SCOTUS

[Kendra]

AOC points out that Clarence Thomas's statement defending accepting lavish vacations admits that his relationship with a wealthy benefactor began while he was on the Supreme Court

[humblescribe]

Should he have reported it for tax purposes?

That is tricky, Dan.

Gifts are not taxable income. Colvin can help me here but I understand that a gift is a transfer of property without full and adequate consideration. Donors must complete a gift tax return for gifts to others if the value of the gift exceeds $15,000 (it was $10,000 in the '90s). So, on the one hand, Thomas could argue that these were gifts. But then that sets up his friend to prove that he filed gift tax returns for all his generosity.

I suspect that he could also argue that these are merely tokens of friendship cultivated over the years with no additional costs incurred (other than de minimis ones like a cigar or a glass of brandy) and therefore are outside the bounds of reportable income. " My jet was flying to Monaco anyway, Clarence, would you like to catch a ride to Monaco and then spend a week on my yacht? But bring your own linens and buy your food during your stay."

If I were his accountant, I would likely tell him to hire a tax lawyer to determine the income taxation of these lavish trips and other emoluments. I would then abide by the lawyer's advice. What he tells his lawyer is confidential. What he tells me is not since I would sign the return. And I am pretty certain that I can escape preparer penalties by relying upon his legal counsel's advice. Let the legal profession duke it out on audit.

It is correct to say that gifts are not taxable income. However, to be a gift for tax purposes, according to the Supreme Court in Duberstein v Comm'r, 363 U.S. 278 (1960), the transfer had to have been given out of "detached and disinterested generosity," that is to say "out of affection, respect, admiration, charity or like impulses."

In Duberstein, the purchaser of a company spoke to seller after the sale, and the latter provided helpful information about the customer base. As a token of appreciation, the company bought a Cadillac for Duberstein, despite the taxpayer's protestations that he had not provided the information with the goal of profit and did not want the car. Duberstein ultimately (reluctantly I'm sure) accepted the auto. The IRS said it was income and the Tax Court agreed. On appeal, the Circuit reversed, reasoning that it was a gift. The Supreme Court overruled the Circuit and said that the Tax Court's holding was not clearly erroneous.

While some may take issue with whether what Harlan Crow provided to Thomas was motivated by "detached and disinterested generosity" (arguing that their friendship appears to have come into existence after Thomas' elevation to the Court), Thomas probably has the better part of the argument as there was no obvious business/economic connection with the payments as there was in Duberstein. That is to say, Crow almost certainly did not attempt to deduct the cost of the travel as a business expense in connection with any profit seeking activity.

As for whether Mr. Crow should have included the value of the vacation travel benefits provided to Thomas on federal gift tax returns, the gift and estate tax regime taxes transfers of property interest from donors to recipients. Allowing Thomas to fly on a private jet or stay in a private club do not seem like transfers of "property interests" that are ordinarily subject to the tax.

Thank you for your explanations!

My concern has to do with the fact that Crow is a board member of the American Enterprise Institute. The American Enterprise Institute regularly files amicus briefs with the Supreme Court. For a schlub like me it is not a leap to infer that these briefs are a way to get one's foot in the door with the justices of the court, and these trips are not aligned with "detached and disinterested generosity" if ultimately Thomas gives more weight to their points of view instead of others'.

One wonders what the batting average is with the American Enterprise Institute amicus briefs and Thomas' votes on those cases. Betcha it is 1.000.

The final points I would like to address include (1) I do believe that these trips and such would be taxable emoluments to Thomas under Chapter 1, and (2) that the Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization. While you are undoubtedly correct that Crow likely was not bold enough to deduct these travel benefits as a business expense, my accountant's skepticism wonders if he did not back door these expenses and claim them as a personal deduction under Section 170. He would not be the first.

[Kendra]

An original painting by Adolf Hitler from Harlan Crow’s Nazi memorabilia collection. The painting is signed “A. Hitler” on the corner.

[Kendra]

According to the timeline reported below, Harlan Crow met Clarence Thomas in 1994 and “soon afterward” invited him to a family campground where “activities included a greased pig race.”

Harlan Crow’s gifts came after Thomas became a SCOTUS Justice in 1991.

[RTH10260]

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status ... 7264940033

An original painting by Adolf Hitler from Harlan Crow’s Nazi memorabilia collection. The painting is signed “A. Hitler” on the corner.

Tsk tsk tsk --- not a neo-nazi but a full blown Brown Shirt Nazi

[neonzx]

Pretty sure if that is confirmed as an original A. Hitler painting,, it is going to never see the light of day again soon.

[much ado]

Pretty sure if that is confirmed as an original A. Hitler painting,, it is going to never see the light of day again soon.

A large number of genuine Hitler paintings are believed to exist...

A group of scholars estimate that there are only 300 completed works by Hitler over the span of his life; however, Hitler mentioned in his book, Mein Kampf, that while in Vienna, he produced around two or three paintings a day.[who?] Even if he were to paint one portrait a day for the years he spent in Vienna, that number would be well over 600. Peter Jahn, perhaps one of the foremost experts on Hitler's art, said he had two interviews with Hitler. Hitler said in the six years he spent in Vienna and Munich, from 1908 to 1914, he produced over a thousand paintings, a few of them in oils, like Hitler's tree at a track from 1911.

