With all the acrimony about sexual "this & that," why no calls for ending statutes of limitations?

[usmbguest5318]

Roy Moore. Bill Clinton. Bill Cosby. Donald Trump. All them have been accused sexually offending multiple people. Many of their accusers, regardless of their reason(s) for doing so, have come forward after the statute of limitations pertaining to the claim(s) they made have expired.

Should there be a statute that allows sexual predators to get away with it? Plenty of criminal acts are subject to no statute of limitations. That sex crimes are is, IMO, given that women seem to most often be the victims of them, an example of cultural/systemic diminution in the status our society accords to women. I think it's wrong that we countenance such a thing. I feel the same way about crimes committed against minors.

For all that of late we've been hearing about sexual harassment and other gender-focused misdeeds, I've heard scant little about eliminating the statutes of limitations that prevent us from trying alleged perpetrators. Why that is I cannot say. To my mind, sooner is better than later as goes trying such cases, but late is better is nonetheless better and fairer than never, which as goes some of the alleged victims, is where we find ourselves.

This isn't just a matter to be seen from the standpoint of securing justice for alleged victims'. The alleged miscreants deserve the opportunity to once and for all, and with regard to any given allegation, have their day in court to clear their name and defend their reputations.

 

[OldLady]

Roy Moore. Bill Clinton. Bill Cosby. Donald Trump. All them have been accused sexually offending multiple people. Many of their accusers, regardless of their reason(s) for doing so, have come forward after the statute of limitations pertaining to the claim(s) they made have expired.

Should there be a statute that allows sexual predators to get away with it? Plenty of criminal acts are subject to no statute of limitations. That sex crimes are is, IMO, given that women seem to most often be the victims of them, an example of cultural/systemic diminution in the status our society accords to women. I think it's wrong that we countenance such a thing. I feel the same way about crimes committed against minors.

For all that of late we've been hearing about sexual harassment and other gender-focused misdeeds, I've heard scant little about eliminating the statutes of limitations that prevent us from trying alleged perpetrators. Why that is I cannot say. To my mind, sooner is better than later as goes trying such cases, but late is better is nonetheless better and fairer than never, which as goes some of the alleged victims, is where we find ourselves.

This isn't just a matter to be seen from the standpoint of securing justice for alleged victims'. The alleged miscreants deserve the opportunity to once and for all, and with regard to any given allegation, have their day in court to clear their name and defend their reputations.

Considering the well known fact that victims keep these things to themselves for years, sometimes forever, due to fears of reprisal or public shaming and ridicule, I think it would be a very good idea to remove the statute of limitations.
Hopefully, if the current flood of women coming forward actually does change the culture of reporting these crimes, victims won't be as hesitant and they will come forward immediately. That is going to take awhile, though. Culture and attitudes don't change overnight, nor the systems in place that reflect them.

Victims need to think about the fact that when they don't pipe up, it means the harasser/abuser has an open field to continue that behavior on others. It isn't easy to take the flak that comes from making these allegations, but when there is silence, it is condoned in a sense.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Victims need to think about the fact that when they don't pipe up, it means the harasser/abuser has an open field to continue that behavior on others.

Alleged. Alleged victim. Alleged harasser/abuser.

 

[Disir]

Roy Moore. Bill Clinton. Bill Cosby. Donald Trump. All them have been accused sexually offending multiple people. Many of their accusers, regardless of their reason(s) for doing so, have come forward after the statute of limitations pertaining to the claim(s) they made have expired.

Should there be a statute that allows sexual predators to get away with it? Plenty of criminal acts are subject to no statute of limitations. That sex crimes are is, IMO, given that women seem to most often be the victims of them, an example of cultural/systemic diminution in the status our society accords to women. I think it's wrong that we countenance such a thing. I feel the same way about crimes committed against minors.

