Showing posts with label irs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label irs. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Following Pressure By Rep. Weiner, Justice Clarence Thomas Admits Spouse Earned Up To $150,000 More From Anti-Healthcare Group



Virginia Thomas’ Salary From Anti-Health Care Firm Only Adds to Clear Conflict of Interest, Need for Recusal
  
Today, after months of pressure from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D – Queens and Brooklyn), Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas publically released his financial disclosure forms, which reveal that he has an even greater conflict of interest in cases related to health care reform than was originally speculated, with his wife having received salary from Liberty Central, an organization that actively supports the repeal of health care reform. This latest filing casts even further doubt on Justice Thomas’ impartiality.

See Thomas’ filing HERE

“We knew that Justice Thomas’s family had a financial stake in opposing health care reform.  Now we know even more,” Weiner said. “It’s pretty clear the Justice has one option here: recusal.”

Earlier this year, Rep. Weiner and 90 of his colleagues sent a letter to Justice Thomas calling on him to recuse himself from deliberations on health care reform due to the appearance of a conflict of interest related to income his spouse, Virginia Thomas, has received from groups that oppose health care reform. In addition, hundreds of thousands of Americans have signed petitions calling for Justice Thomas to recuse himself.

What Was Known:

  •  Justice Thomas failed to cite his wife’s income on financial disclosure forms for 20 years.
  • Recently, he was forced to amend earlier financial disclosure forms after he failed to list $685,000 in salary his wife received from the Heritage Foundation, an organization that actively opposes health care reform
  • Separate IRS documents released by Liberty Central, seen HERE, reveal that Ms. Thomas may have received upwards of $150,000 from the organization in 2010, and was slated to receive as much as $165,000 in 2011 and $180,000 in 2012, if she had continued to work there beyond 2010.


What Was Learned Today:

  • Financial disclosure forms finally made public by Justice Thomas this afternoon confirm for the first time that his wife was also being paid salary and benefits by Liberty Central, another right-wing organization that is currently working to overturn health care reform
  • If Thomas was in fact paid up to$150,000 by Liberty Central in 2010, that would mean she’s received a total of nearly $850,000 from anti-health care organizations, including the previously disclosed $685,000 from the Heritage Foundation – all the more reason Justice Thomas needs to recuse himself.
  • Justice Thomas for the first time also filed a value of $15,000 or less in gross value for Liberty Consulting, Inc, the new anti-health care lobbying firm recently founded by his wife in late 2010.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Rep. Weiner Releases 2010 Personal Tax Filing


Today, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D – Queens and Brooklyn) released his personal 2010 Federal and State income tax returns.

Rep. Weiner earned $156,117 of income in the year 2010. He made payments of $15,275 in New York City/State taxes, and $30,697 in Federal taxes.
Weiner has released his returns every tax year since 2004.
Copies of Weiner’s complete tax return are available upon request by contacting Dave Arnold at Rep Weiner's office.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Assembly Member Mike Miller: Beware High-Interest Tax Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs)


New IRS rules make it easier to secure your tax refund quickly without an RAL

As we approach tax season, many working families have been hit hard by the recession, and will look to their tax return for much-needed cash. Given this tough economic climate, it can be especially tempting to seek a tax refund anticipation loan (RAL), which provides money up front in exchange for a very steep fee. Fortunately, new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules have made it easier to secure tax refunds quickly without falling prey to a high-interest RAL.

RALs are short-term loans made by banks through tax preparers and secured against the taxpayer’s expected tax refund. The annual percentage rate tax preparers charge for RALs can range anywhere from 70-600 percent. Taxpayers can also face additional charges if their refunds don’t arrive when expected.

The IRS has taken action to protect taxpayers by refusing to provide tax preparers with certain information used to determine RAL amounts. These new rules will curb this particular form of high-interest predatory lending. However, while the new regulations will make RALs harder to come by, the loans that are provided will still be accompanied by astronomical fees.

Data from the Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumer Law Center indicate that in 2008, tax preparers took in $738 million in RAL fees from the refunds of 8.4 million taxpayers; that’s an average of about $85 per tax return.These numbers have probably grown since 2008 because of the recession, as more working families have been forced to live paycheck-to-paycheck. Taxpayers who receive the Earned Income Tax Credit, a special tax break for low-income earners, are particularly targeted; nearly two-thirds of RAL borrowers receive this tax credit.

Both New York State and the federal government have taken additional steps to decrease the prevalence of RALs. In New York, state law prohibits tax preparers from advertising RALs as “refunds,” and must state in an obvious place that an RAL is a loan and that a fee or interest will be charged. This year, the IRS introduced a pilot program – MyAccountCard – to provide 600,000 low-income earners with a no-interest, no-fee debit card preloaded with their tax refund, eliminating the need for an RAL.

Unfortunately, these economic times have forced working families to seek more urgent means of securing cash. However, turning to an RAL can be a dangerous approach to the problem. The appeal of instant cash masks the long-term effects of high interest rates, fees and potential damage to your credit score – all of which take money out of your pocket. Today, the government processes tax returns much more quickly than even a few years ago. The key is to be patient and not pay needlessly to get money that is rightfully yours.

What to do to speed-up turnaround time on your tax refund:
  • Check your mailbox. You may have been selected as one of the 600,000 Americans to qualify for the Treasury Department’s MyAccountCard pilot program, mentioned above.
  • File your taxes online using e-file. By filing online, taxpayers’ returns will be processed within 7-10 business days. Taxpayers can also check their refund status using the IRS’s “Where’s my refund” tool at www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96596,00.html. If you do not own a computer, local libraries often provide free Internet access to community residents.
  • Indicate Direct Deposit on your tax return form. Taxpayers indicating Direct Deposit when filing will have their return deposited into their accounts within 10 days of filing. It usually takes the IRS between four and six weeks to mail your return in a paper check.
  • If you don’t have a bank account, open one today. Many banks now provide free checking accounts. Even if the bank charges an account maintenance fee, this fee usually ends up costing much less than the fees associated with direct check cashing and RALs.
For more information, visit the Internal Revenue Service at www.IRS.gov or the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance at www.tax.state.ny.us.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Congressional Hopeful Kevin Powell Says Being Deep In Debt Doesn't "Make You A Bad Person" by Celeste Katz - NY Daiily News

Read original...

