and even criminal charges in extreme cases.
Epshteyn, in the Saturday interview with The Post, said Trump did not knowingly violate any tax laws. “There’s been no intent, in any way, to go against any applicable rules, laws, and regulations,” Epshteyn said. “If you suggest it any way otherwise, publicly, it’s dangerous and irresponsible.”
In an interview over the weekend, Trump offered a defense of his charity.
“Are you confident that the Trump Foundation has followed all charitable rules and laws?” journalist Sharyl Attkisson asked on a Sunday TV program called Full Measure.
“Well, I hope so,” Trump said. “I mean, my lawyers do it.”
The Trump Foundation has no paid staff. The last time it reported spending any money on legal fees was in 2010, when it spent $53 total for the year.
So far, questions about the Trump Foundation have focused on how the charity spent its money. How the charity raised money — especially after Trump stopped giving — was less understood.
Last week, an employee of the Trump Organization, the candidate’s private company, offered an explanation.
“A lot of times Mr. Trump will give a speech somewhere or he’ll raise money in some way and he asks that entity, instead of cutting a personal check to him, cut it to his charity,” said Lynne Patton, an assistant to Trump’s son Eric, who is also an officer of the Eric Trump Foundation. “That’s money that otherwise would’ve been in his personal account, right?”
Patton was appearing at a Trump campaign event in Iowa, and was quoted in the Des Moines Register.
[Trump’s campaign says he’s given ‘tens of millions’ to charity, but offers no details, no proof]
Under tax law, these kind of arrangements are called “assignment of income.” A person is owed money, but instead of accepting the money, directs that it be given to another person or a charity.
That’s allowed.
But, tax experts say, the IRS generally requires that the person who was owed the money pay income tax on it. One key factor: Did the person exercise control over where their money went? If the money was directed to a specific recipient, it generally counts as income.
“You cannot take money that you earned, that’s your income, and direct it elsewhere” without paying taxes, said Ellen Aprill, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “If you do it, you have to treat it as your income, and you have to pay tax on it first.”
The Post asked the Trump campaign for examples of donations that matched Patton’s account.
The Trump campaign initially responded that Patton’s account was wrong.
“Lynne is wonderful,” said Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks during the Saturday telephone interview in which Epshteyn also participated. “But she is not a spokesperson for Mr. Trump or the campaign or the foundation.”
After it was pointed out that Patton made the statement while appearing on behalf of the campaign, Hicks responded: “Yeah. . . . She wouldn’t know or understand.”
Instead, Epshteyn put forward a different explanation. Trump, he said, had never done what Patton described.
Instead, Epshteyn said, Trump had all along been following the dictates of an obscure 1942 court case, which he cited by name: Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Giannini.
That case involved a San Francisco bank president who had decided he had been paid enough and renounced the rest of his salary for the year. The bank gave his money to the University of California instead. The court held that the bank president didn’t have to pay taxes on that money, because he hadn’t controlled where it went.
Trump, Epshteyn said, was just like that. He had not exercised control over where his money went. Indeed, Epshteyn said, when Trump helped someone, he never asked specifically for a gift to the Donald J. Trump Foundation — but rather suggested a gift to some charity, somewhere.
But sometimes, Epshteyn said, a gift arrived at the Trump Foundation.
“He’s Donald J. Trump,” Epshteyn said, explaining why donors had chosen this particular charity.
Under the set-up that Epshteyn described, tax experts said, Trump might have escaped paying income taxes on donations to the Trump Foundation — as long as he truly had no influence over where the money went.
So which of the Trump Foundation’s donations came in this way?
Epshteyn could not cite a specific example.
He then challenged The Post to find an example that proved him wrong.
The Post asked about the 2011 gift from Comedy Central. Back then, Trump had bragged on video that he was getting a big appearance fee. “They paid me a lot of money, and they were very generous. And all of that money goes to charity,” Trump said.
After The Post brought up the Comedy Central case during the Saturday interview, Epshteyn conceded that Trump had, indeed, controlled where this money went.
It was his income. And, Epshteyn said, he paid taxes on it.
Could he provide proof of that tax payment?
“Absolutely not,” Epshteyn said.
Epshteyn then challenged The Post to provide another example.
The Post offered the donations recorded from Ebers, who was the Trump Foundation’s biggest donor in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Together, his gifts totaled $1.887 million.
The two people familiar with that arrangement said Ebers bought tickets and other goods and services from Trump. They said it was unclear if Trump himself or one of his employees instructed Ebers to pay the foundation instead of Trump.
The Post asked Epshteyn and Hicks if Trump had paid taxes on the money received from Ebers. They did not answer the question, beyond saying that Trump had followed “all applicable rules and regulations.”
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) is investigating the Trump Foundation. If Schneiderman or the IRS were to find that Trump violated tax law, he could face civil penalties, such as fines, from either the state of New York or the IRS.
Tax-law experts say that more serious charges, such as income-tax evasion, are difficult to prove. One reason: in the world of tax law, ignorance is a defense.
“You have to prove that [a defendant] knew what the law was and willfully violated it anyway,” said Jay Nanavati, a former tax prosecutor at the Justice Department, now in private practice. He said that merely proving wrongdoing was not enough: A defendant “can say, ‘I did all this stuff. I meant to do all this stuff. And either I didn’t know it was illegal, or a [lawyer] told me it was okay.”
The only formal admission of wrongdoing by the Trump Foundation so far this year came when Trump paid a $2,500 penalty for an illegal $25,000 donation in 2013 to a political group controlled by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. The foundation has said the gift was an error, and Bondi has said it had no bearing on her office’s decision not to pursue a fraud investigation of Trump University.
During the interview with Epshteyn on Saturday, The Post asked if the Trump Foundation had self-reported any other violations to the IRS or paid any other penalties.
Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems]
Did Trump, in fact, pay income tax in the cases where he directed his own fees to the Trump Foundation?
The first time The Washington Post asked, Trump’s campaign denied that any of the transactions had taken place.
“He’s never directed fees to the foundation,” said Boris Epshteyn, a senior adviser to Trump, who responded on the campaign’s behalf in a phone interview on Saturday. Epshteyn said that what Trump did was provide a service, renounce any fees, and then merely suggest that the other party make a donation to a charity of their choosing.
“He’s waived fees from time to time,” Epshteyn said. “He’s never directed it to a specific charity.”
The Post later presented Epshteyn with the Comedy Central and Ebers examples during the same interview. Epshteyn acknowledged the Comedy Central case had occurred but refused to comment on the others.
