Hillary's Speech Fees:Hers Or Clinton Foundation's? Tax issues as well as possible pay-to-play

[snagglepuss]

snip

The Ethics in Government Act requires public figures to report their outside income above $200. Yes, that is a very low threshold. Mrs. Clinton’s speaking fees were vastly more, reportedly a $225,000 minimum per speech. In that light, her failures to disclose seem hard to comprehend. However, Mrs. Clinton directed some of her fees to the Clinton Foundation, which is arguably different.

Even so, there are legitimate tax questions whether this is allowed. Beyond that, were the assignments to the Foundation timely and correctly documented?


snip


Mrs. Clinton’s financial disclosure forms show that she reported personal income of more than $11 million for 51 speeches in 13 months. Yet she has not defined how she and Mr. Clinton decide which fees are personal income and which go directly to charity. Normally, the IRS doesn’t let taxpayers pick and choose. But this is no normal family, nor is it a normal charity.

The Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation admitted collecting $26.4 million in previously unreported speaking fees from foreign governments, foreign and U.S. corporations. For tax purposes, who is the recipient, and how late can the Clintons decide?


snip

Anyone who has dealt with the IRS might ask: how can you just assign fees to the Foundation? Does the IRS allow it? Is there a contract that requires it? Do the Clintons choose which fees to hand over before or after the speech? The assignment of income doctrine says that if you earn income yourself but try to assign the income to someone else, you are still taxed. This is so even if the money is collected by the assignee.


snip

Apart from politics, it is understandable that the Clintons would not want to receive speaking fees personally and then hand them over to the Foundation. They would end up with a big tax bill, since charitable contributions are limited. Moreover, speech fees would normally be sourced to the place where they give the speeches. The Clintons could end up taxed in numerous places. That is one reason the lack of disclosure on these issues is so interesting.




http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/02/09/hillarys-wall-street-speech-fees-hers-or-clinton-foundations/#198296406232

[dogman]

1. It's like all the phony religious tax dodges.

How else do you account for the massive income and wealth gains when they left the Clinton Presidency with negative worth? Remember they left "broke".

[yourpaljoey]

2. that's not gonna be pretty at all

[snagglepuss]

8. Do mean in the GE if she's nominated?

[Jarqui]

3. The Clinton Foundation was subpoenaed for info on the donors that

also got help from the State Department while Hillary was Secretary of State.

I don't care to be an alarmist. Hopefully, there's nothing nothing to it. But it smells real bad and if it remains unresolved going into the general election, it could be fatal to her candidacy.

The Clintons have now had nearly a year to clear the air on that and all we've really got of substance is crickets.

[snagglepuss]

4. According to Vox:

There's a solid set of companies and associations that had nothing to do with the foundation but lobbied State while Clinton was there and then paid for her to speak to them. Xerox, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, in addition to Corning, all lobbied Clinton's department on trade matters and then invited her to earn an easy check.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money

[Gwhittey]

5. If Karl Rove

Can spin Serving on a boat in Vietnam Jungles as more cowardly than being a desk "fighter pilot " in Texas during same period He will spin the shit out of this thing.

[Jarqui]

7. Exactly. I've felt the same all along. Even if Hillary is as innocent as could be,

the GOP are going to make her and Bill look like crooks. There's nothing of substance in the public domain to refute it.

Bill & Hillary collected $4 billion dollars since leaving the White House from these folks. Like Bernie says "who gives people money like that without expecting something in return?"

I'm sure Hillary's devout followers will be dismissive. And they might even be right.

But the electorate that hasn't been paying attention and won't until the final 60 days of the election ... they're going to get a Karl Rove like education on this with a $100 million of Koch money behind it. It's going to be very difficult to refute in a short period of time just like it was for John Kerry's swiftboating. And the trouble is there are enough true facts around this to spin it and make it stick.

They're going to nail her on the emails and they're going to nail her on this - as well as a reeducation of all the prior Clinton scandals.

Her key hope is that Trump gets the nomination and the media or David Brock dig up worse crap on him.

If it's Trump-Clinton, it will probably be the ugliest campaign in US history.

[AtomicKitten]

9. Innocent or guilty, she has created the appearance of wrongdoing.

With all kinds of examples to substantiate concern.

As a condition to taking the job of SOS, she and her husband signed a contract with Pres Obama promising sunlight and that the Foundation and charities would not accept new foreign donations nor increase in donations from current ones. The Foundation and another Clinton charity had to refile tax returns from 2010 through 2014 to amend "errors."

Good gawd almighty is there nothing her supporters won't defend? Whether or not they are prosecutable, the Clintons reek of corruption.

[AzDar]

6. K & R

[Hell Hath No Fury]

10. I have said before --

the Foundation is where the action is at, the emails are a minor distraction.

From everything I have read to date there is certainly the appearance of some serious palm greasing being done.