894
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

For years, conservative billionaires have treated Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas to opulent vacations and trips on their private jets. If these were anything other than disinterested gifts, then they’re taxable — and Thomas owes the IRS a huge bill.

When Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas flouted longstanding ethics laws by refusing to disclose billionaire gifts, he avoided public outrage for years. Based on new revelations about the potential motivations behind those gifts, he also may have avoided laws requiring Americans to pay taxes on such donations, legal experts say.

Recent reporting from ProPublica revealed that Thomas was showered with luxury gifts from wealthy benefactors, including vacations, private flights, school tuition, and even a loan for a high-end RV. Though Thomas has insisted the gifts were just the innocent generosity of friends, many came after he threatened to resign over the justices’ low salaries — and one of Thomas’s vacation companions said the money was given to supplement the justice’s “limited salary.”

According to experts, if these benefits were given to Thomas as a way to buttress his regular pay and keep him on the court, they could be considered a taxable transaction rather than a gift. By refusing to publicly disclose such transactions, Thomas made it impossible for watchdog groups to alert tax-enforcement officials about the potential issue in real time.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 10 months ago

I am not allowed to accept gifts at work valued more than $50 because I am part of a tip pool.

And I don't want to, because it would make me feel guilty. I am no one of consequence.

I am burdened with the ethics of accepting sealed Christmas cards on the job.

[-] Case@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 10 months ago

I briefly worked as a state employee, IT for a school district.

I swear I had a full day during orientation regarding "gifts." What was considered a gift, who the actual giver was, limitations on receiving them, how to report them however minor, etc.

The only time it came up was during an emergency that required an extended shift. Overtime pay would have been considered a "gift of the state" and wasn't allowed (somehow? I was young, whatever) and I got half a day off rather than OT pay. Coming from a retail background, half a day off and I didn't lose any money? Pretty sweet in my mind at the time.

[-] FReddit@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

I had to turn down an offer of free soup from a company I interviewed.

And this asshole rakes in millions in graft.

Justice is indeed blind.

[-] Pika@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

It pisses me off when companies do that. My work's the same exact freaking way. The bottom level employees can't accept any type of gifts because it could be seen as accepting a bribe, however you can watch management level go out with a vested interest and have that interest pay for the lunch has incentive to accept their contract or the other way around management level will pay for the interest lunch in hopes to gain favor for them. It's sickening

[-] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 2 points 10 months ago

The rules only get applied to those under the people making them. Back when I started my job there where similar admonishments about accepting vendor gifts and such. My role involved classifying sites to allow access at the behest of clients, one which came from an executive assistant to allow a vendor to take said exec to the Superbowl.

Rules where subsequently tighened/reenforced so maybe that wouldn't happen today. The scoutus has continued to resist any sort of oversight claiming sufficient self governance for similar reasons though. Their own judgement is the only one valid in their opinion.

this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
894 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2645 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS