Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 06:20:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

...I don't get much of one, and neither do most people who do proper tax
planning, but I guess that excludes Dick Cheney, who reportedly is
getting a $1.9 million refund.

I'm sure it is perfectly legal, but, sheesh, talk about a guy who knows
and cares nothing about even the semblance of appearances.

For a former "reporter" Harry, you seem to have a strange way of
working a story.

From Friday's NYT - buried, but it was there. Please note the first
and last paragraphs.

--------------------------------

"The Cheneys reported adjusted gross income of nearly $8.82 million, a
number largely padded with income they received by exercising stock
options that had been set aside in 2001 for charity.

The Cheneys donated about $6.87 million to charity from the stock
options and royalties earned on Mrs. Cheney's books: "America: A
Patriotic Primer," "A is for Abigail: An Almanac of Amazing American
Women" and "When Washington Crossed the Delawa A Wintertime Story
for Young Patriots."

Recipients of their charitable donations included: George Washington
University Medical Faculty Associates for the benefit of the
Cardiothoracic Institute, the University of Wyoming Foundation and
Capital Partners for Education, to benefit low-income high school
students in the Washington area.

After subtracting the charitable contributions, the Cheneys' income
was $1.95 million on which they owed $529,636 in taxes, according to a
statement released by the vice president's office.

Since the Cheneys paid $2.46 million in withholding and estimated
taxes over the year, they were entitled to a refund of about $1.93"
million."

------------------------

I don't like Cheney either, but fair is fair.


I didn't say it wasn't legal. Good tax planning obviates the need for
substantial refunds. Paying that kind of money in withholding only to get
most of it back is...not too bright.

Donating $6.87 million to charity in one year kinda screws up your tax
planning.

RCE

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
RCE wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 06:20:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

...I don't get much of one, and neither do most people who do proper
tax planning, but I guess that excludes Dick Cheney, who reportedly is
getting a $1.9 million refund.

I'm sure it is perfectly legal, but, sheesh, talk about a guy who
knows and cares nothing about even the semblance of appearances.
For a former "reporter" Harry, you seem to have a strange way of
working a story.

From Friday's NYT - buried, but it was there. Please note the first
and last paragraphs.

--------------------------------

"The Cheneys reported adjusted gross income of nearly $8.82 million, a
number largely padded with income they received by exercising stock
options that had been set aside in 2001 for charity.

The Cheneys donated about $6.87 million to charity from the stock
options and royalties earned on Mrs. Cheney's books: "America: A
Patriotic Primer," "A is for Abigail: An Almanac of Amazing American
Women" and "When Washington Crossed the Delawa A Wintertime Story
for Young Patriots."

Recipients of their charitable donations included: George Washington
University Medical Faculty Associates for the benefit of the
Cardiothoracic Institute, the University of Wyoming Foundation and
Capital Partners for Education, to benefit low-income high school
students in the Washington area.

After subtracting the charitable contributions, the Cheneys' income
was $1.95 million on which they owed $529,636 in taxes, according to a
statement released by the vice president's office.

Since the Cheneys paid $2.46 million in withholding and estimated
taxes over the year, they were entitled to a refund of about $1.93"
million."

------------------------

I don't like Cheney either, but fair is fair.

I didn't say it wasn't legal. Good tax planning obviates the need for
substantial refunds. Paying that kind of money in withholding only to
get most of it back is...not too bright.

Donating $6.87 million to charity in one year kinda screws up your tax
planning.

RCE
You think it was an unplanned donation?

No, but the mechanics of a charity donation may not fit with normal
quarterly reporting, which I assume he is required to do. According to the
article referenced by Tom, a bulk of it was based on stock options that were
set aside for charity. At a lesser scale, many of us have to make last
minute contributions to retirement plans, etc. to even out the tax hit at
the end of the year. In any event, he paid his share, crooked as you may
think he is.

RCE

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
RCE wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
RCE wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 06:20:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

...I don't get much of one, and neither do most people who do proper
tax planning, but I guess that excludes Dick Cheney, who reportedly
is getting a $1.9 million refund.

I'm sure it is perfectly legal, but, sheesh, talk about a guy who
knows and cares nothing about even the semblance of appearances.
For a former "reporter" Harry, you seem to have a strange way of
working a story.

From Friday's NYT - buried, but it was there. Please note the first
and last paragraphs.

--------------------------------

"The Cheneys reported adjusted gross income of nearly $8.82 million,
a
number largely padded with income they received by exercising stock
options that had been set aside in 2001 for charity.

