[For an explanation of the title, see here.]
Here’s the stuff we didn’t get to today (or yesterday, as the case may be):
- Blue Arkansas says supporting the DREAM Act and painting Timmy! Griffin as a carpetbagger are winning issues for Joyce Elliott in AR-02. Sixty days out from the general, Elliott had better hope so.
- Jason Tolbert reports that, likely unbeknownst to viewers in AR-04, Beth Anne Rankin appeared on Mike Huckabee’s infomercial for infidelity daily news show to discuss women candidates.
- Max notes that Bill Clinton will campaign on behalf of Joyce Elliott with a lunch at Copper Grill on September 8. As I have no doubt that you are reading this, Mr. President, I recommend the Bleu Cheese Burger.
- Talk Business gives a nice, neat rundown of Jim Keet’s presser from lasterday afternoon. The GOP candidate called for the race to be settled with pistols at dawn. Or he might have just called for some debates. I sorta tuned him out, to be honest.
- Rumor has it that every time Dave Elswick talks about something he has minimal grasp of, God adopts a homeless kitten and then abandons it. Poor kittens.
- TEASER: Arkansas Election Line has movement in two of the four congressional races. It’s like “Who shot J.R.,” but with 100% less shooting. And 100% less J.R., now that I think about it. OK, it’s nothing like “Who shot J.R.”
- Nationally: While Rachel Maddow thinks Joe Miller will be an easier candidate to defeat in November, Nate Silver disagrees and uses numbers and science and whatnot to explain why; Glenn Beck makes stuff up? NO WAY!!!; Also from that last link, I continue to hope that Ed Schultz challenges Beck to a celebrity boxing match; Atrios drops the coolest Thomas Friedman clip ever (not that there is a super long list of candidates).
- OFF-TOPIC: Top 10 Political Comedies Ever? It includes The Distinguished Gentleman, so it could be legit; 7 days until NFL kicks off, 10 days until Ol’ Fivehead — nee Peyton Manning — comes to Reliant, and 12 days until my first TMQ-style column for SBHouston (here’s an obligatory Rams mention for Jeff); Attention all Hogs: prepare to be called vociferously; Finally, happy fourth anniversary to my wife and best friend.
By Matt ~
Thursday, September 2nd, 2010 | 1 Comment »
AR Media, AR-02, AR-04, AR-Gov, Arkansas Blog, Arkansas Election Line, BHR Features, Beth Anne Rankin (R), Blue Arkansas, Dave Elswick (R), FiveThirtyEight, Fox News, Glenn Beck, Jim Keet (R), Joyce Elliott (D), Max Brantley, Mike Huckabee (R), Miscellany, Off-Topic, Polling, Right-Wing Conspiracy, Talk Business, Tea Party, Tim Griffin (R), Tolbert Report |
In what I can only assume was a momentary lapse in judgment, Jason Tolbert and Roby Brock were kind enough to ask me to play the role of left-leaning contributor on the Arkansas Election Line.
According to the Kubler-Ross model, there are five discrete stages people go through when dealing with grief or tragedy:
- denial (“No…no…this isn’t happening! Lalalalalala, I can’t hear you!!” /sticks fingers in ears),
- anger (“ARGH! Me smash things! Stupid grief!!! /punches wall),
- bargaining (“Ok, God, look…just let me live long enough to see the Indians win the World Series…please?” /looks skyward with unrealistic hopes),
- depression (“Guh.” /looks guh-ish), and
- acceptance (“Fine. Fine. Whatever. Fine.” /shrugs, sighs).
Why do I mention this? Because the departure of Blake Rutherford and the corresponding death of the Think Tank forced many a blogger and blog reader to go through whatever the online, not-actually-dealing-with-a-death version of these stages would be. Having now reached the acceptance stage, I decided the best way to deal with it would be to revive one of my favorite Think Tank features, the End-of-Day Miscellany, as a tribute. So, with no further ado — and, honestly, was that all that much ado? — [/clears throat, does Blake impression] here are the things I didn’t get to today:
Until tomorrow…
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/08/24/bad-universe-sneak-peek/
By Matt ~
Monday, August 30th, 2010 | 1 Comment »
AR Media, AR-02, AR-04, AR-Gov, AR-Sen, ARRA/Stimulus, Astronomy, Beth Anne Rankin (R), Blanche Lincoln (D), Blue Arkansas, Campaigning, Debates, Economics, Fox News, In The Blogs, Mike Huckabee (R), Mike Ross (D), Miscellany, Off-Topic, Polling, Right-Wing Conspiracy, Talk Business, Tim Griffin (R), Tolbert Report |
Since last week’s statement that he moved back to Arkansas “in July or August 2008,” there has been some rumbling that, assuming he is telling the truth, Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Keet violated Florida law by casting an absentee ballot in Florida’s November 2008 election.
