Three Donald Trump appointees owe IRS back taxes

At least three of President Donald Trump’s political appointees are drawing taxpayer-funded paychecks while owing the Internal Revenue Service tens of thousands of dollars, a Center for Public Integrity review of federal financial disclosures reveals.

Trump’s appointment of federal debtors to his administration perpetuates a pattern that’s dogged presidential administrations — including that of President Barack Obama — for decades.

Trump himself has yet to address the issue in any meaningful way. Meanwhile, a bill aimed in part at disqualifying serious tax scofflaws from federal employment has languished since Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, introduced it in January. (Chaffetz resigned in June.)

“The Trump administration is proving to be no different than any of the others,” said Marcus Owens, a partner at law firm Loeb & Loeb and former director of the IRS’ exempt organizations division. “For senior executives, particularly, there should be some requirement that they should stay current on their taxes.”

White House spokeswoman Natalie Strom declined to answer questions about the White House’s policies on employing people who owe the IRS money or whether Trump himself would like his appointees to retire their IRS debts.

The Trump administration officials’ IRS debts were spotted by reporters and volunteers for #CitizenSleuth, a project launched last month by the Center for Public Integrity and Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting. The crowd-sourced investigation is examining detailed financial disclosures from more than 400 top Trump administration officials and nominees, including nearly 190 who reported owing someone money — from student loans to mortgages to credit card debt.

The Trump appointees reporting money owed to the federal government include Justin Clark, a prominent Trump White House aide, who owes up to $50,000 in back taxes, according to disclosure records.

A financial disclosure filed by Clark, the White House director of intergovernmental affairs and a deputy assistant to the president, does not indicate he’s actively paying off his debts through an IRS-approved payment plan. In his role, Clark serves as the White House’s liaison to state, local and tribal governments.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Special Assistant Joe Alexander and White House Liaison for the Corporation for National and Community Service Deborah Cox-Roush, who each also reported owing up to $50,000 in federal taxes, indicate they are on payment plans, according to their financial disclosures.

Reached by phone, Cox-Roush explained that she didn’t withhold enough money from her income earlier this decade, and therefore, got behind on her taxes. She expects to clear her debts in full by September. The White House expressed no concerns to Cox-Roush about her tax situation, she added.

“It’s not been an issue, and I’ve done what the law has allowed me to do,” said Cox-Roush, who according to her LinkedIn resume also serves as director of the Senior Corps. Until June, she worked as a special assistant to U.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

Clark earns a taxpayer-funded annual salary of $165,000, according to White House records. Alexander, whom ProPublica identified as a “GS-15” employee on the federal pay scale, would earn somewhere from $103,672 and $134,776, based on that designation.

Cox-Roush was a GS-15 employee during her stint at the Department of Education, although it’s unclear how much she earns at her new job. Clark and Alexander, as well as representatives of the Department of Agriculture, did not return requests for comment.

IRS spokesman Bruce Friedland declined to comment on the matter, citing federal privacy laws. In general, the IRS advises that “those who receive a bill from the IRS should not ignore it.”

Strom, the White House spokeswoman, emphasized that federal officials owing the IRS money is “hardly a new practice,” adding: “I’m just wondering why it’s such a big deal that these three people voluntarily disclosed that they owe the IRS money, especially when two of them are even already on a payment plan with the IRS as your records show.”

Indeed, the issue of key federal government officials owing the IRS money isn’t new and dogged the Obama administration, as well.

As for the IRS, Trump is angling to shrink it: His 2018 budget proposal calls for staffing cuts to the bureau. Trump also wants to cut the IRS’ overall budget to $9.65 billion, down from $12.1 billion six years ago and about $11.2 billion last fiscal year. (Congress has indicated it probably won’t cut IRS funding as deeply as Trump would like.)

Trump himself reported no IRS debt on a personal financial disclosure form he filed in June.

He is, however, no stranger to debt, writ large: His latest personal financial disclosures indicate he has at least $315 million of it, largely stemming from business ventures and owed to a variety of foreign and domestic creditors.

Trump, citing an ongoing audit by the IRS, has categorically refused to release his personal tax returns, bucking a practice followed by every major presidential candidate since the 1960s. The IRS itself has stated that “nothing prevents individuals from sharing their own tax information.”

Such documents would reveal Trump’s tax rate, overall tax payments and charitable giving, among other financial information not contained within standard personal financial disclosure documents.

Source: The Centre for Public Integrity.

Advertisements

Why Trump’s Carrier deal bad for American business

manwalletredbg

Donald Trump’s Carrier deal is bad for American business because businesses must now consider being punished by Trump for performing an act required by law; acting in the best interest of shareholders.

The Carrier deal is a prime example. Yes the deal saved 1,000 jobs. For now. But the deal also allowed Carrier to move more than 1,000 jobs to Mexico. The $7 million put up by taxpayers to save those jobs helped Carrier. Carriers owners, United Technologies, gets brownie points with Trump and an easier opening door to government when UT needs it.

But what if the only economic option for a company is to move a production line to a more affordable location anywhere other than the US? By law the company has to act in the best interest of its shareholders. Will taxpayers have to shoulder the expense of forcing an American business to keep its production in the US?

No company is going to agree to keep its employees in the US if by doing so raises the retail cost of its product or can be seen as not acting in the best interests of shareholders.

And you won’t find any factory workers willing to accept the same pay as someone in more low-cost labour country. No one will buy an American-made thingamajig for $20.00 when they can buy the identical item in the US for $8.00 but made by the same company in another country.

Will Trump order tarrifs on that $8.00 item to bring it up to par with the American made one? Who the heck wins with that deal? Certainly not the worker who suddenly finds he/she has a job but can’t afford to buy anything anymore. Do you think Trump is going to give the tariff money to workers to offset higher living expenses? Maybe he’ll take that extra tariff income and give workers a $100/month Trump card for you to spend at any of his businesses.

The result is the American taxpayer is going to be stuck with paying the bill for any Trump deal no matter what.

Instead of issuing threats of retaliation to American companies not obeying Trump’s utterances, Trump should be looking beyond immediate image enhancement and instead focus on long-term positive gains for American workers by making it easier for workers to upgrade their skills for employment in knowledge-based industries, and provide financial assistance to low-income and middle-class students so they may attend university and college in order to get a job in the future or create a business in the future.

Threats may have worked for Donald Trump when he was building properties, but Donald is in a whole new ball game where ill-prepared remarks and actions can have dire consequences for a country in the long term.