And that's lucky, because according to the research of our DC bureau's Mike McAuliff, if being deep in debt DID make you a bad person, Kevin Powell would be way up there in the bad-guy pantheon.

Powell, the former "Real World" star who's taking his second swing at challenging incumbent Brooklyn Rep. Edolphus Towns, owes the IRS somewhere between $615,000 and $1.3 million.

Today, he's explaining his situation in a lengthy essay sent out to the press which also appears on HuffPo. (Powell was supposed to be holding an actual news conference, but it was cancelled.)

The candidate writes of his impoverished childhood, getting kicked out of college with no diploma but heavy debt, ending up on MTV and writing for Vibe magazine before things took a serious turn for the worse. His speaking engagements dried up due to the economy. He got his mom to buy a friend's Brooklyn condo (no money down) on the condition that he'd handle the mortgage payments, but couldn't keep up.

Overall, Powell paints a picture of a man who "gone from the poor ghetto child who had been tossed from college to a 20something and very well-known writer for America's fastest growing publication" -- and screwed up badly along the way.

He claims his situation mirrors that of many struggling Americans.

A few excerpts from Powell's statement:

* "One of my most vivid memories of my childhood is my mother and I going to the local deli and getting baloney, with my mother always nudging the butcher 'to slice it a little thicker, please.' It was her way of saying, 'We do not have any money, and I need this baloney to last as long as possible.'"

* "...having debt, struggling to pay one's mortgage or rent, or owing taxes does not make you a bad person. It makes you a regular person, one of millions and millions of Americans who are in similar situations regardless of race, class, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or geography. This, in fact, is one of the reasons why I decided to run for Congress again in 2010, after my first real bid in 2008.

* "...once my relationship with Vibe soured in 1996, I plunged into an alcoholic-fueled depression for the remainder of the 1990s, not paying much attention to my finances, and allowing a hack accountant to know more about my financial life than I did."

* "...my accountant and I purposely estimated high on my campaign's recent financial disclosure statement, as we are still talking with the IRS about what the actual amount is. It is definitely not what is on the financial disclosure statement. This is a process, but one that is happening, because I am a man and a leader who takes responsibility for all my actions, always. And only with this second accountant, and a great attorney, over these past few years, have I been able to correct a lot of previous mistakes made, including bad contracts I unwittingly signed for various business deals that went south."

And here's the slam from Towns spox Hank Sheinkopf:

"While Representative Towns was fighting insurance and banking special interests, Kevin Powell was leading a celebrity life and running up a tax bill approaching one millon dollars. In Brooklyn, planet Earth, regular people don't owe up to a million bucks in taxes. What planet is Powell on? He doesn't pay his taxes, appears to be unable to follow the election law, doesn't file federally mandated financial disclosure forms on time. Powell: Uniquely unqualified for public life."

Friday, August 6, 2010

'Real World' Alum in House Race Owes IRS Up to $1.3 Million by Michael McAuliff - Mouth of the Potomac - NY Daily News

Read original...

“Real World” alum Kevin Powell may be climbing a big hill in his bid for Congress, but he’s got a bigger mountain with the IRS — a mountain of debt.

According to Powell’s belatedly filed financial disclosure forms, he owes the tax man at least $615,000, and could owe up to $1.3 million.

Powell, who made a splash in the inaugural season of MTV’s “Real World,” is taking on veteran Rep. Ed Towns (D-Brooklyn), but he failed entirely to file financial disclosure forms required of candidates with House ethics officials in his first run in 2008. This year, his forms were received at 11:09 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the Daily News asked why Powell had not filed. He insisted he filed weeks ago.

Powell said his tax problems were not the result of trying to beat the IRS or city tax collectors (the city is owed at least $115,000 of the total pot), but as the result long-running financial illiteracy, bad advice, bad luck, generous habits, and an expensive sub-prime mortgage.

“Kevin Powell has not had a job since 1996,” said Powell, who earns his living by writing and giving speeches. “The situation is I had an accountant back in the day, and I trusted that person to handle my situation, and it wasn’t done properly.”

According to his financial disclosure, Powell has earned just over $300,000 over the last year and a half. That did not make him wealthy, he said.

“I do OK with the speeches, but I’ve also had a lot of bills to pay over the years,” he said. “It’s all relative when you have to also make sure you take care of yourself, your family, a lot of people.

“I’m a regular guy,” he insisted, suggesting his tax troubles actually make him a better candidate. “I’m like a lot of people in my community. We get in financial trouble. Just because someone is smart in one area, it doesn’t mean they are financially literate.

“I can say that now,” he said. “I’m a person who lives very much within my means. But I wasn’t always that way.”

“We live in a country were a lot of people make these kind of mistakes,” he added.” I’m just like a lot of Americans.”

He also said that he is working with the IRS to pay down the huge debts, which he says have been set too high, and which he expects to be reduced.

“Only in the last couple of years have I gotten with a great accountant,” he said. “I spent all this time the last decade working as a community organizer.”

Powell is fighting to get on the ballot against Towns in the Sept. 14 Democratic primary in Brooklyn. And while he has been criticizing Towns and Harlem Rep. Charlie Rangel for being unethical, Powell argued there was no comparison to him, even though one of Rangel’s alleged lapses was failing to pay $10,000 in taxes.

“The difference between myself, and Mr. Towns and Mr. Rangel is they’re actually in a financial position to pay taxes, no matter what they were,” Powell said. “I wasn’t for years.”

Towns has not been accused of ethics violations, although Powell cited Daily News reports about $5 million in federal cash Towns allegedly tried to help funnel to a organization run from a vacant address.

Hank Sheinkopf, a spokesman for Towns, was not impressed by Powell’s arguments, or his position.

“After he loses, it’s obvious that Powell won’t be talking about personal money management as part of his speaking around the country.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Tax Bill? $500,000 by Arden Dale and Michael Howard Saul- WSJ.com

Read original...


New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg paid more than $500,000 in personal income taxes last year, reporting to the Internal Revenue Service that his investments did well but not enough to compensate for losses the previous year, according to returns made public Friday.