For all that of late we've been hearing about sexual harassment and other gender-focused misdeeds, I've heard scant little about eliminating the statutes of limitations that prevent us from trying alleged perpetrators. Why that is I cannot say. To my mind, sooner is better than later as goes trying such cases, but late is better is nonetheless better and fairer than never, which as goes some of the alleged victims, is where we find ourselves.

This isn't just a matter to be seen from the standpoint of securing justice for alleged victims'. The alleged miscreants deserve the opportunity to once and for all, and with regard to any given allegation, have their day in court to clear their name and defend their reputations.

Xelor, Xelor, Xelor.....

Because it is never about arriving at solutions. Example: lot's of conversations about the public defenders being overwhelmed by the sheer number of cases but refuse to protest to have funding reinstated.

Solutions are boring, man. Get with the times.

 

[OldLady]

Victims need to think about the fact that when they don't pipe up, it means the harasser/abuser has an open field to continue that behavior on others.

Alleged. Alleged victim. Alleged harasser/abuser.

This isn't about Moore.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Roy Moore. Bill Clinton. Bill Cosby. Donald Trump. All them have been accused sexually offending multiple people. Many of their accusers, regardless of their reason(s) for doing so, have come forward after the statute of limitations pertaining to the claim(s) they made have expired.

Should there be a statute that allows sexual predators to get away with it? Plenty of criminal acts are subject to no statute of limitations. That sex crimes are is, IMO, given that women seem to most often be the victims of them, an example of cultural/systemic diminution in the status our society accords to women. I think it's wrong that we countenance such a thing. I feel the same way about crimes committed against minors.

For all that of late we've been hearing about sexual harassment and other gender-focused misdeeds, I've heard scant little about eliminating the statutes of limitations that prevent us from trying alleged perpetrators. Why that is I cannot say. To my mind, sooner is better than later as goes trying such cases, but late is better is nonetheless better and fairer than never, which as goes some of the alleged victims, is where we find ourselves.

This isn't just a matter to be seen from the standpoint of securing justice for alleged victims'. The alleged miscreants deserve the opportunity to once and for all, and with regard to any given allegation, have their day in court to clear their name and defend their reputations.

Considering the well known fact that victims keep these things to themselves for years, sometimes forever, due to fears of reprisal or public shaming and ridicule, I think it would be a very good idea to remove the statute of limitations.
Hopefully, if the current flood of women coming forward actually does change the culture of reporting these crimes, victims won't be as hesitant and they will come forward immediately. That is going to take awhile, though. Culture and attitudes don't change overnight, nor the systems in place that reflect them.

Victims need to think about the fact that when they don't pipe up, it means the harasser/abuser has an open field to continue that behavior on others. It isn't easy to take the flak that comes from making these allegations, but when there is silence, it is condoned in a sense.

Considering the well known fact that victims keep these things to themselves for years, sometimes forever, due to fears of reprisal or public shaming and ridicule

Precisely. Too, there are surely victims who keep mum because they just don't want to impose the "public drama" on their kids or spouses.

I know I'm from the segment of society that mostly operates on the notion that one's name should come to the general public's attention three times: birth, marriage and death. I know I wouldn't care much to have the vicissitudes of my family's personal details set out for all to see and remark upon. I certainly wouldn't want my kids to have to endure that even if I and my wife felt it condign to our own pursuits.

 

[eddiew37]

How about it's legal for those paying off women for charges accusing them of sex crimes to get a TAX DEDUCTION??

 

[Natural Citizen]

Victims need to think about the fact that when they don't pipe up, it means the harasser/abuser has an open field to continue that behavior on others.

Alleged. Alleged victim. Alleged harasser/abuser.

This isn't about Moore.

From the op....''This isn't just a matter to be seen from the standpoint of securing justice for alleged victims'. The alleged miscreants deserve the opportunity to once and for all, and with regard to any given allegation, have their day in court to clear their name and defend their reputations.''

 

[OldLady]

Victims need to think about the fact that when they don't pipe up, it means the harasser/abuser has an open field to continue that behavior on others.

