Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sotomayor backers urge reporters to probe New Haven firefighter
By Michael Doyle and David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are quietly targeting the Connecticut firefighter who's at the center of Sotomayor's most controversial ruling.
On the eve of Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearing, her advocates have been urging journalists to scrutinize what one called the "troubled and litigious work history" of firefighter Frank Ricci.
This is opposition research: a constant shadow on Capitol Hill.
"The whole business of getting Supreme Court nominees through the process has become bloodsport," said Gary Rose, a government and politics professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn.
On Friday, citing in an e-mail "Frank Ricci's troubled and litigious work history," the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way drew reporters' attention to Ricci's past. Other advocates for Sotomayor have discreetly urged journalists to pursue similar story lines...
July 8, 2009
Does Judge Sotomayor Have a Tax Problem?
Following up on this morning's post, Judge Sotomayor's Law Practice: A Tax Dodge?: the issue was first flagged by Glenn Reynolds (Tennessee), and he notes that he "was just following Ralph Winters advice from my Business Associations class in law school: When you see a business arrangement that doesnt seem to make any sense, just say 'its probably for tax reasons,' and youll be right nine times out of ten." At my invitation, Linda Galler (Hofstra) expands on the potential tax issues surrounding Judge Sotomayor's sideline legal practice:
While I am supportive of Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Court, and do not think that the facts in the New York Times article suggest that there is a problem large enough to preclude confirmation, I do think there is an interesting tax issue. There is also an interesting non-tax issue, which I will address first.
Most law firms have strict policies prohibiting partners and associates from engaging in legal work on their own. This is because conflicts of interest problems can be created. For example, the New York Times article indicates that Judge (then attorney) Sotomayor reviewed contracts for an insurance salesman. What kind of contracts were they, and who was the other party? If the other contracting party was an insurance company that was represented by the judges law firm, or later sought representation, the firm could have found itself in an awkward position. This suggests three possible alternatives: (1) the firm had a policy and Judge Sotomayor violated it, (2) the firm had no policy, or (3) Judge Sotomayor wasnt really practicing law out of her home so getting the firms permission was never an issue for her.
Which brings us to the tax issue. The judge presumably did not bring her clients into the firm because she could not justify charging them the fees generally charged to other clients. Otherwise, she (like most lawyers) would have represented the client through the firm. If that is the case, then she was either doing the side legal work for free or for almost-free. Does the amount of work that she did and the income that she brought amount to a trade or business, justifying Schedule C (above the line) deductions? If she had represented the clients through the firm, then expenses either would have been the firms expenses (perhaps deductible by the firm but not by Judge Sotomayor) or, if she paid them herself, they would have been deductible below the line since she was an employee.
Her position as to this issue is slightly stronger with respect to the side work that she did when she was employed by the district attorneys office because she could not have gotten permission to represent the clients at work. The question remains, however, whether her side activities amounted to a trade or business.
Moreover, what were the expenses? If they were minimal, who really cares. But suppose she was taking home office deductions. If my earlier presumption is correct, then the receipts from her side practice were likely to have been trivial or insignificant at best. Maybe she claimed to run a law practice out of her home so that she could take home office deductions when she was really (just) an employee whose employer provided her with an office, and the home office deductions would then have been improper. (Employees generally are not permitted to deduct the costs associated with home offices, no matter how much work they actually perform at home. But people who run businesses out of their homes often can.)
That's just what the country needs to be focusing on, something that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
I trust they will also look into the history of all the dark skinned fellas that failed the test as well?
The fact that she's a member of La Raza should bar her from serving on ANY court bench in my opinion, especially the SC. She's already given evidence to her racism.
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7gag-16ZJrQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7gag-16ZJrQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
Once again, some innocent guy will be 'investigated' and ruined to protect a democrat.
Ms Sotomayor is really showing how unfit she is to be a judge, let alone a supreme court justice, the case was supposed to be judged on the merits of whether the test was fair or not, its irrelivent what the work habits are of anyone who took it as far as judgement on it's fairness is concerned.
Hey Pale, I can't respond to pm if you've got it blocked.
More Liberal Fascism from the Looney Left! How can people who voted for Obama live with themselves?
The fact that she's a member of La Raza should bar her from serving on ANY court bench in my opinion, especially the SC. She's already given evidence to her racism.
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7gag-16ZJrQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7gag-16ZJrQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
but such would definitely abridge the 'right to assemble' and implicit right to associate protected by the first amendment.
