While talking with neighbors a couple days ago, it was a relief to hear I'm not the only one not too fond of our CM... not just from differences of opinion on policy or his own role in some of the city's scandals, but also the sentiment that we feel forgotten over in the eastern reaches of Ward 2 -- far removed from the very different world of its western spans. Alas, there also doesn't seem to be any significant challenger to him...

by Bossi on Aug 25, 2011 2:06 pm • link • report

How do you get 2 tickets that total $xxx.38? Are they including a gross-up in the reimbursement?

by ah on Aug 25, 2011 2:13 pm • link • report

And then there’s John Hanrahan's reporting on Jack Evans conflict at http://StealALittle.com Steal A Little and Go to Jail. Steal A Lot and They Make You King.

by Rob Halligan on Aug 25, 2011 2:17 pm • link • report

Good to know the juices are flowing strong at Greater Greater WELLS this afternoon.

Really? An article on parking tickets?

Let's do the math here - $3341 divided by 3 years = $1113/year. $1113 divided by 12 months = $92. That means Evans' staff received 2 or maybe 3 parking tickets per month. Hardly the travesty Ken makes it out to be I'd say.

by Michael Lords on Aug 25, 2011 2:32 pm • link • report

Agreed-
Wells really are pretty great; I love the taste of natural groundwater.

by Bossi on Aug 25, 2011 2:36 pm • link • report

This seems a little misplaced. Your beef seems to be with Evans, but what your article is saying is that his staff may have underpaid their taxes.

Evans didn't do anything wrong, right?

by Greg on Aug 25, 2011 2:45 pm • link • report

@ Bossi:

Not sure which Eastern part of the Ward you live in, but I have been in Logan for 30 years. I attend the ANC, LCCA, and Blagden Alley NA. I can say without pause that Jack has tremendous support across my neighborhood. Are you new to the area?

As for the article itself, Mr. Archer's theory seems tenuous at best. I do not believe that paying for parking tickets justifies as taxable income and find the quote from OCF overly simply and likely misinformed.

by Logan Circle on Aug 25, 2011 2:47 pm • link • report

C'mon Ken. You wrote about this a couple days ago and are back on it again.

My tax guy, who is darned good, says the key here is that Evans' office sent the checks directly to the DC Treasurer, so there is no reportable income to the employee. Of course, no one can claim any *deduction*. That's federal law, he said. I can only assume DC law is the same.

"They'd never go into the weeds on that," he told me, when I asked if this would raise any eyebrows during an IRS audit.

And I would trust my tax accountant more than some flak in Ghandi's office. After all, he and his dad have been doing tax returns for 72 years (his dad did mine four years ago and is still living), and his dad operated under IRS Preparer License #1 when he first started with a local firm in 1939. They are among the most respected tax preparers in the area.

With all the scandals in the DC government, why are you fixated on the fact that Jack Evans actually paid parking tickets for employees who were out on District business, attending meetings andsoforth as part of their job?

Would you rather that they leave the meetings to circle the block to find a new space to move their car or to feed the meter? Or would you demand they pay the ticket? Do you know how much they make, or whether it would be a hardship?

In most cities, those tickets would have been fixed and no money would have gone into city coffers.

The fact you are harping on this nothingberger of a story says more about you than it does about Evans and his staff.

The dog barks, and the caravan moves on.

by Mike on Aug 25, 2011 2:49 pm • link • report

@Greg - I believe there are two issues raised in the article:
1) Consituent funds were used to reimburse fines imposed for breaking the law
2) Evans' staff underpaid their taxes

by 7r3y3r on Aug 25, 2011 2:52 pm • link • report

@Mike, do you think that CMs and their staff shouldn't pay traffic fines while on duty?

by 7r3y3r on Aug 25, 2011 2:54 pm • link • report

Seriously petty bullshit. as a former hill staffer, I feel sorry for the people your indirectly targeting with this post. People just trying to do their jobs for the people of dc. Tickets are Tax and one thing... tax and income liaibility are another.

FAIL.

by Redline SOS on Aug 25, 2011 2:54 pm • link • report

@Logan Circle-

Spoke w/ about 2 dozen people in the vicinity of Shaw Skatepark & not one was particularly fond of the CM, though the circumstances of the moment (the double-shooting) may have skewed some folk to be more negative than usual.

by Bossi on Aug 25, 2011 2:57 pm • link • report

Your beef seems to be with Evans, but what your article is saying is that his staff may have underpaid their taxes.