“To my knowledge, Mr. Trump has followed all applicable rules and regulations,” Epshteyn wrote in an email Sunday after being presented with The Post’s reporting on the donations from Ebers. “The rest is pure speculation and worthless conjecture on your part.”
Previously, The Post reported that the Trump Foundation appears to have violated laws against “self-dealing,” which prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to help themselves. In particular, Trump appeared to use $258,000 from the charity to help settle lawsuits involving a golf course and an oceanside club. Trump also spent charity money to buy two portraits of himself, including one that he hung in the bar of one of his golf resorts in Florida.
[How a Univision anchor found the missing $10,000 portrait that Trump bought with his charity’s money]
“This is so bizarre, this laundry list of issues,” said Marc Owens, the longtime head of the Internal Revenue Service office that oversees nonprofit organizations who is now in private practice. “It’s the first time I’ve ever seen this, and I’ve been doing this for 25 years in the IRS, and 40 years total.”
The laws governing the diversion of income into a foundation were written, in part, to stop charity leaders from funneling income that should be taxed into a charity and then using that money to benefit themselves. Such violations can bring monetary penalties, the loss of tax-exempt status, and even criminal charges in extreme cases.
Epshteyn, in the Saturday interview with The Post, said Trump did not knowingly violate any tax laws. “There’s been no intent, in any way, to go against any applicable rules, laws, and regulations,” Epshteyn said. “If you suggest it any way otherwise, publicly, it’s dangerous and irresponsible.”
In an interview over the weekend, Trump offered a defense of his charity.
“Are you confident that the Trump Foundation has followed all charitable rules and laws?” journalist Sharyl Attkisson asked on a Sunday TV program called Full Measure.
“Well, I hope so,” Trump said. “I mean, my lawyers do it.”
The Trump Foundation has no paid staff. The last time it reported spending any money on legal fees was in 2010, when it spent $53 total for the year.
So far, questions about the Trump Foundation have focused on how the charity spent its money. How the charity raised money — especially after Trump stopped giving — was less understood.
Last week, an employee of the Trump Organization, the candidate’s private company, offered an explanation.
“A lot of times Mr. Trump will give a speech somewhere or he’ll raise money in some way and he asks that entity, instead of cutting a personal check to him, cut it to his charity,” said Lynne Patton, an assistant to Trump’s son Eric, who is also an officer of the Eric Trump Foundation. “That’s money that otherwise would’ve been in his personal account, right?”
Patton was appearing at a Trump campaign event in Iowa, and was quoted in the Des Moines Register.
[Trump’s campaign says he’s given ‘tens of millions’ to charity, but offers no details, no proof]
Under tax law, these kind of arrangements are called “assignment of income.” A person is owed money, but instead of accepting the money, directs that it be given to another person or a charity.
That’s allowed.
But, tax experts say, the IRS generally requires that the person who was owed the money pay income tax on it. One key factor: Did the person exercise control over where their money went? If the money was directed to a specific recipient, it generally counts as income.
“You cannot take money that you earned, that’s your income, and direct it elsewhere” without paying taxes, said Ellen Aprill, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “If you do it, you have to treat it as your income, and you have to pay tax on it first.”
The Post asked the Trump campaign for examples of donations that matched Patton’s account.
The Trump campaign initially responded that Patton’s account was wrong.
“Lynne is wonderful,” said Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks during the Saturday telephone interview in which Epshteyn also participated. “But she is not a spokesperson for Mr. Trump or the campaign or the foundation.”
After it was pointed out that Patton made the statement while appearing on behalf of the campaign, Hicks responded: “Yeah. . . . She wouldn’t know or understand.”
Instead, Epshteyn put forward a different explanation. Trump, he said, had never done what Patton described.
Instead, Epshteyn said, Trump had all along been following the dictates of an obscure 1942 court case, which he cited by name: Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Giannini.
That case involved a San Francisco bank president who had decided he had been paid enough and renounced the rest of his salary for the year. The bank gave his money to the University of California instead. The court held that the bank president didn’t have to pay taxes on that money, because he hadn’t controlled where it went.
Trump, Epshteyn said, was just like that. He had not exercised control over where his money went. Indeed, Epshteyn said, when Trump helped someone, he never asked specifically for a gift to the Donald J. Trump Foundation — but rather suggested a gift to some charity, somewhere.
But sometimes, Epshteyn said, a gift arrived at the Trump Foundation.
“He’s Donald J. Trump,” Epshteyn said, explaining why donors had chosen this particular charity.
Under the set-up that Epshteyn described, tax experts said, Trump might have escaped paying income taxes on donations to the Trump Foundation — as long as he truly had no influence over where the money went.
So which of the Trump Foundation’s donations came in this way?
Epshteyn could not cite a specific example.
He then challenged The Post to find an example that proved him wrong.
The Post asked about the 2011 gift from Comedy Central. Back then, Trump had bragged on video that he was getting a big appearance fee. “They paid me a lot of money, and they were very generous. And all of that money goes to charity,” Trump said.
After The Post brought up the Comedy Central case during the Saturday interview, Epshteyn conceded that Trump had, indeed, controlled where this money went.
It was his income. And, Epshteyn said, he paid taxes on it.
Could he provide proof of that tax payment?
“Absolutely not,” Epshteyn said.
Epshteyn then challenged The Post to provide another example.
The Post offered the donations recorded from Ebers, who was the Trump Foundation’s biggest donor in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Together, his gifts totaled $1.887 million.
The two people familiar with that arrangement said Ebers bought tickets and other goods and services from Trump. They said it was unclear if Trump himself or one of his employees instructed Ebers to pay the foundation instead of Trump.
The Post asked Epshteyn and Hicks if Trump had paid taxes on the money received from Ebers. They did not answer the question, beyond saying that Trump had followed “all applicable rules and regulations.”
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) is investigating the Trump Foundation. If Schneiderman or the IRS were to find that Trump violated tax law, he could face civil penalties, such as fines, from either the state of New York or the IRS.
Tax-law experts say that more serious charges, such as income-tax evasion, are difficult to prove. One reason: in the world of tax law, ignorance is a defense.
“You have to prove that [a defendant] knew what the law was and willfully violated it anyway,” said Jay Nanavati, a former tax prosecutor at the Justice Department, now in private practice. He said that merely proving wrongdoing was not enough: A defendant “can say, ‘I did all this stuff. I meant to do all this stuff. And either I didn’t know it was illegal, or a [lawyer] told me it was okay.”
The only formal admission of wrongdoing by the Trump Foundation so far this year came when Trump paid a $2,500 penalty for an illegal $25,000 donation in 2013 to a political group controlled by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. The foundation has said the gift was an error, and Bondi has said it had no bearing on her office’s decision not to pursue a fraud investigation of Trump University.
