Re: Treasury
 

All penalties were waived. If Burger says that's normal course for similar situations, and is applied whether the taxpayer needs a payment plan or not, then I've got no issue with it at all. But I can still understand why someone would.

Re: Treasury
 

BWAH-HAHAHAHAHAHA.

If he 'fesses up and pays 100%, he will thereby distinguish his case from any other that goes before a tax tribunal.

Re: Treasury
 

He had all penalties waived. He did not pay 100%, and I have heard nothing proposed that he will pay any penalty. That's not the treatment I get, nor that I think most taxpayers get. And there should be no difference whether a payment plan is required or not.

Re: Treasury
 

I don't know. I'm not sure he publicly stated his opposition to letting Lehman fail. My understanding was they all worked to save Lehman somehow but couldn't come up with a deal that satisfied everyone. Lehman blinked, and then was put out of its misery. Maybe Geithner would have blinked sooner than Paulson.

Re: Treasury
 

that's new . . . I thought he paid all taxes plus interest, but no penalties, including on taxes owed more than 6 years ago for which the IRS would have no remedy to collect (SoL on non-fraudulent returns).

Re: Treasury
 

I don't endorse this argument. I do have a problem with a person who flouts the law, never expresses remorse for having done so, and then proposes that others be punished where he was not, or more harshly so. Everyone in law enforcement should have to explain why punishment is appropriate now where the absence of punishment in their case allowed them to become upstanding citizens they are today.

BTW, "I found Jesus and I don't do that shit anymore" would have sufficed, if drug policy were amended to allow one "Get Out of Jail to Find Jesus Free" card, and if Bush had ever actually 'fessed up.

Re: Treasury
 

Two things here: (1) In general, the penalty authomatically becomes part of the principal on which interest accrues. (2) Why the assumption that it was non-fraudulent? Because he said so? I'd like that to apply to me.

Re: Treasury
 

isn't the fact that Bush wasn't caught a sort of important difference?

Re: Treasury
 

What I know about tax law would fit into Wonk's limp dick, but I'm not sure tax law should be different from both civil and criminal law in not requiring a mens rea for imposing a punitive sanction, so I guess I have less of a problem with the idea of waiving penalties when there's no showing of intentional underpayment and voluntary payment of 100% compensatory damages. If you're saying I wouldn't get that deal, then shame on the IRS, and I would want a Secty who had been subjected to the penalty but it was waived -- it might effectuate a change in waiver policy. In other words, if this ties the IRS's hands, good.

Re: Treasury
 

To my argument? No. To reality? Yes.

Re: Rick Warren......
 

2

Re: Treasury
 

I believe obama has proposed enormous spending increases and massive tax cuts, if he can pull all that off while relaxing IRS enforcement, I believe I can promise support from rich old white guys.

Re: Treasury
 

This is my issue with it. I don't believe that penalties get waived automatically based on payment--indeed I get assessed penalties for late paying quarterly estimated taxes and I don't think they'd get waived (and $20 isn't worth going through the voicemail tree, much less writing a letter and having the IRS red flag me for an audit).

And what's the line above the signature on the 1040? "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and
belief, they are true, correct, and complete." So, by requiring mens rea, if you're ignorant enough, you can't violate this? Ignore all the instructions, don't report cash paid to you because you're too stupid/willfully-ignorant to know it is income, and you're going to get away w/o paying a penalty? Really?

Re: Treasury
 

And Penske? I know it would break his heart if he did all that and he couldn't hold onto P's support.

Re: Treasury
 

If you would like to make a distinction between elected and appointed, okay. I'm not sure it really matters here.

But I guess you can make the argument that by electing him voters meant to put youthful indiscretions beyond legal reproach. I'm sure that worked with exactly zero individual who became subjects of DEA/FBI investigation.

Indeed. It was just an example.

It isn't like he is appointing a tax objector who will refuse to enforce the law.

Re: Treasury
 

So your issue is whether he got a special deal because of who he is? That might be worth investigating, but I'm not sure how it is an issue for his confirmation. He didn't make those decisions at IRS.

Re: Treasury
 

Was Gietner caught? Or did he turn himself in?

Re: Treasury
 

It's pretty much what Club said--it would be preferable to not have someone with such issues, just like with Clinton's first two(!) AG nominees. Is it something that really matters to their job? No, but isn't there someone else free of quasi-criminal issues and/or a recipient of special treatment from law enforcement?

Re: Treasury
 

I agree that it would be better to have someone without any issues. But I'm not sure that is the question facing the 97(?) members of the Senate. The question is whether these "issues" are enough to withhold consent, and they seem pretty trivial in context.

Re: Treasury
 

Audit in '06 picked up 03 and 04. 2001 and 02 caught by the Obama transition team.

So, the IRS pointed out to him that he failed to pay S-E Tax in 03 and 04, and he conveniently ignored the same problem in earlier years that he was in the same job (not that I wouldn't do the same, but I have no designs on the job he had in '06 as a Fed governor, nevermind a high-level Executive branch job). And no penalty was assessed. I'm now affirmatively bothered by this, when initially I thought it wasn't too big a deal.

Re: Treasury
 

"I wasn't flouting the law. I'm rich and white, and the cops weren't checking my kinda people for drug use back then."

Hank, Penske -- happy now?
 

NYTimes reports that Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn her bid for Hillary's seat. Her Senate seat, that is.