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: First Amendment: Annotations pg. 12 of 21
Hey Pale, I can't respond to pm if you've got it blocked.
More Liberal Fascism from the Looney Left! How can people who voted for Obama live with themselves?
Hey Pale, I can't respond to pm if you've got it blocked.
He's teasing you.
Pale, she was appointed judge. That many do not want her on SCOTUS, myself included, that a poll may well tell.
More Liberal Fascism from the Looney Left! How can people who voted for Obama live with themselves?
Many, many people who voted for Soetoro are kicking themselves, but they'll never admit it to you or me. They're too embarrassed.
They'll admit it on a poll though where they can remain anonymous, and yes, obama's approval ratings are dipping into the toilet, and fast.
Sotomayor backers urge reporters to probe New Haven firefighter | McClatchy
Sotomayor backers urge reporters to probe New Haven firefighter
By Michael Doyle and David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are quietly targeting the Connecticut firefighter who's at the center of Sotomayor's most controversial ruling.
On the eve of Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearing, her advocates have been urging journalists to scrutinize what one called the "troubled and litigious work history" of firefighter Frank Ricci.
This is opposition research: a constant shadow on Capitol Hill.
"The whole business of getting Supreme Court nominees through the process has become bloodsport," said Gary Rose, a government and politics professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn.
On Friday, citing in an e-mail "Frank Ricci's troubled and litigious work history," the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way drew reporters' attention to Ricci's past. Other advocates for Sotomayor have discreetly urged journalists to pursue similar story lines...
Of course the press could be looking into this. Links at site:
TaxProf Blog: Does Judge Sotomayor Have a Tax Problem?
July 8, 2009
Does Judge Sotomayor Have a Tax Problem?
Following up on this morning's post, Judge Sotomayor's Law Practice: A Tax Dodge?: the issue was first flagged by Glenn Reynolds (Tennessee), and he notes that he "was just following Ralph Winters advice from my Business Associations class in law school: When you see a business arrangement that doesnt seem to make any sense, just say 'its probably for tax reasons,' and youll be right nine times out of ten." At my invitation, Linda Galler (Hofstra) expands on the potential tax issues surrounding Judge Sotomayor's sideline legal practice:
While I am supportive of Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Court, and do not think that the facts in the New York Times article suggest that there is a problem large enough to preclude confirmation, I do think there is an interesting tax issue. There is also an interesting non-tax issue, which I will address first.
Most law firms have strict policies prohibiting partners and associates from engaging in legal work on their own. This is because conflicts of interest problems can be created. For example, the New York Times article indicates that Judge (then attorney) Sotomayor reviewed contracts for an insurance salesman. What kind of contracts were they, and who was the other party? If the other contracting party was an insurance company that was represented by the judges law firm, or later sought representation, the firm could have found itself in an awkward position. This suggests three possible alternatives: (1) the firm had a policy and Judge Sotomayor violated it, (2) the firm had no policy, or (3) Judge Sotomayor wasnt really practicing law out of her home so getting the firms permission was never an issue for her.
Which brings us to the tax issue. The judge presumably did not bring her clients into the firm because she could not justify charging them the fees generally charged to other clients. Otherwise, she (like most lawyers) would have represented the client through the firm. If that is the case, then she was either doing the side legal work for free or for almost-free. Does the amount of work that she did and the income that she brought amount to a trade or business, justifying Schedule C (above the line) deductions? If she had represented the clients through the firm, then expenses either would have been the firms expenses (perhaps deductible by the firm but not by Judge Sotomayor) or, if she paid them herself, they would have been deductible below the line since she was an employee.
Her position as to this issue is slightly stronger with respect to the side work that she did when she was employed by the district attorneys office because she could not have gotten permission to represent the clients at work. The question remains, however, whether her side activities amounted to a trade or business.
Moreover, what were the expenses? If they were minimal, who really cares. But suppose she was taking home office deductions. If my earlier presumption is correct, then the receipts from her side practice were likely to have been trivial or insignificant at best. Maybe she claimed to run a law practice out of her home so that she could take home office deductions when she was really (just) an employee whose employer provided her with an office, and the home office deductions would then have been improper. (Employees generally are not permitted to deduct the costs associated with home offices, no matter how much work they actually perform at home. But people who run businesses out of their homes often can.)
Yep! The party of nasty people,, out for blood again!