Alleged. Alleged victim. Alleged harasser/abuser.

This isn't about Moore.

From the op....''This isn't just a matter to be seen from the standpoint of securing justice for alleged victims'. The alleged miscreants deserve the opportunity to once and for all, and with regard to any given allegation, have their day in court to clear their name and defend their reputations.''

I have no issue with that. That was not the part of the post I was responding to, however.

 

[usmbguest5318]

How about it's legal for those paying off women for charges accusing them of sex crimes to get a TAX DEDUCTION??

What?

 

[eddiew37]

How about it's legal for those paying off women for charges accusing them of sex crimes to get a TAX DEDUCTION??

What?

A congressman paying off someone accusing them of a sex crime can write it off on his taxes I can't be any plainer than that

 

[usmbguest5318]

How about it's legal for those paying off women for charges accusing them of sex crimes to get a TAX DEDUCTION??

What?

A congressman paying off someone accusing them of a sex crime can write it off on his taxes I can't be any plainer than that

Legal settlements paid and corresponding attorney fees are not tax deductible to individuals who pay them as a result of personal offenses, a sexual misdeed is without question such an offense (in both civil and criminal law), they committed or are alleged to have committed. The reason is that no part of such settlement payment is considered compensatory, that is, it is not part or all of a fee a plaintiff is due for legitimate and legally provided goods or services.

• Tax Consequences of Litigation Damages and Settlements
  
• 10 Things To Know About Taxes On Legal Settlements
  
• 26 U.S. Code § 162 - Trade or business expenses
  
• 26 CFR 1.162-21 - Fines and penalties.

To the extent that a settlement a Congressman pays derives from a business related matter -- conducting the business of government is not a business-related matter -- that is, pertinent to a business the Congressman owns, the settlement may or may not be deductible, in whole or in part. Whether any portion of a legal settlement paid in connection with/resulting from a business activity is or is not deductible depends on the punitive nature of the payment. The compensatory portion of the payment is tax deductible as a business expense; the punitive portion is not deductible at all.

 

[eddiew37]

How about it's legal for those paying off women for charges accusing them of sex crimes to get a TAX DEDUCTION??

What?

A congressman paying off someone accusing them of a sex crime can write it off on his taxes I can't be any plainer than that

Legal settlements paid and corresponding attorney fees are not tax deductible to individuals who pay them as a result of personal offenses, a sexual misdeed is without question such an offense (in both civil and criminal law), they committed or are alleged to have committed. The reason is that no part of such settlement payment is considered compensatory, that is, it is not part or all of a fee a plaintiff is due for legitimate and legally provided goods or services.

• Tax Consequences of Litigation Damages and Settlements
  
• 10 Things To Know About Taxes On Legal Settlements
  
• 26 U.S. Code § 162 - Trade or business expenses
  
• 26 CFR 1.162-21 - Fines and penalties.

To the extent that a settlement a Congressman pays derives from a business related matter -- conducting the business of government is not a business-related matter -- that is, pertinent to a business the Congressman owns, the settlement may or may not be deductible, in whole or in part. Whether any portion of a legal settlement paid in connection with/resulting from a business activity is or is not deductible depends on the punitive nature of the payment. The compensatory portion of the payment is tax deductible as a business expense; the punitive portion is not deductible at all.

These settlements often require alleged victims to sign a nondisclosure agreement — essentially a pledge of secrecy — in exchange for a cash payment. They are designed to keep the reputations of allegedly abusive high-flyers intact, an arrangement that can allow repeated wrongdoing.

ADVERTISING

As a law professor who focuses on white-collar crime, what I find striking about these contracts is how they can be treated as tax-deductible business expenses. That means American taxpayers are helping foot the bill for keeping despicable behavior in the shadows.

I don’t believe that secret payments to settle sexual abuse claims should be tax-deductible. Here’s why.