During the interview with Epshteyn on Saturday, The Post asked if the Trump Foundation had self-reported any other violations to the IRS or paid any other penalties.
pretty cool about Cal University...
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Giannini, 129 F. 2d 638 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1942
129 F.2d 638 (1942)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
v.
GIANNINI.
No. 9931.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 8, 1942.
Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Louis Monarch and F. E. Youngman, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Andrew F. Burke and George H. Koster, both of San Francisco, Cal., and Harry Friedman, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before GARRECHT, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.
Petition by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for a review of a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals which is reported at 42 B.T.A. 546 to the effect that there is no deficiency in taxpayer's federal income tax for the year 1928.
The facts upon which the Commissioner relies in claiming a deficiency are as follows:
The taxpayer and his wife at all relevant times were husband and wife and were residents of California. The taxpayer was a Director and President of Bancitaly Corporation from 1919 until its dissolution after the tax year in question. From 1919 to 1925 he performed the services of these offices without compensation, and on January 22, 1925, the Board of Directors authorized a committee of three to devise a plan to compensate him, he in the meantime to have the privilege of drawing upon the corporation for his current expenditures.
On April 19th, 1927, the committee reported and on June 27th, 1927, the Directors unanimously approved the report. It was: "The committee as above met on Wednesday, April 13, 1927, at 2:00 o'clock, in Mr. Fagan's office, in the Crocker First National Bank, San Francisco, and unanimously agreed to, and hereby do, recommend to the directors of the Bancitaly Corporation that Mr. A. P. Giannini, for his services as President of your Corporation, be given 5% of the net profits each year, with a guaranteed minimum of $100,000 per year, commencing January 1, 1927, in lieu of salary."
639*639 On November 20, 1927, the withdrawal account of taxpayer showed an indebtedness to the corporation of $215,603.76, and on that date his account was credited and the salary account on the books of the corporation was debited with the amount of $445,704.20, being the equivalent of 5% of the corporation net profits from January 1, 1927, to July 22, 1927.
In 1927 after the taxpayer learned the amount of the profits from January to July of that year and that he would receive $445,704.20 as his 5% thereof, the taxpayer informed members of the Board of Directors of the corporation that he would not accept any further compensation for the year 1927, and suggested that the corporation do something worth while with the money. The finding of the Board in this respect is that the refusal was "definite" and "absolute", and there is ample evidence in the record to support such finding.
The corporation never credited to the taxpayer or his wife any portion of the 5% of the net profits for the year 1927, other than the $445,704.20 above referred to, nor did it set any part of the same aside for the use of the taxpayer or his wife. The only action of the corporation in this respect is as follows:
On January 20, 1928, the Board of Directors of Bancitaly Corporation adopted a resolution reading in part as follows:
"Whereas, this Corporation is prepared now to pay to Mr. A. P. Giannini for his services as its President and General Manager five per cent (5%) of the net profits of this Corporation computed from July 23, 1927 to the close of business January 20, 1928, which five percent (5%) amounts to the sum of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00); and
"Whereas, Mr. A. P. Giannini refuses to accept any part of said sum but has indicated that if the Corporation is so minded he would find keen satisfaction in seeing it devote such a sum or any lesser adequate sum to the objects below enumerated or kindred purposes; and
"Whereas, we believe that this Corporation would do a great good and derive a great benefit from the establishment of a Foundation of Agricultural Economics at the University of California, and we believe that something should be done by this Corporation to evidence its appreciation of the fact that without the general confidence and hearty cooperation of the people of the State of California the great success of this Corporation would not have been possible * * *;
* * * * *
"Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, by the Board of Directors of this Corporation, that the aforesaid sum of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00) be set apart from the undivided profits of this Corporation in a Special Reserve Account for the purpose hereinafter described, and the whole of said sum be donated to the Regents of the University of California for the purpose of establishing a Foundation of Agricultural Economics; and
"Be it Further Resolved, that said donation be made in honor of Mr. A. P. Giannini, and that said Foundation shall be named after him; and
"Be it Further Resolved, that a Committee consisting of James A. Bacigalupi, P. C. Hale and A. Pedrini be appointed to confer with the President of the University of California, for the purpose of discussing and determining upon the general scope of said Foundation, and with full power of settling all details in connection therewith; * * *".
In accordance with said resolution the Corporation in February, 1928, submitted a written offer of contribution to the Regents of the University of California, and the offer was accepted. One deviation occurred in carrying out the plan, however, in that 5% of the profits of the Bancitaly Corporation for the period January 1, 1927, to January 20, 1928, less the sum of $445,704.20 credited to taxpayer amounted to $1,357,607.40 instead of the estimated $1,500,000.00, and the difference of $142,392.60 was paid by the taxpayer personally. There is no question in this appeal concerning this $142,392.60.
The taxpayer and his wife in reporting their income for taxation purposes in 1928 did not report any portion of the $1,357,607.40 paid to the Regents of the University of California by the Bancitaly Corporation as aforesaid, and it is the Commissioner's contention that one-half of said sum should be reported by each. Based upon this theory the Commissioner assessed a deficiency of $137,343.50 in the case of the taxpayer in this appeal and a deficiency of $123,402.71 in the case of his wife. Separate appeals have been taken by each party, but it is stipulated by the parties 640*640 that the decision in the wife's case is to abide the final decision in the case now before this court.
The Commissioner's argument in support of the claimed deficiency may be summarized as follows: That actual receipt of money or property is not always necessary to constitute taxable income; that it is the "realization" of taxable income rather than actual receipt which gives rise to the tax; that a taxpayer "realizes" income when he directs the disposition thereof in a manner so that it reaches the object of his bounty; that in the instant case the taxpayer had a right to claim and receive the whole 5% of the corporation profit as compensation for his services; and that his waiver of that right with the suggestion that it be applied to some useful purpose was such a disposition thereof as to render the taxpayer taxable for income "realized" in the tax year in which the suggestion is carried out. In connection with this latter argument the Commissioner states in his opening brief that "For the purposes of income tax it would seem immaterial whether the taxpayer waived his compensation, thus in effect giving it to Bancitaly Corporation, with the suggestion that it be applied to some useful purpose, or whether he failed to waive the right to receive the compensation and directed that it be paid to a donee of his choice." Again it is stated by the Commissioner, "Insofar as the question of taxation is concerned it would not seem to make much difference whether he directed Bancitaly Corporation to pay his compensation to the University of California or whether he merely told his employer to keep it."
