Archive for the ‘Ohio’ Category

« Older Entries

Should a Taxpayer be Liable for Tax on Income She Didn’t Receive?

Saturday, June 22nd, 2019

Not even the IRS could go after someone for income they didn’t receive, right? Well, wrong. And when the taxpayer filed a lawsuit to reverse the result, she lost. She appealed to the Eleventh Circuit where the Court had a slightly different view of taxes than the government.

The story begins when her ex-husband is subject of a lawsuit (they were married at the time). It became clear the lawsuit would last longer than the marriage, and the couple agreed that they’d be equally liable for the judgment (if any). The couple divorced; later, the ex-husband settled the lawsuit for $600,000. He paid that to the plaintiff; he also filed a claim on his tax return for the $300,000 he paid. The IRS had no problem with that.

Per the divorce agreement, she reimbursed him $300,000. She also took a deduction under Section 1341 of the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS said no you don’t. She asked for relief in court. The district court granted summary judgment to the IRS. She appealed.

The Appellate Court looked at what’s necessary for relief: To obtain relief under § 1341, a taxpayer must satisfy four requirements.

First, an item of income must have been included in a prior year’s gross income “because it appeared that the taxpayer had an unrestricted right to such item.” § 1341 (a)(1). Second, the taxpayer must have later learned that she actually “did not have an unrestricted right” to that income. See § 1341(a)(2). Third and fourth, the amount the taxpayer did not have an unrestricted right to must have exceeded $3,000 and be deductible under another provision of the tax code. Fla. Progress, 348 F.3d at 957, 959. If the taxpayer can demonstrate these elements, then she has a choice between two options: “[s]he can deduct the item from the current year’s taxes, or [s]he can claim a tax credit for the amount [her] tax was increased in the prior year by including that item.”

The government disputed whether the taxpayer had an unrestricted right to the income. The lawsuit claimed that there was misappropriation of funds. “But here, the record lacks any proof that [the ex-husband] knowingly misappropriated income, since his settlement agreement with [B] expressly disclaimed any wrongdoing.” The government also claimed that she had no presumptive right to the ex-husband’s income. “First, even if the government’s assertion were correct, it makes no difference to the § 1341 analysis. What matters is whether [she] sincerely believed she had a right to [his] income, not the correctness of her belief.”

The next part of Section 1341 is for the taxpayer to establish that “after the close of a taxable year, ‘the taxpayer did not have an unrestricted right’ to some amount she initially reported as taxable income. To make this showing, the taxpayer must demonstrate that she involuntarily gave away the relevant income because of some obligation, and the obligation had a substantive nexus to the original receipt of the income.” The government said that she voluntarily gave away the income. The Court disagreed.

[Her] situation is materially indistinguishable. As with Barrett, her obligation to pay arose not from a final judgment, but from an agreement she entered in good-faith to avoid litigation. And it would be equally as “ludicrous”—as it was in Barrett to say that Barrett voluntarily paid his $54,000—to conclude that [she] voluntarily paid $300,000 of her income without regard to any legal obligation.

Indeed, she initially opposed paying [her ex-husband] for any liability arising from the…lawsuit. Only after [the plaintiff in the lawsuit] threatened her with litigation did she agree to be bound to do so and enter into Article 5 of her separation agreement…

[She] also paid an attorney to advise her of her rights, and that attorney told her that she had an “obligation” to pay [the plaintiff]. Under these circumstances—and particularly in light of the desirability of fostering settlements without litigation—[she] did not need to wait to be sued before settling and paying for her payment to be considered involuntary. Because the record reflects [she] reasonably anticipated litigation and settled in good faith in the shadow of litigation, her $300,000 payment was involuntary for purposes of § 1341.

The Court also noted that the obligation to pay must relate to the original receipt of income, and that she clearly established that.

There’s one more element that must be met:

Finally, to qualify for § 1341 relief, Mihelick must show that her $300,000 payment is deductible under another provision of the tax code. Fla. Progress, 348 F.3d at 958-59. Mihelick can meet this element, as she can deduct her payment under 26 U.S.C. § 165(c)(1), which allows deductions for an individual’s uncompensated “losses incurred in a trade or business” during the taxable year.