The returns showed that the mayor paid more tax than the prior year on household employees; earned between $60,000 and $99,999 from leasing a horse and stable; and put $500,000 or more into a trust for his ex-wife, Susan Bloomberg.

Since 2001, Mr. Bloomberg has annually released highly redacted returns. In the spaces where his income and other financial data would be included on the tax forms, Mr. Bloomberg's accountants substitute a code letter representing ranges of dollar amounts. For example, the mayor listed his adjusted gross income as "G," the highest category, which stands for $500,000 or more.

MAYOR
Mayor Bloomberg Bloomberg News

Still, tax-related documents reveal details about Mr. Bloomberg's life and finances. They show, for example, that he made money from two appearances in episodes of "Law and Order" and a Muppets Christmas special he appeared in last year.

A conflict-of-interest statement from the mayor provided details of income earned from various positions and investments he holds. They showed he earned income from his investment in "Focus," a film adaptation of an Arthur Miller story he backed years ago, but that had been a source of loss until now.

Horse show winnings were also listed by Mr. Bloomberg, whose youngest daughter, Georgina Bloomberg, is an equestrienne who won her first grand prix in a horse show last month.

Details of two investment vehicles in which Mr. Bloomberg invested, QAM Select Investors and QAM Private Investors, also appeared in the documents; the mayor reported a capital loss of more than $500,000 associated with the former and a capital gain of more than $500,00 with the latter. The funds were run by Quadrangle Asset Management, formerly headed by Steven L. Rattner, who left the firm last year. Mr. Rattner did not return a call for comment.

The mayor also reported that a friend, Gregory Vereschagin, still has not repaid a loan of between $100,000 and $249,999 that was due in 2002. In an interview Friday, Mr. Vereschagin said he "absolutely" intends to repay the mayor but "I just haven't had the means to do that."

Years ago, Mr. Vereschagin's name was listed as one of Connecticut's top delinquent taxpayers. Mr. Vereschagin said Friday that the state claimed he owed money, but when the situation was settled, he was issued a refund.

Since becoming the city's chief executive in January 2002, Mr. Bloomberg has foregone a city salary, accepting $1 a year to be the mayor.

Mr. Bloomberg has a long history of refusing to release his full tax returns. In 2001, during his first campaign for mayor, he lost his temper on the steps of City Hall when pressed by a reporter about why he refused to release his returns when each of his opponents released their IRS filings. "That's fine," Mr. Bloomberg snapped. "They don't make anything."

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Will David Gregory Ask Harold Ford About His Tax Problem? - YouTube - TPM-TV

Yesterday, with Gawker's revelation that Harold Ford had not filed a NY tax return as a resident despite having claimed to live here for 3 years, the story was blogged about all over, including:

TPM: Harold Ford's Own Personal Tax Cut

DailyKos: NY-Sen: Either a Non-NYer or a Tax Dodger?

The Albany Project: Harold Ford, Tax Cheat?

FireDogLake: Harold Ford Has Lived In NY Three Years Without Paying State Taxes

Gothamist: Things Harold Ford Forgot To Do Before Leaving Tennessee

The mainstream media, however, seems to be satisfied by Ford's latest declarations that he is paying his quarterly estimates and that if he becomes a candidate, he'll comply with all FEC requirements. But what about 07 & 08 and if he didn't file resident returns for those years, what sorts of returns did he file and if he didn't file them, did he break the law?

Well, Ford is on Meet The Press tomorrow, as a pundit not as a subject, but Gregory will have the opportunity to press this. Will he?



DID HAROLD FORD JR. VIOLATE NY CITY AND STATE TAX LAW IN 2007 & 2008?

State and City Law Requires All Individuals to File Partial Returns and Pay Income Taxes On All Income From NY Sources

Ford Certainly Earned Income in New York in 2007 & 2008, But Admits to Never Filing A Tax Return in New York



Merrill Lynch Vice Chairman Harold Ford Jr. says he’s a New Yorker.

For 2007 and 2008, Harold Ford Jr. served as a Wall Street executive, based in New York, and a commentator for MSNBC, also based in New York.

“I spent the majority of my time on Wall Street, working as vice chairman at Merrill Lynch." [Charlie Rose interview, 2/4/08]

But new evidence has emerged that raises the simple question: Did Harold Ford Jr. fail to properly pay New York state and city taxes on income he earned in New York in 2007 and 2008?

New York State law and New York City law requires individuals to pay taxes and file a partial tax return on all income earned in New York.

According to the NYS Department of Taxation and Finance, “If you are not a resident of New York State, you are subject to New York State tax on any income you receive from New York State sources.” The law requires you to file a IT-203: Nonresident and Part-Year Resident Income Tax Return.

According to the City of New York Department of Finance, part-year residents in New York City figure their New York City income tax based on income and deductions based only on the days lived in NYC.

However, according to the NY Daily News, Harold Ford Jr. told YNN, a Buffalo affiliate of NY1, "I will file a return for the first time, [for] last year, come April, when taxes are to be filed."

One of Ford’s campaign flacks, Tammy Sun, echoed her boss, explaining that Ford "will file a New York tax return in April for the first time." She later explained that he will file for the first time “as a resident,” but still avoided whether he has ever filed a partial return for non-residents as required by law.

With Ford’s new admission that he never filed a return in New York, it raises questions whether he may have violated state and city law requiring an individual to file a partial return on any amount of income that was earned in New York.

Certainly his work for NBC and some of his work for Merrill Lynch would qualify. However, he will not answer the simple question: Did you ever file a partial return for 2007 and 2008 to pay New York taxes on the income that was earned in New York City and State?

Harold Ford's Tennessee Tax Dodge - Harold Ford - Gawker

Read original...

When it comes to his shadow run for Senate, Harold Ford is a New Yorker through and through. When it comes to paying taxes, though, he's still a Tennessean — he's never filed a New York return.

Ford claims to have moved to New York three years ago, and says paying "New York taxes" makes him a New Yorker. But his spokeswoman confirms to Gawker that he's never filed a New York tax return — meaning that he's never paid New York's income tax, despite keeping an office and a residence in New York City as a vice chairman of Merrill Lynch since 2007: "He pays New York taxes and will file a New York tax return in April for the first time," Ford's spokeswoman Tammy Sun told Gawker. "He will file all necessary personal disclosure and tax forms that candidates are required to file if he chooses to run." (According to Sun, Ford admitted to the tax dodge yesterday at a press availability in Albany, but we can't find any news accounts mentioning the remarks.)