The Cheneys donated about $6.87 million to charity from the stock
options and royalties earned on Mrs. Cheney's books: "America: A
Patriotic Primer," "A is for Abigail: An Almanac of Amazing American
Women" and "When Washington Crossed the Delawa A Wintertime Story
for Young Patriots."

Recipients of their charitable donations included: George Washington
University Medical Faculty Associates for the benefit of the
Cardiothoracic Institute, the University of Wyoming Foundation and
Capital Partners for Education, to benefit low-income high school
students in the Washington area.

After subtracting the charitable contributions, the Cheneys' income
was $1.95 million on which they owed $529,636 in taxes, according to
a
statement released by the vice president's office.

Since the Cheneys paid $2.46 million in withholding and estimated
taxes over the year, they were entitled to a refund of about $1.93"
million."

------------------------

I don't like Cheney either, but fair is fair.
I didn't say it wasn't legal. Good tax planning obviates the need for
substantial refunds. Paying that kind of money in withholding only to
get most of it back is...not too bright.
Donating $6.87 million to charity in one year kinda screws up your tax
planning.

RCE
You think it was an unplanned donation?

No, but the mechanics of a charity donation may not fit with normal
quarterly reporting, which I assume he is required to do. According to
the article referenced by Tom, a bulk of it was based on stock options
that were set aside for charity. At a lesser scale, many of us have to
make last minute contributions to retirement plans, etc. to even out the
tax hit at the end of the year. In any event, he paid his share, crooked
as you may think he is.

RCE


Once again, I am not questioning Cheney's tax returns. After all, this
country has no history of a Republican vice president in tax trouble.

My question was about the appearance of receiving a nearly $2 million
refund.


As was already stated, most folks would not have a problem seeing him get
that large of a refund after reading the entire story, most of which you
left out in your initial post. And as Tom pointed out, you intentionally
framed your post so as to make the refund appear illegal or questionable.

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..



Once again, I am not questioning Cheney's tax returns. After all, this
country has no history of a Republican vice president in tax trouble.

My question was about the appearance of receiving a nearly $2 million
refund.



Well, it's obvious that neither Dick Cheney or his boss care much about
"appearances" in what they say or do.
In some circles, that's an admirable trait.

RCE

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

You think it was an unplanned donation?


I smell a rat from the git-go

Did Mrs Cheney's book really clear 7 million bucks? That'd
make it pretty popular, and she'd be a higher earning author
than most of the ones on the best seller list. Where did
this money really come from?

In any event, since they donated it to charity (can't help
but wonder which charities are the lucky recipient) it's
somewhat of a moot point.

Which brings me to my next question... how the heck do you
pay 2.46 million in quarterly estimated taxes (which are a
friggin' pox) on an income of 1.95 million? That don't add
up Jack!


RCE wrote:
...At a lesser scale, many of us have to make last
minute contributions to retirement plans, etc. to even out the tax hit at
the end of the year.

Yes and that can be rather hectic trying to juggle numbers.
But it's nice to be in a position to support good works that
one believes in.


... In any event, he paid his share, crooked as you may
think he is.


I agree that it appears Vice President Cheney has paid his
share of taxes. But it's not that we *think* he's crooked,
it's that he's a crook, period.

Who hands out guaranteed-profit contracts against the
recommendations of department heads, comptrollers,
engineers, etc etc? Who has been censured for conflict of
interest by the Congress, a body of men who seemingly have
unerring astigmatism when it comes to spotting fiscal
doo-doo? Who fired all the OMB auditors on the Halliburton
case? Who said "I have never used my gov't connections for
profit?" Who, when told he had to release his Fed tax
statements, said "Damned if I will" only to realize that it
was a legal requirement of filing for election to Vice
President?

Dick Cheney isn't crooked, he's a fiscal law unto himself
and always has been. He seems to genuinely believe that the
U.S. taxpayers exist to provide him & his cronies with
wealth on a scale that King Midas and Louis 14th would envy.

DSK

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
You think it was an unplanned donation?


I smell a rat from the git-go

Did Mrs Cheney's book really clear 7 million bucks? That'd make it pretty
popular, and she'd be a higher earning author than most of the ones on the
best seller list. Where did this money really come from?

In any event, since they donated it to charity (can't help but wonder
which charities are the lucky recipient) it's somewhat of a moot point.

Which brings me to my next question... how the heck do you pay 2.46
million in quarterly estimated taxes (which are a friggin' pox) on an
income of 1.95 million? That don't add up Jack!