Given that the ex-husband was the CEO and majority shareholder, and that the lawsuit alleged that he breached his fiduciary duty while acting as CEO, the lawsuit related to the income and can be deducted.

The Court began the decision as follows:

Inscribed above the main entrance of the Internal Revenue Service office in Washington, D.C., is a quotation from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: “Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.”…An admirable outlook, yet even Justice Holmes would likely agree that it is uncivilized to impose taxes on citizens for income they did not ultimately receive. But that is precisely the result the government asks us to uphold today. [citation omitted]

The Court rightly chastised the IRS and US government for being uncivilized.

Case: Mihelick v. United States

Posted in IRS, Ohio | Comments Closed

Bobble Away

Tuesday, November 27th, 2018

Are bobbleheads promotional items that are subject to Use Tax? The Cincinnati Reds fought the Ohio Department of Taxation’s ruling that bobbleheads were subject to Use Tax all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court.

In this case, we are asked to consider how state tax law applies to the purchase of those promotional items by appellant, Cincinnati Reds, L.L.C. (“the Reds”). More specifically, the question before us is whether the sale-for-resale exemption of R.C. 5739.01(E) precludes the Reds from having to pay use tax on those promotional items. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the exemption applies in this case. Thus, in the familiar words of Marty Brennaman, longtime Reds radio announcer and recipient of the National Baseball Hall of Fame’s Ford C. Frick Award, we determine that “this one belongs to the Reds.” We accordingly reverse the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”).

Now that I’ve spoiled the decision, we need to look at the law. When you purchase items for resale, they’re generally exempt from sales tax. When you sell them to the end-customer, they pay the sales tax. If you end up not reselling the items you purchase for resale, you owe Use Tax on those items.

Consideration, in the contract-law sense, is important here: the question whether the Reds purchased promotional items for resale entails asking whether fans furnished consideration for the Reds’ promise to hand out the promotional items at the games.

The Ohio Board of Tax Appeals ruled that the Reds were giving away the promotional items rather than selling them. The Reds argue that they resell the promotional items by distributing them (or promising to do that). “The Reds argue that this promise creates a contractual expectation on the part of the fans, who purchase tickets and attend the games as consideration for receiving the unique promotional items.”

The Cincinnati Reds’ CFO, Dan Healy, testified at the original hearing. He noted that the Reds distribute promotional items at less desirable games (from an attendance standpoint). That makes complete sense if you think about baseball. The Reds have 81 home dates, and some of those games will be against teams that aren’t very good (not that the Reds have been particularly good) who don’t draw well in Cincinnati–say, the San Diego Padres. Mr. Healy’s testimony is logical and sensible.

In determining that no consideration was given by fans in exchange for the promotional items, the tax commissioner and BTA focused on their findings that fans pay the same price to attend a game regardless of whether a promotional item is offered and that the cost of the promotional item is not included in the ticket price. But Healy specifically testified that the costs of promotional items are included in ticket prices when they are set before the start of a season and that promotional items are distributed at less desirable games for which tickets are not expected to be sold out. Thus, rather than offering discounted ticket prices to these less desirable games, it stands to reason that by including the cost of the promotional item in the ticket price, one portion of the ticket price accounts for the right to attend the less desirable game and a separate portion of the ticket price accounts for the right to receive the promotional item. Based on this record, we accordingly conclude that the promotional items constituted things of value in exchange for which fans paid money that was included in the ticket prices.

So the Reds didn’t strike out here (they did plenty of that during the 2018 season), and that portion of the Board of Tax Appeals decision charging the Reds with Use Tax on promotional items was thrown out at home plate.

Tags:
Posted in Ohio, Sales Tax | Comments Closed

Battling for Tax-Free Bobbleheads: Will Reds Win in Court?

Thursday, June 14th, 2018

This has not been a good year for the Cincinnati Reds. With just 25 wins in 68 games they have the worst record in the National League. While they have one of the best players in baseball–Joey Votto–the rest of the team leaves something to be desired. They’ve been outscored, out-pitched, and out-defended. And now they’re at the Ohio Supreme Court in a case about bobbleheads.