...and the Council underpaid their payroll taxes because Evans, unlike every other Council member, views parking tickets as reimbursable work expenses.

by Ken Archer on Aug 25, 2011 2:58 pm • link • report

@7r3y3r: Traffic fines, absolutely. If they speed, go through a red light, or hit a pedestrian, you bet they should personally pay traffic fines.

Parking infractions are a different story. They are NOT moving violations.

And can you read? The story says the fines WERE PAID. Directly to the DC Treasurer.

The staffers were doing their jobs. Just like the UPS or FedEx delivery people. Do you feel THEY should pay for their parking tickets, or is it okay for their company to do so? That's the issue. And just like UPS and FedEx ponies up and pays those fines, so did Evans. And no one goes after UPS or FedEx drivers for 50k in unreported income for all the tickets they get that their company pays.

Redline is right. This is seriously petty bullshit. And myopic.

by Mike on Aug 25, 2011 3:05 pm • link • report

I think a good way of gauging our ire is would our opinions on this (as a nonstory) be the same had the name "Evans" be replaced with "Gray" or "Brown."

I mention this because gray was raked over the coals for following the standard political practice of hiring friends/relatives. Yet, Evans using constituent funds to pay for his employees' parking tickets is much ado about nothing? And this is after a stories ran here and other places blasting Barry for having the nerve to even park illegally.

by HogWash on Aug 25, 2011 3:07 pm • link • report

@Mike-

Keep in mind that FedEx & UPS are private companies; they can do what they wish with their own money. Councilmembers are public entities; a very different situation.

by Bossi on Aug 25, 2011 3:08 pm • link • report

My tax guy, who is darned good, says the key here is that Evans' office sent the checks directly to the DC Treasurer, so there is no reportable income to the employee. Of course, no one can claim any *deduction*. That's federal law, he said. I can only assume DC law is the same.

So if I pay my employee's mortgage directly and deduct his monthly salary accordingly, that's not reportable income? I don't think so. If that were the case, every employer would start doing this to reduce payroll taxes.

The IRS and DC CFO have confirmed that this is income. For an IRS publication making clear that "Fines and penalties, such as parking tickets" are income and not deductible work expenses, see here.

by Ken Archer on Aug 25, 2011 3:13 pm • link • report

@ Bossi -

Sure, but the tax law on reportable income applies to all of them. And that's what Ken is harping about. UPS and FedEx pay for tickets. Evans does, too. And the tax consequences for the employees are the same in all three cases.

And not all FedEx and UPS trucks are company owned. In some areas they use private truckers to make deliveries and still pay parking tickets. When I FedEx stuff to our California farm, it's a local guy in his own truck who delivers.

by Mike Silverstein on Aug 25, 2011 3:17 pm • link • report

@ Mike.

It should be illegal for UPS and Fedex, and the DC government, to pay fines for their employees' illegal activity. And there is no difference between a parking violation and a moving violation.

You are not "just doing your job," when you break the law. I am the VP of a trade association and I would be fired if I attempted to expense a parking violation.

by CJ on Aug 25, 2011 3:19 pm • link • report

@7r3y3r - But is No. 1 wrong according to any laws or ethical polices that apply to Evans? I can't tell (I see Ken thinks it should be).

I think this is a really bad approach to pick on low level staffers, who very well may not have to treat paid parking tickets as taxable income, when it's clear the target is Evans.

This article should have been thought through more carefully.

by Greg on Aug 25, 2011 3:21 pm • link • report

@Ken,

If a member of his staff is at a community meeting and gets a ticket because the meeting went longer than expected ... What would you call this if not a work expense?
I agree it would make more sense if the employee used for-pay offstreet parking whenever there's any possibility that 2 hrs may not suffice, but it still doesn't make this a personal (and therefore taxable) expense. I studied tax a long time ago and while you are correct about the tax status of unlawful acts, parking tickets don't count as unlawful acts. I don't believe they are even considered misdemenors. I could be wrong and would like to hear the facts. But I think even you are admitting that this was not for personal use. And ethically at least, these staffers should be fully reimbursed for their expenses incurred on OUR behalf.

by Lance on Aug 25, 2011 3:21 pm • link • report

And just like UPS and FedEx ponies up and pays those fines, so did Evans. And no one goes after UPS or FedEx drivers for 50k in unreported income for all the tickets they get that their company pays

The difference between UPS/FED ex and a city employee is rather obvious. Taxpayer money perhaps? That seems to be the general theme when criticizing city employees - the "burden" on taxpayers. I don't think it's wrong to maybe have a problem with paying for our city employees parking violations.