Ford presumably decided that his real home was Tennessee, which conveniently has no income tax. Which means that, despite the fact that New York law requires part-time and nonresidents to pay income tax on money they earn in the state, Ford has shielded his entire Merrill Lynch salary from New York's tax collectors for the past three years. In fact, it seems like Tennessee's lack of an income tax may be the best explanation for Ford's rather complicated two-state life since 2007 — he clearly wanted to live in New York, and married a woman in 2008 who did live in New York. But he made sure to keep a foot in a state whose tax code is friendly to rich guys like himself.

When Merrill Lynch announced Ford's hiring in 2007, it said he would be keeping offices in Nashville and New York City. Ford has said that he's basically lived in New York since then, though he never technically lived here until last year since he didn't "spend the requisite number of days" staying at his wife Emily Ford's breathtakingly yellow apartment in the Flatiron district. ("Moved is such a legal term," he told the New York Times). Ford was clearly thinking of New York's 184-day rule, which requires that part-time residents who spend 184 or more days living in the state pay New York taxes on all their income.

What he seems to have forgotten is that New York has gone to great pains to prevent wealthy people like him from spending time and earning money in the state and then jetting off to a tax haven come April 15: It also requires nonresidents and people who live there fewer than 184 days to pay New York income taxes on whatever portion of their income they earned in the state.

If Ford did enough business in New York to keep an office there, its reasonable to presume that he earned a good deal of money in New York. Now, we're sure that there are all sorts of accountants' arguments and narrow dodges at Ford's disposal to claim that he didn't owe New York income tax until he moved here last year: He could have been paid out of Merrill Lynch's Nashville office, for instance, and he could have received the majority of his income in a bonus that he could claim he earned in Tennessee, not New York. But while those sorts of arguments may be useful to someone trying to get as close as possible to living in New York without suffering the tax consequences of doing so, they're not as effective when you're loudly thinking about running for Senate in New York by claiming you've lived there for three years and pay taxes there.

So what taxes is Ford talking about, if he's never paid income tax in New York? We've asked Sun, and haven't heard back. The most pathetic (and, by our lights, likely) answer is New York City's 8.875% sales tax, though Ford could also be talking about sharing in property taxes on Ford's apartment, or paying quarterly estimated tax payments on his freelance income as an MSNBC talking head, which he might have started paying last year once he decided to break that 184-day barrier and commit to New York. Or perhaps he instructed Merrill Lynch to start withholding New York taxes from his salary when he established residency in 2009.

And when precisely, did that happen, by the way? According to this Federal Election Committee filing recording a donation Ford made to Colorado Sen. Mike Bennet, he was still using his Memphis address as recently as September 29 of last year—98 days before he announced his interest in Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's seat.

CLARIFICATION: This post originally said that "Ford has presumably chosen to instead file in his other home Tennessee, which conveniently has no income tax." That was changed to reflect the fact that, since Tennessee has no income tax, there's actually no return to file there.

SECOND CLARIFICATION: A reader points out that Tennessee does have an income tax on dividends and interest, just not wages, so Ford actually almost certainly did file there.


Send an email to the author of this post at john@gawker.com.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Meeks and Smith Tied to Slush Fund by AnnMarie Costella - Queens Chronicle

Read original...

The New Direction Development Corporation is located in the same Springfield Gardens building as an attorney who served as campaign treasurer for both Rep. Gregory Meeks, left, and state Sen. Malcolm Smith. The lawyer also cofounded the organization.


The New Direction Local Development Corporation, a charity started through the initiatives of state Sen. Malcolm Smith (D-St. Albans) and Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-Jamaica), has come under scrutiny by an ethics watchdog group after a review of public documents revealed that large amounts of taxpayer money have gone unaccounted for.

“It raised so many red flags that you don’t normally see with nonprofits and that bears looking into,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, the organization that conducted the research. “A public office is a public trust, and even though officials are subjected to a fair amount of transparency, all too often they do not get the scrutiny that they deserve.”

Smith acknowledges founding NDLDC, but denies any further involvement, while Meeks rebuffs any and all ties to the group.

In an interview with the Queens Chronicle on Tuesday, Meeks said he has never donated money to NDLDC and has no knowledge of

The New Direction Local Development Corporation, a charity started through the initiatives of state Sen. Malcolm Smith (D-St. Albans) and Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-Jamaica), has come under scrutiny by an ethics watchdog group after a review of public documents revealed that large amounts of taxpayer money have gone unaccounted for.

“It raised so many red flags that you don’t normally see with nonprofits and that bears looking into,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, the organization that conducted the research. “A public office is a public trust, and even though officials are subjected to a fair amount of transparency, all too often they do not get the scrutiny that they deserve.”

Smith acknowledges founding NDLDC, but denies any further involvement, while Meeks rebuffs any and all ties to the group.

In an interview with the Queens Chronicle on Tuesday, Meeks said he has never donated money to NDLDC and has no knowledge of the information contained in its tax return filings.

“It is not my charity,” he said. “I didn’t hire anyone and I didn’t get involved with the day to day operations of the group.” Meeks called reports regarding the matter, which first appeared in the New York Post on Jan. 31 a “misrepresentation” and a “hit job without the facts.”

NDLDC’s mission is to “foster economic development in southeast Queens,” through the “rehabilitation and revitalization of commercial districts, the creation of affordable housing, and an increase in home ownership in the area,” according to the website for the nonprofit, but tax documents suggest the group is doing otherwise, according to the National Legal and Policy Center.

In 2001 the charity spent $38,700 out of the $57,050 it earned on consultants. In 2007 NDLDC spent $11,793 on meals and entertainment and $9,004 in federal tax penalties. Moreover, the 2007 document only lists a handful of charitable donations including community outreach services, a family day, senior appreciation day and Toys for Tots.

In 2008, NDLDC spent $810 on professional fees and other payments to independent contractors. Although it had $55,254 in net assets for that year, it lists no charitable donations or expenses other than a $10 bank service charge, so it is unclear if and how the rest of the money was spent. Calls to several of the group’s board members were not returned.

