PDA

View Full Version : Update on thos AIG Bonuses



RedDog
03-27-2009, 09:48 AM
They are so screwed...


Give Back That Bonus!
Oh, and by the way, you still owe taxes on it.
By JAMES TARANTO

So, you still work for AIG, having decided not to desert a sinking ship. For this you received a retention bonus, but the politicians have decided to make a scapegoat out of you. Last week the House passed a bill that would tax your bonus at 90%--which, since you live in high-tax New York City, means you'd end up paying more than 100% when you add up all the taxes. In McCarthyite fashion, your state attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, says he has a list of names, as the Washington Post reports:

New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo had subpoenaed AIG for a list of Financial Products employees and how much money each had received.
Now, the firm's chief operating officer, Gerry Pasciucco, had set a 5 p.m. Monday deadline for staffers to indicate whether they planned to return their retention payments, and if so, what percentage. His e-mail included what appeared to be a tacit ultimatum from Cuomo.

"We have received assurances from Attorney General Cuomo that no names will be released by his office before he completes a security review which is expected to take at least a week," Pasciucco wrote."To the extent that we meet certain participation targets, it is not expected that the names would be released at all."

In light of all this, you do the right thing and give the bonus back.

Sucker!

That's the upshot of blogger Richard Belzer's analysis of the tax implications of giving back a bonus.

The good news is that the House bonus-confiscation bill specifically excludes "any amount if the employee irrevocably waives the employee's entitlement to such payment, or the employee returns such payment to the employer, before the close of the taxable year in which such payment is due," provided that the employee does not receive "any benefit from the employer in connection with the waiver or return of such payment."

That means you won't be taxed at 90% on the money you held only briefly. But you will be taxed. As Belzer explains:

All compensation, including the retention bonuses, received by employees for services is included in the recipient's gross income, and in determining his adjusted gross income (AGI). If a bonus recipient gives it back, does the bonus vanish from the employee's income?

No. Because the recipient was entitled to receive the amount of the bonus, and actually received it, it cannot be excluded from gross income or AGI.
This is true under existing law, irrespective of whether the House-passed bill is ever enacted. Belzer notes a couple of ways in which you may be able to reduce the tax on your relinquished bonus:

A recipient could donate all or a portion of the bonus to charity. The amount donated would be deductible on the employee's 2009 return to the extent it does not exceed 50% of his AGI (as increased by the amount of the bonus). Any excess may be carried over and deducted in the succeeding 5 years, always subject to the 50% limit.

This may work if the law doesn't change, but the House bonus-confiscation bill makes no provision for deductions, so if it becomes law, a bonus donated to charity would still be taxable at 90%. Giving the money to charity instead of returning it to AIG would also seem to constitute a refusal of Cuomo's offer you can't refuse.

Belzer continues:

Another option may be to deduct the amount of the bonus returned to the employer as an unreimbursed business expense, incurred to avoid litigation or public disparagement that could harm the employee's current or future employability. Understandably, the instructions for IRS Form 2106 do not address a situation like this, and it is entirely possible that it has never previously occurred.

Assuming that the IRS were to agree, then the employee would be able to deduct the portion of the bonus exceeding 2% of AGI (again, as increased by the amount of the bonus). The proportion of the bonus that would be deductible depends on the relative size of the bonus to total AGI. No matter the ratio, the employee's tax bill would go up in proportion to the size of the bonus even though he did not keep it.

But wait. Because you're "rich," you don't get to deduct all your deductible income:

Regardless of whether a bonus recipient donates the money to charity, or claims a deduction for the return of the bonus, if his AGI in 2009 exceeds $166,800 (if single, or married and filing a joint return), his itemized deductions (other than for medical expenses, investment interest, and certain losses) are reduced by the lesser of (1) 3% of the difference between his AGI and $166,800, or (2) 80% of his otherwise allowable itemized deductions. For many bonus recipients, this will mean that a significant portion of the bonus is not deductible.

And it's even worse than that. Belzer does not note that unreimbursed business expenses, while deductible from the ordinary income tax, are subject to the alternative minimum tax. Thus you will pay at least 26%, and probably 28%, of the bonus you no longer have in AMT.

Add it all up, and the cost of returning your bonus is somewhere north of 130%. Suddenly that 90% rate doesn't sound so bad.

Just Say N20
03-27-2009, 10:14 AM
It was my understanding that there are several laws in place that are meant to prevent this very thing. The government is not supposed to be able to use it's power to punish a specific group of people like this.

This is banana republic type behavior.

We appear to have already passed the point where laws mean anything to our elected officials. They are eager to regulate EVERYTHING about our lives, but they are above it all. Hope you don't prefer black cars and live in CA.

This isn't really a surprise. A guy who can sidestep the whole issue of presidential qualification by simply sealing all his records, and being allowed to get away with it, certainly isn't concerned with laws.

He swore during his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, yet all of his actions are designed to do the exact opposite. So far, he has acted like a dictator and Hollywood socialite all rolled into one arrogant, lying Marxist, who's insights and goals for this country are so far beyond the normal mortal, that he can't be expected to concern himself with the legality of what he is doing.

We are getting change alright. But I don't want to mention any historical references, who some have deemed as irrelevant, even though they predict with laser like precision exactly where we are going if we don't change course immediately.

roadtrip se
03-28-2009, 09:51 AM
It was my understanding that there are several laws in place that are meant to prevent this very thing. The government is not supposed to be able to use it's power to punish a specific group of people like this.

This is banana republic type behavior.
.

This is where you should have stopped. The rest makes you look loonier than the people you are describing. Next comes the black helicopters, jack boots, and straight jackets, right?

