Earlier this year I reported on Thomas Jimenez. Mr. Jimenez, of Plantation, Florida, created a company, and then generated a $2.8 million capital gain in the stock of that company. Unfortunately, he forgot to report that gain on his tax return. He pleaded guilty to tax evasion earlier this year.
Last week Mr. Jimenez was sentenced to three years at ClubFed, with a year of supervised release to follow his stay.
When I last wrote about former strip club owner Jon Adams, he had been convicted of two counts of tax evasion. Mr. Adams received eighteen months at ClubFed. One of the two counts was later thrown out by an Appeals Court so he returned back to Jackson, Mississippi to be re-sentenced.
In a deja vu all over again moment, Mr. Adams received eighteen months at ClubFed. He’ll begin serving his sentence on July 7th.
At least the title isn’t deceiving. And that’s about the only good thing to say about this measure.
The impartial analysis by the Legislative Analyst notes, “Because there is uncertainty over how the Constitution would be interpreted in its current form, it is unknown how Proposition 98 funding would work in the future under current law. As a result, it is difficult to know how this measure would change the state’s finances.” And it also depends on Proposition 1A (my analysis of that measure will appear tomorrow).
The Legislature and Governor can also overrule Proposition 1B, and fund less or more than the limits in Proposition 1B.
This measure is a complex mishmash designed to appeal to the education industry’s proponents. While education is good, spending run amok isn’t and that’s where California is today. This measure, in my view, does not lead toward a solution of California’s fiscal problems. I’ll be voting against it. If you’re a Californian, make sure your vote is heard on Tuesday, May 19th.
The Pruzan Law Firm began in 1938 in Brooklyn, New York. That’s about the only thing you’ll find on their web page.
Even that may be a thing of the past soon. The Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit to compel the Pruzan Law Firm to pay their back taxes…all 45 quarters they’ve skipped. That takes them back to 1997. As I’ve said many times in the past, a sure way to get yourself in trouble is to not pay your Trust Fund Taxes.
Joe Kristan has more.
If any of the ballot initiatives pass this month—and that’s not likely—expect lawsuits challenging the wording of the initiatives. The language used is supposed to be non-partisan, neutral, and to accurately represent the matter being voted on. By far the worst of the bunch is Proposition 1C.
If you looked at the title you’d think it’s a measure that would change how the lottery works. “Maybe the equipment is being modernized” would be a reasonable guess.
It’s a lie.
The reality is that this measure is really all about borrowing up to $5 billion from the lottery to be used to help balance the budget. There have been such ballot measures in the past, and they’ve all fallen to defeat. This one deserves the same fate.
When the lottery was first passed in California it was supposed to be additional funding for the schools. While all lottery funds are used for education, whatever is raised through the lottery is removed from the general budget. More smoke and mirrors out of our legislature.
Additional borrowing and debt isn’t the way to solve the crisis. California needs to cut programs on a large scale, cut and/or restrict pension plans, and cut all spending so that it matches revenues. The 15% cut in spending passed in February was a 15% cut in the rate of spending increase, not a cut in spending.
Proposition 1C does nothing to solve the crisis. I believe it should fail. No matter if you agree or disagree with me, remember to vote on May 19th.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office reported today that California’s budget deficit could balloon to $23 billion if Propositions 1A-1E fail at the ballot box. Even if they pass, the deficit could rise to $17 billion.
I’ll keep repeating what I’ve said for several months: California needs to drastically cut spending. Will our Legislature do this or devise yet more smoke and mirrors? I think Louis Renault knows the answer to that.
Like Proposition 1E, Proposition 1D taps a “protected” source of funding to help balance the budget. If Proposition 1D passes, $610 million will be taken from the Children’s Services Funds (a $0.50 tax on tobacco products) in 2009-2010 and $268 million from 2010-2011 through 2013-2014.
Other than the horribly biased ballot language (“PROTECTS CHILDREN’S SERVICES FUNDING. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET.”) which, if the measure passes, could be an issue if an a court appeal is filed, I have no opinion of this measure.
No matter how you feel about the measure, make sure you vote on May 19th.
A few years ago, California voters passed the Mental Health Services Tax. That tax is a 1% surtax on those making $1 million or more.
Come February 2009 the Legislature looked at how to balance California’s budget. Why not use some of that surtax? Proposition 1E would divert $230 million to the general fund of funds raised with the Mental Health Services Tax.
I don’t have an opinion on the measure. I do, though, have an opinion on the title of the measure. It’s called:
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FUNDING. TEMPORARY REALLOCATION. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET.
Yeah, that’s unbiased….
Gene Haas won the coveted Tax Offender of the Year award for 2007. As I’ve detailed Mr. Haas lost a patent lawsuit and decided to get back at the government by committing tax fraud. He was sentenced to 24 months at ClubFed.
As reported in the Ventura County Star, Mr. Haas will be released after serving 16 months. His sentence was shortened after successfully going through a 500-hour treatment for alcoholism.
I am hopeful that Mr. Haas has realized the errors he made. He’s still the owner of Haas Automation, and hopefully he’ll be able to help that company in the future.