Boehm, a former prosecutor, along with a team of trained investigators and retired attorneys, spent more than 100 hours reviewing IRS tax returns, state budget records and other documents. They concluded that NDLDC does more to benefit Meeks and Smith than to create development.

The Springfield Gardens charity was incorporated in Feb. 2000 under the names of individuals closely associated to the two Queens Democrats rather than the men themselves — Michele Smith, the wife of Malcolm Smith, Cathy Greene, the wife of Darryl Greene, Smith’s former business partner, and Michael Flowers, the son of Joan Flowers, an attorney who worked as a campaign treasurer for both Smith and Meeks.

“I think he was being careful, knowing what the code of ethics was,” Boehm said of Smith. “You can’t do political favors for organizations and have those organizations donate to groups that you direct, because then it appears that government services are for sale.”

In an email statement, Tai White, a spokeswoman for Smith, said the legislator appropriated funds for charity, but denied that he or his wife had any involvement in its day to day operations since he helped found it.

“As for their accounting of charitable donations separate from state funds, that is the sole perview of the organization and does not involve the senator,” White wrote.

In 2005, the NDLDC created New Yorkers Organized to Assist Hurricane Families, an effort to provide aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina and received $31,210 in donations — $11, 210 from a community gospel concert, $5,000 from Meeks’ campaign committee and $15,000 from other donors — but NDLDC only reported $1,392 for aid to Katrina victims on its tax 2006 tax return.

Meeks’ campaign committee originally donated $10,000 to NOAH-F, but according to a 2008 amended filing, half of it was returned. Meeks said that his campaign had pledged $5,000 but the additional money was “inadvertently given by mistake” and that is why it was returned.

Meeks explained that he worked with community members to help set up a transparent system to collect donations for NOAH-F in order to prevent a “commingling” of bank accounts between the group and NDLDC, but that is where he says his involvement ended. Meeks said the donations were given to 30 families who had been displaced after Hurricane Katrina and were living in New York. He said to his knowledge the victims would bring in their rent bills and utility bills and the group would write out the checks directly to the companies and landlords.

The National Legal and Policy Center plans to file a state ethics complaint against Smith later this week and will ask the IRS to review the matter as well. “We don’t have subpoena power, but we can examine something and say ‘This doesn’t look right,’” Boehm asserted.

Meanwhile, the involvement of Greene, Smith’s old business partner, could cause a problem for the state’s selection of the Aqueduct Entertainment Group to redevelop Aqueduct Race Track. In 1999, Greene, an investor in AEG, was convicted of stealing $500,000 from city agencies and private firms that paid him for affirmative-action hiring services. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) insists that any investor in the winning bidder cannot have a conviction involving “larceny of any sort.”

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Mostly Cheers at Auction for Aqueduct Race Track Land by Lisa L. Colangelo - NY Daily News

Read original...

Land sold near the Aqueduct race track will benefit the New York Racing Association. Smith for News

But how much money the auction raked in is still not clear.

Some of the lots, which were offered both as bundles and individual parcels, went for as much as $460,000. Others were snatched up for $32,000, officials said yesterday.

"All the properties were sold, subject to approval by NYRA" said Richard Maltz, vice president at David R. Maltz and Co., the real estate auction house contracted by the association. "NYRA was extremely happy with the outcome."

He declined to say how much money was raised overall.

NYRA emerged from bankruptcy last year with a new contract to operate the state's three race tracks: Aqueduct, Saratoga and Belmont Park. It still owes money to the Internal Revenue Service.

A plan to place video lottery terminals at Aqueduct to help cash flow fell apart this year. Seven companies have recently bid again for that contract.

The auction, which took place Wednesday afternoon at the race track, was filled with developers as well as residents who have lived next to the vacant land for years.

At one point during the auction, a 45,000-square-foot parcel was offered for $200,000.

"What's that? $5 a square foot?" Maltz asked one of his assistants. "That's the cheapest property I have sold in a long time."

Carlos and Grace Benitez were among the lucky ones. They successfully bid on a 48-by-125-foot lot next to their home for $120,000.

"We've been taking care of that property for years," said Carlos Benitez, 59. "I've been mowing it and we planted shrubs."

He and his neighbor, who bid on the adjoining lot, are thinking of fencing off the area for their pets.

"It's not going to be developed any more than it is now," he said.

"I'm going to dance tonight," said a relieved Grace Benitez.

It's likely that some of the larger lots were snapped up by developers. The current zoning allows for two-family homes there.

Rosemary and Frank DeBartolo were disappointed they couldn't buy a portion of the 6,000-square-foot lot next to the home they have lived in since 1964.

That lot, offered as one parcel, went for $250,000 during the first round of bidding.

"I mowed the grass. I fenced it in so no one would dump there," said Frank DeBartolo, 75.

"There are a lot of older people who have lived here a long time who couldn't get the land next to their homes. The whole process wasn't fair," DeBartolo said.

lcolangelo@nydailynews.com

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Crowley & Weiner Call on IRS to Help Ponzi Scheme Victims Recoup Payments Made on “Phantom Income”

As Thousands of Taxpayers in Queens, NYC and Nationwide Lose Money from Ponzi Schemes, Crowley-Weiner Send Letter to IRS Commissioner Asking for Clarification on Laws Intended to Help Fraud Victims

As more Ponzi schemes are unearthed and thousands of victims discovered across Queens, New York City and the United States, Congressmen Joseph Crowley (D-Queens, the Bronx) and Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn, Queens) called on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to clarify regulations on payments made on “phantom income” in order to help victims recover their assets.

Victims of Ponzi schemes are not only limited to Madoff-level investors. Just last month, the FBI raided a Queens-based Ponzi operator who had bilked local investors of more than an estimated $380 million,” said Congressman Crowley.

With little regard for their victims, Ponzi scheme operators like Bernie Madoff prey on clients’ retirement funds, investments and life savings. The Federal government is not only responsible for finding and prosecuting these scam artists, it must also let victims know their rights and how they can recoup the taxes they paid on phantom income. Congressman Weiner and I believe the time has come for the IRS to clarify its laws and help the victims of these crimes more easily recover their assets.”

Rep. Weiner said,For many victims, the injury of the fraud has been compounded by the insult of having to pay taxes on the phantom gains.”