Max Brantley:
But by [sticking to his claim that he moved in July or August 2008], he’s made a prima facie case that he cast an illegal vote in Florida in November 2008. A Florida resident who moves is permitted to cast an absentee ballot only if he moves AFTER the registration books have closed in his new state. They were open in Arkansas through early October in 2008. Keet moved before the books closed, by his own, repeated, account.
This was my initial reaction to the story as well; at first glance, this would seem to violate Florida Statute § 101.663, which reads:
An elector registered in this state who moves his or her permanent residence to another state after the registration books in that state have closed shall be permitted to vote absentee in the county of his or her former residence for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States.
Fl. Stat. § 101.663 (2010) (emphasis added).
I added the emphasis to “permanent residence” in that statute because, well, the test for where your permanent residence is can be … vague. Generally speaking, it comes down to where you intend to stay for the foreseeable future, as gleaned from all sorts of stuff (where are you registered to vote, where do you get your mail, where do you have a driver’s license, etc.). It is, annoyingly, almost always a case-by-case issue, unless a statute specifies a triggering event that is dispositive of the residence question.
Rather than continue to speculate, I contacted the State of Florida’s Division of Elections and asked, “Generally speaking, if a person moved from Florida to Arkansas in August of 2008 with the intention of making his permanent home in Arkansas — even if his Florida home had not sold — would he be allowed to vote absentee in Florida if the Arkansas voter registration period was still open when he arrived in his new state?”
They responded quickly:
As long as that individual had not registered in the other state, he can continue to vote in Florida.
Okey doke, that makes sense, but it still doesn’t get to the heart of the issue. In a follow-up email, I mentioned that “I thought under 101.663 the person who changed his permanent residence to another could only vote in Florida if he moved after the voter rolls in the new state were closed.”
Another quick reply from Florida:
We have no way of knowing if an individual is only residing in another state temporarily unless they send us a request to be removed from our rolls or if that state provides us with their registration in the new state. There are specific procedures to remove an individual from our rolls. You can find those in s.98.075, FS.
The referenced statue has a subsection entitled “PROCEDURES FOR REMOVAL,” which lays out the steps that the State of Florida must take “[i]f the supervisor receives notice or information pursuant to subsections (4)-(6)” that the voter is no longer qualified to vote in Florida. Subsections (4)-(6) pertain to (4) adjudication of mental incapacity, (5) felony conviction, and (6) other bases for ineligibility. The other-bases provision explains:
(6) OTHER BASES FOR INELIGIBILITY.–If the department or supervisor receives information other than from the sources identified in subsections (2)-(5) that a registered voter does not meet the age requirement pursuant to s. 97.041, is not a United States citizen, is a fictitious person, or has listed a residence that is not his or her legal residence, the supervisor shall adhere to the procedures set forth in subsection (7) prior to the removal of a registered voter’s name from the statewide voter registration system.
And there’s our answer: before Keet would have been removed from the voter rolls in Florida (and, therefore, ineligible to vote in Florida), the state of Florida would have had to hear from Keet that he had moved his permanent residence to Arkansas or from the State of Arkansas that Keet had registered to vote here. Short of those things happening, there simply was nothing that would have triggered removal under Fl. Stat. § 98.075 (2010).
Even with the question answered, I somehow doubt that this will be the last we hear of the non-issue.
that it’s been quiet around here. Stupid real life getting in the way and whatnot. BHR should be back by Monday at the latest. And, if not, you will all be given a full refund of your BHR readership fees.
Defying logic and common sense to the bitter end, Robbie Wills continues to claim that he is exempt from taxation on the benefit of driving a state-owned vehicle as Speaker of the House. In an article in Monday’s Dem-Gazette, Seth Blomeley writes:
House Parliamentarian Tim Massanelli said that whether people “like it or not,” legislators are different when it comes to tax law.
What a charming turn of phrase, Tim. I can tell you are a man who is not at all out of touch with the rest of us. Now, if you could please point out where in the U.S. Tax Code it gives a blanket pronouncement that state legislators are treated differently, that would be great.
/waiting
/still waiting
/moving on, shaking head slowly in contemptuous disgust
Blomeley continues:
State officials and spokesmen for the Internal Revenue Service offered varying explanations concerning the taxability of state-vehicle use by legislators and mileage payments legislators receive.
Wills, an attorney, didn’t offer a legal basis as to why his travel in a state vehicle from his home in Conway to the state Capitol is considered business travel. He deferred to House staff for an explanation.
Sign #416 that someone is just making stuff up: they pass the buck on a subject matter they should understand, at least at a basic level.
More Blomeley:
Massanelli and House Chief of Staff Bill Stovall cite examples from Publication 463 by the IRS regarding “travel, entertainment, gift and car expenses.” The don’t directly address legislative travel to the state Capitol[,] but refer to situations with taxpayers having multiple places of business.
Examples from the IRS publication they cited were:
- “[If] your principal place of business is in your home … you can deduct the cost of round-trip transportation between your qualifying home office and your client’s or customer’s place of business.”
- “If you regularly work at two places in one day, whether or not for the same employer, you can deduct your transportation expenses of getting from one workplace to the other.”
Okay…um…did they cite anything that was actually relevant? IRS Code 162(h) provides certain exemptions for legislators who designate their homes as their main place of business. However, under 162(h)(4)
(4) Section not to apply to legislators who reside near capitol
For taxable years beginning after December 31, 1980, this subsection shall not apply to any legislator whose place of residence within the legislative district which he represents is 50 or fewer miles from the capitol building of the State.
Wills lives 31 miles from the Capitol.
As for that second exception that they cited, one of the key words in there is “regularly.” Surely Wills does not expect us to believe that he regularly works at home and at the state Capitol in the same day. (Regarding fringe benefits, including the use of employer-provided vehicles, the IRS defines regularly as “50% or more per year.”) Moreover, it’s a bit of a stretch to say that 24/7 possession of a state car is covered by a narrowly drawn exception for travel expenses between two locations in certain circumstances, so it’s not like this exception ends the inquiry even if one accepts it as relevant (which I do not).
But Massnelli and Stovall were just getting started. Blomeley writes:
Whether or not a legislator conducts most of his legislative work at his home or at his place of employment, such as a law firm, doesn’t matter they say. He represents the entire district and as such a legislator’s entire district is his place of business, Massanelli and Stovall said.
They said legislators don’t have to pay taxes on the 50 cents a mile [sic] they receive for reimbursement traveling from their home to the Capitol.
Or, in the case of Wills, taxable income isn’t withheld from his state paycheck over the fringe benefit of driving a state-provided vehicle. [Author's note: "taxable income" isn't "withheld" from your paycheck; taxes, based on a percentage of your taxable income, are withheld. But I digress.]
Wills’[s] state vehicle is a 2008 Tahoe that had a purchase price of $37,000, but after rebates the price was about $30,000, Stovall said.
[***]
But Stovall said [the distance from Wills's home to the Capitol] doesn’t matter because 162(h) doesn’t apply to mileage reimbursement of a state-supplied vehicle.
State Revenue Commissioner Tim Leathers agreed.
“Thre is nothing in there that deals with legislative mileage,” Leathers said.
He said mileage reimbursements and a state-provided vehicle for a “business purpose” would be exempt from taxation.
Well, if Tim Leathers says it, it must be accurate!
You know … except when it’s not.
Look, the Internal Revenue Code may be many things — byzantine, prolix, pedantic, convoluted — but one thing it is not, at least not in this situation, is vague. As a threshold matter, the IRS treats travel allowances/reimbursements differently depending on whether the payments are made via an “accountable plan” as defined in section 62. For a plan to be “accountable,” it must meet the following requirements:
- There must be a business connection to the expenditure
- There must be adequate accounting by the recipient within a reasonable time
- Excess reimbursements or allowances must be returned to the employer within a reasonable time
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the second and third requirement have not been met by Wills in the instant case, based on the fact that no one involved here seems to have accounted for anything, meaning that any reimbursements/allowances he receives are done through a nonaccountable plan.
Under Regulation §1.62-2(c)(3), payments made under a nonaccountable plan are taxable, subject to all withholding rules, when they are paid by the employer or when they are constructively received by the employee, though employees may be able to deduct these expense if they itemize their individual returns.
Under an accountable plan, which I still assume is not really in play here, costs associated with travel to and from a business destination are excludable only when the travel is outside of the area of the employee’s “tax home” and the stay is longer than would be expected for a typical day’s work (requires an overnight stay at minimum). See U.S. v Correll, 389 U.S. 299, 302-303 (1967).
More on point, when dealing with an employee’s use of a vehicle, the IRS distinguishes based on whether the vehicle is owned by the employee or the employer. For an employee-owned vehicle, under section 1.274(g)(2)(iii) and Regulation 1.274-5, reimbursements for allowable business travel are excludable from the employee’s wages as long as the reimbursement rate is at or less than the standard Federal mileage rate (currently 50 cents/mile) and the reimbursements are made as part of an accountable plan that includes substantiation of the mileage by the employee.
Reimbursements for non-business travel, including commuting, are always taxable, even if paid at or below the Federal mileage rate. These reimbursements are included in regular wages and are subject to all income and employment taxes. (Personal commuting between the residence and the principal place of business is considered non-business travel or personal use.)
If, on the other hand, the employee is provided an employer-owned vehicle, there are no tax consequences or reporting requirements only if the vehicle is used solely for business purposes. Again, business use does not include commuting except in certain rare exceptions not applicable here.