I'm not buying the vast left wing conspiracy BS, but I am buying resistance to their policies, organizing the people through information about what they are up to, and holding them accountable historically to their actions, so we can vote them out of office as soon as possible.

txtaz
03-28-2009, 10:18 AM
This is where you should have stopped. The rest makes you look loonier than the people you are describing. Next comes the black helicopters, jack boots, and straight jackets, right?


Awwww, quit bitching about people and politics and help me find my future rubber duck repository.:rlol::outtahere:

Da Taz

roadtrip se
03-28-2009, 10:22 AM
Awwww, quit bitching about people and politics and help me find my future rubber duck repository.:rlol::outtahere:
Da Taz

and work on the rust on the hinges of your over-stuffed wallet and I will!

And for God sakes, pull the Sofa King's number off of your speed dial!

Need more BBs... off to Walmarts

txtaz
03-28-2009, 10:25 AM
Good comeback, I'de expect nothing less.:yes:

Da Taz

roadtrip se
03-28-2009, 10:30 AM
NOW, go buy a boat. Aoth is coming up fast.

Just Say N20
03-28-2009, 12:11 PM
This is where you should have stopped. The rest makes you look loonier than the people you are describing. Next comes the black helicopters, jack boots, and straight jackets, right?
I'm not buying the vast left wing conspiracy BS, but I am buying resistance to their policies, organizing the people through information about what they are up to, and holding them accountable historically to their actions, so we can vote them out of office as soon as possible.

I am perplexed. I said nothing about any vast left wing conspiracy. You did.
Nor did I mention black helicopters, jack boots, or straight jackets.

I stated, "enthusiastically" I will admit, what I see happening with the president, and this administration.

I honestly don't see how what I said makes me appear loony.

So I must conclude you disagree with something I said, or you simply don't like my communication style.

So, you are saying BO DIDN'T seal ALL of his personal records? He did.

Or that legislatures is CA AREN'T discussing outlawing Black vehicles because of the "higher environmental impact" they have because they require more AC to keep them cool? They are.

Or maybe you think BO isn't VASTLY overstepping presidential authority with what he is doing, which demonstrates he isn't upholding the constitution?

Or maybe you don't think he is acting like a Hollywood socialite by doing things like appearing on a show like The Tonight Show, as the first sitting president in the history of our country? He is, and he did.

Maybe you disagree with my observation that he is acting like a Marxist, trying to grab control, either through claims of "direct ownership" like the banking industry, or nationalizing health care? He is.

I don't see how stating these makes me appear loony.

I also don't understand why you continue to read political threads, and then get pissed off at what people are saying.

BigGrizzly
03-28-2009, 12:36 PM
NO2, RT is just using rhetoric he does not mean anything personal nor is it pointed at you. As for left wing conspiracy, That is not true but what is true is the Speaker is trying to show of force.
She has proved to me SHE is the most powerful person in government then second is the president of the United States. Thank all the Californians for re-electing her. All I can say California must have hated who ever was running against her. There is a political partnering, I would not call it a conspiracy. What I am hopping for is during their break that the voters will straighten these people. I for one am not surprised at the government actions at this point. Its a show of force. One thing I have learned in my 63 years of life is only half the government wants to help the people. The others are glory hunters and self benefactors. The problem is the self benefactors band together and they intimidate the others. It is like team racing, hold up the other guys so your team can win.

roadtrip se
03-29-2009, 10:14 AM
I am perplexed. I said nothing about any vast left wing conspiracy. You did.
Nor did I mention black helicopters, jack boots, or straight jackets.
I stated, "enthusiastically" I will admit, what I see happening with the president, and this administration.
I honestly don't see how what I said makes me appear loony.
So I must conclude you disagree with something I said, or you simply don't like my communication style.
So, you are saying BO DIDN'T seal ALL of his personal records? He did.
Or that legislatures is CA AREN'T discussing outlawing Black vehicles because of the "higher environmental impact" they have because they require more AC to keep them cool? They are.
Or maybe you think BO isn't VASTLY overstepping presidential authority with what he is doing, which demonstrates he isn't upholding the constitution?
Or maybe you don't think he is acting like a Hollywood socialite by doing things like appearing on a show like The Tonight Show, as the first sitting president in the history of our country? He is, and he did.
Maybe you disagree with my observation that he is acting like a Marxist, trying to grab control, either through claims of "direct ownership" like the banking industry, or nationalizing health care? He is.
I don't see how stating these makes me appear loony.
I also don't understand why you continue to read political threads, and then get pissed off at what people are saying.

have to do with the AIG mess?

My point? Yes, we can publish a book on all of the things that are supposedly wrong with the big O and his band of followers. And maybe, some
of it is even relevant to the topic at hand, even if it is shakey factually in many ways. But you are right on one thing, I don't want to read about it every time somebody posts the latest topic in the long line of leftist activity that should get these guys thrown out of office shortly.

Pissed off? No not really. Now watch your blood pressure, okay? We will get through this.

donzisrule
03-29-2009, 03:09 PM
AIG executives deserve those bonuses because congress gave it to them...PERIOD! If you want to get mad get mad at congress! In a late night session I believe Feb 11th 2009 behind close doors,both congress and the whitehouse inserted Chris Dodds (Hon. Sen. of Conn.) language for them to keep their bonuses. AIG executives should keep there bonuses and Chris Dodd should be guilateened (sp). Americans who are mad at AIG are ignorant or have underlying agendas ie. bought and paid for by dems.

Dre

PS. How do you guys like Chris Dodds lil shanty in Ireland he p/u for $120g's + clinton pardon , sounds like a Wess deal to me. I'm just sayin'