Fashion design duo Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana were on Wednesday handed a suspended prison sentence of one year and eight months for hiding hundreds of millions of euros from the tax authorities. The designers, who are nearly as famous as the stars they dress, were not present in court in Milan and have denied the charges. Given the complexity and length of the appeals process, they are unlikely to spend any time in jail.
These days the rich get hated on pretty much everywhere but millionaires in California have extra room to bitch now. The California Court of Appeals has rejected a taxpayer’s challenge to Proposition 63, “which imposed a 1% tax on annual incomes in excess of $1 million to fund state mental health services”.
The plaintiffs were claiming that they (and their fellow millionaires) were singled out: “In [the plaintiff’s] view, wealthy individuals are singled out to bear the burden of a public expense, while others are excused from that burden.” Yeah, non-millionaires. You mind chipping in?
Plus, the plaintiffs don’t really see the how their money and helping non-millionaire crazy people are even connected. From Jensen v. California Franchise Tax Board:
In this instance, the Taxpayers object that individuals with high incomes do not have a particular need or use for the mental health services funded by Proposition 63, i.e., there is not connection ‘between the group being assessed and the use of the funds collected.’ The argument fails, because there is no need to contrive a link between the taxpayer and the services being funded.
So apparently just because you’re a lunatic millionaire and can afford private mental health services doesn’t mean you get out of funding state-run mental health services. According to the court, millionaires need to help out the crazies that can’t afford to go to fancy-schmancy hospitals regardless of the lack of relevance.
Oh, and btw, the Plaintiffs are the real victims here, “The Taxpayers perceive themselves as victims of a populist movement to ‘soak the rich.'” How would you feel if you were a victim of a populist movement? People with torches and pitchforks outside your house. Nightmare. Think about the what the millionaires are going through, people. California Court Upholds 1% Tax on Millionaires [TaxProf Blog]
Your response to “Phobic” about her boyfriend’s tax returns contained a significant error. You characterized enrolled agents as “the only tax specialists licensed to practice before the IRS,” which is not true. The fact is, certified public accountants and attorneys are federally authorized to represent clients before the IRS.
The CPA has long been synonymous with reliable, objective tax preparation and ranks as the preferred tax professional among millions of U.S. taxpayers.
On behalf of the many CPAs who prepare tax returns every year, we would be appreciative if you would print a correction in your column.
~ Tom Ochsenschlager, Vice President – Taxation American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, in response to this.
Since the the stench of last-minute pandering to voters is in the air today, Howard Gleckman points out over at TaxVox that while many candidates are quick to launch in with “I will cut taxes!” or “I believe in smaller government!” to catch some of the hot Tea Party action, these candidates (and many of the Tea Party types themselves) don’t really qualify as fiscal conservatives (if you go by the Wikipedia definition) who support balanced budgets and deficit reduction:
They are plainly interested in tax cuts—a core belief that appears repeatedly on Websites, position papers, and speeches throughout the movement. And while tea partiers say they favor smaller government, many in fact propose to shrink it in only trivial ways—by cutting earmarks or waste and abuse. Candidates elected on platforms supporting very large tax cuts and small spending reductions are likely to oppose aggressive efforts to reduce deficits, not back them. While some analysts see the tea partiers as the 21st century progeny of Ross Perot’s fiscal conservatism, nothing could be further from the truth.
One of Gleckman’s examples is Sharon Angle who claims to be the “one true conservative” (presumably that means a fiscal conservative) and is running for the Republican nomination in Nevada to face off against Harry Reid. Here is one of her ads:
There’s the mantra: “Limited Government!” “Lower Taxes!” As Mr Gleckman notes, Ms Angle would “abolish the Internal Revenue Code but doesn’t quite say how she’d finance government.” That’s a bit of a problem, especially since she says in her “On the Issues” page under healthcare that “the government must continue to keep its contract with seniors, who entered into the system on good faith and now are depending on that contract.”
Since this essentially represents the Tea Party’s position on healthcare we’ll agree with Gleckman when he says, “This view makes deficit reduction a challenge at best, especially when paired with big tax cuts.”
The point here is this – if you’re beating the drum of tax cuts and limited government to pander to a hot political movement but if you’re going to largely continue to spend tax dollars with the same fervor as George W. Bush, that doesn’t make you the second coming of Ross Perot.
Before you go!
Are you Looking for a fresh accounting career opportunity?
Going Concern now has thousands of open accounting jobs.