Ah, but here is the rub (finally!) and the part that pretty much submarines Wills’s position: if an employee is provided an employer-owned vehicle and the vehicle is not used solely for business purposes, if the employee wishes to have taxes withheld only for his personal use of the vehicle, section 274(d) requires that the employee keep separate records for personal and business use and that he substantiate via written records all miles driven for business purposes. If the employee fails to provide such substantiation, the value of all use of the vehicle is considered taxable wages, and the employee can later take itemized deductions for any business use that he can substantiate. (There are a number of different ways to calculate the value of the usage, none of which is particularly germane to a discussion of whether Wills is correct here.)
Now, maybe it’s just me, but that last paragraph seems pretty straightforward, both in what it actually says and in how it shapes the relevant inquiry here. The only question we need to concern ourselves with is whether Wills maintained the records required by the Code and substantiated all business usage with these records.
Regardless of his answer, however, some portion of the usage is almost certainly going to be non-business and, accordingly, is going to be taxable. It does not matter what Wills, Massanelli, Stovall, Leathers, or Diamond Joe Quimby has to say about it; contrary to what some seem to believe, the Code does not limit its distinctions and rules with a caveat of “as long as some random state-level pols with vested interests in the matter agree.”
In their first joint appearance since their bitter run-off election — and nearly three weeks after being pegged as Senator Joyce Elliott’s Faulkner County Chairman – House Speaker Robbie Wills will join his former rival at a press conference in Conway to publicly announce his endorsement of Elliott’s run for U.S. Congress v. Bush/Rove cronie Timmy! Griffin. From the official news release:
“On the campaign trail, I talked about taking Arkansas values to Washington. I still believe that is what this election is all about. As a school teacher for 30 years and as a leader in the Arkansas legislature, Senator Elliott has spent her life working and helping the people of Arkansas. We have a mess in Washington and if you want to see it cleaned up you need to send an honest, hardworking leader like Joyce Elliott to Congress. She is the person who will take her Arkansas values to fix Washington. Joyce will get the job done.” said Wills.
“I can assure you that Joyce Elliott will bring her small town work ethic and Arkansas common sense approach to get things turned around up there and get our economy back on solid ground. Joyce has a proven track record of winning major economic victories for Arkansas. I know because Joyce and I worked with Governor Mike Beebe to get the local economy back on track by recruiting companies to Arkansas like LM Glasfiber, Welspun, Mitsubishi and the HP plant right here in Conway. I know Joyce will take the economic lessons she learned working with Governor Beebe to Washington and lead the fight to reignite our economy. I urge everyone in Faulkner County and every person in the 2nd district to learn more about Joyce Elliott.” says Wills.
“I promise the more you learn, the more you will like Joyce Elliott and the more you will see the choice is clear in this race: Arkansas needs Joyce Elliott as their next Congresswoman.” says Wills.
“I deeply appreciate Speakers Wills support, and I look forward to working with him during the election.” says Elliott.
“We are in this election to win it. Do not let polls numbers and naysayers tell you otherwise” says Elliott.
Elliott, a teacher for thirty-one years, is dedicated to improving the lives of Arkansas. Her background as a teacher and her dedication as a public servant have motivated her to run for office. Elliott believes that Washington needs common sense leaders who understand the daily struggles of ordinary citizens. Her experiences as a mother, educator, and legislator have shaped her congressional bid.
The event is open to the public. For more information please contact Elliott’s campaign headquarters at 501-398-4999 or via email at marisa@elliottforcongress.com.
Just how poorly is Blanche Lincoln polling right now? Worse than any “true” incumbent in history.
If Lincoln does little to improve her standing in the polls, she will be in the running for the worst showing of any true Senate incumbent in history (a “true” incumbent is a non-appointee who has served a full term). Only 13 true incumbents have ever been held below 40 percent of the vote, absent a third party effort, and only three have been held below 38 percent. Those three are:-William Hathaway of Maine, who lost to Republican William Cohen 56.6 percent to 33.9 percent in 1978
-J. Glenn Beall of Maryland, who lost to Democrat Joseph D. Tydings 62.8 percent to 37.2 percent in 1964 (fun fact: J. Glenn Beall, Jr., is a top 10 loser, losing the same seat to Paul Sarbanes in 1976 by a 56.5 percent to 38.8 percent margin).
-Homer T. Bone of Washington, who lost to Democrat Wesley Jones 60.6 percent to 32.7 percent in 1932.
Lincoln, of course, registered a whopping 27 in the Rasmussen poll, putting her in the odd position of having a deficit that was 11 points larger than her total score. Even if you discount the poll slightly because it is Rasmussen, Lincoln is almost certainly below 35 percent. Her current RCP average (31), if it stands, will literally be the worst showing by a true incumbent (non-appointee who served a full term) ever.
