- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
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.
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.
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.
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
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.