A Q? I've not seen asked yet - where was the Bunny money accounted? Gifts are taxable.

[Maru Kitteh]

One is required to report big-ass chunks of change like that somewhere. Where was this 'gift' accounted for?

Couldn't this whole thing be settled just about that easily? Was it recorded with his campaign activities, or his personal tax return?



edit for old-fogey Midwestern language artifacts

[kestrel91316]

1. Um, huh? Some context, please? Are we talking about Hugh Hefner??

[Skink]

2. How many ledger lines?

As a musician they are vast. The ledger lines.

[Maru Kitteh]

5. I'll change the language. Apparently it's too archaic or regional.

What it means is recorded. Where was the money accounted for?

[frazzled]

3. Checks written for "furniture" and passed to Edwards' aide

See relevant portions of indictment here (see sections 21, 22, and 23 of the indictment):

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/john_edwards_indicted_on_six_counts_1.php?ref=fpa

The whole point of the government's case is that if the money were a personal loan, it would not have been necessary to cover the tracks like this. Also, there is apparently testimony from aides that these machinations were planned by Edwards with the campaign.

[EFerrari]

4. This doesn't answer your question exactly but

this article seems to think the case against Edwards is hard to bring:

Did John Edwards break the law?

WASHINGTON — Former North Carolina senator John Edwards has admitted fathering a child with a mistress while he ran for the presidency and his wife battled a recurrence of the cancer that would claim her life.

He also lied about his actions repeatedly, even allowing a former aide to falsely claim the child as his own.

But did he break the law? Veteran prosecutors and campaign-finance experts say the answer is not clear-cut.

A two-year federal grand jury investigation hinges on whether hundreds of thousands of dollars two wealthy political supporters provided to hide Edwards' mistress amounted to gifts or illegal campaign donations.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-05-29-john-edwards-grand-jury-investigation_n.htm

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. The Bunny money was given to her, not him.

It shouldn't be in his records anywhere, whether his personal finances or his campaign finances.

[Maru Kitteh]

7. So did it, or did it not pass through JE's associates before it got to her?

Because if it didn't go through him, wouldn't this be a simple tax matter for the adulteress in question?

[EFerrari]

8. I don't think they have a case against Edwards.

The money was not being used to enrich him or to influence a Federal Election. But I guess it won't matter after they ruin him any way.

This looks like a way to stir up trouble among Democrats. The Republicans can't lose with it.

[pnwmom]

11. I don't either, but OTOH look what they did with Siegelman. n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

12. Uh. . that doesn't have anything to do with my question.

Did the money pass through his associates? Where was the money accounted for?

[EFerrari]

24. Actually, I was agreeing with you.

I think it will turn out to be a tax case, if there's any case at all.

[Horse with no Name]

15. Exactly.

This has to do more to tarnish the brand Democrat than it does to tarnish a man who has already lost almost everything.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

16. after 'they' ruin him?

Edwards ruined himself...this is some of the fruit of that...

sP

[EFerrari]

25. I'm sorry, I can't get overheated about Edward's infidelity

when people are being turned out of their homes illegally, torturers are on book tours, and Supreme Court justices are taking industry money. It's not even on the list.

You're right. He did set himself up for this. But it's still over the top and a poor use of resources.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

27. I do get worked up over it...

he destroyed not only his own life but that of his wife (while dying of cancer, no less...what a way to live out your last years) and that of his children. And, if he had made it to the whitehouse, talk about destroying something! He would have crippled the Democratic Party. You can say it is not on the radar, but it is/was/will be...most americans DO give a rip about fidelity.

sP

[EFerrari]

28. I imagine there are a lot of people who make other people's lives

their business but I don't think it's the majority. Neither you nor I were in that marriage. We don't know what happened, in any case.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

29. you would be in deep denial to believe that most of the US

believes that infidelity is a direct reflection on character. And you would equally be in deep denial to believe this did not destroy a foundational part of this family.

Just because your moral center is not deeply offended by it doesn't mean that it doesn't offend and hurt other people.

I know what happened. He cheated. He created a child outside the bounds of his marriage. He got caught and worse yet got caught trying to hide it. And it appears that there is enough concern that he broke the law in the process that an indictment has been issued. Now we will find out in court whether or not he broke the law in addition to breaking his marriage.

And if you think you don't know what went on...maybe the details you don't know. But he knew it would make a mess...else why would he have tried so incredibly and expensively to hide it?

sP

[EFerrari]

32. No, you don't know what happened.

You were not in that marriage.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. I tell you it is his slandering hypocrisy that should bother you.

