Reid got $1 million for land he hadn't owned for 3 years
Headline is a bit misleading, but so are Reids actions...
By John Solomon
ASSOCIATED PRESS
10:54 a.m. October 11, 2006
The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years later.
Reid hung up the phone when questioned about the deal during an AP interview last week.
The senator's aides said no money changed hands in 2001 and that Reid instead got an ownership stake in Brown's company equal to the value of his land. Reid continued to pay taxes on the land and didn't disclose the deal because he considered it a “technical transfer,” they said.
They also said they have no documents proving Reid's stake in the company because it was an informal understanding between friends.
The 1998 purchase “was a normal business transaction at market prices,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. “There were several legal steps associated with the investment during those years that did not alter Senator Reid's actual ownership interest in the land.”
Senate ethics rules require lawmakers to disclose on their annual ethics report all transactions involving investment properties – regardless of profit or loss – and to report any ownership stake in companies.
Kent Cooper, who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades in the Federal Election Commission, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules.
“This is very, very clear,” Cooper said. “Whether you make a profit or a loss you've got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress.”
“It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report,” said Cooper. “That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee.”
Other parts of the deal – such as the informal handling of property taxes – raise questions about possible gifts or income reportable to Congress and the IRS, ethics experts said.
Stanley Brand, former Democratic chief counsel of the House, said Reid should have disclosed the 2001 sale and that his omission fits a larger culture in Congress where lawmakers aren't following or enforcing their own rules.
LinkHere
By John Solomon
ASSOCIATED PRESS
10:54 a.m. October 11, 2006
The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years later.
Reid hung up the phone when questioned about the deal during an AP interview last week.
The senator's aides said no money changed hands in 2001 and that Reid instead got an ownership stake in Brown's company equal to the value of his land. Reid continued to pay taxes on the land and didn't disclose the deal because he considered it a “technical transfer,” they said.
They also said they have no documents proving Reid's stake in the company because it was an informal understanding between friends.
The 1998 purchase “was a normal business transaction at market prices,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. “There were several legal steps associated with the investment during those years that did not alter Senator Reid's actual ownership interest in the land.”
Senate ethics rules require lawmakers to disclose on their annual ethics report all transactions involving investment properties – regardless of profit or loss – and to report any ownership stake in companies.
Kent Cooper, who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades in the Federal Election Commission, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules.
“This is very, very clear,” Cooper said. “Whether you make a profit or a loss you've got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress.”
“It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report,” said Cooper. “That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee.”
Other parts of the deal – such as the informal handling of property taxes – raise questions about possible gifts or income reportable to Congress and the IRS, ethics experts said.
Stanley Brand, former Democratic chief counsel of the House, said Reid should have disclosed the 2001 sale and that his omission fits a larger culture in Congress where lawmakers aren't following or enforcing their own rules.
LinkHere
posted by Kangaroo Brisbane Australia at 6:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home