Congressmen Crowley and Weiner sent a letter on February 27, 2009 to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman requesting clarification of the Federal tax laws governing taxes paid on phantom income as well as losses incurred by the victims of various Ponzi schemes. The full text of the Crowley-Weiner letter is included below.

Congressman Crowley is a member of the exclusive House Committee Ways and Means with jurisdiction over the IRS; Congressman Weiner is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, with jurisdiction over interstate commerce.

February 27, 2009

The Honorable Douglas Shulman

Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Internal Revenue Service

1111 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington DC 20224

Dear Commissioner Shulman:

The news of the Madoff Ponzi scheme, which reportedly totaled $50 billion, as well as the Bayou scheme and another major Ponzi scheme in Queens, New York, has brought a few tax-related issues to the forefront.

Considering the likelihood of additional fraud cases being uncovered due to the increased attention and regulation of the financial sector and the increasing redemptions occurring on Wall Street, we respectfully request clarification of the Federal tax laws governing taxes paid on phantom income as well as losses incurred by the victims of various Ponzi schemes.

Theft Loss Rule – Clarification of the Designation

As we understand, section 165 of the Code provides for deductions of losses, including losses from theft. Taxpayers affected by the growing number of Ponzi schemes have expressed some uncertainty regarding whether their losses should be recorded under section 165(c)(2) pertaining to losses incurred in a transaction for profit or section 165(c)(3) pertaining to losses from theft.

This is an important determination because if the losses are treated as having been incurred from transactions entered into for profit, there would be no casualty loss limitations imposed under section 165(h).

While we understand the IRS will not – nor should it – comment on issues specific to individual taxpayers or cases, we do seek overall guidance from your agency on the criteria used in determining how to classify these losses from Ponzi schemes. Clarification of this question by the IRS is important as the victims of these schemes are looking for relief.

Additionally, we seek guidance from the IRS on the criteria used in determining the classification of taxpayer losses in the Bayou Group Ponzi scheme, which until recently was the largest such fraud of this nature in American history.

Finally, we ask that you clarify that such losses be determined by an investor’s basis in the investment, including both invested principal and reported income not previously withdrawn, and if a taxpayer may carry back these losses three years and may carry forward the losses 20 years. This would allow the victims some ability to recover taxes on erroneously reported income, as well as some portion of their lost principal.

Theft Loss Rule -- Timeline for Claiming

Under Treasury regulations, a taxpayer may only claim a theft loss deduction after there is no reasonable chance of recovery of the funds.

This appears to mean that taxpayers who may be interested in claiming the theft loss deduction must first apply for any reimbursement or insurance, such as a claim from the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), before being able to claim this deduction.

Is it possible for taxpayers (i) to reduce the amount of loss by any potential claim and take the remaining loss currently, or (ii) to waive any claim for reimbursement in order to get closure and to ensure they can utilize losses against income?

Additionally, as the process of unwinding the finances or filing of bankruptcy protections by the perpetrators of these frauds could add months – and likely even years – to any resolution of the question of reasonable chance of recovery, but the law only permits a three year carry back for losses from theft, it raises the question of whether the IRS stops the clock with respect to the three carry back upon determination of the theft.

There is concern that it will take many years, especially in the most complex cases, before any official determination can be made as to whether there is any chance of recoupment of funds for those victims of theft. This multi-year delay could rob these taxpayers of their ability to claim their rightful deduction under theft loss rules.

Taxes Paid on Capital Gains and Other Phantom Income

The law allows a taxpayer to file an amended Federal tax return dating back three years to take into account any taxes paid on any phantom gains, including capital gains or other income that never really existed.

We have been asked about the fairness of this three year limitation as there are many defrauded investors who had investments dating back more than three years, and who paid taxes on income that never existed. So we request that you provide explanation of the rationale behind limiting this carry back to three years, and if there is precedence in law or regulation for a taxpayer to seek redress for taxes incurred on phantom income dating back more than three years. For example, would the claim of right doctrine provide possible relief?

We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to working with you on this matter. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Joseph Crowley, Member of Congress

Anthony D. Weiner, Member of Congress

Sunday, November 30, 2008

City Pressed Hard for Use of Luxury Suite at Yankee Stadium by David W. Chen - NYTimes.com

Read original...

Some tough negotiations led to the City of New York’s obtaining the right to use a luxury suite at the new Yankee Stadium. Uli Seit for The New York Times


The Bloomberg administration was so intent on obtaining a free luxury suite for its own use at the new Yankee Stadium, newly released e-mail messages show, that the mayor’s aides pushed for a larger suite and free food, and eventually gave the Yankees 250 additional parking spaces in exchange.

The parking spaces were given to the team for the private use of Yankees officials, players and others; the spaces were originally planned for public parking. The city also turned over the rights to three new billboards along the Major Deegan Expressway, and whatever revenue they generate, as part of the deal.

The e-mail messages between the aides to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Yankees executives were obtained and released by Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, Democrat of Westchester, who questions whether taxpayers were adequately protected in the city’s deal with the team.

Mr. Brodsky said what emerges from the e-mail correspondence is a sense of entitlement ingrained in Bloomberg officials. He said that the city appeared to be pushing for use of the suite for not just regular-season games, but for the playoffs and the World Series, and for special events like concerts, too.

“There’s this ‘Alice in Wonderland’ quality to the question of, what is the public interest here and who’s protecting it?” said Mr. Brodsky, who conducted a hearing on the issue of public financing of sports stadiums this summer. “We can’t find the money for the M.T.A., or schools, or hospitals, and these folks are used to the perks and good things of life, and expect them.”

The city maintains it was simply trying to obtain a luxury suite comparable to that given to other cities involved in stadium or arena projects. But the message traffic, which dates to January 2006, raises questions, too, about how sincere city officials were when they recently stated publicly that the box could be used to reward outstanding city workers, rather than mainly for the mayor, dignitaries and aides. The notion of inviting city workers as guests is not mentioned in the e-mail messages until Aug. 7, 2008, and only then in response to an inquiry from a reporter.