Weinstein Co. employee withdrew her complaint to management without ever resorting to a legal filing when she accepted a settlement in 2015. At least eight women have collected roughly $80,000 to $150,000 each due to secret agreements not to disclose Weinstein’s alleged misconduct, The New York Times reported in October.

Ordinary business expenses
The payments associated with these settlements can be treated as a business expense. That means they are tax-deductible, as long as they are related to the conduct of the company’s ordinary operations.

Although it might seem odd to say that sexual harassment is within the realm of a company’s business, the many accusations against Weinstein involved encounters that were at least purportedly related to future movie productions.

Either an employer or the person accused of harassment can pay the money required by these settlements. In O’Reilly’s case, Fox has said it knew that he had reached a new settlement with an accuser before it renegotiated his contract earlier this year. Fox’s insistence that the company was unaware of the size of the settlement — $32 million — makes it clear that O'Reilly wrote the check.

Even the attorney’s fees for negotiating the settlement are deductible as another ordinary business expense.

 

[usmbguest5318]

How about it's legal for those paying off women for charges accusing them of sex crimes to get a TAX DEDUCTION??

What?

A congressman paying off someone accusing them of a sex crime can write it off on his taxes I can't be any plainer than that

Legal settlements paid and corresponding attorney fees are not tax deductible to individuals who pay them as a result of personal offenses, a sexual misdeed is without question such an offense (in both civil and criminal law), they committed or are alleged to have committed. The reason is that no part of such settlement payment is considered compensatory, that is, it is not part or all of a fee a plaintiff is due for legitimate and legally provided goods or services.

• Tax Consequences of Litigation Damages and Settlements
  
• 10 Things To Know About Taxes On Legal Settlements
  
• 26 U.S. Code § 162 - Trade or business expenses
  
• 26 CFR 1.162-21 - Fines and penalties.

To the extent that a settlement a Congressman pays derives from a business related matter -- conducting the business of government is not a business-related matter -- that is, pertinent to a business the Congressman owns, the settlement may or may not be deductible, in whole or in part. Whether any portion of a legal settlement paid in connection with/resulting from a business activity is or is not deductible depends on the punitive nature of the payment. The compensatory portion of the payment is tax deductible as a business expense; the punitive portion is not deductible at all.

These settlements often require alleged victims to sign a nondisclosure agreement — essentially a pledge of secrecy — in exchange for a cash payment. They are designed to keep the reputations of allegedly abusive high-flyers intact, an arrangement that can allow repeated wrongdoing.

ADVERTISING

As a law professor who focuses on white-collar crime, what I find striking about these contracts is how they can be treated as tax-deductible business expenses. That means American taxpayers are helping foot the bill for keeping despicable behavior in the shadows.

I don’t believe that secret payments to settle sexual abuse claims should be tax-deductible. Here’s why.

Weinstein Co. employee withdrew her complaint to management without ever resorting to a legal filing when she accepted a settlement in 2015. At least eight women have collected roughly $80,000 to $150,000 each due to secret agreements not to disclose Weinstein’s alleged misconduct, The New York Times reported in October.

Ordinary business expenses
The payments associated with these settlements can be treated as a business expense. That means they are tax-deductible, as long as they are related to the conduct of the company’s ordinary operations.

Although it might seem odd to say that sexual harassment is within the realm of a company’s business, the many accusations against Weinstein involved encounters that were at least purportedly related to future movie productions.

Either an employer or the person accused of harassment can pay the money required by these settlements. In O’Reilly’s case, Fox has said it knew that he had reached a new settlement with an accuser before it renegotiated his contract earlier this year. Fox’s insistence that the company was unaware of the size of the settlement — $32 million — makes it clear that O'Reilly wrote the check.

Even the attorney’s fees for negotiating the settlement are deductible as another ordinary business expense.

These settlements often require alleged victims to sign a nondisclosure agreement — essentially a pledge of secrecy — in exchange for a cash payment. They are designed to keep the reputations of allegedly abusive high-flyers intact, an arrangement that can allow repeated wrongdoing.