Supplemental to the argument as above summarized, the Commissioner urges that the Board's finding that the money paid to the Foundation of Agricultural Economics as above set forth "was the property of Bancitaly and the petitioner [taxpayer] had no right, title or interest therein" is unsupported by the evidence; and that in any event such finding is an "ultimate finding" and therefore reviewable by this court under the rule announced in Commissioner v. Boeing, 9 Cir., 106 F. 2d 305 and cases therein cited. We agree that the question of the effect of the taxpayer's unqualified refusal to take the compensation for his services is a question of law subject to review by this court. That question is the sole question presented by this appeal.
The taxpayer, on the other hand, urges that "A person has the right to refuse property proffered to him, and if he does so, absolutely and unconditionally, his refusal amounts to a renunciation of the proffered property, which, legally, is an abandonment of right to the property without a transfer of such right to another. Property which is renounced (i. e. abandoned) cannot be `diverted' or `assigned' by the renouncer, and cannot be taxed upon the theory that it was received."
The Commissioner takes issue with the argument of the taxpayer as above quoted by arguing that the amount involved was more than "property proffered to" the taxpayer, but was instead compensation which the taxpayer had a contractual right to receive. The point is that any disposition of this contractual right, whether it be by waiver, transfer, assignment or any other means, and whether it be before or after the rendition of the services involved, results in taxable income under the rules announced in the cases of Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 50 S.Ct. 241, 74 L.Ed. 731; Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 61 S.Ct. 144, 85 L.Ed. 75, 131 A.L.R. 655; Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122, 61 S.Ct. 149, 85 L.Ed. 81; and Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579, 61 S.Ct. 759, 85 L.Ed. 1055.
The Earl case arises out of an assignment of salary and attorneys fees by a husband to his wife in advance of the rendition of the services. It was claimed that the husband never beneficially received them, but the Court refused to follow this reasoning and held that "the tax could not be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skilfully devised to prevent the salary when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it". The gist of the decision appears to be that the salary was accepted, and the employee's dominance over it amounted to his receipt of it.
In the Horst case the taxpayer gave away interest bearing coupons, and the donee collected the interest during the taxpayer's taxable year. A conflict was asserted between the Circuit Court decision and the case of Lucas v. Earl, supra. In commenting upon the rule that income is not taxable until "realized", the Court [311 U. S. 122, 61 S.Ct. 147, 85 L.Ed. 75, 131 A.L. R. 655] asserted that such rule is a rule of postponement of the tax to the final event of enjoyment, saying "income is `realized' by the assignor * * * who 641*641 owns or controls the source * * * controls the disposition * * * and diverts. * * * The donor [taxpayer] here, * * * has * * * by his act, procured payment of the interest, as a valuable gift * * *. Such a use * * * would seem to be the enjoyment of the income * * *."
In the Eubank case a life insurance agent, after terminating agency contracts, made assignments of renewal commissions payable to him for services rendered in procuring policies. The Court held the renewal commissions taxable to the assignor. Here again the dominance over the fund by the assignor was shown.
In the Schaffner case the life beneficiary of a trust assigned to children income from the trust for the year following the assignment. In holding that the income was taxable to the assignor the Court analyzes and compares these three cited cases. The Court said [312 U.S. 579, 61 S.Ct. 760, 85 L.Ed. 1055],
"Since granting certiorari we have held, following the reasoning of Lucas v. Earl, supra, that one who is entitled to receive at a future date, interest or compensation for services and who makes a gift of it by an anticipatory assignment, realizes taxable income quite as much as if he had collected the income and paid it over to the object of his bounty. Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 61 S.Ct. 144, 85 L.Ed. 75, 131 A. L.R. 655; Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122, 61 S.Ct. 149, 85 L.Ed. 81."
Here again the dominance over the fund and taxpayer's direction show that he beneficially received the money by exercising his right to divert it to a use.
Now, turning again to the instant case. The findings of the Board, supported by the evidence, are to the effect that the taxpayer did not receive the money, and that he did not direct its disposition. All that he did was to unqualifiedly refuse to accept any further compensation for his services with the suggestion that the money be used for some worth while purpose. So far as the taxpayer was concerned, the corporation could have kept the money. All arrangements with the University of California regarding the donation to the Foundation were made by the corporation, the taxpayer participating therein only as an officer of the corporation.
In this circumstance we cannot say as a matter of law that the money was beneficially received by the taxpayer and therefore subject to the income tax provisions of the statute. It should be kept in mind that there is no charge of fraud in this case. It would be impossible to support the Commissioner in his contention that the money was received by the taxpayer without arriving at the conclusion that the taxpayer was acting in less than full and open frankness.The Board rejects this suggestion and we see no occasion for drawing inferences from the evidence contrary to the plain intent of the testimony which is not disputed. To support the Commissioner's argument we should have to hold that only one reasonable inference could be drawn from the evidence, which is that the donation is but a donation of the taxpayer masquerading as a creature of the corporation to save the true donors [taxpayer and his wife] some tax money. The circumstances do not support this contention. In our opinion the inferences drawn by the Board are more reasonable and comport with that presumption of verity that every act of a citizen of good repute should be able to claim and receive.
Affirmed.
HEALY, Circuit Judge (concurring).
The Board found that "in 1927 and prior to December 31 thereof" the taxpayer unconditionally renounced his right to compensation for the last half of that year; that the money renounced was the absolute property of Bancitaly to be used as it saw fit; and that Bancitaly donated the money to the University. While, for the most part, the circumstances and inferences to be drawn from the record point realistically in the direction of the taxpayer's exercise 642*642 of command over the money, it was for the Board to draw the inferences and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. We are bound to accept the Board's findings if, as is the case here, there is evidence to support them.
The Commissioner argues that so far as concerns the question of taxation it is immaterial whether the taxpayer "directed Bancitaly Corporation to pay his compensation to the University of California or whether he merely told his employer to keep it. The amount involved was his income before he could make any disposition of it." If this view were accepted it would be applicable only to compensation "accruing" under the contingent contract up to the date of the disclaimer, which was found to be prior to December 31, 1927. It is clear that subsequent to the renunciation the taxpayer donated his services for the balance of the year to the bank. Whatever the taxpayer relinquished to the bank was relinquished in 1927, and whatever the bank received in the way of a gift was received in that year. Considering the bank as the donee of income earned prior to the renunciation of the contract, it seems inescapable that a tax predicated upon the constructive receipt of such income by the taxpayer would fall in 1927 rather than in 1928; and the latter is the only tax year before us.