Yes, bobbleheads. The Department of Taxation conducted an audit of the Reds and determined (among other things) that promotional items were subject to Use Tax. Use Tax is the equivalent of sales tax when something is purchased without sales tax being applied. The Reds argued that a portion of the ticket price (for a Reds game) was for the promotional item; the Department of Taxation felt otherwise. The Reds appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals. The Board noted,

[W]e conclude that the promotional items given to patrons on specific game days were not “resold” to the patrons as part of the ticket price of admission, but were given away for free, primarily to increase interest in certain targeted games or generally increase interest among a broader audience. The evidence in the record supports our conclusion that the cost of the subject promotional items is not included in the ticket price. Specifically, the ticket price for each particular seat is the same throughout an entire season, regardless of whether a promotional item is being offered. Moreover,
patrons are not guaranteed that they will receive one of the promotional items, as there are limited quantities that are distributed while supplies last…[We] cannot conclude that the Reds’ patrons are actually “purchasing” a promotional item, especially when they are attending a game where there is no promotional giveaway.

The Reds have appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Reds argue,

“The issue, simply put, is whether the Reds were obligated to provide the bobbleheads,” [Reds Attorney Steven] Dimengo said.

“Applying fundamental contract law, there was consideration… the consideration of the patrons to purchase a ticket and attend a game, he said. “And the Reds were obligated to provide the bobbleheads, consistent with their pregame promises.”

You can watch the oral arguments (held yesterday) at this link. A decision should be released in a few months.

Hat Tip: How Appealing

Tags:
Posted in Ohio | Comments Closed

Cleveland Loses on Monday (and They Didn’t Even Play)

Monday, November 9th, 2015

Pity the poor Cleveland Browns. Last Thursday they lost to the Cincinnati Bengals 31-10. This morning, the City of Cleveland lost at the US Supreme Court, 2-0. The Supreme Court refused, without comment, to hear Cleveland’s appeal of their “Jock Tax” after its taxation scheme was ruled unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Former NFL players Jeff Saturday and Hunter Hillenmeyer had filed separate challenges to the City of Cleveland’s “Jock Tax.” As I previously noted,

Mr. Saturday’s case was the more egregious of the two. During 2008 “More than 72,000 other souls attended the Colts’ dismal 10-6 victory over the Browns.” Mr. Saturday didn’t step foot in Cleveland; he was injured and attended physical rehabilitation in Indianapolis. Mr. Saturday contended that Cleveland has no authority to impose its tax on the income of a nonresident who did not work within Cleveland’s city limits during the taxable year.

Yes, Cleveland’s regulation held that a player who was on the roster but didn’t set foot in Cleveland owed the tax. The Ohio Supreme Court used common sense (and constitutional law) to sack Cleveland.

Hunter Hillenmeyer, the former linebacker with the Chicago Bears, actually set foot in Cleveland. He challenged how Cleveland calculated the tax. Every other jurisdiction uses a duty days method, but Cleveland used a games played method. Cleveland was penalized for that:

Hillenmeyer’s statements were corroborated by the affidavit testimony of Cliff Stein, senior director of football administration and general counsel for the Chicago Bears. Stein confirmed that under the NFL standard player contract and from the time that Hillenmeyer joined the Bears in 2003, he was required to “provide services to his employer from the beginning of the preseason through the end of the post-season, including mandatory mini-camps, official preseason [sic] training camp, meetings, practice sessions, and all preseason, regular season, and post-season games.” Stein also stated that “[t]he compensation Hillenmeyer receives from the Bears is paid for all of these services and not only for games played” and that “[f]ailure to comply with these contractual requirements would subject Hillenmeyer to termination pursuant to Paragraph 12 of his NFL Player Contract and/or fines under Article VIII of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.”

Many former (and current) NFL players will be filing refunds with the Central Collection Agency, the agency that administers the income tax for Cleveland. The statute of limitations is three years (from the due date), so 2012 – 2014 returns are open for refund claims. Cleveland will likely lose about $1 million in income annually because of the change and could lose another $2 million in refunds. Of course, they shouldn’t have had the unconstitutional scheme in the first place.

And yes, it is time to say “Wait ’til next year” if you’re a Browns fan.

Tags:
Posted in Ohio | 1 Comment »

Cleveland Already Has Two Losses Five Months Before the Season Begins

Thursday, April 30th, 2015

Pity the poor folks of Cleveland, Ohio. I actually went to a baseball game at old Municipal Stadium, or the Mistake on the Lake. Today the Ohio Supreme Court dealt the city of Cleveland two losses–and the NFL season won’t begin for five months.