RCE wrote:
...At a lesser scale, many of us have to make last minute contributions
to retirement plans, etc. to even out the tax hit at the end of the year.

Yes and that can be rather hectic trying to juggle numbers. But it's nice
to be in a position to support good works that one believes in.


... In any event, he paid his share, crooked as you may think he is.


I agree that it appears Vice President Cheney has paid his share of taxes.
But it's not that we *think* he's crooked, it's that he's a crook, period.

Who hands out guaranteed-profit contracts against the recommendations of
department heads, comptrollers, engineers, etc etc? Who has been censured
for conflict of interest by the Congress, a body of men who seemingly have
unerring astigmatism when it comes to spotting fiscal doo-doo? Who fired
all the OMB auditors on the Halliburton case? Who said "I have never used
my gov't connections for profit?" Who, when told he had to release his Fed
tax statements, said "Damned if I will" only to realize that it was a
legal requirement of filing for election to Vice President?

Dick Cheney isn't crooked, he's a fiscal law unto himself and always has
been. He seems to genuinely believe that the U.S. taxpayers exist to
provide him & his cronies with wealth on a scale that King Midas and Louis
14th would envy.

DSK


I don't know for a fact that any of the allegations about Halliburton and
Cheney are accurate or not and I don't think anybody knows for sure except
maybe Cheney.

But (correct me here if I have a memory failure) I seem to remember that
the subject stock options (that were part of his employment deal with
Halliburton) becoming an issue during the 2000 election. Cheney voluntarily
decided and announced that the proceeds of those options, when exercised,
would be donated to charity.

So, here we are six years later, he donates the proceeds of almost 7 million
to charity and gains a 2 million return.
Looks like he lost 5 mil on keeping his word. And now, some start
questioning the "appearance" of the transaction or start "smelling a rat".
Darth Vader or not, nobody in his position can win in this world of cynics.

RCE

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

RCE wrote:
I don't know for a fact that any of the allegations about Halliburton and
Cheney are accurate or not and I don't think anybody knows for sure except
maybe Cheney.


Agreed, although the pattern certainly points toward some
unfavorable conclusions.

But (correct me here if I have a memory failure) I seem to remember that
the subject stock options (that were part of his employment deal with
Halliburton) becoming an issue during the 2000 election. Cheney voluntarily
decided and announced that the proceeds of those options, when exercised,
would be donated to charity.

So, here we are six years later, he donates the proceeds of almost 7 million
to charity and gains a 2 million return.
Looks like he lost 5 mil on keeping his word.

He wasn't keeping his word about the stock options, that was
an entirely different deal. AFAIK those stock otions still
haven't been donated. I thought the 7 million in question
came from his wife's book?

And weren't you a little bit curious about how one pays
approx 25% *more* in quarterly estimated tax than one makes
in income?

We pay quarterly estimated taxes, and it's a PITA and a
burden. But we pay less than 20% of our income, not 125%.
Boy no wonder these Republicans are all worked up about taxes!


.... And now, some start
questioning the "appearance" of the transaction or start "smelling a rat".
Darth Vader or not, nobody in his position can win in this world of cynics.


That's true also, but then, he put himself in that position.
He's become extremely wealthy as a Washington insider.

This is the guy who came on Larry King and said that he
wasn't interested in blaming blame & calling names, then
less than 3 minutes later was denouncing as traitors anybody
who questioned his fiscal dealings.

Successful player of "the game" or blatant cheater? It's a
judgement call. It also depends on how you view our system
of rules & laws.

DSK

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

You know, I was just reflecting on something....

I don't claim to be the most wordly person in the world but I did have an
opportunity to live in Italy for a couple of years and do a bit of traveling
in Europe with my wife. I truely enjoy meeting and talking to people of
other cultures and philosophies. We also lived in Puerto Rico for 2 years
and I've been able to travel to Japan and Mainland China back in the mid
80's when China was just starting to open up to the rest of the world. I
participated in the traditional social activities and in potential business
relationships. In business, some of my closest friends were from Europe.

One thing that I've come to realize that is that we, as United States
citizens, are by far more vocal and opininated in terms of critisim of our
government, policies and elected officials on a regular basis than any other
country I've been exposed to. Yet, in many places, our system is still held
in high regard by others. I am not suggesting they want to change, because
part of the beauty of other countries in the world is the traditional
beliefs and values, but the US system of government works.