Re: Treasury
 

Exactly. Not that I think anyone could have done better.

Comment Policy
 

Why Volokh is not like us:

Invective: A recent glance at Alexander Hamilton's denunciation of John Adams leads me to revise the comments policy. The passage I have in mind is this:

Ah, they don't make insults like that any more, or at least enough of them. Hence my compromise: I continue to ask that "[c]omments ... be ... civil (and, especially, free of name-calling)." But if you absolutely must insult people, I want to set Hamilton's work as the bar you must clear for that privilege.

Re: Treasury
 

you should seek professional help or give your kids up for adoption. maybe both.

Re: Treasury
 

My understanding was that he didn't pay 2001 and 2002 because they were outside the SOL.

Re: Treasury
 

I don't have "kids". I call them "youthful indiscretions."

Were you suggesting you'd be comfortable with Geither if he had cheated on his taxes, but never been caught?

Re: Treasury
 

This is partially my point. I'm actually really pissed off that he was even nominated. It should not be OK to have the tax issues he has and run Treasury. Period. End of story. None of these idiots is so critical or irreplaceable that we should have to put up with this shit. Frankly, we shouldn't have to put up with him on the NY Fed. It's just more of the same old story. . . the normal rules do not apply to the political class; they only apply to us little people. This, coupled with the more and more prevalent political family dynasties and celebrity class, makes me think that we are moving more and more towards something akin to a monarchy.

Re: Treasury
 

both alleged criminals are white. I was troubled by your white guilt; not as bad as Atticus feeling inferior in his suits, but still troubling.

Re: Treasury
 

Why? What difference does it make? Where is the line? Can't be a police chief if you ever got a speeding ticket? Can run the department of sanitation if you ever littered? Can't be Secretary of Homeland security if you engaged in insider trading, sexual harassment, misuse of public property and have connections to the mob?

It seems to me the question is the seriousness of the offense. Maybe this is a horribly serious one, but it doesn't seem that way to me. And he not only paid all of the unpaid taxes, he paid for periods that he could never have been held liable for.

Well, that is the question isn't it. I'm not sure the members of the Senate would agree, and I actually think the pool of people from which you can select a credible Treasury secretary is actually pretty small and a fair number of the fish in it will have issues of their own.

ETA: I really don't think I want the main prerequisite for high level office to be a squeaky clean history. Or is cabinet of Souters what we are aiming for?

At the risk of quibbling with hyperbole, I'm not sure that history supports this as a trend.

Re: Treasury
 

My understanding is that his accountant discovered the 2003 and 2004 violations when redoing his taxes. So he paid up. But he didn't go back to 2001 and 02 until the transition team picked it up. So it's not that he said "I can get away with it" instead he said "I'm not going to bother having my accountant check to see whether I made the same mistake regarding compensation from the same employer in those earlier years."

Re: Treasury
 

The simple fact is that we deserve better. Someone charged with collecting my taxes should be the first one in line to pay his. If you can't understand why this is the case (and I don't mean to be snarky here), then I'm not sure there is much more to discuss.

The members of the senate are not so critical or irreplaceable either. I have for years advocated a 1 term limited for all public office. Anyone on this board (hell, probably their secretaries too - see Boxer) is probably over-qualified to be a senator. It is not that tough a job. The pool for qualified Treasury secretaries may be smaller (I'm not sure about that), but not as small as you think. There are a shitload of MDs at the bulge brackets that are qualified, and plenty of economists and academics as well. I'm sure it would not be tough to find one that (a) fit BHO's philosophical criteria, and (b) had a clean record. Again, Summers would be fine by me, as would Volker (although he's a little long in the tooth). Hell, take Buffet's number 2 if you want.

Re: Treasury
 

I hadn't heard that. So has he paid 2001 and 02 now?

Re: Treasury
 

According to something I read today on the internet (a newspaper article turned up by google), he was audited for 03 and 04 and that is how it turned up.

ETA: It was this:

Re: Treasury
 

Agreed. Members of the senate are certainly replaceable. I only mentioned them as the ones who have to decide whether to consent and make a stink about how the nominee isn't up to the job (or whatever).

Many of these people are probably qualified. I'm not sure whether they are confirmable. It is a political process afterall.

Re: Treasury
 

My TurboTax Web forms are already filled out, even though I haven't gotten my W-2 or most of my 1099s. And, I accurately report my Internet purchases in order to pay California use tax for items for which I had avoided payment of California sales tax. What do I win?

Re: Treasury
 

He is all paid up (other than the waived penalties). The issue is (a) making teh error in the first place and (b) needing Obama to correct him on some more of it.

Re: Treasury
 

Term limits are a way to prevent other people from electing their first-choice candidate. I oppose them for all offices save the presidency, where I believe it has a salutary effect on avoiding dictatorship.

I also find it instructive that the only party that counsels that there is no such thing as good government is the one most inclined toward making it a self-fulfilling prophecy by ensuring it becomes an amateur's game. Strong evidence exists that term limits gave us Sacramento as it now is -- a staging area for ballot propositions.

Re: Treasury
 

I know, I was just showing how little I care about them.

I get it, you are talking political process/reality here. I"m talking about the way things should be, which is what I thought we were getting with CHANGE!

Re: Treasury
 

I don't know details, but when there is a new admin to replace sleeze, this is a weird way to start.