[1] We say that the Commissioner's argument compels this conclusion for the reason that the claimed deficiency is for the tax year in which the donation was actually made to the Foundation. It should be recalled that the taxpayer's unqualified refusal to take any further compensation for his services in 1927 was made prior to December 31, 1927. If the Commissioner were earnestly taking the position that a waiver of compensation, with nothing more, is such an exercise of dominion over the moneys to be received as to render it taxable, it seems apparent that the deficiency if any would be in the year of the waiver, rather than some subsequent year in which the corporation disposes of the fund in some other manner.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Giannini, 129 F. 2d 638 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1942
129 F.2d 638 (1942)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
v.
GIANNINI.
No. 9931.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 8, 1942.
Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Louis Monarch and F. E. Youngman, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Andrew F. Burke and George H. Koster, both of San Francisco, Cal., and Harry Friedman, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before GARRECHT, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.
Petition by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for a review of a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals which is reported at 42 B.T.A. 546 to the effect that there is no deficiency in taxpayer's federal income tax for the year 1928.
The facts upon which the Commissioner relies in claiming a deficiency are as follows:
The taxpayer and his wife at all relevant times were husband and wife and were residents of California. The taxpayer was a Director and President of Bancitaly Corporation from 1919 until its dissolution after the tax year in question. From 1919 to 1925 he performed the services of these offices without compensation, and on January 22, 1925, the Board of Directors authorized a committee of three to devise a plan to compensate him, he in the meantime to have the privilege of drawing upon the corporation for his current expenditures.
On April 19th, 1927, the committee reported and on June 27th, 1927, the Directors unanimously approved the report. It was: "The committee as above met on Wednesday, April 13, 1927, at 2:00 o'clock, in Mr. Fagan's office, in the Crocker First National Bank, San Francisco, and unanimously agreed to, and hereby do, recommend to the directors of the Bancitaly Corporation that Mr. A. P. Giannini, for his services as President of your Corporation, be given 5% of the net profits each year, with a guaranteed minimum of $100,000 per year, commencing January 1, 1927, in lieu of salary."
639*639 On November 20, 1927, the withdrawal account of taxpayer showed an indebtedness to the corporation of $215,603.76, and on that date his account was credited and the salary account on the books of the corporation was debited with the amount of $445,704.20, being the equivalent of 5% of the corporation net profits from January 1, 1927, to July 22, 1927.
In 1927 after the taxpayer learned the amount of the profits from January to July of that year and that he would receive $445,704.20 as his 5% thereof, the taxpayer informed members of the Board of Directors of the corporation that he would not accept any further compensation for the year 1927, and suggested that the corporation do something worth while with the money. The finding of the Board in this respect is that the refusal was "definite" and "absolute", and there is ample evidence in the record to support such finding.
The corporation never credited to the taxpayer or his wife any portion of the 5% of the net profits for the year 1927, other than the $445,704.20 above referred to, nor did it set any part of the same aside for the use of the taxpayer or his wife. The only action of the corporation in this respect is as follows:
On January 20, 1928, the Board of Directors of Bancitaly Corporation adopted a resolution reading in part as follows:
"Whereas, this Corporation is prepared now to pay to Mr. A. P. Giannini for his services as its President and General Manager five per cent (5%) of the net profits of this Corporation computed from July 23, 1927 to the close of business January 20, 1928, which five percent (5%) amounts to the sum of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00); and
"Whereas, Mr. A. P. Giannini refuses to accept any part of said sum but has indicated that if the Corporation is so minded he would find keen satisfaction in seeing it devote such a sum or any lesser adequate sum to the objects below enumerated or kindred purposes; and
"Whereas, we believe that this Corporation would do a great good and derive a great benefit from the establishment of a Foundation of Agricultural Economics at the University of California, and we believe that something should be done by this Corporation to evidence its appreciation of the fact that without the general confidence and hearty cooperation of the people of the State of California the great success of this Corporation would not have been possible * * *;
* * * * *
"Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, by the Board of Directors of this Corporation, that the aforesaid sum of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00) be set apart from the undivided profits of this Corporation in a Special Reserve Account for the purpose hereinafter described, and the whole of said sum be donated to the Regents of the University of California for the purpose of establishing a Foundation of Agricultural Economics; and
"Be it Further Resolved, that said donation be made in honor of Mr. A. P. Giannini, and that said Foundation shall be named after him; and
"Be it Further Resolved, that a Committee consisting of James A. Bacigalupi, P. C. Hale and A. Pedrini be appointed to confer with the President of the University of California, for the purpose of discussing and determining upon the general scope of said Foundation, and with full power of settling all details in connection therewith; * * *".
In accordance with said resolution the Corporation in February, 1928, submitted a written offer of contribution to the Regents of the University of California, and the offer was accepted. One deviation occurred in carrying out the plan, however, in that 5% of the profits of the Bancitaly Corporation for the period January 1, 1927, to January 20, 1928, less the sum of $445,704.20 credited to taxpayer amounted to $1,357,607.40 instead of the estimated $1,500,000.00, and the difference of $142,392.60 was paid by the taxpayer personally. There is no question in this appeal concerning this $142,392.60.
The taxpayer and his wife in reporting their income for taxation purposes in 1928 did not report any portion of the $1,357,607.40 paid to the Regents of the University of California by the Bancitaly Corporation as aforesaid, and it is the Commissioner's contention that one-half of said sum should be reported by each. Based upon this theory the Commissioner assessed a deficiency of $137,343.50 in the case of the taxpayer in this appeal and a deficiency of $123,402.71 in the case of his wife. Separate appeals have been taken by each party, but it is stipulated by the parties 640*640 that the decision in the wife's case is to abide the final decision in the case now before this court.
The Commissioner's argument in support of the claimed deficiency may be summarized as follows: That actual receipt of money or property is not always necessary to constitute taxable income; that it is the "realization" of taxable income rather than actual receipt which gives rise to the tax; that a taxpayer "realizes" income when he directs the disposition thereof in a manner so that it reaches the object of his bounty; that in the instant case the taxpayer had a right to claim and receive the whole 5% of the corporation profit as compensation for his services; and that his waiver of that right with the suggestion that it be applied to some useful purpose was such a disposition thereof as to render the taxpayer taxable for income "realized" in the tax year in which the suggestion is carried out. In connection with this latter argument the Commissioner states in his opening brief that "For the purposes of income tax it would seem immaterial whether the taxpayer waived his compensation, thus in effect giving it to Bancitaly Corporation, with the suggestion that it be applied to some useful purpose, or whether he failed to waive the right to receive the compensation and directed that it be paid to a donee of his choice." Again it is stated by the Commissioner, "Insofar as the question of taxation is concerned it would not seem to make much difference whether he directed Bancitaly Corporation to pay his compensation to the University of California or whether he merely told his employer to keep it."