My conclusion? The US population is far more diverse, argumentitive and
opinionated in politics than most, if not all, of the rest of the world in
my limited view, yet we have had a very successful run to date.
Interesting .

RCE

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

RCE wrote:
One thing that I've come to realize that is that we, as United States
citizens, are by far more vocal and opininated in terms of critisim of our
government, policies and elected officials on a regular basis than any other
country I've been exposed to.

Absolutely.

It's been our right for over 200 years now.

Up until fairly recently, the gov't of most countries would
make life most unpleasant... might even shorten it for
you... if you went around pointing out their flaws, faults,
misdoings, and personal problems.


...Yet, in many places, our system is still held
in high regard by others. I am not suggesting they want to change, because
part of the beauty of other countries in the world is the traditional
beliefs and values, but the US system of government works.


Hey, here's something to also take notice of....
Very few people are criticising the U.S. system of gov't.
Most are defending the Bush Administration from having their
mistakes & misdeeds pointed out.

The only people I have seen criticising the U.S. system of
gov't are those who believe we are too soft on traitors.

There is a big difference between criticising the current
Administration, whoever they happen to be, and criticising
the system that put them in place.


My conclusion? The US population is far more diverse, argumentitive and
opinionated in politics than most, if not all, of the rest of the world in
my limited view, yet we have had a very successful run to date.
Interesting .


Cause & effect, maybe?

DSK

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...

In any event, since they donated it to charity (can't help but wonder
which charities are the lucky recipient) it's somewhat of a moot point.

Duh. Obviously, it went through a series of overseas banks, into the coffers
of some Islamic "charity" which specializes in supplying terrorists with
explosives and spare parts for small arms. Without "insurgents", Dicky won't
have a job waiting for him in a few years.

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

My conclusion? The US population is far more diverse, argumentitive and
opinionated in politics than most, if not all, of the rest of the world in
my limited view, yet we have had a very successful run to date.
Interesting .

RCE


Beats places like South American, where you can get trampled to death
because your soccer team lost. Or won.

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"RCE" wrote in message
...

My conclusion? The US population is far more diverse, argumentitive and
opinionated in politics than most, if not all, of the rest of the world
in my limited view, yet we have had a very successful run to date.
Interesting .

RCE


Beats places like South American, where you can get trampled to death
because your soccer team lost. Or won.


Came close here in Boston a couple of years ago though .... outside Fenway
Park.

RCE

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...

In any event, since they donated it to charity (can't help but wonder
which charities are the lucky recipient) it's somewhat of a moot point.

Duh. Obviously, it went through a series of overseas banks, into the
coffers of some Islamic "charity" which specializes in supplying
terrorists with explosives and spare parts for small arms. Without
"insurgents", Dicky won't have a job waiting for him in a few years.


At least Cheney is a competent evil-doer! :}

The CIA pulls stunts like this all the time, but that's what they're paid to
do.

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:58:41 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
"RCE" wrote in :

Donating $6.87 million to charity in one year kinda screws up your tax
planning.

Harry doesn't even donate $6.87 to charity, I'd wager.


Au contraire. You've moved up on the treatment waiting list, because I
donated $6.87 to the Society to Assist Slow-Witted, Foul-Mouthed
Buttsniffers.

It sure didn't take your political crap long to devolve into a name-calling
fest, did it?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
RCE wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

For a former "reporter" Harry, you seem to have a strange way of
working a story.

From Friday's NYT - buried, but it was there. Please note the first
and last paragraphs.

--------------------------------

"The Cheneys reported adjusted gross income of nearly $8.82 million, a
number largely padded with income they received by exercising stock
options that had been set aside in 2001 for charity.

The Cheneys donated about $6.87 million to charity from the stock
options and royalties earned on Mrs. Cheney's books: "America: A
Patriotic Primer," "A is for Abigail: An Almanac of Amazing American
Women" and "When Washington Crossed the Delawa A Wintertime Story
for Young Patriots."

Recipients of their charitable donations included: George Washington
University Medical Faculty Associates for the benefit of the
Cardiothoracic Institute, the University of Wyoming Foundation and
Capital Partners for Education, to benefit low-income high school
students in the Washington area.

After subtracting the charitable contributions, the Cheneys' income
was $1.95 million on which they owed $529,636 in taxes, according to a
statement released by the vice president's office.

Since the Cheneys paid $2.46 million in withholding and estimated
taxes over the year, they were entitled to a refund of about $1.93"
million."

------------------------

I don't like Cheney either, but fair is fair.