One of the most extensive private collections of Hitler's art was housed at The International Museum of World War II in Natick, Massachusetts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintings_by_Adolf_Hitler

The Wikipedia article has a gallery of some of Hitler's works.

[keith]

Pretty sure if that is confirmed as an original A. Hitler painting,, it is going to never see the light of day again soon.

I am NOT an art critic, curator, forensic authenticator, or anything that could be remotely considered 'expert' in any way shape or form.

The painting above suggests itself to me as a forgery, which suggests it's owner was bamboozled.

"much ado" linked to a Wikipedia page with quite a few examples of genuine Hitler work. None are my taste, but they are all clearly better 'drafted' than the one above. (I understand that that is one of his criticisms - he is a good draftsman, but didn't have artistic talent). Actually, I find "Tree By A Track" pretty good, but whatever.

In all the known examples shown on Wikipedia, Herr Schickelgruber displays a strong talent for 'perspective', always opting to show the subjects at an angle to the viewer. None of them show the view straight on, as in the above painting of a gate.

Fake or Forgery Verdict? Fake.

But what do I know?

[sugar magnolia]

In all the known examples shown on Wikipedia, Herr Schickelgruber displays a strong talent for 'perspective', always opting to show the subjects at an angle to the viewer. None of them show the view straight on, as in the above painting of a gate.

Fake or Forgery Verdict? Fake.

But what do I know?

The very first one at the bottom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintings ... vedere.jpg[/

[pipistrelle]

Thread

Bruce Wilson
@brucewilson
More & more details emerge on the Harlan Crow mansion Nazi memorabilia. Someone I follow on Twitter who worked there a decade ago further contextualizes the creepiness.

In one of the great (huge) rooms of the Crow mansion is a giant fireplace, bounded on both sides...

https://twitter.com/brucewilson/status/ ... 5761257475

[Volkonski]

If Hitler hadn't dropped out of secondary school he might have ended up as a competent but mediocre architect designing the Austrian equivalent of McMansions for the upper middle class.

Stay in school kids!

[keith]

In all the known examples shown on Wikipedia, Herr Schickelgruber displays a strong talent for 'perspective', always opting to show the subjects at an angle to the viewer. None of them show the view straight on, as in the above painting of a gate.

Fake or Forgery Verdict? Fake.

But what do I know?

The very first one at the bottom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintings ... vedere.jpg[/

Yeah, yeah. Humiliate me over my first ever published art review why doncha.

I still think Mr. Billionaire has been scammed.

And I should rember his name to use whenever some halfwit mentions Soros.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/4 ... er-options

Clarence Thomas's offenses are impeachable - Democrats have better options

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” — Napoleon Bonaparte

For twenty-five years, Clarence Thomas has been billionaire Harlan Crow’s kept man and pocket Justice. This plutocrat has showered the public servant with luxury cruises, high-end vacations, liquor, and sweetmeats. Crow defends his relationship by saying they are just friends. Although, their friendship is one-sided, as there is no record of Thomas picking up a tab.

The news of this cozy domestic arrangement has come as a shock and no surprise. Another conservative playing footsie with big money is a ‘dog bites man’ story. Regardless, Thomas's behavior smacks of influence-peddling, and he should not be allowed to skate.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks Congress should take action. She addressed Clarence Thomas’s venality and spoke about his possible impeachment on the Lever Time podcast, saying,

“I think this is an emergency. I think that this is a crisis. I think we’ve had a crisis for some time on the Supreme Court.”

She adds: “If we decide strategically that the actual author of those articles [of impeachment] and who introduces them may not be me. That’s fine. I will support impeachment. But I just think that if no one’s going to introduce it, I would certainly be open to doing so.”

AOC is a cut above the usual politician. She thinks of the ramifications of her actions and demands strategic thinking. It is easy in the heat of passion to go off half-cocked. Miss the target. And in doing so, suffer the consequences. Ocasio-Cortez knows this and, as a tactician, is looking for the most effective course.

In this case, that course is to abstain from an impeachment push.

Do not get me wrong, Thomas is a disgrace to the bench. Legally, he makes things up. His jurisprudence springs from the tortured place where he battles his demons. A massive chip on his shoulder informs his philosophy. That is not my opinion. It is his — he talks about it at length in his autobiography, “My Grandfather’s Son.”

Thomas is the Trump of the judicial branch. A thin-skinned vulgarian whose reason is blinded by roiling anger at the injustices he has suffered. His rage against the establishment was honed to a red-hot edge by the revelations in his confirmation hearings that he was a sexual predator, fond of porn. He called it a “high-tech lynching.” And he has been bent on his revenge from the bench.

He wants to strip Americans of reproductive freedoms — not just choice but also the right to contraception. He would deny many the right to marry the one they love. He has promoted profit over people. And he has dismissed the glaring conflict of interest inherent in his marriage.

