There are skeletons in EVERYBODY'S closets... ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A POLITICIAN!

IMHO, the ethics issue is one of action. While you actively serve, are you ethical? Simple past indiscretions are one thing, gross breakdown of systems are another... I will leave it at that...

He was actively serving during this time period, though - part of the potential issue is that he didn't go through the mandatory ethical reporting.

IMHO, this is not an adequate excuse for anything. The question is whether the particular skeleton speaks to the character and motivation of the individual in question. Here, we have Emanuel in a pretty clear financial quid pro quo relationship with the husband of an elected official. I have a big problem with that situation. If he's inclined to repay favors like this, now that he's in a position of power, we have to wonder who he owes favors and how, at the expense of the American people, he intends to repay those favors?

I don't understand what "mandatory ethical reporting" is... Enlighten me, please?

No excuse, an explanation... No, he should have not done it... But he did... Did he just lapse in better judgment? What were the organizational development and root causes for his active choice to not make the best decision?

Or, are all politicians crooked and they cannot be ethical?

I know it's probably tough to be ethical when in a powerful office, but it can be done and has been done. I'm sure you can name several politicians you've known to be highly ethical and moral individuals.

I don't know the exact language, but essentially members of Congress have to report gifts they receive; if the use of the house was indeed a gift, and Emanuel didn't report it, there's a problem.

It can definitely be done - I know of a number of politicians who I know of to be highly ethical individuals.

I am cynical these days... I have lost my faith in a politician's ethics and morals. I just do not believe it exists, often...

While there was a NPR discussion about it can be done, I just do not see it at this time.

And while it doesn't matter what I think or believe in the "grand scheme of things", while I would like to believe in the betterment of humanity, I am sorry, my faith has been shaken these days.

Maybe it wasn't a gift... Maybe an intern was speaking out of turn... Maybe there is just more to this story...

Or maybe he failed to report it, as simple as that? IDK? Speculation again...

Which is why I said it was a "potential issue;" maybe it was something, maybe it was nothing. Also, as I said before, it could turn out that the most serious problem coming out of this is the appearance of a lapse of judgment.

I have never liked Emanuel....this doesn't surprise me....

"The record is significantly barren of evidence revealing any intention on the part of the payor to make a gift. . . . The only justifiable inference is that the automobile was intended by the payor to be remuneration for services rendered to it by Duberstein."

And how did they come to that conclusion?

"In No. 376, Duberstein, an individual taxpayer, gave to a business corporation, upon request, the names of potential customers. The information proved valuable, and the corporation reciprocated by giving Duberstein a Cadillac automobile, charging the cost thereof as a business expense on its own corporate income tax return. The Tax Court concluded that the car was not a "gift" excludable from income under § 22(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939."

That was my point.

In the Emanuel case,

My issue with the bolded statement is that it wasn't a "gift" at all if it was an exchange for some sort of arrangement they had.

I still think you're interpreting the case incorrectly, but I'm just a law student, not a lawyer (and certainly not a tax lawyer), so take my interpretation for what you will.

PJ: Basically you're just saying that the court reached its conclusion by saying that the donative intent was not implied by the conduct of the parties. It was very specific, see the language I quoted in stating that the characterization of the donee was not relevant, but rather, the court's interpretation of the intent was controlling.

Yes, in Duberstein, the characterization of the gift was something which was considered, but that it was considered is not the point -- it was just one aspect of the totality of all that was going on here.

What I'm saying here, is if this goes to tax court, and it probably won't, the conduct of the parties rather than how the transaction is characterized is controlling. If it looks like some quid pro quo happened, then that goes to the donative intent.

I'd quote you the West keynotes if doing so wasn't a violation of the TOS. You're right in that this is a case which could go either way. You're wrong if you think the characterization of the "gift" by the donor and donee is a controlling factor.

Ok