« Call for Editors: ABA Annual Reports on Important Tax Developments | Main | Cowan on The Rise and Fall of Entity Isolation in Sales and Use Taxes »
March 11, 2008
Spitzer, Prostitute Liable for D.C. "Jockless Tax"?
Tax angles to the sordid Eliot Spitzer mess:
Tax Foundation: Spitzer and Alleged Valentine Likely to Pay "Jock Tax"
Governor Spitzer and his alleged valentine [Kristen] have more in common than you know. They'll both be filing personal income tax returns in the District of Columbia, or at least they will if they follow the ridiculous "jock tax" policy that both cities apply to visiting athletes.
When the Mets travel to DC to play the Nationals, for example, all the players, coaches, trainers - all employees who travel with the team - have to pay income tax to DC for those days. They are permitted to deduct those payments on their New York state tax returns, so it's mostly a silly mountain of paperwork that accomplishes nothing. The Nationals go through the same rigmarole in reverse.
That's probably what [Kristen] and Eliot will have to do. Her athletic endeavors and his coaching (allegedly a stern coach who demands some acrobatics that are "not safe") will be taxed here in DC in what might be called the g-string tax or maybe the jockless tax.
New York Times: Revelations Began in Routine Tax Inquiry. (Hat Tip: Ann Murphy.)
March 11, 2008 in Celebrity Tax Lore | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef00e550ea6cb98833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Spitzer, Prostitute Liable for D.C. "Jockless Tax"?:
» SPITZER VICTIM OF SECOND OLDEST PROFESSION from Roth & Company, P.C.
New York Governor Spitzer has been brought low by the two oldest professions. By now you've heard of his involvement... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 11, 2008 11:16:49 AM
Comments
Not sure how you suggest this was an income event for Spitzer, except that he was being paid as Governor.
Wouldn't that affect all politicians visiting DC?
Posted by: edh | Mar 11, 2008 10:57:20 AM
I understand how Kristen could be subject to the jock tax, but I don't see how Eliot could be. It wasn't an income producing activity for him, was it?
However, who paid for the room? Did he pay for the room and deduct it as 100% business expense? Could he do that if he were sharing it with his spouse? Or was it paid for by the state of New York? What are New York's rules for reimbursement of accompanied travel expenses?
Posted by: mike | Mar 11, 2008 11:12:16 AM
Hey, lawyer-question here. What's the NY State Bar Association's position on licensed attorneys dumb enough to run afoul of the Mann Act?
Posted by: Orion | Mar 11, 2008 11:47:06 AM
I'm wondering, is Spitzer obliged to 1099 the prostitutes he was with, given the amounts he paid them exceed the minimum reporting requirements? Is this any different than not paying social security tax for a nanny?
Posted by: rob sama | Mar 11, 2008 12:00:50 PM
Excuse me for asking a really basic question, but what are the rules for taxing of income from illegal activities?
Posted by: Jeff Nolan | Mar 11, 2008 3:16:34 PM
Ain't just jocks. I'm a software consultant who lives in Texas. No personal income tax, right? Well except for every day I work in a state that has an income tax. Then, on pain of not being allowed to compete for state contracts, I pay.
Posted by: SDN | Mar 12, 2008 5:50:39 AM
I'm pretty sure the tri-state area is among the most irksome. Conn. and NJ are de facto suburbs of NYC, so two state returns are the norm here.
Posted by: jpe | Mar 12, 2008 1:02:45 PM
They ought to pay taxes, like everyone else. He could`ve skipped that if he went to an overseas provider like Charlisangels escorts resort, because it`s not in the US.
Posted by: Oskar T | Mar 14, 2008 12:37:33 PM
