PO Box 531  •  Durham,NC 27702  •  Telephone: (919) 419-8311  •  Fax: (919) 419-8315

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Cheney reaps Katrina tax benefits for non-Katrina donations

Vice President Dick Cheney appears to have benefitted from the Hurricane Katrina tax relief law for charitable donations unrelated to storm victims. So reports TaxProf Blog, citing information from Notre Dame law professor Michael Kirsh.

According to the VP's 2005 tax return, Cheney claimed $6.8 million in charitable deductions -- a whopping 77 percent of his annual gross income. That's well over the 50 percent limit that would have applied had it not been for the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005, which Congress passed unanimously and President Bush signed into law on Sept. 23, 2005.

The White House press release announcing Cheney's filing says the charitable contribution reflects the net proceeds from an independent administrator's exercise of the VP's Halliburton options. Apparently Cheney had decided in 2001 to donate the net proceeds from the exercised options to charity.

TaxProf Blog writes:
The press release seems to confirm, at least implicitly, the VP's efforts to take advantage of the Katrina legislation -- it mentions that the Cheneys wrote a personal check of $2.3 million to the administrator in December in order to 'maximize the charitable gifts in 2005.' Admittedly, I don't know anything about the transactions beyond the info in the press release, but my gut reaction is that the personal check was given in order to make sure the independent administrator had sufficient liquid assets to pay all of the promised charitable contributions before the 50% limit returned on 1/1/06.
Despite the importance of the Katrina legislation to the Cheneys' filing, it appears that none of the charitable contributions actually went to Katrina-related charities. The press release lists the three recipients, all designated in the original 2001 agreement: George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates Inc. for the benefit of the Cardiothoracic Institute, the University of Wyoming for the benefit of the University of Wyoming Foundation, and Capital Partners for Education for the benefit of low-income high school students in the D.C. area.

TaxProf Blog concludes:
While there's nothing inappropriate about that from a legal perspective, it does demonstrate how the legislation, which was sold to the public as providing relief to Katrina victims, provided significant tax benefits to the VP (and potentially other wealthy individuals) in situations that have nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina.
-- Sue Sturgis (cross-posted to Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch)
posted by Chris Kromm at 2:10 PM | Email this post | Post a Comment
1 Comments:
Anonymous BJ said...

Let's not forget the donation Barbara Bush made , cough cough.

In all my yrs eligible to vote, I can honeslty say she was the only first lady I really didn't like. Now , knowing more about the Bush's.. I know my instincts were correct.

They may be the most dangerous family in this country and their activities are bringing it down.. as they get richer... and as halicheney, as you mentioned.. is getting richer..


You have to wonder about the IQ level of ppl who still stupport them :(

4/19/2006 10:18 PM  

Post a Comment

Return to Facing South's main page

Southern News Update

Who Are These Folks?

CHRIS KROMM blogs three days a week for Facing South. Chris is Executive Director of the Institute for Southern Studies and publisher of the Institute’s award-winning magazine, Southern Exposure.

SUE STURGIS blogs four days a week for Facing South. Sue is the Institute’s Editorial Director and a former reporter for The Independent Weekly and The Raleigh News & Observer.

DESIREE EVANS blogs four days a week for Facing South. Desiree is a Research Associate at the Institute and former policy analyst for TransAfrica.

The views expressed on Facing South are those of the authors and not necessarily represent the views of the Institute for Southern Studies. The editors reserve the right to reject comments that are abusive, offensive, misleading, or that promote commercial goods and services.

Previous Posts