Come on, if Barry had done this, the entire DC media would be near conniption fits.

by HogWash on Aug 25, 2011 3:22 pm • link • report

Are you equally outraged over Marion Barry's failure to pay his income taxes year after year after year? What about Eleanor Holmes Norton, another confirmed tax cheat? You sound like you're one step away from publishing the names and addresses of the staff members and urging the crowd to picket their homes, howling their outrage at lawless behavior!

I lurk here sometimes, but this kind of priggish faux-outrage over something so minor as an employer paying a few parking tickets for employees who got the tickets while on official business really is off-putting and keeps me from participating. It comes off as ridiculous and petty. This is the "new urbanism," then please be aware that it looks very unattractive from the outside.

by Fantine on Aug 25, 2011 3:24 pm • link • report

This is just getting to be over-the-top.

You guys and your constant attacks on Jack Evans. Now going after his staff who are doing work in the community?

It is common knowledge that David, Charles Allen, and Elissa Silverman are after Jack and looking for someone to run against him in 2012 (good luck). But to make it so obvious and with a story so weak makes you all look the fool.

by drissel on Aug 25, 2011 3:24 pm • link • report

Little by little, the GGW commentators are building a list of enemies within the city that is a mile long. And it's all due to the problem of straying too far from just 'reporting the news' and 'providing an outlet to discuss it'. It's no longer the honest broker it started off as. Hence why I find myself posting less and less. Unless some drastic action is taken soon, GGW will find with no friends out there ... (other than Wells ... and like Wells) ... and end up being totally irrelevant. And that's sad because it has so much potential. But when I see such pettiness I know the relevancy is ending. Unfortunately. And I know it's not David alone, it's the 'crowd' he's handing with.

by Lance on Aug 25, 2011 3:37 pm • link • report

@Mike - yes I can read...you said that "In most cities, those tickets would have been fixed and no money would have gone into city coffers." I wasn't accusing you of holding that position, I was simply asking what your position is. Please don't be snide; I wasn't trying to be rude or aggressive.

by 7r3y3r on Aug 25, 2011 3:45 pm • link • report

@Lance

I agree that this can seem somewhat petty in terms of number of tickets and dollars, but I do think it fits with some of the key themes that GGW is about: good governance, effective parking management, and transparency about what taxpayer (and political donor) funds are being used for. And I think it provides another angle of entry into the question of how parking fees fit into the vision of a city -- something that we all know is a point of disagreement between you and some of the other posters/commenters here.

Is it piling onto Evans? Perhaps, but only because a discussion of related issues exploded in the comments of a Breakfast/Weekend links thread, not because the editors or contributors were writing other "attack" posts.

by Jacques on Aug 25, 2011 3:55 pm • link • report

@Greg - I honestly don't know if Issue #1 violates any law, rule, or regulation. But, personally, my opinion on this issue is aligned with that of @CJ: I don't think public funds should be used to pay for breaking the law (and I'm not constraining myself to @Lance's tax law definition of unlawful act).

I'll admit that a ticket for an expired parking meter is of little significance especially when compared to running a red light or some purposeful violation. But I say "no" across the board for practical considerations: How would you draw the line? Purposeful vs. accidental violations? How do you prove that? Traffic vs. parking violations? Wouldn't reimbursing parking fines provide an incentive for public servants to disregard parking rules since they won't face any consequences?

And while I'm opining let me say that I care not about Issue #2. That's not to say it's not an issue, but it's not one I'm concerned about. I'm not exactly sure why some commenters are up in arms as if @Ken Archer called the staffers criminal. I certainly didn't read it that way. I just read it as saying a certain practice is going on, noted a related issue about taxes, and called for both to stop. But reading is subjective, I guess.

by 7r3y3r on Aug 25, 2011 3:59 pm • link • report

You all are being waaaaay too hard on Ken. How is this article different from the other "nonstories" we've read here about how DC gov't is operating? It's along the same lines.

In this case a CM is using funds to pay for parking tickets I don't think he should have to pay for. I could care less that it's a city employee. If you know that your meeting may run over two hours, then set your alarm (like all of us do) and get back out there. W/the advent of credit card meters, this shouldn't even be an issue.

And please let's not talk about the media going after the "staff" of CM's or other city leaders.

