George W. Bush's tax return

No, not his 2002 return.  We looked at that a few days ago.  This time we’re talking about 1998. 

That’s the year in which Dubya and his ownership group sold the Texas Rangers baseball team to a group headed by his friend and heavy contributor Tom Hicks of Clear Channel Communications.  I discussed some of the details of that transaction in one of my first postings back in January.

A few days ago, following a link seen in a comment I read on the indispensible Daily Kos, I came upon a 2002 posting by someone called The Anonymous CPA.  In that essay, the argument is made that the profit from the sale of the Rangers, reported by the Bushes as long-term capital gains, should instead have been categorized as ordinary income.  The latter would be taxed at the taxpayer’s highest rate (in the Bushes’ case, that was 39.6% in 1998), while long-term capital gains are taxed at 20%.  It makes an immense difference when it comes down to writing a check to the IRS, because the amount of Rangers profit claimed by Dubya came to precisely $16,999,685! 

The gap between 20% and 39.6% of that amount?  The number of dollars that George W. Bush might reasonably be deemed to have failed to pay in 1998 federal income tax?  Oh, just a measly little $3,331,938, before adding penalties and interest.

By the way, you’ll find a .pdf of the Bushes’ 1998 federal income tax return right here.

Comments

incentive packages designed to reward partnership management for raising the value of the partnership upon liquidation are specifically covered under IRS Revenue Procedure 93-27, which clearly defines such incentives as compensation rather than an increase in the individual’s capital.

the sale of the rangers is not a liquidation of a partnership!

Thanks for your (very belated) comment, billy.  This post was written on April 20, 2003.

Apparently, there’s a glitch in my blog.  When commenting in “extended text” entries, the continuation piece disappears.  If you go to the complete post, you’ll find that I was well aware of—and discussed—the applicability of Rev.Proc. 93-27. 

It burns me no end that this transparently improper transaction was allowed to slide without a peep of complaint from anyone.  I’m sure the statute of limitations for a 1998 tax fraud has long since expired, but you can be damn sure that that wasn’t the case during the 2000 election cycle.  Why didn’t someone in the media, or someone at the DNC, or someone in the Gore campaign do the easy-as-pie opposition research to raise this issue?

<< Back to main