Rahm Emanuel: Another Obama Appointee with Ethical Lapses?

[Coramoor]

This is what, the fourth or the fifth individual in BO's admin that participated in actions that raise questions of their ethics?

Hmmm...quite sub pare for the man that ran on Change and a better more honest tomorrow.

[AKA_Monet]

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...

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

There are skeleton's in EVERYONE'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.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

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

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?

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Kevin

IMHO, this is not an adequate excuse for anything.

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?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

You've misled us, friend.

Okay, you made me go reread the case to verify I have not misled you. The cite is C.I.R. v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 1190 U.S. (1960), btw.

While realistically, the IRS (then CIR) probably would never have known the transaction happened if Mohawk hadn't reported the gift as a business expense, that's not what the case turns on.

The Court was quite explicit on that point:

"The Government says that this ‘intention’ of the transferor cannot mean what the cases on the common-law concept of gift call ‘donative intent.’ With that we are in agreement, for our decisions fully support this. Moreover, the Bogardus case itself makes it plain that the donor's characterization of his action is not determinative-that there must be an objective inquiry as to whether what is called a gift amounts to it in reality. 302 U.S. at page 40, 58 S.Ct. at page 64. It scarcely needs adding that the parties' expectations or hopes as to the tax treatment of their conduct in themselves have nothing to do with the matter. (emphasis added) Duberstein at 286, 1197."

The case, rather than turning on the donor's characterization of his action, turned on the donor's intent. The Court clearly describes this 'intent' test:

". . . if the payment proceeds primarily from the constraining force of any moral or legal duty, or from ‘the incentive of anticipated benefit’ of an economic nature, it is not a gift. And, conversely, where the payment is in return for services rendered, it is irrelevant that the donor derives no economic benefit from it. A gift in the statutory sense, on the other hand, proceeds from a ‘detached and disinterested generosity, out of affection, respect, admiration, charity or like impulses." Id at 286, 1197, citing [various other cases which you if you really, really, really care, I can cut/paste you a long string cite]

At any rate, no, I did not mislead. While I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article, if that's its conclusion, then I don't agree with it. The question here is was the 'hospitality' of the De Lauros something offered charitably and disinterestedly, or rather, was it a manner of payment or done with the intent of encouraging future services. Since services were in fact rendered by Emanuel to benefit the De Lauros, you do the math.

[Kevin]

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.

[preciousjeni]

Ok

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

Thank you, this is what I was trying to get across.

PJ, I think my posts above probably came off as a little snide, my fault on that. I think my brain's a bit too fried.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

PJ, I think my posts above probably came off as a little snide, my fault on that. I think my brain's a bit too fried.

My brain might be fried too because I didn't notice any snideness.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

My brain might be fried too because I didn't notice any snideness.

He's such a polite kid that his "snideness" is what we tip 20% for. True story.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

He's such a polite kid that his "snideness" is what we tip 20% for. True story.

Is GC like one of those restaurants that you go to for the sole purpose of being treated poorly by the waitstaff?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

He's such a polite kid that his "snideness" is what we tip 20% for. True story.

Haha, thanks buddy, I appreciate it.