The donor is generally responsible for paying the gift tax. Under special arrangements the donee may agree to pay the tax instead.
Only posted bc I’m doing taxes today, not bc I know or want to know anything about taxes. I hate doing tax shit.
He probably gave them highly appreciated stock for which he gets a deduction at market value but is taxed only on his basis, it’s complete fucking bullshit.
Stock? I’m confused. I was talking about Thomas and his free vacations. Maybe they’re not taxable, maybe the Nazi guy paid, idk.
LOL I was confused and thinking of the Ken Griffin Harvard donation. Sorry I’m dumb.
I am an Enrolled Agent and yes you all are correct about gift tax. The better question would be do the gifts show up on Nazi Guy’s gift return?
I was about to post about the gift tax thing, but looks like you got it all sorted. No tax liability for Thomas here.
And while several Democrats, most notably Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have called for investigations and even impeachment, there’s no real expectation that Thomas will even answer questions about his conduct, much less face consequences for it.
Bolded really pisses me off, because it’s true. He’ll never even have to answer questions about any of this.
Dems should be paying private investigators to dig into every aspect of the lives of conservative Supreme Court justices.
Pack. The. Court.
To what end though? They would have to do something with the output for it to have any meaning and we know they ain’t doing shit.
I don’t think that will happen anytime soon (and if the Dems actually get the votes to pack the court, they’ll probably fail by not being able to agree on how many justices to add). A better approach is to figure out a way to force a conservative off the court by any means necessary.
Use whatever dirty tricks or smear campaign or whatever to create a vacancy, which might be incredibly difficult because of how shameless right wingers have become. If you could find dirt that a close relative had committed a crime,
To flesh this out, these were the big 3 issues that stuck with me:
In 1971, Newsweek magazine revealed that in 1952, Mr. Rehnquist, then a law clerk to Justice Robert H. Jackson, prepared a memorandum called “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases.” It was written in the first person and bore Mr. Rehnquist’s initials. It urged Justice Jackson to reject arguments made by lawyers in Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark school desegregation case, and to uphold Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 Supreme Court decision holding that “separate but equal” facilities were constitutional.
Mr. Rehnquist wrote, “I realize that this is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position for which I have been excoriated by ‘liberal’ colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be re-affirmed.”
Four persons testified under oath yesterday that they saw Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist challenging and intimidating voters in predominantly black and Hispanic precincts of Phoenix during statewide elections between 1958 and 1964.
A fifth witness, a former federal prosecutor who was sent to investigate complaints at one precinct in 1962, said unhappy voters he found when he got there pointed out Rehnquist as the Republican challenger who had been giving them problems.
“There was a long line winding around outside the polling place , made up of largely black voters,” Smith testified. He said Rehnquist approached the line, stopped in front of two black men near the end and held a white card in front of their faces. Smith said Rehnquist gave them no chance to read it.
"He said, ‘You’re not able to read, are you? You have no business being in the line. I would ask you to leave.’
Chief Justice-designate William H. Rehnquist was informed in writing by his attorney a decade ago that the Vermont property Rehnquist was buying contained a covenant barring its sale to any member of the “Hebrew race,” according to correspondence made public yesterday.
Rehnquist sent a copy of the 1974 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday but continued to assert, as he did during his confirmation hearings last week, that he did not recall anything about the restrictive covenant.
Also, he dated Sandra Day O’Connor and, like a loser, proposed to her via a letter.
Didn’t listen to the podcast, and Rehnquist was a fiend, but in a vacuum this is meaningless imo. These covenants were invalidated before he joined the court. It’s not like Fair Housing Act caused these statements to disappear into the ether. My understanding is that they still are on the books for the most part - usually in inner-ring suburbs now populated by liberals.
Meh, I think if you’re a sitting Justice and your lawyer sends you a letter saying that this house your purchasing has such a covenant, you need to do something affirmative to reject that covenant. Instead, Rehnquist just denied ever knowing about it.
Also funny that this wasn’t the only house he purchased with such a covenant:
In the Arizona case, the property Mr. Rehnquist purchased in the Palm Croft section of central Phoenix contains a restrictive covenant dating from Jan. 21, 1929, barring sale to ‘‘any person not of the White or Caucasian race.’’
He purchased that one before being on the court.
Exactly. Seems that as a buyer he is actually one of the victums of these covenants. I guess the more salient point is if he sold a house with such a rider.
Harder to image a clearer indication of something illegal taking place.
There could be a video of him handing Thomas a sweaty wad of cash with a note saying “for bribe” and it wouldn’t make a lick of difference.
Just a friend who’s paying for a couple of houses, a couple of scholarships, your wife’s income, a few vacations, some thousand dollar gifts. You know, those things friends do?