Huffington Paid Little Income Tax

[Freddie Stubbs]

The candidate for governor has criticized 'fat cats' for avoiding taxes. She denies taking advantage of loopholes and unfair deductions.

TV commentator and author Arianna Huffington, who launched her campaign for governor with criticism of "fat cats" who fail to shoulder a fair share of taxes, paid no individual state income tax and just $771 in federal taxes during the last two years, her tax returns show.

Huffington, who released her tax returns for the last two years to The Times, lives in an 8,000-square-foot home in Brentwood above Sunset Boulevard that is valued at about $7 million. She socializes with many wealthy and prominent people.

But the returns show that at least for the last two years, her income was far outweighed by losses that she reported were incurred by Christabella Inc., the private corporation she owns and uses to manage her writing and lecturing business.

In announcing her candidacy last week, Huffington blamed California's fiscal crisis, in part, on the corrupting influence of special interest groups that have helped "corporate fat cats get away with not paying their fair share of taxes."

more: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-ariannatax14aug14,1,1131685.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

[papau]

1. Seems fair -lose money - no tax, indeed standard for rich folks

most planning I did for the very rich was setup in corporations, as the loss carryback/carryforward is more or less missing for individuals (cap gain 3000 per year doesn't do much).

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

Right it was under Bush the first I think (possibly Reagan)

that the average bear could no longer income average.

[roguevalley]

39. Ariana isn't interested in becoming Governor. She is interested

in having a platform to hammer conservatives, repugs and other
white trash. I am sure she knew this would come out. I just
believe she doesn't care. The idea of this farce theft and
sticking it to them is more important to her than her comfort.

[treepig]

2. did she also weasel out of paying $150,000 in property taxes?

on her $7 million home (that's how much would be owed at the rate i pay, anyhow).

if not, turns out she actually payed a substanstial chunk of money in taxes.

[trotsky]

3. Naturally, this is only an issue because she's a liberal.

Media double-standards.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

6. Most Likely it is!!!

:eyes:

[theodoliticus]

4. Somewhat Disgusted

I paid about $10,000 for the last two years and I'm to poor to buy a home. I rent a corner in a basement of an old creaky house. Not blaming Arianna though, I hope she wins.

[robcon]

5. The Christabella corporation looks like a tax dodge.

She probably uses it as a funnel where expenses that are ordinary (for you and me) are transferred to expenses in search of speaking fees and writing gigs. She makes sure it loses money, by allocating a large percent of her personal exoenses to it.

[msmcghee]

7. That's what everyone does in those circumstances.

That's how the tax laws are written.

If you own a corporation and that is your life - writing and giving talks for which you are paid - then (generally) all of your expenses involved with doing that become deductable from your income before taxes.

If you spend most of your time on the road providing those services the expenses can be very high.

What's the problem?

[ramapo]

8. Legal but not right

It's difficult to believe she didn't have significant unearned income unless she's house rich with no other investments. I have no idea what her income is from her books and speaking engagements but it is unlikely that it is a trivial amount.

You can make your expenses very high by living very high.

Sure everyone does it. It's legal. But it is very troubling when a very well off (at minimum) citizen pays virtually no taxes.

Makes me feel like a jerk for paying mine.

[msmcghee]

10. I agree

People who pay their taxes by having them taken from their paycheck are at a great disadvantage compared to those who incorporate their earning process as a business. But they are at much less risk of losing that income stream - as long as the economy is stable.

OTOH I have started and sold businesses since 1980. I now have no retirement or health care and few possessions or net worth. I took my chances and preferred to do it myself and take all the risks rather than be an employee in someone else's company. Some years I did well and some years I lived off of whatever I had set aside from the good years.

I spent thousands of hours on airplanes and sleeping in no-name motels at airports trying to make a go of it. If I was working for a big company and they had sent me on those trips - they would have rightfully deducted every penny of those expenses. Why is it wrong when a one-person business does the same thing?

We live in a system that is set up to advantage those with large personal wealth. I'd like to see it change but until it does I don't think we should criticize those who play by those rules - especially if they had nothing to do with putting them in place.