This man stood up during his affair and went on at great length, on many occasions, about his opposition to marriage equality due to his 'deeply held traditional values'. He smirked 'My Daddy was a Deacon, and I see marriage as a Sacrament, for one man and one woman' he claimed those devout views and behavior were 'simply a part of me' and thus, he could not 'cross that bridge' and allow the gay to sully his Sanctifed Union.
Sorry, but all of that we the actions of self serving, lying scum. The law does not work in order of horror, you know. The fact that a murderer is not caught is no reason to let the theif run free to steal.
I'm very used to hearing straight folks point out that slanderous, evil attacks on my family do not matter much to them, hearing about how awful it is that a homophobic bigot claiming high religion is not free to fuck as he pleases, lie about it, arrange giant pay offs and private jets for the mother of his other, for not one man and one woman, but two, three, who the hell knows?
No one but John made him stand up and slander others as a smokescreen for his own corruption. He called my family inferior to his own, and his own was a nest of mendacious,greedy, arrangments and 'understandings'. His 'wife' nodded along with him the whole time about how Sacred he treated his marriage. She lied as well. With no thought for those they were slandering, for our young, for truth, ethics, common courtesy, nothing but a service of millionaires seeking more money and power by any means neccesary. What he did to the GLBT community, without apology even after the truth became common knowledge, is equal to how he treated this Party.

[EFerrari]

31. You are right about the hypocrisy. That's just nauseating.

[pnwmom]

10. Bunny, the giver, would have to file a gift tax return

and pay any owed tax.

[pnwmom]

9. Neither. A gift return and tax if required is filed by the giver.

As I understand it, the giver gave directly to Hunter, so Edwards wouldn't have been involved in paperwork either way. I think the Justice Dept will have a stretch proving their case.

[Maru Kitteh]

13. Well, I think we can bet Bunny and her accountants have given a gift or two and knew the laws.

So when is the donor exempt from paying the tax according to the IRS?


What can be excluded from gifts?
The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts.

1.
Gifts that are not more than the annual exclusion for the calendar year.
2.
Tuition or medical expenses you pay for someone (the educational and medical exclusions).
3.
Gifts to your spouse.
4.
Gifts to a political organization for its use.

[pnwmom]

18. But #4 would only apply if she directly gave to his campaign.

Otherwise, a large gift would be counted against her lifetime gift exemption.

[Maru Kitteh]

21. Why did JE go lean on a 100 year-old woman 1wk before he was federally indicted?

4.
Gifts to a political organization for its use.




If Bunny intended it as a personal gift, it would have been documented already - and there would be no "there" there.

[Horse with no Name]

14. Ok I can't source this because I saw it on the TV

but apparently the money was paid directly from Bunny to Hunter--never went through JE's hands.

Bunny DID pay taxes on the money...which is one thing that brought it into question--something to do with paying a gift tax on it as opposed to a political donation and the stretch they are doing trying to say that it WAS a political donation because it was meant to better his image.

The entire thing is a political witchhunt. Edwards career is over. The best thing he ever had in his life is dead and now he has children with someone else. His life is a mess.
He might be a horrid person--but he didn't handle the payoff. Bunny did and paid taxes on it.

The other thing that I just read on another thread that I didn't know is that the two go-betweens are dead but left depositions that stated that JRE knew nothing about this--now, not sure that I believe that...but I would think that an attorney with the legal mind of Edwards--he wouldn't have allowed himself to get caught up in a legal mess.

[Maru Kitteh]

17. Were that true, it would be on RH's tax return, and more importantly EDWARDS does not claim as much.

JE is not claiming as a defense that it was a gift to the the adulteress. He's claiming he had no idea it was NOT given to HIM as personal gift.

If he didn't know it wasn't a personal gift, why isn't it included in his campaign accounting?

He's COOKED.

[pnwmom]

20. No, it wouldn't be on Hunter's tax return. It would only be on Bunny's

gift return. It's the giver, not the recipient, who files a gift return and pays any gift tax.

I haven't seen Edwards acknowledge that it was given to HIM at all. The money went to Hunter. Where did you see him claiming that he had "no idea it was NOT given to HIM as personal gift"?

[Maru Kitteh]

22. His defense is that he could have never expected this to be a contribution rather than a gift.

Take it up with Johnny boy if you're troubled by his legal trajectory.

[pnwmom]

23. I haven't seen him say that he took the money at all.

Do you have the link for this?

[pnwmom]

19. If that TV report is correct, and also the reports about the depositions,

I think Edwards has a strong legal position -- which is no doubt why he's going to fight this.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

26. Bunny was 98 then. Just saying......