Supplemental to the argument as above summarized, the Commissioner urges that the Board's finding that the money paid to the Foundation of Agricultural Economics as above set forth "was the property of Bancitaly and the petitioner [taxpayer] had no right, title or interest therein" is unsupported by the evidence; and that in any event such finding is an "ultimate finding" and therefore reviewable by this court under the rule announced in Commissioner v. Boeing, 9 Cir., 106 F. 2d 305 and cases therein cited. We agree that the question of the effect of the taxpayer's unqualified refusal to take the compensation for his services is a question of law subject to review by this court. That question is the sole question presented by this appeal.
The taxpayer, on the other hand, urges that "A person has the right to refuse property proffered to him, and if he does so, absolutely and unconditionally, his refusal amounts to a renunciation of the proffered property, which, legally, is an abandonment of right to the property without a transfer of such right to another. Property which is renounced (i. e. abandoned) cannot be `diverted' or `assigned' by the renouncer, and cannot be taxed upon the theory that it was received."
The Commissioner takes issue with the argument of the taxpayer as above quoted by arguing that the amount involved was more than "property proffered to" the taxpayer, but was instead compensation which the taxpayer had a contractual right to receive. The point is that any disposition of this contractual right, whether it be by waiver, transfer, assignment or any other means, and whether it be before or after the rendition of the services involved, results in taxable income under the rules announced in the cases of Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 50 S.Ct. 241, 74 L.Ed. 731; Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 61 S.Ct. 144, 85 L.Ed. 75, 131 A.L.R. 655; Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122, 61 S.Ct. 149, 85 L.Ed. 81; and Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 U.S. 579, 61 S.Ct. 759, 85 L.Ed. 1055.
The Earl case arises out of an assignment of salary and attorneys fees by a husband to his wife in advance of the rendition of the services. It was claimed that the husband never beneficially received them, but the Court refused to follow this reasoning and held that "the tax could not be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skilfully devised to prevent the salary when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it". The gist of the decision appears to be that the salary was accepted, and the employee's dominance over it amounted to his receipt of it.
In the Horst case the taxpayer gave away interest bearing coupons, and the donee collected the interest during the taxpayer's taxable year. A conflict was asserted between the Circuit Court decision and the case of Lucas v. Earl, supra. In commenting upon the rule that income is not taxable until "realized", the Court [311 U. S. 122, 61 S.Ct. 147, 85 L.Ed. 75, 131 A.L. R. 655] asserted that such rule is a rule of postponement of the tax to the final event of enjoyment, saying "income is `realized' by the assignor * * * who 641*641 owns or controls the source * * * controls the disposition * * * and diverts. * * * The donor [taxpayer] here, * * * has * * * by his act, procured payment of the interest, as a valuable gift * * *. Such a use * * * would seem to be the enjoyment of the income * * *."
In the Eubank case a life insurance agent, after terminating agency contracts, made assignments of renewal commissions payable to him for services rendered in procuring policies. The Court held the renewal commissions taxable to the assignor. Here again the dominance over the fund by the assignor was shown.
In the Schaffner case the life beneficiary of a trust assigned to children income from the trust for the year following the assignment. In holding that the income was taxable to the assignor the Court analyzes and compares these three cited cases. The Court said [312 U.S. 579, 61 S.Ct. 760, 85 L.Ed. 1055],
"Since granting certiorari we have held, following the reasoning of Lucas v. Earl, supra, that one who is entitled to receive at a future date, interest or compensation for services and who makes a gift of it by an anticipatory assignment, realizes taxable income quite as much as if he had collected the income and paid it over to the object of his bounty. Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 61 S.Ct. 144, 85 L.Ed. 75, 131 A. L.R. 655; Helvering v. Eubank, 311 U.S. 122, 61 S.Ct. 149, 85 L.Ed. 81."
Here again the dominance over the fund and taxpayer's direction show that he beneficially received the money by exercising his right to divert it to a use.
Now, turning again to the instant case. The findings of the Board, supported by the evidence, are to the effect that the taxpayer did not receive the money, and that he did not direct its disposition. All that he did was to unqualifiedly refuse to accept any further compensation for his services with the suggestion that the money be used for some worth while purpose. So far as the taxpayer was concerned, the corporation could have kept the money. All arrangements with the University of California regarding the donation to the Foundation were made by the corporation, the taxpayer participating therein only as an officer of the corporation.
In this circumstance we cannot say as a matter of law that the money was beneficially received by the taxpayer and therefore subject to the income tax provisions of the statute. It should be kept in mind that there is no charge of fraud in this case. It would be impossible to support the Commissioner in his contention that the money was received by the taxpayer without arriving at the conclusion that the taxpayer was acting in less than full and open frankness.The Board rejects this suggestion and we see no occasion for drawing inferences from the evidence contrary to the plain intent of the testimony which is not disputed. To support the Commissioner's argument we should have to hold that only one reasonable inference could be drawn from the evidence, which is that the donation is but a donation of the taxpayer masquerading as a creature of the corporation to save the true donors [taxpayer and his wife] some tax money. The circumstances do not support this contention. In our opinion the inferences drawn by the Board are more reasonable and comport with that presumption of verity that every act of a citizen of good repute should be able to claim and receive.
Affirmed.
HEALY, Circuit Judge (concurring).
The Board found that "in 1927 and prior to December 31 thereof" the taxpayer unconditionally renounced his right to compensation for the last half of that year; that the money renounced was the absolute property of Bancitaly to be used as it saw fit; and that Bancitaly donated the money to the University. While, for the most part, the circumstances and inferences to be drawn from the record point realistically in the direction of the taxpayer's exercise 642*642 of command over the money, it was for the Board to draw the inferences and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. We are bound to accept the Board's findings if, as is the case here, there is evidence to support them.
The Commissioner argues that so far as concerns the question of taxation it is immaterial whether the taxpayer "directed Bancitaly Corporation to pay his compensation to the University of California or whether he merely told his employer to keep it. The amount involved was his income before he could make any disposition of it." If this view were accepted it would be applicable only to compensation "accruing" under the contingent contract up to the date of the disclaimer, which was found to be prior to December 31, 1927. It is clear that subsequent to the renunciation the taxpayer donated his services for the balance of the year to the bank. Whatever the taxpayer relinquished to the bank was relinquished in 1927, and whatever the bank received in the way of a gift was received in that year. Considering the bank as the donee of income earned prior to the renunciation of the contract, it seems inescapable that a tax predicated upon the constructive receipt of such income by the taxpayer would fall in 1927 rather than in 1928; and the latter is the only tax year before us.