Non sequitur -- That has nothing to do with whether the settlement or a portion thereof is punitive or compensatory.

I don’t believe that secret payments to settle sexual abuse claims should be tax-deductible.

I agree with you on this. Frankly, I don't think sexual offense settlements should be permitted to be kept secret, or at the very least, not permitted to remain secret upon one's declaring candidacy for an elected office or upon being nominated for a highly placed appointed office in government.

The payments associated with these settlements can be treated as a business expense. That means they are tax-deductible, as long as they are related to the conduct of the company’s ordinary operations.

Although it might seem odd to say that sexual harassment is within the realm of a company’s business, the many accusations against Weinstein involved encounters that were at least purportedly related to future movie productions.

Be that as it may, a context of your clarification was Congressmen. Acting in a Congressional capacity and thereunto committing a sexual offense has no "ordinary business purpose." Quite simply, the business of government, of a Congressman, is not a business activity; it's enacting (or obstructing the enactment of) legislation.

A congressman paying off someone accusing them of a sex crime can write it off on his taxes I can't be any plainer than that

 

[usmbguest5318]

How about it's legal for those paying off women for charges accusing them of sex crimes to get a TAX DEDUCTION??

What?

A congressman paying off someone accusing them of a sex crime can write it off on his taxes I can't be any plainer than that

Legal settlements paid and corresponding attorney fees are not tax deductible to individuals who pay them as a result of personal offenses, a sexual misdeed is without question such an offense (in both civil and criminal law), they committed or are alleged to have committed. The reason is that no part of such settlement payment is considered compensatory, that is, it is not part or all of a fee a plaintiff is due for legitimate and legally provided goods or services.

• Tax Consequences of Litigation Damages and Settlements
  
• 10 Things To Know About Taxes On Legal Settlements
  
• 26 U.S. Code § 162 - Trade or business expenses
  
• 26 CFR 1.162-21 - Fines and penalties.

To the extent that a settlement a Congressman pays derives from a business related matter -- conducting the business of government is not a business-related matter -- that is, pertinent to a business the Congressman owns, the settlement may or may not be deductible, in whole or in part. Whether any portion of a legal settlement paid in connection with/resulting from a business activity is or is not deductible depends on the punitive nature of the payment. The compensatory portion of the payment is tax deductible as a business expense; the punitive portion is not deductible at all.

These settlements often require alleged victims to sign a nondisclosure agreement — essentially a pledge of secrecy — in exchange for a cash payment. They are designed to keep the reputations of allegedly abusive high-flyers intact, an arrangement that can allow repeated wrongdoing.

ADVERTISING

As a law professor who focuses on white-collar crime, what I find striking about these contracts is how they can be treated as tax-deductible business expenses. That means American taxpayers are helping foot the bill for keeping despicable behavior in the shadows.

I don’t believe that secret payments to settle sexual abuse claims should be tax-deductible. Here’s why.

Weinstein Co. employee withdrew her complaint to management without ever resorting to a legal filing when she accepted a settlement in 2015. At least eight women have collected roughly $80,000 to $150,000 each due to secret agreements not to disclose Weinstein’s alleged misconduct, The New York Times reported in October.

Ordinary business expenses
The payments associated with these settlements can be treated as a business expense. That means they are tax-deductible, as long as they are related to the conduct of the company’s ordinary operations.

Although it might seem odd to say that sexual harassment is within the realm of a company’s business, the many accusations against Weinstein involved encounters that were at least purportedly related to future movie productions.

Either an employer or the person accused of harassment can pay the money required by these settlements. In O’Reilly’s case, Fox has said it knew that he had reached a new settlement with an accuser before it renegotiated his contract earlier this year. Fox’s insistence that the company was unaware of the size of the settlement — $32 million — makes it clear that O'Reilly wrote the check.

Even the attorney’s fees for negotiating the settlement are deductible as another ordinary business expense.