He is a horrible man, lacking the sober-minded stature to sit on the highest court in the land. However, the Democrats should not try to impeach him. Not because he does not deserve it. But because it is lousy politics.

Moar at the article. Whatcha think?

[p0rtia]

Abstaining from supporting consequences for the malign actions of the uber-powerful is not on the table in our current situation.

We have fallen so far; there is no room left for being clever or inactive.

Cleverness and inactivity have contributed to our fall, IMO.

[Phoenix520]

Concur.

People are nuts. I can’t think of a single family that wouldn’t punish a kid for an egregious violation of family norms but oh no we can’t upset the systems that continue to fail us.

[RVInit]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/4 ... er-options

Clarence Thomas's offenses are impeachable - Democrats have better options

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” — Napoleon Bonaparte

For twenty-five years, Clarence Thomas has been billionaire Harlan Crow’s kept man and pocket Justice. This plutocrat has showered the public servant with luxury cruises, high-end vacations, liquor, and sweetmeats. Crow defends his relationship by saying they are just friends. Although, their friendship is one-sided, as there is no record of Thomas picking up a tab.

The news of this cozy domestic arrangement has come as a shock and no surprise. Another conservative playing footsie with big money is a ‘dog bites man’ story. Regardless, Thomas's behavior smacks of influence-peddling, and he should not be allowed to skate.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks Congress should take action. She addressed Clarence Thomas’s venality and spoke about his possible impeachment on the Lever Time podcast, saying,

“I think this is an emergency. I think that this is a crisis. I think we’ve had a crisis for some time on the Supreme Court.”

She adds: “If we decide strategically that the actual author of those articles [of impeachment] and who introduces them may not be me. That’s fine. I will support impeachment. But I just think that if no one’s going to introduce it, I would certainly be open to doing so.”

AOC is a cut above the usual politician. She thinks of the ramifications of her actions and demands strategic thinking. It is easy in the heat of passion to go off half-cocked. Miss the target. And in doing so, suffer the consequences. Ocasio-Cortez knows this and, as a tactician, is looking for the most effective course.

In this case, that course is to abstain from an impeachment push.

Do not get me wrong, Thomas is a disgrace to the bench. Legally, he makes things up. His jurisprudence springs from the tortured place where he battles his demons. A massive chip on his shoulder informs his philosophy. That is not my opinion. It is his — he talks about it at length in his autobiography, “My Grandfather’s Son.”

Thomas is the Trump of the judicial branch. A thin-skinned vulgarian whose reason is blinded by roiling anger at the injustices he has suffered. His rage against the establishment was honed to a red-hot edge by the revelations in his confirmation hearings that he was a sexual predator, fond of porn. He called it a “high-tech lynching.” And he has been bent on his revenge from the bench.

He wants to strip Americans of reproductive freedoms — not just choice but also the right to contraception. He would deny many the right to marry the one they love. He has promoted profit over people. And he has dismissed the glaring conflict of interest inherent in his marriage.

He is a horrible man, lacking the sober-minded stature to sit on the highest court in the land. However, the Democrats should not try to impeach him. Not because he does not deserve it. But because it is lousy politics.

Moar at the article. Whatcha think?

I agree that impeachment is just political theater at this point. As the article suggests, that is not the only option. We should do what the article suggests, keep pressing the GOP on what they believe should be done about Thomas as long as we continue to keep his many failings constantly in the public consciousness. The reason Republicans have been so damn successful at debasing our political landscape is that they repeat the same things over and over and over again. What they are repeating is BS. Just think what constant repetition of the truth could accomplish. So, yeah, impeachment is a waste of time and causes Independents to roll their eyes. But keeping everything that makes Thomas utterly inconsistent with justice constantly in the public conscience could help a groundswell of support for shaming the Supreme Court into reigning him in.

[Maybenaut]

If Hitler hadn't dropped out of secondary school he might have ended up as a competent but mediocre architect designing the Austrian equivalent of McMansions for the upper middle class.

Stay in school kids!

They would have called them McSchlossen…

[bob]

But keeping everything that makes Thomas utterly inconsistent with justice constantly in the public conscience could help a groundswell of support for shaming the Supreme Court into reigning him in.

There's nothing SCOTUS can do to rein him in. (Especially if a majority of the justices won't act against him.)

[AndyinPA]

If Hitler hadn't dropped out of secondary school he might have ended up as a competent but mediocre architect designing the Austrian equivalent of McMansions for the upper middle class.

Stay in school kids!

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[humblescribe]

One of the things that the Rethuglicans have taught us is retaliation and revenge are now their legislative purposes.

Any hint of bringing articles of impeachment in the House, whether now or in the future when the Dems regain control, will result in the Thugs doing the same when they get the balance of power.

Charlie McCarthy and his ship of fools have done as much in only one hundred days.

It might be better to keep Thomas' venality and his wife's meddling in the forefront every time there is an important case in front of the Court. Don't let it wind up in the dustbin.

[Frater I*I]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

There's probably some museum that will get it from you...

[Kendra]

[AndyinPA]

[Kendra]

Yes. I haven't read the whole thing yet, too busy watching Nicolle demolish Fox News.

[AndyinPA]