It’s perhaps apropos that on the eve of the NFL draft the tax cases of Jeff Saturday (formerly of the Indianapolis Colts) and Hunter Hillenmeyer (of the Chicago Bears) were decided by the Ohio Supreme Court. Cleveland, like many municipalities and states, imposes a “Jock Tax” on nonresidents. This impacts everyone from athletes to professional poker players. If you’re a resident of, say, Florida but you have income from Cleveland, you get to file a Cleveland tax return.

Both Mr. Saturday and Mr. Hillenmeyer challenged how Cleveland imposed its tax. Cleveland used a games-played method rather than a duty-days method. Cleveland said one game represents one-twentieth of your income (16 regular season games and four preseason games); thus, you owe that times your salary times Cleveland’s tax rate.

Mr. Saturday’s case was the more egregious of the two. During 2008 “More than 72,000 other souls attended the Colts’ dismal 10-6 victory over the Browns.” Mr. Saturday didn’t step foot in Cleveland; he was injured and attended physical rehabilitation in Indianapolis. Mr. Saturday contended that Cleveland has no authority to impose its tax on the income of a nonresident who did not work within Cleveland’s city limits during the taxable year.

Amazingly, when Mr. Saturday appealed his case at the city level (through the Central Collection Agency, Cleveland’s tax administration authority, the Cleveland Board of Review) and at the Board of Tax Appeals (the state level for tax appeals), he lost. Luckily, the Ohio Supreme Court used some common sense.

The second potentially significant passage in the regulation is the part that describes the ratio for allocating income to Cleveland for tax purposes. Both in constructing the numerator and the denominator for the games-played calculation, the regulation includes games the athlete “was excused from playing because of injury or illness.” Cleveland argues that because Saturday was “excused from playing” the Cleveland game, the tax applies to him under this provision.

This argument is unavailing for the simple reason that nothing in the regulation addresses the additional significant fact of Saturday’s complete absence from the city of Cleveland at the time of the game (and at every other time during the year). Had Saturday traveled to Cleveland with the team and been “excused from playing,” the language of the regulation might support imposing the tax. But here, Saturday was not even present at the game, and the regulation says nothing about what to do when the athlete is not even in the city where the game is being played. Thus, the regulation is at best ambiguous as to whether the tax is levied on Saturday.

At least two canons of construction militate against Cleveland’s expansive interpretation of the city’s income-tax law, given that the record here shows not only that the taxpayer was not in Cleveland on game day but also that he was performing job duties in another city on that day. First, it is a central tenet of tax jurisprudence that “a statute that imposes a tax requires strict construction against the state, with any doubt resolved in favor of the taxpayer.” Second, Cleveland’s interpretation violates the “implied condition of all statutes relating to taxation that they have no extraterritorial effect.” Quite simply, Saturday’s absence from Cleveland and his performance of duties elsewhere on the same day raise a strong suggestion that the imposition of Cleveland tax would constitute extraterritorial taxation. [citations omitted]

Mr. Saturday will be getting a full refund of his tax.

Mr. Hillenmeyer’s case is a bit different; he played in games in Cleveland in 2006, 2007, and 2008. The question is not whether Cleveland can tax him (he definitely earned income working in Cleveland); rather, it’s how the tax should be calculated.

Being a professional football player involves lots more than just showing up at games.

Hillenmeyer’s statements were corroborated by the affidavit testimony of Cliff Stein, senior director of football administration and general counsel for the Chicago Bears. Stein confirmed that under the NFL standard player contract and from the time that Hillenmeyer joined the Bears in 2003, he was required to “provide services to his employer from the beginning of the preseason through the end of the post-season, including mandatory mini-camps, official preseason [sic] training camp, meetings, practice sessions, and all preseason, regular season, and post-season games.” Stein also stated that “[t]he compensation Hillenmeyer receives from the Bears is paid for all of these services and not only for games played” and that “[f]ailure to comply with these contractual requirements would subject Hillenmeyer to termination pursuant to Paragraph 12 of his NFL Player Contract and/or fines under Article VIII of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.”