[Snellius]

11. Very true

I have my own business -- or what's left of it lately, and I'm always surprised, when everything's added up, how many deductions and loopholes there are built into the system -- especially things like travel deductions, amortization, and such. It's impossible not to take advantage of them. But the flip side, for all the income tax saved, there's little personal gain that doesn't go back into the business and social security, which is taken off the top before expenses, without a matching employer share, takes a much bigger bite the less you make.

[Born_a_Democrat]

16. this is the problem

make no mistake, I currently support Arianna until everything is proven and all explanations are in; however, when you supposedly own a business that loses money...you shouldn't be able to live in a 7 million dollar home...

If that were the case I could just open up a business that was guarranteed to lose money and just buy a friggin mansion...

[BansheeBarbie]

19. So She Should Live A Hovel?

Arianna divorced a very wealthy man who done her wrong.

Did you ever consider that the house might have been part of the settlement?

[brook]

42. "done her wrong"?

If she's too stupid to know she'd married a gay man - no way in hell I want her running my state, thank you very much.

I pay more taxes than that and I won't tell you how insignificant my income is. Her domicile, whether part of her divorce or a purchase, is still subjected to property taxes. If the ex paid the taxes, she ought to have been able (and smart enough) to submit some verifiable proof of same.

Methinks this *run* at office is primarily intended to up her speaking fees and revenues for her syndication.

[WinstonChurchill]

27. I Think Arianna's Corporation Looks Fishy Too

This is very disappointing. She rails against corporate loopholes, and seems to use one herself. I know many writers who do not use a corporation. The original LA Times article seemed garbled, but I don't see how she could deduct a loss to her corporation from her personal income taxes.

Very, very disturbing.

[PsN2Wind]

9. Raygun

as governor of California paid no state income taxes beacause of the money he lost raising cattle on his hobby ranch.

[zekeson]

13. Reminds me of another cowboy pResident

all hat and no cattle *.

Perhaps Reagan was All hat and poor cattle Ronnie?

[thebeaglehaslanded]

12. She's a typical political hypocrite.

Criticize when you want to fault someone else, but if the criticism is directed at you, double-speak out of it by blaming the system. She uses her corporation as a tax dodge but then criticises other "fat cats" for doing the same thing. Hypocrisy through and through.

[MsLeopard]

14. Apples and Oranges

Playing by the rules when filing tax returns is a lot different than setting up corporations off shore to hide taxable income and avoid paying anything at all.

[ScotTissue]

15. Must be nice

Going to cocktail parties, talking about how disgusting the fat cats make you.

[realFedUp]

17. She may regret getting into this race...

I like her stands on issues since her conversion but
she still may be a Huffington...

[piece sine]

18. this is flat-out WRONG!

I know Arianna enjoys considerable support her for her David Brock-like switch a few years ago BUT I pay more federal taxes per month than she pays in year! We both may decry corporate fat-cats escaping fair-share tax burden, but I actually pay my taxes and expect everyone to do the same; she doesn't.

Ans the difference between Arianna and Lenora Helmsley is?

Let's hope she bows out this afternoon.

While Bustamante is busting his behind to keep the Dems. party afloat in California, it a head-trip to see DUers championing a tax-dodging society "gadfly", as she describes herself! There must be more secret Freepers on the site than I ever dreamed possible!

[realFedUp]

20. she's not the only pig at the trough here....

135 pigs currently at the recall trough.

[msmcghee]

22. Show any evidence . .

. . that she doesn't pay taxes that she owes the government.

You can't. That's the difference between her and Helmsley.

Playing by the rules includes not accusing someone of a crime and spreading falsehoods about them without evidence.

I don't know how many secert freepers there are on this site - but I do know that there are some who are willing to by-pass the rules of fairness and honesty in order to further their own agenda.

[WinstonChurchill]

30. Peter Camejo Would Be a Much Better Governor

Cruz leaves me cold.

That silliness about getting the Attorney General to declare he's governor if the recall passes, for one thing.

And his use of the "N" word.

[LeftHander]

21. 45K paid in in last two years

On 160K total income....for past two years

Fair?

nope.

[msmcghee]

23. You should show a link.

But I suspect the $160K (if true) is gross income. Show her net income which is the number that is taxed.

[SoCalDem]

24. Time for an accountant

:)..

