Friday, April 4, 2008
Clinton Releases 2001-2006 Tax Returns
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton today released 210 pages of tax returns for 2000-2006, as well as preliminary information about their 2007 return. Here are the eight-year figures:
- Gross Income: $109,175,175, consisting primarily of:
- Hillary's Senate Salary: $1,051,606
- Bill's Presidential Pension: $1,217,250
- Hillary's Book Income: $10,457,083
- Bill's Book Income: $29,580,525
- Bill's Speech Income: $51,855,599
- Bill's K-1 Income from Yucaipa Global Holdings: $15.5 million
- Federal Tax Paid: $33,783,507
- Charitable Contributions: $10,256,741 (9.5% of AGI)
Here is the year-by-year breakdown:
I previously blogged the comparable figures for Barack Obama:
Here are the eight-year figures for the Clintons during the Clinton Administration:
Update: See a more detailed analysis here.
https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/04/clinton-release.html
Comments
I was wondering why the Clinton's don't file a schedule H for taxes related to household help?
Seems ironic given that this form was developed after the Bill Clinton's aborted nomination of Zoe Baird for Attorney General. I assume they have some household workers...but not employees??
Posted by: Alan | Apr 6, 2008 12:46:41 PM
Naive question: Why is Ms. Clinton's salary a cool million bucks? The figures I find online are around $169,000.
Posted by: Josh | Apr 5, 2008 12:07:50 PM
The year that amazes me is 2000. Their income was "only" $357k, but for most of us that would be quite a bit. But their tax rate was only 14%!!!! I agree with Jake...no wonder she thinks the rich don't pay enough. How many of us have rates as low as theirs on much lower (although very nice by most standards) incomes?
Posted by: Diane | Apr 5, 2008 11:27:29 AM
Sam - What are the amount of the partnership distributions? Is that provided in any supporting schedules?
Distributions would be on Line 20 of the K-1 from the partnership. The K-1 isn't part of this tax return; they reported all the taxable income / loss items instead, including the guaranteed payments (that's not the same as a distribution, just making a note of it).
Posted by: Roger Bournival | Apr 5, 2008 10:24:33 AM
For my sins, I spent longer in the publishing business as a senior editor at major firms than a sensible man would have done. I refuse to believe that these grifters legally and honestly took in $40 million from advances and royalties on their "books." That would require stupendous and virtually unprecedented sales to have earned such amounts over so brief a period. If you will look on Amazon, you will see that some of these rotting turkeys are being hawked for $0.01 plus S&H. That does not suggest much in the way of real demand. I suspect the IRS should take a close look at the royalty statements to see if some unpleasant forces were moving monies through the publishers to this arrogant pair. No one who knows anything about royalty structures and tax/finance would believe this nonsense. A criminal investigation is warranted.
Posted by: ossian | Apr 5, 2008 9:18:40 AM
President Clinton's schedule C averaged over 10 million on the first time for the three years ended 2005. 2006 should be accrual basis . . .
Posted by: Patrick | Apr 5, 2008 7:10:05 AM
So the Clintons set up a couple of charities that benefit them alone, then donate a couple million to those charities so that the Clinton Presidential Library lawyers can think of new ways to block FOIA requests, and the 527s can run more backdoor campaign efforts for Hillary.
Is the correct term "carpetbagger" or "grifter"?
Posted by: Diggs | Apr 5, 2008 7:00:55 AM
The game at all tax free foundations etc are the amount of overhead you are allowed to charge for yourself to distributing the funds. It's everyone's favorite slush fund.
Posted by: patrick | Apr 5, 2008 6:29:26 AM
Fortunately, I don't see any illegal deductions for contributions to the White Congressional Caucus.
Posted by: bg | Apr 5, 2008 6:16:29 AM
But Greg, legitimate "charities" these days include a host of 501c(3) organizations that overtly pursue a political ("issue") agenda.
Posted by: krandle | Apr 5, 2008 6:13:34 AM
The foreign tax credit doesn't look right to me. Then at p40 there's imputed income on loans to family members. Who in the family is credit worthy? Maybe Chelsea. But they'd make gifts to her, you'd think. She's been outsourced to England.
Posted by: dennism | Apr 5, 2008 5:49:14 AM
To answer Diggs' question: Moneys contributed to a family foundation MUST be distributed to legitimate charities. A foundation like theirs is required to distribute at least 5% of its assets each year. The annual returns of the Clinton Family Foundation available on-line -- and you can see that its distributions have been to churches, universities, medical research, and various other charities -- all perfectly legitimate.
Posted by: Greg | Apr 5, 2008 4:56:53 AM
From Drudge: "The contributions went to a family foundation run by the Clintons that has given away only about half of the money they put into it, and most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy." So, the Clinton's charitable contributions go to a Clinton Family Foundation. Then what?
Posted by: jb | Apr 5, 2008 2:36:40 AM
A tax rate of exactly 25 percent on an income of over $20 million in 2007? I paid a higher percentage on an income of less than $100k. No wonder Hillary thinks the rich don't pay enough in taxes.
Posted by: Diggs | Apr 4, 2008 9:15:34 PM
Hmmm. Even taking account of the reported $3 million of charitable donations, the Clintons' effective tax rate for 2007 appears to be much lower than anything us ordinary folks can hope for.
Posted by: Jake | Apr 4, 2008 9:12:54 PM
Are donations to the Clinton Presidential Library tax-deductible?
If so, what proportion of their Charitable Gifts are to this charity?
Posted by: Half Canadian | Apr 4, 2008 9:06:50 PM
It looks like the Clintons made a very large gift in 1996 that exceeded the 50% AGI limit and carried over to 1997 and even into 1998. Did Hillary write her book and donate all the royalities that year? Something had to happen for it to be exactly 50% for two years.
Obama doesn't look very generous based on the above. If i remember correctly, Al Gore had one or more years when he didn't donate hardly anything, and that didn't sit well with the average church going person, who as a percentage of income, gave five to ten times as much.
Posted by: Jim | Apr 4, 2008 8:50:22 PM
It doesn't show it on here but by far the biggest block of charitable contribution is to the Clinton Trust. Gee, I wish I could do that too. But I would be audited and wind up paying interest, penalties and possibly doing hard time for attempting to defraud the Government.
Posted by: Auditor | Apr 4, 2008 8:39:50 PM
Can any gifts they might have made to the Clinton Presidential Library be counted as charitable donations? Just wondering.
Posted by: Mountain Gal | Apr 4, 2008 8:39:03 PM
YGH K-1s aggregate to $15.5M. What are the amount of the partnership distributions? Is that provided in any supporting schedules?
Posted by: SAM | Apr 4, 2008 7:07:50 PM
I just scanned the 2006 return. What about the rent income that the Clinton's were receiving from the Secret Service for having a shed on their property? Did that stop or are they going to blame Vince Foster?
Posted by: Woody | Apr 4, 2008 6:44:01 PM
Clinton Tax returns show $15,406,527 from
Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund 1, LLC.
2003 $1,000,000
2004 $4,000,000
2005 $5,000,000
2006 $2,656,527
2007 $2,750,000
Bill Clinton's affiliation with billionaire Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Companies .
Mrs. Clinton’s Senate financial-disclosure form, which includes spousal income, reveals her husband in 2005 received “guaranteed” partnership payments from Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund I LLC of “over $1,000.”
Posted by: Cisco | Apr 7, 2008 11:04:28 AM