Another nominee I disagree with

[Parkbandit]

WASHINGTON (Jan. 14) - A Capitol Hill grilling is likely for Timothy Geithner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick to head the Treasury Department, after public revelations he failed to pay $34,000 in taxes several years ago.
Senate Democrats are pressing to schedule a quick confirmation hearing for Geithner on Friday, hoping to tee up swift approval of his nomination on Inauguration Day. But newly released information about the tax goofs by Geithner, regarded as a brilliant financial markets specialist well-positioned to deal with the nation's considerable economic problems, could complicate the process.

Republicans have yet to sign off on expediting the hearing, although senior Democrats expressed confidence that the disclosures would do little to slow Geithner's path to confirmation. At least one Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, said he had "no problem" with Geithner.
Still, the disclosures virtually guarantee a tough hearing for Geithner before the Senate Finance Committee, which is considering his nomination.
Geithner failed to pay self-employment taxes for money he earned from 2001 to 2004 while working for the International Monetary Fund, according to materials released by the committee Tuesday.
He paid some of the taxes in 2006, after an IRS audit discovered the discrepancy for taxes paid in 2003 and 2004. But it wasn't until much later — days before Obama tapped him to head Treasury late last year — that Geithner paid back most of the taxes, incurred in 2001 and 2002. He did so after Obama's transition team found that Geithner had made the same tax mistake his first two years at the IMF as the one the IRS found he made during his last two years there.
The panel's report also noted that Geithner briefly employed a housekeeper in 2005 whose legal immigrant work status had lapsed.
Taken together, the disclosures cast a cloud over what otherwise had appeared to be a smooth road to confirmation for Geithner. Obama's transition team told Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and senior Republican Charles E. Grassley of Iowa of the tax problems in early December, but most rank-and-file members of the panel only learned of them recently.
Some heard about them for the first time at a closed-door committee meeting on Capitol Hill on Tuesday afternoon. Later, Geithner joined the huddle to defend himself and address questions about what he and Obama's team called a mistake.
"These errors were not intentional; they were honest mistakes," Baucus said after the session.

http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obamas-treasury-pick-didnt-pay-taxes/305709



Wait.. so this financial 'expert' who is supposed to lead the IRS didn't realize he had to pay FICA? How can anyone consider this an "honest" mistake? Seriously?

[Kembal]

American employees working at the IMF get treated as self-employed but are also issued a W-2. Couple that with bad tax accountant advice, and it happens.

Pretty good post explaining all this on Time's Swampland blog: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/13/geithners-tax-headaches/

[Jorddyn]

Wait.. so this financial 'expert' who is supposed to lead the IRS didn't realize he had to pay FICA? How can anyone consider this an "honest" mistake? Seriously?

Actually, it's not the mistake that bothers me. It's that once the error was found, he (and his accountants) didn't go back and amend the prior returns, on which they had to know there was also an issue. Whereas filing an incorrect tax return (especially when one receives a W-2 for self employment income) can be an honest mistake, only fixing the returns that are "caught" stinks of intent.

[Bobmuhthol]

So if you're audited and the IRS says, "You fucked up these two years," you're saying that you'd go back and look over previous years to make sure the IRS didn't miss those ones too? I'd just pay the back taxes they told me to and STFU, but maybe I'm insane.

[Jorddyn]

So if you're audited and the IRS says, "You fucked up these two years," you're saying that you'd go back and look over previous years to make sure the IRS didn't miss those ones too? I'd just pay the back taxes they told me to and STFU, but maybe I'm insane.

Actually, I would. Not doing so would not only be unethical, it could cost me my license.

I'd prefer that the person being charged with heading the Treasury department be above-average in the ethics department, especially when it comes to money.

[Clove]

So if you're audited and the IRS says, "You fucked up these two years," you're saying that you'd go back and look over previous years to make sure the IRS didn't miss those ones too? I'd just pay the back taxes they told me to and STFU, but maybe I'm insane.Accountants that like their jobs do.

[Clove]

Actually, it's not the mistake that bothers me. It's that once the error was found, he (and his accountants) didn't go back and amend the prior returns, on which they had to know there was also an issue. Whereas filing an incorrect tax return (especially when one receives a W-2 for self employment income) can be an honest mistake, only fixing the returns that are "caught" stinks of intent.Fraud has no statute of limitations.

[Jorddyn]

Fraud has no statute of limitations.

I know, but that wasn't my point. My point was whether or not he had or would have been "caught" on the prior years' mistakes, he should have amended voluntarily.

[Clove]

I know, but that wasn't my point. My point was whether or not he had or would have been "caught" on the prior years' mistakes, he should have amended voluntarily.Right. Because fraud has no statute of limitations. While not technically income, I don't think the IRS would have any qualms presenting fraud for not correcting an error after they'd made you aware of it. It's unethical and stupid because of the potential exposure (if they found it once, they'll likely find it again).

