Kirsten E. Gillibrand
Posted on 09/14/2012 1:19:49 PM PDT by rustyweiss74
Citing what they call an "impossible transaction" the campaign team for Wendy Long sent out a press release today accusing United States Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of filing a false tax return in 2010.
Here is a copy of the press release:
A cursory review of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's taxes indicates a transaction that was impossible. But the New York Times refused to even examine the issue.
U.S. Senate candidate Wendy Long said, "Two things stand out here: we have a tax code that even a U.S. Senator can't get right and a liberal media goliath that is playing one side of this election. Neither is surprising, and both are wrong."
Long added, "Senator Gillibrand has a history of 'shorting' America, but did she short the taxpayers too? The New York Times doesn't care."
Kirsten Gillibrand's 2010 tax return shows that she purchased 80 "shares" of Sears Holding Corp. ("Sears") for $22,780 on January 12, 2010. Her return shows that the 80 "shares" were sold on June 21, 2010 for $23,980. This is impossible.
(Excerpt) Read more at menrec.com ...
Yet ANOTHER NY politician with shady tax returns or tax records.
What a surprise.
/ sarc
What’s missing from this article?
What’s missing from this article?
Uh-oh... this might trim her lead all the way down to 45 points. She’s toast. ;-)
Paying taxes is something new to her
Party affiliation.
OMG WHAT PARTY?
Share price
Is this the person, Harry Reid was all gaga about?
You’re a n00b so let me explain how this works - it’s only lying, stealing, incompotence and corruption when conservatives do it.
For liberals, these are all little errors that require no looking in to.
Clearly Long is being sandbagged. Why else send out important information like this when on a Friday afternoon as the middle east burns. Who will ever hear bout it?
Taxes are for the little people.
I believe those are options on Sears and not the shares so the price would seem “impossible”. Sorry challenger... no cigar.
If this is true, it’ll be chalked up to an accountant’s error or some such excuse. The media will leave it alone.
The ****ing Secretary of the Treasury is a known tax cheat. Give me a break.
So her tax return shows a gain (for which she would owe tax) rather than a loss (which would reduce her tax)
She’s pretty, so it does not matter what she says or does or if she obeys the law.
Democratic reaction: “It’s nobody’s business, and when’s Mitt going to release his tax returns?”
Wise guy. Two demerits!
Cattle Futures.
Not to mention, what state she represents. Mental Recession? Got it.
There are separate transactions for options on the same date, so I don’t think that is the issue.
This looks like an accounting error, and if someone were to look at the underlying documents, she would probably incur a loss instead. If so, she actually paid more taxes than necessary.
The accountant certainly would have egg on their face.
Call “little Timmy” he’ll get to the bottom of it!
The first thing immediately noted is the absence of her party of record; our criminal class National Socialist Democrat Party. Spotted that before I read any of the replies.
She’s a Democrat so it’s okay
Then you didn’t bother to READ.... the line above the Sears SHARES listed as OPTIONS. So you are the one that is wrong....jerk
I absolutely despise her, as a western New Yorker. She has spent her entire term of office (1) screaming about needing more women in politics (I think she means more ultra left women in politics) and (2) gay marriage. I have emailed her, called her office, to explain her obsession with those two issues when the state is going down the toilet and western NY is suffering. No responses. Her staff are idiots and are unaware of her votes or bills up for voting.
She married a rich British banker, came from a well do to family, was groomed by that idiot Chuck Schumer, yet to her, “the cards are stacked against women.” Oh shut up.
I absolutely loath her.
And for a woman under 45, she dresses like a granny.
And yet with her abysmal record, the good liberals of NYC and Long Island will ensure a landslide victory for her.
She gets reeelcted anyway....by 10 points minimum
The shares were about $100 on the day purchased (SHLD common) and dropped to $75 on the day sold.
So, she would have had a large loss that she didn’t take.
Who knows the number of shares. Would be about 240 to 320 shares. Obvious accountant screw up. Nobody proof-reads?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=SHLD&a=04&b=2&c=2009&d=00&e=21&f=2010&g=d
Probably will be swept under the rug as a technical violation. You’re talking about an under reporting of income of somewhere between $800 and $7,000, depending on how many shares were purchased and when.
If it were anyone other than a Congresscritter, you’d pay the taxes owed, the penalty and go on your way.
I take that back. As pointed out here, unless it’s blended stock, it’s a loss over time. Seems like a simple accounting error.
That really his hair?
Therefore ...
That could also be a straddle or spread of the shares and underlying options. The fact that they were both sold on options expiration day is a big clue.
The tax straddle rules usually involve adjusting the cost basis of the stock so this is probably legit. Once again, sorry challenger, no cigar.
Gnat.
Racists!
/sarc
just admit you were mistaken.... like Obama does because I know you will never admit to being wrong
Didn’t sell the options. Options expired.
So what if they expired? They would still alter the basis price of the stock if this was a Section 1092 transaction, which is almost certainly the case.
I’m not wrong. This is a silly accusation being made due to ignorance. But of course you can’t understand that since you are just as ignorant on the topic.
Just that, if it says the options expired, it means they weren’t sold. Which is what I said, in response to your statement.
and you didn’t even bother to read the tax return...options are listed as such. this was listed as shares...go back to be dimmicrat
Do you know what section 1092 trading transactions are? It is obvious you do not and are denser than a box of rocks on this subject.
From the IRS Publication 550:
Option not exercised. If you have a loss because you did not exercise an option to buy or sell, you are considered to have sold or traded the option on the date it expired.
Pretty much the same rule if you have stock and a company goes bankrupt.
“Considered to have” is not the same as “did”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.