[1] We say that the Commissioner's argument compels this conclusion for the reason that the claimed deficiency is for the tax year in which the donation was actually made to the Foundation. It should be recalled that the taxpayer's unqualified refusal to take any further compensation for his services in 1927 was made prior to December 31, 1927. If the Commissioner were earnestly taking the position that a waiver of compensation, with nothing more, is such an exercise of dominion over the moneys to be received as to render it taxable, it seems apparent that the deficiency if any would be in the year of the waiver, rather than some subsequent year in which the corporation disposes of the fund in some other manner.
Just 5.7 Percent Of Clinton Foundation Budget Actually Went To Charitable Grants
Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.”
The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.
That number pales in comparison to the $34.8 million the foundation spent on salaries, compensation and employee benefits.
Another $50.4 million was marked as “other expenses,” while the remaining almost $851K was marked as “professional fundraising expenses.”
Despite taking in an additional $30 million in 2014, the Clinton Foundation spent 40 percent less on charitable grants in 2014 than in 2013. Even as it slashed charitable spending, the foundation increased the amount spent on salaries, employee benefits and compensation by $5 million in 2014. The foundation also spent $5 million more “other expenses” in 2014.
Sean Davis at The Federalist notes, “the bulk of the charitable work lauded by the Clinton Foundation’s boosters — the distribution of drugs to impoverished people in developing countries — is no longer even performed by the Clinton Foundation. Those activities were spun off in 2010 and are now managed by the Clinton Health Access Initiative, a completely separate non-profit organization.” (RELATED: Clinton Foundation Deceived IRS On Tax Exemption From The Start)
As first reported by The Daily Caller, the IRS launched an investigation into the Clinton Foundation this past July after 64 House Republicans called the foundation a “lawless ‘pay-to-play’ enterprise that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years and should be investigated” in a letter to the IRS, FBI and Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson
Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.”
The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.
That number pales in comparison to the $34.8 million the foundation spent on salaries, compensation and employee benefits.
Another $50.4 million was marked as “other expenses,” while the remaining almost $851K was marked as “professional fundraising expenses.”
Despite taking in an additional $30 million in 2014, the Clinton Foundation spent 40 percent less on charitable grants in 2014 than in 2013. Even as it slashed charitable spending, the foundation increased the amount spent on salaries, employee benefits and compensation by $5 million in 2014. The foundation also spent $5 million more “other expenses” in 2014.
Sean Davis at The Federalist notes, “the bulk of the charitable work lauded by the Clinton Foundation’s boosters — the distribution of drugs to impoverished people in developing countries — is no longer even performed by the Clinton Foundation. Those activities were spun off in 2010 and are now managed by the Clinton Health Access Initiative, a completely separate non-profit organization.” (RELATED: Clinton Foundation Deceived IRS On Tax Exemption From The Start)
As first reported by The Daily Caller, the IRS launched an investigation into the Clinton Foundation this past July after 64 House Republicans called the foundation a “lawless ‘pay-to-play’ enterprise that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years and should be investigated” in a letter to the IRS, FBI and Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson
Clinton Foundation Deceived IRS On Tax Exemption From The Start
Clinton Foundation officials repeatedly skirted or ignored federal laws and regulations while converting the non-profit from its tax-exempt purpose of building a presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas, into a $2 billion global machine selling political influence and access on an unprecedented scale, according to documents reviewed by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Non-profit foundations are required by the IRS to conduct activities that support the officially approved tax-exempt purpose for which the federal agency allows them to offer donors the ability to deduct contributions. Officials must report annually via the IRS Tax Form 990 to show their non-profit’s compliance with its exempt purpose.
During the foundation’s first six full years of existence from 1998 to 2004, the tight-knit circle of Clinton insiders progressively mis-represented in annual tax filings the non-profit’s activities and compliance with its exempt purpose.
In the IRS’s 1997 determination letter granting exemption, the federal tax agency instructed foundation officials that to retain the prized exempt status they must inform the government if you “change your sources of support, your purposes, character or method of operation … so we can consider the effect of the change on your exempt status and foundation status.”
The Clinton Foundation did not comply.
On the foundation’s first annual Form 990, filed in 1998, officials described the non-profit’s exempt purpose as “to design, construct and initially endow a presidential archival deposit.” That description was taken directly from the first sentence of the foundation’s application for tax-exempt status. The rest of the application’s description referred only to the library and related projects.
In the foundation’s 1999 tax return, the description of its exempt purpose was unchanged except to add this, also from the tax-exemption application: “… to house and preserve the books, correspondence, documents, papers, pictures, photographs and other memorabilia of President Clinton.”
The exempt purpose description remained unchanged on the foundation’s 2000 and 2001 tax returns. But two major things happened in 2002 that provided the first evidence of the radically changing nature of the Clinton Foundation.
The Clinton Foundation did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for copies of any correspondence or official filings to the IRS informing it about the creation of the CHAI in 2002 or any other changes related to its compliance with its exempt purpose.
TheDCNF also asked the IRS if it had been told by the foundation in 2002 about formation of the CHAI but spokesman Matt Leas responded that “federal privacy laws prohibit the IRS from commenting on any individual or case.”
Two years later, foundation officials took their biggest step yet away from their non-profit’s tax-exempt purpose. In the 2004 Form 990’s description of the foundation’s exempt purpose, the following appeared:
“President Clinton established the William J. Clinton Foundation with the dual missions of constructing and endowing the Clinton Presidential Center and park in Little Rock, Arkansas, and continuing the work of his presidency to strengthen the capacity of people in the United States and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.” (emphasis added)
In fact, the italicized sentence was the first reference in any publicly available Clinton Foundation Form 990 filed to that point in the non-profit’s existence that said anything about “dual missions” encompassing the both presidential library and meeting “the challenges of global interdependence.”
The “dual missions” language was completely new.
As in prior years, the foundation continued in 2004 to answer “No” to question 76 asking if it had engaged in any activity not previously reported to the IRS, as required by its tax-exemption determination letter in 1997.
During the period from 1998 to 2004, only five individuals served as Clinton Foundation directors, including:
The Clinton Presidential Library and Museum was dedicated in Little Rock Nov. 18, 2004.
The Clinton Foundation has raised an estimated $1.5 billion in the years since 2004.
Charles Ortel, an expert in non-profit governance and a determined critic of the Clinton Foundation, argues that “to informed analysts, the Clinton Foundation appears to be a rogue charity that has neither been organized nor operated lawfully from inception in October 1997 to date.”
Ortel claims the foundation “has never been validly authorized to pursue tax-exempt purposes other than as a presidential archive and research facility based in Little Rock, Arkansas.”