These settlements often require alleged victims to sign a nondisclosure agreement — essentially a pledge of secrecy — in exchange for a cash payment. They are designed to keep the reputations of allegedly abusive high-flyers intact, an arrangement that can allow repeated wrongdoing.

Non sequitur -- That has nothing to do with whether the settlement or a portion thereof is punitive or compensatory.

I don’t believe that secret payments to settle sexual abuse claims should be tax-deductible.

I agree with you on this. Frankly, I don't think sexual offense settlements should be permitted to be kept secret, or at the very least, not permitted to remain secret upon one's declaring candidacy for an elected office or upon being nominated for a highly placed appointed office in government.

The payments associated with these settlements can be treated as a business expense. That means they are tax-deductible, as long as they are related to the conduct of the company’s ordinary operations.

Although it might seem odd to say that sexual harassment is within the realm of a company’s business, the many accusations against Weinstein involved encounters that were at least purportedly related to future movie productions.

Be that as it may, a context of your clarification was Congressmen. Acting in a Congressional capacity and thereunto committing a sexual offense has no "ordinary business purpose." Quite simply, the business of government, of a Congressman, is not a business activity; it's enacting (or obstructing the enactment of) legislation.

A congressman paying off someone accusing them of a sex crime can write it off on his taxes I can't be any plainer than that

OT:

I don't generally inquire about the ratings I receive on my posts, but in this case I'm puzzled. How does it happen that a law professor finds my remarks in post 14 informative?

As a law professor

Shouldn't such an individual, off the top of their head, be the one linking to case law, legal journal papers, and code sections that I'd find informative? I have an MBA, thus somewhat deep and broad exposure to business and tax law, but I'm no white collar crime attorney.​

 

[eddiew37]

How about it's legal for those paying off women for charges accusing them of sex crimes to get a TAX DEDUCTION??

What?

A congressman paying off someone accusing them of a sex crime can write it off on his taxes I can't be any plainer than that

Legal settlements paid and corresponding attorney fees are not tax deductible to individuals who pay them as a result of personal offenses, a sexual misdeed is without question such an offense (in both civil and criminal law), they committed or are alleged to have committed. The reason is that no part of such settlement payment is considered compensatory, that is, it is not part or all of a fee a plaintiff is due for legitimate and legally provided goods or services.

• Tax Consequences of Litigation Damages and Settlements
  
• 10 Things To Know About Taxes On Legal Settlements
  
• 26 U.S. Code § 162 - Trade or business expenses
  
• 26 CFR 1.162-21 - Fines and penalties.

To the extent that a settlement a Congressman pays derives from a business related matter -- conducting the business of government is not a business-related matter -- that is, pertinent to a business the Congressman owns, the settlement may or may not be deductible, in whole or in part. Whether any portion of a legal settlement paid in connection with/resulting from a business activity is or is not deductible depends on the punitive nature of the payment. The compensatory portion of the payment is tax deductible as a business expense; the punitive portion is not deductible at all.

These settlements often require alleged victims to sign a nondisclosure agreement — essentially a pledge of secrecy — in exchange for a cash payment. They are designed to keep the reputations of allegedly abusive high-flyers intact, an arrangement that can allow repeated wrongdoing.

ADVERTISING

As a law professor who focuses on white-collar crime, what I find striking about these contracts is how they can be treated as tax-deductible business expenses. That means American taxpayers are helping foot the bill for keeping despicable behavior in the shadows.

I don’t believe that secret payments to settle sexual abuse claims should be tax-deductible. Here’s why.

Weinstein Co. employee withdrew her complaint to management without ever resorting to a legal filing when she accepted a settlement in 2015. At least eight women have collected roughly $80,000 to $150,000 each due to secret agreements not to disclose Weinstein’s alleged misconduct, The New York Times reported in October.

Ordinary business expenses
The payments associated with these settlements can be treated as a business expense. That means they are tax-deductible, as long as they are related to the conduct of the company’s ordinary operations.

