Replies

DennisW: This will clarify it even better.

You certainly cannot say that: this ling cannot be "better" simply because the previous one was not good at all. On the contrary, the previously linked article flatly stated that your claim was false.

DennisW: That John Kerry/Teresa Kerry were liable for Massachusetts excise tax on the new yacht.

It's time to ask you once again: are you joking? do you read the article before linking to it?

This article is even more relentless in showing that your claim is false:

John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he will voluntarily pay $500,000 to Massachusetts tax collectors

The state Department of Revenue had just started looking into Kerry’s use

Officials could have subpoenaed the ship’s log

Kerry "made clear that, whether owed or not, we intend to pay the equivalent taxes as if the boat’s home port were currently in Massachusetts,"

he was docking his yacht, Isabel, in Newport, R.I., allowing him to avoid hundreds of thousands of dollars in Massachusetts taxes.

Avoiding taxes is perfectly legal. Not a single article, as far as I know, has even attempted to use "evade" instead of "avoid."

Donovan said the burden would be on Kerry to prove he does not intend to use the boat in Massachusetts, and having property on Nantucket would not help his case.

If the senator had not volunteered to pay, Donovan said, collecting the taxes could have taken two years or longer,

What have I missed, Dennis: what in the article even remotely alleges that, as you claim, Kerry and Heinz were liable for Massachusetts excise tax?

To be sure, I am not a friend of Kerry at all. But I try, to the full extent of my abilities, to be friends with the truth. What about you, Dennis, where on earth have you found even remote support for your claim, and why do you insist on making it even when everything tells you that your claim is false?