No; there is not.
Gifts from anyone are capped at ~$15k or you have to pay taxes on them.
this was "travel", which is not "hospitality".
Clarence Thomas
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
No; there is not.
Gifts from anyone are capped at ~$15k or you have to pay taxes on them.
this was "travel", which is not "hospitality".
I’m not talking about taxes. I’m talking about the judicial officer reporting requirements.
Travel is not considered "hospitality"
A $5000+ private jet trip most assuredly requires reporting moreso than a "fishing rod" that Gorsuch reported.
Who pays the gift tax?
The donor is generally responsible for paying the gift tax. Under special arrangements the donee may agree to pay the tax instead.
No, it wasn't prior to 2021 which is what bonehead was referring too. Please keep up with the conversation if you're going to reply.
Yes, that would be you, dipshit. I even gave you the tweets from a legal expert yet here you are being an idiot.
Yes, it clearly was. Page 26: The first example under special occasions.
I hope this doesn’t affect any gifts from his good friends moving forward. He deserves free stuff for being so impartial
No; you didn't
"Hospitality" has never covered "transportation" as a benefit. That is fact.
Many are defending him because he didn't break any law,.. the left had no love for Thomas prior to this, so they can just move on and continue to despise him.
There are lots of indefensible actions that aren't illegal. Yet you and the far right wingers will defend it anyway.
And the left will continue to grasp at anything that might tear Thomas down....
LOL - grasp? The man is accepting millions of dollars in gifts from a huge republican donor throughout his SC tenure. There's nothing that needs grasping - it's laid out in front of everyone. You just choose to ignore it because the right wing propaganda tells you to.
Grasp. GTFOWTS
Well, considering he is ethically corrupt anyone who opposes corruption ought to be trying to tear him down, we’re on the right side of history here, as we usually are.
Internet tough guy is a pretty weak way to begin a successful social media campaign,.. better regroup and start over.
All I’m getting out of this is Soros has been dropping the ball. Since he’s obviously bff’s with every left leaning judge and candidate he could have been lavishing them with undisclosed “hospitalities” for years. Apparently there’s no problem with that.
Read what you just wrote.
You are the last person who gets to define the word 'hospitality'. The transportation was provided by his friend, to go on trips with his friend or to visit his friend.
No, for the last time it was not and you are the one out of your element. This is the 2021 rules. The MAJORITY of Thomas' time fall under the statute that was passed after Watergate and did NOT have the requirement as stated several times already from the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.Yes, it clearly was. Page 26: The first example under special occasions.
Please understand the difference and there are 3 laws in play here:
1. 1978 Statute PRIOR to 2021 which covers most of Thomas' time in SC and does NOT say ANYTHING about travel.
2. 2021 Guidance
3. March 2023 Guidance
Last edited:
Hospitality means the considerate care of guests, which may include refreshments, accommodation and entertainment at a restaurant, hotel, club, resort, convention, concert, sporting event or other venue such as Company offices, with or without the personal presence of the host. Provision of travel may also be included, as may other services such as provision of guides, attendants and escorts; use of facilities such as a spa, golf course or ski resort with equipment included;
Hospitality Definition: 311 Samples | Law Insider
Sample Contracts and Business Agreements
www.lawinsider.com
And you FAIL yet again.
Wait... the goalposts will certainly move. Joes Place is never wrong.Hospitality means the considerate care of guests, which may include refreshments, accommodation and entertainment at a restaurant, hotel, club, resort, convention, concert, sporting event or other venue such as Company offices, with or without the personal presence of the host. Provision of travel may also be included, as may other services such as provision of guides, attendants and escorts; use of facilities such as a spa, golf course or ski resort with equipment included;
Hospitality Definition: 311 Samples | Law Insider
Sample Contracts and Business Agreements
And you FAIL yet again.
Transportation is not considered "hospitality"
Which means, free flights on a private jet, which are tens of thousands to charter a jet on international travel, must be disclosed.
What part of this is confusing for you here?
Not per the statutes we are referring to. Travel is separate.
If your unrelated definition stated travel IS included, that would a valid point. But in these statutes IT IS NOT included.
That’s for the 2020 reporting year. The rules only changed this year.
From 1978 Statute below. Hospitality was NOT defined and was ambiguous. Once again if you are talking about the 2021 or 2023 guidance, then yes. The MAJORITY of the requirements of Thomas' time is NOT from that. Get it right bonehead.
Read the whole thread. I'm tired of arguing with you when you're clearly incorrect. I outlined the years when the reporting requirements changed. You have yet to acknowledge and understand that the 1978 rules were the ones in place the majority of the time and you're missing that.
"Hospitality" has never covered "transportation" as a benefit. That is fact.
LOL so you're admitting the above statement by you is wrong. Thank you!
We have to go all the way back to "1978" now?
The rules in place in the 2000s did NOT ever include transportation as "hospitality".
ONLY in minor cases, where maybe you ride along with someone FROM their home to some common event is it not considered a "handout". Tens of thousands in private jet travel is CLEARLY not this. Quit trying to pretend it is with 45 yr old info.
Not during the time we are referring to. Go back to the 1800s if you have to, it's not relevant here.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 95,837
- 196,129
- 113
Yup
And it appears to be the "former", as we do not see this with any other of the current Justices, do we?