Clinton Foundation officials repeatedly skirted or ignored federal laws and regulations while converting the non-profit from its tax-exempt purpose of building a presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas, into a $2 billion global machine selling political influence and access on an unprecedented scale, according to documents reviewed by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Non-profit foundations are required by the IRS to conduct activities that support the officially approved tax-exempt purpose for which the federal agency allows them to offer donors the ability to deduct contributions. Officials must report annually via the IRS Tax Form 990 to show their non-profit’s compliance with its exempt purpose.
During the foundation’s first six full years of existence from 1998 to 2004, the tight-knit circle of Clinton insiders progressively mis-represented in annual tax filings the non-profit’s activities and compliance with its exempt purpose.
In the IRS’s 1997 determination letter granting exemption, the federal tax agency instructed foundation officials that to retain the prized exempt status they must inform the government if you “change your sources of support, your purposes, character or method of operation … so we can consider the effect of the change on your exempt status and foundation status.”
The Clinton Foundation did not comply.
On the foundation’s first annual Form 990, filed in 1998, officials described the non-profit’s exempt purpose as “to design, construct and initially endow a presidential archival deposit.” That description was taken directly from the first sentence of the foundation’s application for tax-exempt status. The rest of the application’s description referred only to the library and related projects.
In the foundation’s 1999 tax return, the description of its exempt purpose was unchanged except to add this, also from the tax-exemption application: “… to house and preserve the books, correspondence, documents, papers, pictures, photographs and other memorabilia of President Clinton.”
The exempt purpose description remained unchanged on the foundation’s 2000 and 2001 tax returns. But two major things happened in 2002 that provided the first evidence of the radically changing nature of the Clinton Foundation.
- The exempt purpose description added this sentence, which essentially restated statements from the tax-exempt application: “The foundation will also undertake and support research and educational activities on policy and historical issues related to the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton.”
- The foundation, according to a statement presently on its web site, created the Clinton Health Access Initiative: “From 2002 to 2010, as an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, 4 million patients were able to access CHAI-negotiated ARV drugs …”
The Clinton Foundation did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for copies of any correspondence or official filings to the IRS informing it about the creation of the CHAI in 2002 or any other changes related to its compliance with its exempt purpose.
TheDCNF also asked the IRS if it had been told by the foundation in 2002 about formation of the CHAI but spokesman Matt Leas responded that “federal privacy laws prohibit the IRS from commenting on any individual or case.”
Two years later, foundation officials took their biggest step yet away from their non-profit’s tax-exempt purpose. In the 2004 Form 990’s description of the foundation’s exempt purpose, the following appeared:
“President Clinton established the William J. Clinton Foundation with the dual missions of constructing and endowing the Clinton Presidential Center and park in Little Rock, Arkansas, and continuing the work of his presidency to strengthen the capacity of people in the United States and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.” (emphasis added)
In fact, the italicized sentence was the first reference in any publicly available Clinton Foundation Form 990 filed to that point in the non-profit’s existence that said anything about “dual missions” encompassing the both presidential library and meeting “the challenges of global interdependence.”
The “dual missions” language was completely new.
As in prior years, the foundation continued in 2004 to answer “No” to question 76 asking if it had engaged in any activity not previously reported to the IRS, as required by its tax-exemption determination letter in 1997.
During the period from 1998 to 2004, only five individuals served as Clinton Foundation directors, including:
- Former Arkansas Sen. David Pryor, who had organized a legal defense fund for President Clinton.
- Terry McAuliffe, who was Democratic National Committee chairman during most of the period. He also pledged $1.35 million to secure the mortgage for the Clintons’ Chappaqua, New York, residence.
- Cheryl Mills, one of Clinton’s presidential impeachment lawyers and later chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
- Ann Jordan, wife of long-time Clinton confidant and golfing buddy Vernon Jordan.
- Skip Rutherford, former Pryor aide and now president of the Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas.
The Clinton Presidential Library and Museum was dedicated in Little Rock Nov. 18, 2004.
The Clinton Foundation has raised an estimated $1.5 billion in the years since 2004.
Charles Ortel, an expert in non-profit governance and a determined critic of the Clinton Foundation, argues that “to informed analysts, the Clinton Foundation appears to be a rogue charity that has neither been organized nor operated lawfully from inception in October 1997 to date.”
Ortel claims the foundation “has never been validly authorized to pursue tax-exempt purposes other than as a presidential archive and research facility based in Little Rock, Arkansas.”
[QUOTE="toolucky52384, post: 1998877, member: 4146"
I believe that Hillary Clinton has the ability to make america slightly better, not very much, but i think she has the ability to make the smallest marginal improvements and i think that the republican house and senate will prevent her from making large sweeping changes.
And exactly how has a republican congress stopped Obama from doing basically anything he wants by invoking executive orders and just doing stuff under the table as he pleases especially in the area of border control and illegal immigration? Hillary will continue the Obama tradition if she wins and continue ruling by executive decree. I actually in the case of Trump winning would love it though. A lot of republicans and democrats will fight Trump if/when he wins and he will need to use executive orders in areas where he can legally do it and we know thats a very grey area over the last 30 years concerning legality of executive orders as the President has become a defacto King unfortunately.
I believe that Hillary Clinton has the ability to make america slightly better, not very much, but i think she has the ability to make the smallest marginal improvements and i think that the republican house and senate will prevent her from making large sweeping changes.
And exactly how has a republican congress stopped Obama from doing basically anything he wants by invoking executive orders and just doing stuff under the table as he pleases especially in the area of border control and illegal immigration? Hillary will continue the Obama tradition if she wins and continue ruling by executive decree. I actually in the case of Trump winning would love it though. A lot of republicans and democrats will fight Trump if/when he wins and he will need to use executive orders in areas where he can legally do it and we know thats a very grey area over the last 30 years concerning legality of executive orders as the President has become a defacto King unfortunately.
obama has passed almost no major laws since the health care bill and his executive orders are being challenged in the courts.
i don't like that the supreme court is gone, i'd prefer at least one originalist on the court and centrists as the deciding vote, confirm merrick garland and punt the court 10-15 years down the timeline, he's kind of old for a supreme court nominee.
adding onto this, i think it is very possible to be conservatively or centrist aligned and to be repullsed by populist thinking, i think that is the greatest description of me. my recent 'I side with' survey results...
I believe in a small goverrnment, conservative economics, and capitalism, yet am a centrist on collectivist vs individualist issues and tend towards a global vs protectionist mindset.... as a result this poll, which didn't make the decision for me, but helps illustrate my decision, says I align strongly with a former Republican Governor, but says I'd probably agree more with Miss Rodham than Mr. Trump.