I didn't say it wasn't legal. Good tax planning obviates the need for
substantial refunds. Paying that kind of money in withholding only to get
most of it back is...not too bright.

Donating $6.87 million to charity in one year kinda screws up your tax
planning.

RCE


You think it was an unplanned donation?

It wouldn't matter. Have you ever exercised stock options? Depending
on the size, tax withholding is often required on the transaction,
particularly if it was considered cashing out, even if he donated the
cash proceeds from the transaction to charity.

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
And weren't you a little bit curious about how one pays approx 25% *more*
in quarterly estimated tax than one makes in income?

No. He made $8.82 million, mostly from stock options and royalties. He
paid quarterly estimated tax on that $8.82 million...not on his adjusted
gross income ($1.95 million) after the $6.87 million donation.

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:59:27 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:58:41 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
"RCE" wrote in :

Donating $6.87 million to charity in one year kinda screws up your tax
planning.
Harry doesn't even donate $6.87 to charity, I'd wager.

Au contraire. You've moved up on the treatment waiting list, because I
donated $6.87 to the Society to Assist Slow-Witted, Foul-Mouthed
Buttsniffers.

It sure didn't take your political crap long to devolve into a name-calling
fest, did it?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************


Every once in a while, not often, I think Foul-Mouthed Fred deserves a
double-barrel blast. You don't seem to mind his usually foul language,
though. Oh, and my comment to Fred had nothing to do with his
"politics," but, rather, his tendency to curse and his abject stupidity.

He didn't start the political thread which did the devolving. You did.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Every once in a while, not often, I think Foul-Mouthed Fred deserves a
double-barrel blast.

So.... when do you think we might get to read it? So far, all we've seen is
your typical high-school style of insult.

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:58:41 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
"RCE" wrote in
:

Donating $6.87 million to charity in one year kinda screws up your tax
planning.

Harry doesn't even donate $6.87 to charity, I'd wager.


Au contraire. You've moved up on the treatment waiting list, because I
donated $6.87 to the Society to Assist Slow-Witted, Foul-Mouthed
Buttsniffers.

It sure didn't take your political crap long to devolve into a
name-calling
fest, did it?
--


Dear old Fred does not deserve any respect.

RCE

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
RCE wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
RCE wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 06:20:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

...I don't get much of one, and neither do most people who do proper
tax planning, but I guess that excludes Dick Cheney, who reportedly
is getting a $1.9 million refund.

I'm sure it is perfectly legal, but, sheesh, talk about a guy who
knows and cares nothing about even the semblance of appearances.
For a former "reporter" Harry, you seem to have a strange way of
working a story.

From Friday's NYT - buried, but it was there. Please note the first
and last paragraphs.

--------------------------------

"The Cheneys reported adjusted gross income of nearly $8.82 million,
a
number largely padded with income they received by exercising stock
options that had been set aside in 2001 for charity.

The Cheneys donated about $6.87 million to charity from the stock
options and royalties earned on Mrs. Cheney's books: "America: A
Patriotic Primer," "A is for Abigail: An Almanac of Amazing American
Women" and "When Washington Crossed the Delawa A Wintertime Story
for Young Patriots."

Recipients of their charitable donations included: George Washington
University Medical Faculty Associates for the benefit of the
Cardiothoracic Institute, the University of Wyoming Foundation and
Capital Partners for Education, to benefit low-income high school
students in the Washington area.

After subtracting the charitable contributions, the Cheneys' income
was $1.95 million on which they owed $529,636 in taxes, according to
a
statement released by the vice president's office.

Since the Cheneys paid $2.46 million in withholding and estimated
taxes over the year, they were entitled to a refund of about $1.93"
million."

------------------------

I don't like Cheney either, but fair is fair.
I didn't say it wasn't legal. Good tax planning obviates the need for
substantial refunds. Paying that kind of money in withholding only to
get most of it back is...not too bright.
Donating $6.87 million to charity in one year kinda screws up your tax
planning.

RCE
You think it was an unplanned donation?

No, but the mechanics of a charity donation may not fit with normal
quarterly reporting, which I assume he is required to do. According to
the article referenced by Tom, a bulk of it was based on stock options
that were set aside for charity. At a lesser scale, many of us have to
make last minute contributions to retirement plans, etc. to even out the
tax hit at the end of the year. In any event, he paid his share, crooked
as you may think he is.

RCE


Once again, I am not questioning Cheney's tax returns. After all, this
country has no history of a Republican vice president in tax trouble.

My question was about the appearance of receiving a nearly $2 million
refund.