The city’s push for the perks has been known, at least broadly speaking, since Mr. Brodsky began raising questions earlier this year about the stadium deals for the Yankees and Mets, from whom the city also secured a luxury box. But the e-mail messages offer a revealing snapshot of the behavior and marching orders of the people involved in the deal for the construction of the billion-dollar Yankee Stadium.

It is hard to determine the precise value of what the city gave the Yankees as part of the exchange. The public parking, though perhaps a convenience to those who drive to the stadium, was to be run by a parking garage operator, not the city, before it was turned over to the Yankees for team use. The billboards would most likely generate about $750,000 annually, given their location. The Yankees are expected to charge $600,000 to $850,000 a year for stadium luxury suites, according to reports.

The project required permission from the Internal Revenue Service because of the team’s desire to use tax-exempt bonds to finance construction. In one heated exchange, city lawyers threatened they would not make the request to the I.R.S. for the use of the tax-exempt financing unless the Yankees would consider providing the luxury suite.

Lonn Trust, the Yankees chief operating officer, wrote to the city on Jan. 26, 2006: “For clarity, no seats, no suites, no tickets, and as they say in Brooklyn ‘No nothin’.’ ”

In response, a lawyer for the city, Joseph Gunn, warned that “No nothin’ can go both ways,” adding that if the luxury suite was not included, “We do not submit the letter ruling request.”

“Suite negotiations between the city and the New York Yankees were part of lengthy discussions with the city involving a whole host of different deal points,” said Alice McGillion, a spokeswoman for the Yankees.

At another point, raw personal feelings emerged, as evidenced during this exchange, starting June 29, 2006, between top city officials about Randy Levine, the Yankees president.

“If we want a deal on the suite, he wants 250 spaces,” Seth W. Pinsky, then the executive vice president of the city’s Economic Development Corporation, wrote to Daniel L. Doctoroff, a former deputy mayor. After Mr. Doctoroff did not respond, Mr. Pinsky, a bit sheepishly, wrote the next day: “It comes down to how much we’re willing to rely on Randy’s word.”

“Let’s not give,” Mr. Doctoroff replied. “I don’t trust him.”

Another theme that emerges is Mr. Bloomberg’s interest in the stadiums. In one e-mail message on July 5, 2006, about the Mets’ new stadium, Mr. Pinsky noted: “This is a big issue to the mayor.”

David Lombino, a spokesman for the city’s Economic Development Corporation, cautioned against reading too much into the e-mail messages.

“Securing the option to use a box at the stadium was one part of a much larger, comprehensive negotiation where we sought the best deal possible for the city,” he said. “Our goal was to make sure that New York had the same advantages as other cities, including the option to use a box, be it for staff outings, for public employees or for visiting dignitaries. The mayor’s office has indicated that no decision has been made as to whether or not it will exercise the option, but it exists for this and future administrations.”

A Bloomberg spokesman, Andrew Brent, echoed those ideas, saying, “As a matter of equity, it was important to us throughout the negotiations that the Yankees were not exempted from such gives or treated any differently than other teams.”

In response to recent questions from reporters, Mr. Pinsky, who is now the president of the Economic Development Corporation, has played down the importance of the luxury suite, saying he did not understand what all the fuss was about.

But the messages show that he and other aides were anything but casual about the matter, with issues like the location and size of the box of obvious concern.

When the team agreed to an 8-seat box, the city successfully demanded 12 seats.

And on July 7, 2006, Mr. Pinsky informed Mr. Doctoroff that the Yankees had told him: “The location of the box is in left field, but before the foul pole. Also, it is designed to project out, so that it will have a direct view down the third base line.”

The city also demanded that the luxury suite be provided with food — just like all the other suites. But the Yankees balked.

In one message dated July 26, 2006, Stephen Lefkowitz, a Yankees lawyer, wrote to Mr. Pinsky: “Seth — Randy believes he told you ‘no food’ and that you agreed. If this is so, please let me know and we can drop this from our list of irritants.”

The city, of course, disagreed. And that prompted Mr. Lefkowitz to respond this way: “It’s really ridiculous, but it sticks like a bone in everyone’s craw. The Yankees feel the city should pay for any food it wants to consume, and I think it’s a little unseemly to require ‘free’ food.”

He added: “For this I went to law school — sigh.”

Monday, October 13, 2008

Hosp-$candal Workhorses By Susan Edelman and Melissa Klein- New York Post

Read original...

Top executives at a Queens hospital system linked to alleged bribe-taking Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio are filing reports claiming that they work up to 219-hour weeks at linked medical firms.

A criminal complaint filed last month against Seminerio says the Queens lawmaker took $390,000 since 2000 in "corrupt payments" from an unnamed hospital, believed to be Jamaica, and its Medicaid insurance plan. It quotes wiretapped conversations among the Assemblyman and "Hospital Executives 1 and 2."

Meanwhile, The Post has learned that David Rosen, CEO of Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, and his top deputies, Mounir Doss and Bruce Flanz, report on IRS forms that they each work 219 hours a week.

The three Jamaica execs have jointly raked in more than $30 million in income over the past five years, records show. They manage struggling hospitals and clinics that serve many poor people and receive hundreds of millions in state Medicaid funds.

Rosen's filings claim that he not only toils 40 hours a week at Jamaica's helm, but also 40 hours for its parent company, MediSys Health Network; 40 hours for MediSys Ambulance Service; 40 hours for a Jamaica diagnostic and treatment center; and 40 hours for a company that runs a hospital parking garage.

MediSys, a parent company of Jamaica, Flushing and Brookdale hospitals, insisted it's in "full compliance" with IRS reporting rules.

The tax forms reflect "round-the-clock responsibility for numerous entities," spokesman Idan Sims said.

susan.edelman@nypost.com

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

ReformNY: Seminerio and Reform Day:Now It Can Be Told..!

I saw this posting on the NYReform blog and I found it emblematic for Big Tony...!

Read original...

In April of this year my former colleague Beth Foster and I had the pleasure of participating Common Cause's Reform Day of Action. Included in our list of meetings was Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio, who now stands accused of banking $500,000 for his official duties.

We spoke about the many items on the reform agenda: campaign finance, redistricting, rules and, of course, ethics.