[Jorddyn]

Right. Because fraud has no statute of limitations. While not technically income, I don't think the IRS would have any qualms presenting fraud for not correcting an error after they'd made you aware of it.

Ah, gotcha.

[Clove]

Ah, gotcha.IRS Collections has a motto: "They had their chance, now they have us."

[Kembal]

Actually, it's not the mistake that bothers me. It's that once the error was found, he (and his accountants) didn't go back and amend the prior returns, on which they had to know there was also an issue. Whereas filing an incorrect tax return (especially when one receives a W-2 for self employment income) can be an honest mistake, only fixing the returns that are "caught" stinks of intent.

It's a problem that recurs often. The IRS did a settlement offer in 2006 with all U.S. employees of foreign embassies and international organizations to bring them into tax compliance on this very issue.

His 2001 and 2002 returns were self prepared and his 2003 and 2004 returns were done by a paid preparer. Due to that, it may not have occurred to them to check.

I'll chalk it up to forgetfulness rather than malice.

[Clove]

I would expect his preparer to look at prior tax filings as a matter of routine once an error was found.

[Kembal]

And so you're making the assumption that the preparer did and that Geithner chose to not pay the tax with intent to defraud, instead of the assumption that the preparer did not do so?

Considering that we know the preparer gave bad advice once already on the very issue at hand, what suddenly transforms the preparer into a fountain of competence now?

[Clove]

And so you're making the assumption that the preparer did and that Geithner chose to not pay the tax with intent to defraud, instead of the assumption that the preparer did not do so?

Considering that we know the preparer gave bad advice once already on the very issue at hand, what suddenly transforms the preparer into a fountain of competence now?Since it was Geitner's liability, yes I place the burden on him.

[Keller]

Wait.. so this financial 'expert' who is supposed to lead the IRS didn't realize he had to pay FICA? How can anyone consider this an "honest" mistake? Seriously?

I was talking with one of our new partners, who worked for the IRS for 35 years and is a staunch republican, about this and he said it was a common mistake from the IMF employees.

Sometimes you need to realize the world is a little more complicated than the sandbox you play in.

[Clove]

I was talking with one of our new partners, who worked for the IRS for 35 years and is a staunch republican, about this and he said it was a common mistake from the IMF employees.

Sometimes you need to realize the world is a little more complicated than the sandbox you play in.People make mistakes on tax returns. This is about fixing them in a timely manner.

[Keller]

People make mistakes on tax returns. This is about fixing them in a timely manner.

I was responding to the OP, not the discussion that followed.

[Clove]

I was responding to the OP, not the discussion that followed.OOK. I can't give you anymore rep tho.

[Parkbandit]

Are you going to agree with any of them that aren't Republicans?


Don't project.. you reject:


We agree. I think this is the first nominee by Obama I have major issues with. Panetta is qualified enough for most government work, the head of the CIA isn't one of those jobs though.

Then again.. I'm not sure how we got to the place where Diane Feinstein was a Chairperson of the Intelligence Committee either. Hope and Change is on the way!

[Parkbandit]

Sometimes you need to realize the world is a little more complicated than the sandbox you play in.


If the world is this complicated for a so called financial expert.. then perhaps this is simply a position that he is unqualified for... which was my point.

I'm not surprised you didn't get that though.

[Parkbandit]

I was trying to hump the OP's leg, not actually participate in the discussion.

Corrected for accuracy.

[TheRunt]

If the world is this complicated for a so called financial expert.. then perhaps this is simply a position that he is unqualified for... which was my point.

I'm not surprised you didn't get that though.

Off topic but you'd be surprised how many people have positions for which there not qualified for or do not understand the regulations that there supposed to enforce. I've recently had to explain some of fdic reg cc info to the person thats in charge of enforcing them for my region :) After I pointed out the pertinent sections she told me she would have to call me back after she checked it out with her superiors and legal. Along with having to explain them to the compliance officer at my credit union

[Clove]

Off topic but you'd be surprised how many people have positions for which there not qualified for...You think so, huh?

[TheRunt]

You think so, huh?

Actually probably not, since a good bit of the people on this board have a clue whats what :grouphug:

[Jorddyn]

Off topic but you'd be surprised how many people have positions for which there not qualified for

How do you think I have my job?

[Keller]

If the world is this complicated for a so called financial expert.. then perhaps this is simply a position that he is unqualified for... which was my point.

I'm not surprised you didn't get that though.

Was your point that he was unqualified or that he wasn't being honest.

Because you made both of them, and they are mutually exclusive.

But maybe I'm just not getting it . . .

[Gan]

Either way, he now fails the meet a primary criteria of Obama. That being drama/controversy free.

Next!

[Daniel]

I thought FICA wasn't a part of income taxes