Did he deduct for old underware donated to charity?

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
oups.com...

Harry Krause wrote:
RCE wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

For a former "reporter" Harry, you seem to have a strange way of
working a story.

From Friday's NYT - buried, but it was there. Please note the first
and last paragraphs.

--------------------------------

"The Cheneys reported adjusted gross income of nearly $8.82 million,
a
number largely padded with income they received by exercising stock
options that had been set aside in 2001 for charity.

The Cheneys donated about $6.87 million to charity from the stock
options and royalties earned on Mrs. Cheney's books: "America: A
Patriotic Primer," "A is for Abigail: An Almanac of Amazing American
Women" and "When Washington Crossed the Delawa A Wintertime Story
for Young Patriots."

Recipients of their charitable donations included: George Washington
University Medical Faculty Associates for the benefit of the
Cardiothoracic Institute, the University of Wyoming Foundation and
Capital Partners for Education, to benefit low-income high school
students in the Washington area.

After subtracting the charitable contributions, the Cheneys' income
was $1.95 million on which they owed $529,636 in taxes, according to
a
statement released by the vice president's office.

Since the Cheneys paid $2.46 million in withholding and estimated
taxes over the year, they were entitled to a refund of about $1.93"
million."

------------------------

I don't like Cheney either, but fair is fair.

I didn't say it wasn't legal. Good tax planning obviates the need for
substantial refunds. Paying that kind of money in withholding only to
get
most of it back is...not too bright.

Donating $6.87 million to charity in one year kinda screws up your tax
planning.

RCE


You think it was an unplanned donation?

It wouldn't matter. Have you ever exercised stock options? Depending
on the size, tax withholding is often required on the transaction,
particularly if it was considered cashing out, even if he donated the
cash proceeds from the transaction to charity.


Very true, and if they do not think you still paid enough withholding, they
get you for an underpayment penalty.
Does not matter that you paid more than the year before, even a lot more.

Speaking of Tax Refunds...
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
RCE wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
RCE wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 06:20:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

...I don't get much of one, and neither do most people who do
proper
tax planning, but I guess that excludes Dick Cheney, who
reportedly
is getting a $1.9 million refund.

I'm sure it is perfectly legal, but, sheesh, talk about a guy who
knows and cares nothing about even the semblance of appearances.
For a former "reporter" Harry, you seem to have a strange way of
working a story.

From Friday's NYT - buried, but it was there. Please note the
first
and last paragraphs.

--------------------------------

"The Cheneys reported adjusted gross income of nearly $8.82
million,
a
number largely padded with income they received by exercising
stock
options that had been set aside in 2001 for charity.

The Cheneys donated about $6.87 million to charity from the stock
options and royalties earned on Mrs. Cheney's books: "America: A
Patriotic Primer," "A is for Abigail: An Almanac of Amazing
American
Women" and "When Washington Crossed the Delawa A Wintertime
Story
for Young Patriots."

Recipients of their charitable donations included: George
Washington
University Medical Faculty Associates for the benefit of the
Cardiothoracic Institute, the University of Wyoming Foundation and
Capital Partners for Education, to benefit low-income high school
students in the Washington area.

After subtracting the charitable contributions, the Cheneys'
income
was $1.95 million on which they owed $529,636 in taxes, according
to
a
statement released by the vice president's office.

Since the Cheneys paid $2.46 million in withholding and estimated
taxes over the year, they were entitled to a refund of about
$1.93"
million."

------------------------

I don't like Cheney either, but fair is fair.
I didn't say it wasn't legal. Good tax planning obviates the need
for
substantial refunds. Paying that kind of money in withholding only
to
get most of it back is...not too bright.
Donating $6.87 million to charity in one year kinda screws up your
tax
planning.

RCE
You think it was an unplanned donation?

No, but the mechanics of a charity donation may not fit with normal
quarterly reporting, which I assume he is required to do. According
to
the article referenced by Tom, a bulk of it was based on stock options
that were set aside for charity. At a lesser scale, many of us have
to
make last minute contributions to retirement plans, etc. to even out
the
tax hit at the end of the year. In any event, he paid his share,
crooked
as you may think he is.

RCE


Once again, I am not questioning Cheney's tax returns. After all, this
country has no history of a Republican vice president in tax trouble.

My question was about the appearance of receiving a nearly $2 million
refund.



Did he deduct for old underware donated to charity?


So the guvmint held his money interest free for all that time, and harry
has a problem with him getting it back.........how typically ignorant of
him.