Although it might seem odd to say that sexual harassment is within the realm of a company’s business, the many accusations against Weinstein involved encounters that were at least purportedly related to future movie productions.

Either an employer or the person accused of harassment can pay the money required by these settlements. In O’Reilly’s case, Fox has said it knew that he had reached a new settlement with an accuser before it renegotiated his contract earlier this year. Fox’s insistence that the company was unaware of the size of the settlement — $32 million — makes it clear that O'Reilly wrote the check.

Even the attorney’s fees for negotiating the settlement are deductible as another ordinary business expense.

These settlements often require alleged victims to sign a nondisclosure agreement — essentially a pledge of secrecy — in exchange for a cash payment. They are designed to keep the reputations of allegedly abusive high-flyers intact, an arrangement that can allow repeated wrongdoing.

Non sequitur -- That has nothing to do with whether the settlement or a portion thereof is punitive or compensatory.

I don’t believe that secret payments to settle sexual abuse claims should be tax-deductible.

I agree with you on this. Frankly, I don't think sexual offense settlements should be permitted to be kept secret, or at the very least, not permitted to remain secret upon one's declaring candidacy for an elected office or upon being nominated for a highly placed appointed office in government.

The payments associated with these settlements can be treated as a business expense. That means they are tax-deductible, as long as they are related to the conduct of the company’s ordinary operations.

Although it might seem odd to say that sexual harassment is within the realm of a company’s business, the many accusations against Weinstein involved encounters that were at least purportedly related to future movie productions.

Be that as it may, a context of your clarification was Congressmen. Acting in a Congressional capacity and thereunto committing a sexual offense has no "ordinary business purpose." Quite simply, the business of government, of a Congressman, is not a business activity; it's enacting (or obstructing the enactment of) legislation.

A congressman paying off someone accusing them of a sex crime can write it off on his taxes I can't be any plainer than that

OT:

I don't generally inquire about the ratings I receive on my posts, but in this case I'm puzzled. How does it happen that a law professor finds my remarks in post 14 informative?

As a law professor

Shouldn't such an individual, off the top of their head, be the one linking to case law, legal journal papers, and code sections that I'd find informative? I have an MBA, thus somewhat deep and broad exposure to business and tax law, but I'm no white collar crime attorney.​

That was a part of a cut and paste I'm as far from a law professor as trump is from acting like a president I did find what you wrote or cut and pasted informative

 

[usmbguest5318]

What?

A congressman paying off someone accusing them of a sex crime can write it off on his taxes I can't be any plainer than that

Legal settlements paid and corresponding attorney fees are not tax deductible to individuals who pay them as a result of personal offenses, a sexual misdeed is without question such an offense (in both civil and criminal law), they committed or are alleged to have committed. The reason is that no part of such settlement payment is considered compensatory, that is, it is not part or all of a fee a plaintiff is due for legitimate and legally provided goods or services.

• Tax Consequences of Litigation Damages and Settlements
  
• 10 Things To Know About Taxes On Legal Settlements
  
• 26 U.S. Code § 162 - Trade or business expenses
  
• 26 CFR 1.162-21 - Fines and penalties.

To the extent that a settlement a Congressman pays derives from a business related matter -- conducting the business of government is not a business-related matter -- that is, pertinent to a business the Congressman owns, the settlement may or may not be deductible, in whole or in part. Whether any portion of a legal settlement paid in connection with/resulting from a business activity is or is not deductible depends on the punitive nature of the payment. The compensatory portion of the payment is tax deductible as a business expense; the punitive portion is not deductible at all.

These settlements often require alleged victims to sign a nondisclosure agreement — essentially a pledge of secrecy — in exchange for a cash payment. They are designed to keep the reputations of allegedly abusive high-flyers intact, an arrangement that can allow repeated wrongdoing.

ADVERTISING

As a law professor who focuses on white-collar crime, what I find striking about these contracts is how they can be treated as tax-deductible business expenses. That means American taxpayers are helping foot the bill for keeping despicable behavior in the shadows.