The Assemblyman's response to our position that Albany needed reforming? "Why? What's wrong with Albany," he said rhetorically.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Jamaica Hospital Paid $390G in Consult Fees to Anthony Seminerio by Robert Gearty - NY Daily News

Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio's close ties to Jamaica Hospital are reflected in this photo showing him (2nd from l.) with several hospital executives, including CEO David Rosen (c.). Photo: Queens Courier


Read original...

Jamaica Hospital is the mysterious med center that paid Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio $390,000 in "consulting fees" over the past eight years, sources said Friday.

Seminerio, who twice helped save Jamaica from fiscal ruin, once bragged that he'd "arranged" for the unnamed hospital to get "millions of dollars" in state aid.

One source close to the probe said Jamaica Hospital was the unnamed facility at the center of this week's FBI investigation that netted Seminerio on corruption charges.

Jamaica Hospital spokesman Mike Hinck declined to comment, saying only, "We're well aware of being linked to it, but we can't confirm that or comment any further."

Prosecutors say Seminerio created Marc Consultants to collect more than $500,000 in illegal payoffs in exchange for help in securing millions of dollars in state funding.

Prosecutors contend the hospital and its Medicaid-managed care plan have paid Marc Consultants $390,000 since 2000.

"I am at your disposal. You tell me what you want....I'll take care of you," Seminerio, who has been in the Assembly 30 years, tells an unnamed hospital official in one taped conversation.

According to the complaint, the rotund Queens lawmaker bragged that before establishing Marc Consultants in 2000, he "had arranged for the hospital to receive millions of dollars of funding from New York State."

In 1985, the Legislature passed a bill that bailed out two nonprofit hospitals tottering on the edge of bankruptcy. One was Jamaica Hospital.

Last year, Seminerio told the Daily News the measure was his greatest legislative accomplishment.

"I helped several hospitals survive," he said. "That same bill has helped more than 60 hospitals statewide."

After that bill expired, lawmakers passed another bill in 2006 that helped Jamaica Hospital financially. The new bill allowed Jamaica Hospital, Bronx-Lebanon Hospital and Interfaith Medical Center in Brooklyn to refinance some debt.

Last March, Jamaica Hospital hosted a fund-raiser for Seminerio.

Over the years, Seminerio has received nearly $37,000 in campaign donations from individuals tied to the hospital. Jamaica Hospital CEO David Rosen was the biggest campaign donor, coughing up $10,000 since 1999.

In IRS filings in 2001, Jamaica reported it had established close ties with several Queens elected officials, including Seminerio, adding, "We continue to strengthen these relationships."

rgearty@nydailynews.com

Saturday, June 14, 2008

'Soviet-Style' Tactics Said To Be Used To Help Yanks by Peter Kiefer - The New York Sun

Read original...

City and state officials are working in concert to convince the Internal Revenue Service to make it easier to get access to hundreds of millions of dollars in tax-exempt financing for the construction of the Yankees, Mets, and Nets stadiums.

All three projects have already received hundreds of millions of dollars in tax-exempt bond financing, but the city and state are seeking more, which has angered a number of watchdog groups and state legislators.

"These decisions are being made in secret in these Soviet-style meetings and it is outrageous," the chairman of the Assembly's Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, Richard Brodsky, said. On Wednesday, it was disclosed that the Yankees had approached the city about seeking an additional $350 million in tax-exempt financing.

"The city is working in Washington to seek relief on the IRS regulations," the president of the New York City Economic Development Corp., Seth Pinsky, said in an interview yesterday.

Since the 1986 Tax Reform Act was enacted during the Reagan administration, private development companies have faced tight restrictions when attempting to get access to tax-exempt bonds for sports facilities.

In 2006, with the support of the Bloomberg administration, the Yankees and the Mets were able to circumvent the federal regulation by employing a complex accounting technique that allows the bond debt to be paid by the city and state with money received from the private developer, known as payments in lieu of taxes.

Now the IRS is considering closing the loophole for future projects, a move city officials say would hinder development. They say that more private development projects should be able to get the benefits of tax-exempt bonding.

"They have taken away a tool that would be useful for a number of New York City development projects. Ideally we would like the ability to use this financing tool more broadly," Mr. Pinsky said.

The bonds, exempt from city, state, and federal taxes, are said to have an interest rate of about 25% below taxable bonds. According to the city's Independent Budget Office, the construction of the new Yankee stadium has already received $920 million in tax-exempt bond financing, resulting in savings of $190 million in tax payments for the Yankees.

Taxpayers are ultimately forced to pick up part of that tab. According to the Independent Budget Office, the city's treasury lost $10 million in taxes, the state $18 million, and the federal government $200 million.

City officials see the bonds as a relatively inexpensive way to subsidize development, specifically because the federal government picks up a greater share of the tab.

"What is advantageous is that the vast majority is paid for by federal taxes as a result the city loses a small amount of money," Mr. Pinsky said. "We are leveraging a small amount of city and state funds to get a substantial amount of federal assistance."

Bettina Damiani, a project director at a government watchdog group, Good Jobs New York, questions why the city would seek a break from Washington on sports stadium projects when there are so many other pressing infrastructure problems in the city that need additional financing.

"Doesn't the mayor have better things to do than be asking Washington for money to help the Yankees?" she said.

The writer of the book "Field of Schemes," Neil deMause, says the accounting trick used for the Yankees and Mets stadiums counters the intent of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. "At a certain point, this is a huge way for the cities to raid the federal treasury, and let everybody borrow tax exempt money," he said.

Mr. Pinsky said all the funds had been cleared by the IRS. He also said that the developer Forest City Ratner Co. had expressed interest to the city about seeking additional tax-exempt funding, but that the request was being handled by the state.

"We are not making an end-run around anyone," Mr. Pinsky said. "The IRS issued a letter saying what we are doing was perfectly legal."

A spokeswoman for the Yankees, Alice McGillion, said it was always the intent to be seeking additional tax-exempt funding, but she said the exact sum that would be sought had not been determined.

While in Washington yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg was asked about the possibility of additional subsidies for Yankee Stadium.

"With the current regulations, we couldn't give out any more interest-subsidized bonds. So it's an interesting thing. We'll talk to them certainly, as we'd talk to anyone building anything large in the city. But I think it's premature. We would like to see them do it without any more assistance, and whether they can do that or not, I don't know," he said.

Photo courtesy of MLB Snagging Baseball Blog...