Checks and Balances on Taxation

Of late, too many American courts have waved through the checkpoints the abuses of the Executive branch on both federal and state levels.  We have seen this in matters of firearms restrictions, property seizures, and taxation. 

For a change, there is one example of  a judiciary that did what it is supposed to do:  Prevent the excesses of the Executive Branch.  The case is Commissioner v. Proctor and Gamble Home Products Ltd.  The Commissioner appealed a decision from a lower tribunal.  The appeal was dismissed.  In dismissing the appeal, the Court, disgusted with the Commissioner's practice of appealing on issues already decided by it in prior cases, warned the Commissioner that he would be held personally liable for costs and penalties in future frivolous appeals.  The decision in the case can be read here or here; it is well worth the read.

Unfortunately, the above decision will not Directly Impact The Excesses Of Andy Cuomo Or Barack Hussein Obama.  The Court Is The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay, India.

Would that the American courts have such gumption to say "No!" to the Executive.

Official Languages

Our furniture and other items of personalty have arrived from America.  The past few days have been spent unpacking and reorganizing; nothing particularly remarkable as far as this type of thing goes.  Last night my wife actually cooked a meal in our kitchen and served it on our dining room table, a welcome improvement from snarfing food on the run, or even eating at restaurants all the time.

The following administrative law decision from the Illinois Department of Revenue has come to my attention, especially its curious footnote: 

" 5 ILCS 460/20 states that the “official language” of the State of Illinois is English. 35 ILCS 120/7 requires that all books and records required to be kept by the Retailers Occupation Tax Act “shall be kept in the English language.” 86 Ill. Adm. Code 130.801(e) requires that books and records necessary for a determination of correct tax liability “must be kept in the English language.” In light of these provisions, it would be absurd for me to conclude that the department must issue its own documents and forms in a language other than English."

This is interesting and ironic to me because I now find myself in a jurisdiction whose official language is other than English, and my mastery of the Hebrew language leaves much to be desired.  While many of the official forms in Israel do have their English versions, official or (usually) otherwise, there still are many transactions where I must seek assistance beyond Google Translate in order to sufficiently comprehend the documents at hand.  I have had occasion (most notably but not solely the lease to our apartment) to engage a young American man, the son of a former client, whose linguistic skills and amenability to use them to supplement his income have worked to our mutual advantage.

Additionally, the Illinois provision is most out of character with what is thought of by most (including the liberals themselves) as the liberal stance -- One would think that it would be most politically incorrect in Illinois, the home state of Barack Hussein Obama (Hawaii and Kenya notwithstanding).

States' Rights as a Sword

States' Rights as a Sword

Representative Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is not particularly nefarious as far as our Congresscritters go.  And he certainly can show intellect, accomplishment, and talent, and can argue with the best of them.  I have not to date had occasion to personally meet him, but would be pleased to do so should the occasion arise.  But he is an African-American Democrat representing a densely-populated urban district.

Since the New Deal era of FDR, the position of the Leftward side of the political spectrum has basically been to impose federal constraints upon the Constitutional rights of States.  Ghosts from the slavery era continue to implicitly drive that Liberal political posture.

I therefore note the irony of Mr. Jeffries's invocation of States' rights, with the objective of facilitating New York's imposition of additional taxes upon residents of other States.  It doesn't fit the stereotype.  But then again, neither does Congressman Jeffries.

 

The Posthumous Tax Affairs of Philip Seymour Hoffman

I know virtually nothing about the financial affairs of Philip Seymour Hoffman, so this posting will, of necessity, constitute much speculation.

But he likely possessed sufficient assets for his estate to be liable for the Estate Tax.  The Estate Tax Return is due 9 months after the date of death, with a 6-month extension available if timely requested.  It will therefore be a while before this matter actively surfaces.

Because PSH was not legally married to Mimi O'Donnell, his significant other, there will be no marital deduction applicable to his Estate.

I also note that more than 20 years ago, an IRS Technical Advice Memorandum, together with an obviously related Field Service Advisory, gave some very cogent reasoning for valuing illegal drugs in the possession of a decedent at their street retail value for Estate Tax valuation purposes.

One would hope that the IRS Estate & Gift Tax people would be too busily engaged in their own niche to be distracted or befouled by some of the IRS's other high profile problems, and would insist upon getting the government's due from the late Mr. Hoffman's estate, with due regard to the bags of heroin found in Hoffman's apartment.

 

Rest in peace, Philip Seymour Hoffman.