I don’t believe that secret payments to settle sexual abuse claims should be tax-deductible. Here’s why.

Weinstein Co. employee withdrew her complaint to management without ever resorting to a legal filing when she accepted a settlement in 2015. At least eight women have collected roughly $80,000 to $150,000 each due to secret agreements not to disclose Weinstein’s alleged misconduct, The New York Times reported in October.

Ordinary business expenses
The payments associated with these settlements can be treated as a business expense. That means they are tax-deductible, as long as they are related to the conduct of the company’s ordinary operations.

Although it might seem odd to say that sexual harassment is within the realm of a company’s business, the many accusations against Weinstein involved encounters that were at least purportedly related to future movie productions.

Either an employer or the person accused of harassment can pay the money required by these settlements. In O’Reilly’s case, Fox has said it knew that he had reached a new settlement with an accuser before it renegotiated his contract earlier this year. Fox’s insistence that the company was unaware of the size of the settlement — $32 million — makes it clear that O'Reilly wrote the check.

Even the attorney’s fees for negotiating the settlement are deductible as another ordinary business expense.

These settlements often require alleged victims to sign a nondisclosure agreement — essentially a pledge of secrecy — in exchange for a cash payment. They are designed to keep the reputations of allegedly abusive high-flyers intact, an arrangement that can allow repeated wrongdoing.

Non sequitur -- That has nothing to do with whether the settlement or a portion thereof is punitive or compensatory.

I don’t believe that secret payments to settle sexual abuse claims should be tax-deductible.

I agree with you on this. Frankly, I don't think sexual offense settlements should be permitted to be kept secret, or at the very least, not permitted to remain secret upon one's declaring candidacy for an elected office or upon being nominated for a highly placed appointed office in government.

The payments associated with these settlements can be treated as a business expense. That means they are tax-deductible, as long as they are related to the conduct of the company’s ordinary operations.

Although it might seem odd to say that sexual harassment is within the realm of a company’s business, the many accusations against Weinstein involved encounters that were at least purportedly related to future movie productions.

Be that as it may, a context of your clarification was Congressmen. Acting in a Congressional capacity and thereunto committing a sexual offense has no "ordinary business purpose." Quite simply, the business of government, of a Congressman, is not a business activity; it's enacting (or obstructing the enactment of) legislation.

A congressman paying off someone accusing them of a sex crime can write it off on his taxes I can't be any plainer than that

OT:

I don't generally inquire about the ratings I receive on my posts, but in this case I'm puzzled. How does it happen that a law professor finds my remarks in post 14 informative?

As a law professor

Shouldn't such an individual, off the top of their head, be the one linking to case law, legal journal papers, and code sections that I'd find informative? I have an MBA, thus somewhat deep and broad exposure to business and tax law, but I'm no white collar crime attorney.​

That was a part of a cut and paste I'm as far from a law professor as trump is from acting like a president I did find what you wrote or cut and pasted informative

Okay. I understand. TY for the clarification.

 

[whitehall]

Maybe the legislators want to take another look at the capital crime of rape that might put Hillary's husband in judicial jeopardy but I doubt if the legislators would consider groping to be a timeless crime.

 

[eddiew37]

Maybe the legislators want to take another look at the capital crime of rape that might put Hillary's husband in judicial jeopardy but I doubt if the legislators would consider groping to be a timeless crime.

Why don't you just worry about what's happening now? A guy preying on young girls up for senator, a president who is still in office while a senator steps down for doing less than that human excrement Trump did

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Women lie. Most complaints of rape are false. The older an accusation is before it is made the more likely it is to be a phony. These accusations get modified by feelings and faulty memory. What was a romantic caress when made becomes a clumsy grope when the man moves on to another woman.

Women make emotional lies. They wholeheartedly believe them and these women are wounded to their souls. It's just made up. I've seen it too many times