Though Mr. Hillenmeyer challenged the right of Cleveland to tax him (he lost that argument), he challenged the games-played method as a violation of his constitutional rights. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed:

Although we decide that Cleveland has the power to tax nonresident professional athletes without allowing them the benefit of the 12-day grace period, we hold that the games-played method of determining the tax base fails to afford due process when applied to NFL players like Hillenmeyer.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “[no] State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Cleveland’s power to tax reaches only that portion of a nonresident’s compensation that was earned by work performed in Cleveland. The games-played method reaches income that was performed outside of Cleveland, and thus Cleveland’s income tax as applied is extraterritorial.

In guarding against extraterritorial taxation, “[t]he Due Process Clause places two restrictions on a State’s power to tax income generated by the activities of an interstate business.” The first is to require “ ‘some definite link, some minimum connection, between a state and the person, property or transaction it seeks to tax.’ ” The second restriction is that “the income attributed to the State for tax purposes must be rationally related to ‘values connected with the taxing State.’ ”…

Due process requires an allocation that reasonably associates the amount of compensation taxed with work the taxpayer performed within the city. The games-played method results in Cleveland allocating approximately 5 percent of Hillenmeyer’s income to itself on the basis of two days spent in Cleveland. By using the duty-days method, however, Cleveland is allocated approximately 1.25 percent based on the same two days. By using the games-played method, Cleveland has reached extraterritorially, beyond its power to tax. Cleveland’s power to tax reaches only that portion of a nonresident’s compensation that was earned by work performed in Cleveland. The games-played method reaches income for work that was performed outside of Cleveland, and thus Cleveland’s income tax violates due process as applied to NFL players such as Hillenmeyer.

Mr. Hillenmeyer will get a refund of the differential between the games-played method and the duty days method.

So it’s already been a bad day for Cleveland, and (as I write this) it’s two hours until the NFL draft and it’s five months before Browns fans can start chanting (as usual) “Wait until next year.”

Cases: Saturday v. Cleveland Bd. of Rev., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1625 and Hillenmeyer v. Cleveland Bd. of Rev., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1623

Tags:,
Posted in Ohio | 1 Comment »

James Traficant Dies

Saturday, September 27th, 2014

James Traficant, the colorful ex-Congressman from Youngstown, Ohio, died today at age 73. He had been injured on Tuesday when a tractor flipped on to him at his farm near Youngstown.

Mr. Traficant spent eight years at ClubFed following his conviction on charges of tax evasion, bribery, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. After his release in 2009, he ran for Congress as an independent but lost. As a Congressman, Mr. Traficant was known for his bombastic style and his trademark saying of “Beam me up.”

My condolences to his family.

Tags:
Posted in Ohio | 1 Comment »

Ohio Small Business Owners Get a Break

Sunday, September 7th, 2014

There’s a new tax deduction in Ohio that gives small business up to a 50% tax deduction on their state income taxes. This includes sole proprietorships, partnerships (and LLCs taxed as partnerships), and S-Corporations. The deduction is taken on Form IT SBD. The deduction is on up to a maximum of $250,000 in business income; this means you can have $125,000 for the maximum deduction. The deduction also can’t exceed a taxpayer’s Ohio Adjusted Gross Income.

More information is available from the Ohio Department of Taxation.

Posted in Ohio | Comments Closed

The Flow of AGI from One State to Another

Saturday, July 20th, 2013

From watchdog.org comes an interesting interactive map showing how money has flowed from state to state. Back when I moved to Nevada from California, I noted this issue. Here’s yet more verification that this is real.

The five biggest losers were:
1. New York ($68.10 billion in annual Adjusted Gross Income (AGI))
2. California ($45.27 billion in annual AGI)
3. Illinois ($29.27 billion in annual AGI)
4. New Jersey ($20.62 billion in annual AGI)
5. Ohio ($18.39 billion in annual AGI)

The five biggest winners were:
1. Florida ($95.61 billion in annual AGI)
2. Arizona ($28.30 billion in annual AGI)
3. North Carolina ($25.12 billion in annual AGI)
4. Texas ($24.94 billion in annual AGI)
5. Nevada ($18.17 billion in annual AGI)

Sure, some of this is retirees moving from the snow belt to the sun belt. But California is anything but part of the snow belt; it’s clear that successful individuals are fleeing high tax states for low tax states. We here in Nevada are appreciative of the $9.59 billion in annual AGI that has moved from the Bronze Golden State to the Silver State.