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Proud_American]

26. Why are some of you flaming Arianna?

I don't get it. Having a business that loses money and taking credit for those losses at tax time is the norm. What she's criticizing are the corporations (as noted by another poster above) who hide profits off shore or in other tax havens and avoid paying taxes on PROFITS. Nobody should have to pay taxes on LOSSES, including Arianna.

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. So perhaps she will use her business know-how to fix the state

If she can't run a business why would she be able to run the state government?

[Proud_American]

31. Since when is that a prerequisite for public service?

See the current squater in the WH for more.

[WinstonChurchill]

29. Being Suspicious is Not Flaming!

Arianna is now a politician, and I for one expect some connection between what a public figure says and what that public figure does.

I am disappointed. I may well vote for her, but you are fooling yourself if you think this is not a problem that needs a lot of explanation.

Convincing explanation.

[Proud_American]

32. This is simply a non-story that will only grow teeth if you let it

I disagre with your notion that this is going to be a problem for her. Thinkers will see right through this smear attempt and understand immediately that what she is doing is not what she's railed against in the past.

[sandnsea]

33. Oh man, grow up, the losses are PHONY!!!

That's how the hell these people get by with their crap. They don't play by the rules and they justify not playing by the rules because 'everybody does it' and 'just following the law'. Anybody with a smart enough accountant can set things up to avoid taxes. Politicians are usually smart enough NOT to do that and wait until they retire from politics to totally slide out of paying. She needs to come out and apologize and promise to pay her fair share.

[Proud_American]

40. You don't know that

I don't buy into the "assume the worst and ask questions later" mentality. If she says she has losses and reported losses to the IRS then that's good enough for me. But, then again, I'm sure you trump the IRS, right?

Apologize for what? LOSING money? Sorry, but that's not the way it works.

[truthisfreedom]

34. let them destroy huffington!

reduces the competition. 8^)

[Democat]

35. If she wasn't a liberal, they would not write an article like that

Look at the bias in the article, it's the exact opposite of the bias in the Arnold articles. They go out of their way to try to "expose" Arianna's hypocrisy. With Arnold they go out of their way to try to make him look good.

It's very much like the way they treat Davis versus the way they treat Bush.

That damn liberal LA Times!

[et]

36. Church of the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness

The most unnerving part of this story is that she supports John Roger's "Church of the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness ."

Ok, Arianna, thanks for playing our game, you can pick up your prize on the way out.

Sheesh!!!

[theodoliticus]

50. more losses ?

Maybe her election bid is part of new book she is writing. She might spend $10 million on the election and claim it as a business expense for research. It would give her another year of paying effectively no fed. taxes.

[kwolf68]

37. Limo Libs

Sorry kids, but I don’t trust ANYONE in Southern California presently working in “entertainment” as a true progressive/Liberal/Democrat.

These people are easily the biggest hypocrites in the entire world. At least the wealthy right-wingers don’t bitch about wealthy people.

People in here always ask, “What can we do about the media”…Hollywood is your fucking answer. These people are talented, creative, and incredibly rich. However, they aren’t “dedicated” enough to invest in getting the Liberal side out there.

Hell, Hollywood with their multi-billionaires could also do an incredible amount to aid in other issues. If you took these people and the sports stars and such we could really make a movement, but these people are concerned with one thing: Themselves.

Screw em…

[Democat]

38. With some notable exceptions, they have the same problem as elected Dems

Celebrities, like elected Democrats, don't want to offend anyone, not even their own enemies.

Republicans don't care about offending people, they want to win at all cost.

That's one major reason our side continues to lose.

[Voltaire99]

48. Two wise posts!

You're both right, in my view.

The Huff's problem isn't excused by claiming she's within the law, as others in this thread are doing. Legality isn't remotely what's at stake; credibility is on the line here.

Learning of their role in subsidizing the Huff's social criticism, average voters will read her as a hypocrite. There is standing for economic justice, after all, and there is standing for economic justice while presiding over galas in a $7 million spread and paying little or no taxes...

[sendero]

41. In order to judge...

.... whether she is a garden-variety hypocrite or not, we'd have to know *a lot* more about her finances.

