Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid
Wikipedia is wrong. Here's a link to the opinion: http://supreme.justia.com/us/363/278/case.html .
Essentially, Kevin's correct, in that the case dealt with the definition of what is a "gift" under the tax laws. The Commissioner wanted the Court to give a specific definition of what would count as a "gift," and the Court declined to do so, instead directing that lower courts should look at a variety of factors (including facts that may show the donor's intent, etc.). Applying Duberstein to this situation, one would look at Delauro's intention, i.e. whether it was done out of some generosity. |
"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."
Quote:
|
Granted, the case wasn't only about whether or not item was a gift.
|
That was my point.
In the Emanuel case,
Quote:
Emanuel is a multimillionaire, but lived for the last five years for free in the tony Capitol Hill townhouse owned by De Lauro and her husband, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg.
During that time, he also served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee - which gave Greenberg huge polling contracts. It paid Greenberg's firm $239,996 in 2006 and $317,775 in 2008. (Emanuel's own campaign committee has also paid Greenberg more than $50,000 since 2004.)...
Emanuel never declared the substantial gift of free rent on any of his financial-disclosure forms. He and De Lauro claim that it was just allowable "hospitality" between colleagues. Hospitality - for five years?
|
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.