Interestingly, the interactive map allows you to look county-by-county. The areas that one would think would show AGI growth are losing AGI. The area around Silicon Valley has lost AGI; so have Los Angeles and Orange County. Sure, some of this is retirees moving to the desert (Riverside County, which includes Palm Springs, showed an increase in AGI). However, there is no chance that this is just caused by retirees.

Taxes matter, and individuals absolutely do relocate because of taxes.

Posted in Arizona, California, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas | 1 Comment »

Ohio Back on the Bad List for Gamblers

Friday, July 12th, 2013

When Ohio legalized casino gambling in 2010, they also added a deduction for gambling losses effective January 1, 2013. Taxdood reported that the new budget signed into law repeals this deduction. He believes it’s retroactive; I can confirm that it is retroactive. This is bad news for amateur Ohio gamblers, but will have no impact for professional gamblers; professional gamblers can take gambling losses (up to the amount of their winnings) on their Schedule C.

Here is the list of bad states for gamblers with the reasons why:

Connecticut [1]
Hawaii [2]
Illinois [1]
Indiana [1]
Massachusetts [1]
Michigan [1]
Minnesota [3]
Mississippi [4]
New York [5]
Ohio [1] [6]
Washington [7]
West Virginia [1]
Wisconsin [1]

NOTES:

1. CT, IL, IN, MA, MI, OH, WV, and WI do not allow gambling losses as an itemized deduction. These states’ income taxes are written so that taxpayers pay based (generally) on their federal Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). AGI includes gambling winnings but does not include gambling losses. Thus, a taxpayer who has (say) $100,000 of gambling winnings and $100,000 of gambling losses will owe state income tax on the phantom gambling winnings. (Michigan does exempt the first $300 of gambling winnings from state income tax.)

2. Hawaii has an excise tax (the General Excise and Use Tax) that’s thought of as a sales tax. It is, but it is also a tax on various professions. A professional gambler is subject to this 4% tax (an amateur gambler is not).

3. Minnesota’s state Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) negatively impacts amateur gamblers. Because of the design of the Minnesota AMT, amateur gamblers with significant losses effectively cannot deduct those losses.

4. Mississippi only allows Mississippi gambling losses as an itemized deduction.

5. New York has a limitation on itemized deductions. If your AGI is over $500,000, you lose 50% of your itemized deductions (including gambling losses). You begin to lose itemized deductions at an AGI of $100,000.

6. Ohio currently does not allow gambling losses as an itemized deduction. However, effective January 1, 2013, gambling losses will be allowed as a deduction on state income tax returns. Unfortunately, those gambling losses will not be deductible on city or school district income tax returns, so Ohio will remain a bad state for amateur gamblers. Because of the rescinding of the law allowing gambling losses as a deduction, Ohioans cannot deduct gambling losses on their state, city, or school district returns.

7. Washington state has no state income tax. However, the state does have a Business & Occupations Tax (B&O Tax). The B&O Tax has not been applied toward professional gamblers, but my reading of the law says that it could be at any time.

Hat Tip: Taxdood
Link to full Ohio budget

Posted in Gambling, Ohio | 1 Comment »

Copyrighting a Name or 83 Years

Thursday, December 27th, 2012

As a published author, I’m very aware of copyrights. The books I’ve written are copyrighted. This blog is copyrighted. That doesn’t prohibit anyone from making an excerpt–that’s covered under “fair use”–but it does prohibit individuals from plagiarizing the blog. That has happened, and I had to have my attorney send a cease and desist letter. But I digress….

There are things you cannot copyright, too. One of the things that you cannot copyright is your own name. A Youngstown, Ohio man who pleaded guilty to part in a $3 million tax fraud has billed the Youngstown Vindicator $6 million for using his name in two stories. The man, who is facing 83 years at ClubFed, may be waiting those 83 years for payment (when he would be 124). Of course, if you become “in the news” (which would include pleading guilty to your part in a $3 million crime), you become fair game for the news media.

Hat Tip: Joe Kristan

Posted in Ohio, Tax Fraud | Comments Closed

« Older Entries