Having a loss means you pay no taxes. What is so hard to understand about that? Whether the loss is a "phony" one, whether she funnels a lot of personal expenses into the company to generate a loss, these questions are not easy to answer and would require detailed analysis of her finances.

Not only that, but that such billing of personal expenses to a company is looked on very unfavorably by the IRS. If you are caught, in *their* opinion, doing that you are looking at serious penalties and even potential prosecution in extreme cases. Admittedly, if you have a speaking engagement in Peoria, travel, meals and lodging expenses, even extravagant ones, are legal to write off.

So assuming that is what she is doing doesn't seem fair.

[0rganism]

43. Alright, so when are they going to do the expose' on Ahnold's taxes?

Or his ties to the Austrian fascists?

Or his multiple extramarital adventures?

Surely, the LA Times will want to be as "fair and balanced" as possible in their coverage of this insane election.

[Democat]

44. LA Times is no friend of liberals

What media is?

[0rganism]

45. Oh come on! Didn't you know that the entire media is liberal?

The media is always going out of its way to tell us how amazingly liberal it is. I heard it from Rush Limbaugh, so it must be true. It's so liberal, it bends over backwards to protect even the most rapine conservatives from unfair partisan criticism. Such humility!

[delete_bush]

46. Please explain your accusation of his

"fascist ties". If your implication is that he is anti Jewish there is just no credible evidence that this is so. In 2000, he made $742,452 in contributions to a variety of groups, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center. There is more information out there on this subject if you care to look.

Arnold earned $26.1 million in 2001 and paid $7.4 million in state and federal taxes, and, the year before, he made $31.1 million and paid $10.8 million in taxes. He also gave nearly $5 Million to charity.

Of course, this pales in comparison to Al and Tipper’s 1997 return, where they claimed a whopping $353 in charitable donations! And as for extramarital adventures, do you really want to go there?

That said, I will not be voting for him but he does seem to be more generous than most.

[0rganism]

53. Please explain your kneejerk defense of Ahnuld

Seems like he's got a lot of low-count defenders hanging out on DU these days. Things must be slow on the Screen Actor's Guild forums.

You say he netted a profit of $26 million, and paid the appropriate amount of tax? How very amazing of him. The LA Times ought to be quite eager to give this the same fawning coverage they give to his choices of gubernatorial staff.

I, too, have read of his donation to the Wiesenthal center, which responded by clearing his daddy of evildoing during WW2. Could the Wiesenthal center be bought for 3/4 of a million? Hmm? Somehow they just couldn't turn up those documents that showed his eager participation in the SA.

His great appreciation of Kurt Waldheim also comes to mind, as do his early "right of Genghis Kahn" politics.

Perhaps more "investigative journalism" is in order?

> And as for extramarital adventures, do you really want to go there?

Why not? Since repukes tout themselves as great supporters of "family values", they should know the tabloid scoop on who and what they're voting for. Surely they would rather not vote for someone who's sexual habits are vastly different from their own. Republicans need to know the truth before he signs their boobies.

> Of course, this pales in comparison to Al and Tipper’s 1997 return

Does it? I was unaware that Al and Tipper were running for governor of California in 1997. Jeez, why didn't the LA Times give us the scoop?

> they claimed a whopping $353 in charitable donations!

At least it's unlikely they were overstating anything.

Nice to see some fresh faces on the forum, tho.

[philosophie_en_rose]

52. No kidding! Let's see the comparison.

Instead of beating up Ariana Huffington, perhaps we should look into the rest of the candidates. Ariana isn't hiding anything. Where's Arnold's returns?

[fabius]

47. Two points:

(1) So what are Arnold's taxes?

(2) She's playing by the rules, but this just goes to show the idiocy of the rules. Just like Edwards says, the Repugs want to tax WORK, not WEALTH. This is a fundamental mistake and if they keep it up it will lead to the collapse of capitalism.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. Arnold paid a lot in taxes compared to Ariana

The movie star earned $26.1 million in 2001 and paid $7.4 million in state and federal taxes, and, the year before, he made $31.1 million and paid $10.8 million in taxes.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/recall/6506298.htm

[ArkDem]

51. And this is a big surprise?

She is an opportunist who can play any side of an issue. She just likes attention.