Keller
08-13-2009, 01:19 PM
I bring to you the thoughts of a prominent tax attorney. The attorney runs a private listserve for other tax attorneys and occassionally sends non-tax related items, such as pictures of Mars, thoughts on steroids, and 60s rock and roll.
I found his e-mail to be quite articulate and well-reasoned. I hope you enjoy it.
I sometimes have trouble sitting on my hands and avoiding putting my foot in my mouth. I usually am restrained -- well, most of the time. I try as I can to stay as apolitical as I can. It is tough controlling myself. There is enough about each political party to detest. I try to be even handed in my disdain.
Sometimes I just loose control.
I react about as much as anyone to stories about big public companies obtaining government relief at the same time that these companies are ordering executive jets to transport high executives. I have listened to the debates, but I am unimpressed at the cost-efficiency of private executive jet travel for executives. (It is extremely expensive.) As far as I am concerned, even Federer should fly commercial. Chief executives often use corporate jets for personal travel and, on account of a long tax controversy that can be traced to the Nixon administration, the executives are taxed only on the cost of a first class ticket. I believe in taxing them based on corporate charter rates, based on what they actually receive, which would practically eliminate the use of executive jets for private excursions.
I have listened to and read complaints from many Congressmen about large companies providing corporate jets for their executives. Many of these complaints are convincing. I am in rare agreement with the conventional wisdom.
I read today in the newspapers about Congress earmarking $500 million for eight jets to upgrade the federal junket fleet. (This comes at a time of cancelling acquisitions of a major combat aircraft.) I reluctantly concede the President Air Force I. I could find a lot wrong with in if I went into detail about how it is outfitted. (I would have outfitted it like a commercial jet -- perhaps with a communications annex -- and not like a flying Taj Mahal. He is not an Arab sheik. The President would learn a lot if he had to deal with airport security lines, trying to find overhead space for his luggage, the shrinking legroom in coach, and airline sandwiches.) I do not concede the Vice President Air Force 2. Why does the most redundant and least important position in the world require a private jet? The vice-president has no greater security concerns than the mayor of South Pasadena. No one has even considered assassinating the vice-president -- whoever he is -- any more than they have considered assassinating the Presidential butler. I would let the Vice President fly commercial coach or ride in a C-130 (not a C-40 or C-37) when necessary. No one would recognize him.
Expanding the Congressional air force with new Boeing 737's (C-40's) and Gulfstream V planes (C-37) at a cost of $500 million is a bunch of @$%@$#%. The Pentagon insists that the Pentagon did not request the aircraft and does not want them. Without attempting to connect the dots (for this all could be coincidence), I note that this appropriation comes soon after well publicized complaints by a nameless Northern California Congresswoman that the Air Force did not have an executive jet available to ferry her home for week-ends.
An article about the expansion of the Congressional air force in the Wall Street Journal -- hardly known as a reform newspaper -- mentions that Congressional spouses often fly free. The tax system at least should see that they are taxed at executive charter rates. That is what they are getting -- executive charter transportation -- not first class air travel. (I cannot resist wondering if they are 1099ed at all.) The current regulations under Section 61 on taxing at a first class ticket rate are a disgrace and seem to be purely politically inspired. It looks like that slight to her dignity is going to cost us $500 million.
As far as I am concerned, let them all fly commercial coach.
I found his e-mail to be quite articulate and well-reasoned. I hope you enjoy it.
I sometimes have trouble sitting on my hands and avoiding putting my foot in my mouth. I usually am restrained -- well, most of the time. I try as I can to stay as apolitical as I can. It is tough controlling myself. There is enough about each political party to detest. I try to be even handed in my disdain.
Sometimes I just loose control.
I react about as much as anyone to stories about big public companies obtaining government relief at the same time that these companies are ordering executive jets to transport high executives. I have listened to the debates, but I am unimpressed at the cost-efficiency of private executive jet travel for executives. (It is extremely expensive.) As far as I am concerned, even Federer should fly commercial. Chief executives often use corporate jets for personal travel and, on account of a long tax controversy that can be traced to the Nixon administration, the executives are taxed only on the cost of a first class ticket. I believe in taxing them based on corporate charter rates, based on what they actually receive, which would practically eliminate the use of executive jets for private excursions.
I have listened to and read complaints from many Congressmen about large companies providing corporate jets for their executives. Many of these complaints are convincing. I am in rare agreement with the conventional wisdom.
I read today in the newspapers about Congress earmarking $500 million for eight jets to upgrade the federal junket fleet. (This comes at a time of cancelling acquisitions of a major combat aircraft.) I reluctantly concede the President Air Force I. I could find a lot wrong with in if I went into detail about how it is outfitted. (I would have outfitted it like a commercial jet -- perhaps with a communications annex -- and not like a flying Taj Mahal. He is not an Arab sheik. The President would learn a lot if he had to deal with airport security lines, trying to find overhead space for his luggage, the shrinking legroom in coach, and airline sandwiches.) I do not concede the Vice President Air Force 2. Why does the most redundant and least important position in the world require a private jet? The vice-president has no greater security concerns than the mayor of South Pasadena. No one has even considered assassinating the vice-president -- whoever he is -- any more than they have considered assassinating the Presidential butler. I would let the Vice President fly commercial coach or ride in a C-130 (not a C-40 or C-37) when necessary. No one would recognize him.
Expanding the Congressional air force with new Boeing 737's (C-40's) and Gulfstream V planes (C-37) at a cost of $500 million is a bunch of @$%@$#%. The Pentagon insists that the Pentagon did not request the aircraft and does not want them. Without attempting to connect the dots (for this all could be coincidence), I note that this appropriation comes soon after well publicized complaints by a nameless Northern California Congresswoman that the Air Force did not have an executive jet available to ferry her home for week-ends.
An article about the expansion of the Congressional air force in the Wall Street Journal -- hardly known as a reform newspaper -- mentions that Congressional spouses often fly free. The tax system at least should see that they are taxed at executive charter rates. That is what they are getting -- executive charter transportation -- not first class air travel. (I cannot resist wondering if they are 1099ed at all.) The current regulations under Section 61 on taxing at a first class ticket rate are a disgrace and seem to be purely politically inspired. It looks like that slight to her dignity is going to cost us $500 million.
As far as I am concerned, let them all fly commercial coach.