And I just had a thought that may have already been answered but, are these city-owned vehicles or personal ones?

by HogWash on Aug 25, 2011 4:06 pm • link • report

I don't have a thing for or against Evans. I just think it's ridiculous that Lance and others view parking tickets as a business expense. They are not.

I defy any commenter here to find HR or accounting guidance at ANY reputable firm that allows parking fines to be expensed.

by CJ on Aug 25, 2011 4:12 pm • link • report

@ 7r3y3r:

Caveat - these are not public funds. These are privately raised funds. I'm sure Ken just left this out by accident.

@ Ken Archer:

These tickets, if you read the article more carefully, were paid directly by the fund to the DMV. They were not paid to the staff or offered as reimbursements. Therefore, it would be totally impossible to require that someone pay tax on it. Am I right or am I right?

by Lydia on Aug 25, 2011 4:32 pm • link • report

@ Lydia

My parking at my office is paid for directly by my employer to the building management. Yet I am still taxed for it.

by CJ on Aug 25, 2011 4:58 pm • link • report

@Lydia, Yes, Ken should have pointed out that these aren't public funds but instead donations to Evans office for use in constituent services ... And no one can deny that a staffer attending a community meeting is performing constituent services. Additionally, Ken is confusing a legal principle having to do with illegal acts ... and under the law parking violations are not illegal acts. They carry no element of criminality. Now, not paying the fine us criminal ... but not the fine itself. Yeah, these baseless and petty attacks aren't pretty ...or honest.

by Lance on Aug 25, 2011 5:01 pm • link • report

@CJ, The tax code does not allow your regular commuting expenses to be deductible.hence, why your parking is taxable. Reimbursement for expenses incurred as part of the business are deductible ... and attending a community meeting is one such expense.

by Lance on Aug 25, 2011 5:06 pm • link • report

@CJ

My parking at my office is paid for directly by my employer to the building management. Yet I am still taxed for it.

Parking is a tax-free fringe benefit, they shouldn't be taxing you for that...

by MLD on Aug 25, 2011 5:08 pm • link • report

@Lance, I think you may be conflating "illegal acts" with "criminal acts." They're similar, but not the same. Think of it this way - square:rectangle :: criminal:illegal

by 7r3y3r on Aug 25, 2011 5:12 pm • link • report

@CJ: Every delivery company under the universe allows parking tickets to be expensed. Start with FedEx and UPS.

@CJ: So parking tickets are the same as moving violations? I never saw anyone arrested or sent to jail for overtime parking. But I've seen plenty of folks busted and sent to jail for DUI, speeding, reckless driving, etc; Nobody ever died because of overtime parking, but moving violations kill thousands every year.

@CJ: Whether reimbursing parking tickets "should be" legal doesn't matter one whit. It is legal. Get over it.

by Mike Silverstein on Aug 25, 2011 5:41 pm • link • report

So my tax dollars are appropriated to CM coffers and then it's re-directed to the DC Treasurer. As long as everything's in the budget I'm fine with it.

by SillyGirl on Aug 25, 2011 5:52 pm • link • report

parking as a commuter expense is tax-free up to monthly limit set by the IRS ($230/mo right now i believe). an employer paying parking tickets for its employees while on business is not taxable income to the employee, especially if the employer agrees to cover such expenses. but i would question the sensibility of regularly incurring parking tickets fees from a business standpoint. you never know for sure anything with the dc government. overall, i think this article is really summarizing a nonstory.

by addagin on Aug 25, 2011 5:56 pm • link • report

The link you provided earlier re: tax code simply reiterated what I said. You can't deduct parking expenses. But what I have been saying is that if the boss chooses directly to pay business related parking tickets, there is no income realized by the employee, and therefore no tax liability. However, THE BOSS CANNOT claim any deduction. No one can. But there is no income to be reported.

One reason I'm so ticked about this piece is that I've worked for years with Council staffmembers and have attended countless meetings.

You must understand that these meetings often involve specific issues of public safety or other matters of immediate interest. Often MPD will also attend, along with folks from the Mayor's Office or relevant DC agencies.

MPD can park just about anywhere and not get ticketed. City agency officials and reps of the EOM have DC government licenses, and they seldom, if ever, get ticketed. Council staff don't have special tags, so they get ticketed. They're the only ones at the meeting with such a problem, but we don't want them to leave.

Also, no one seems to mention that it used to be easy for council members to have tickets waived. It's tougher now, but it still gets done. Is the reason other councilmembers haven't paid staff tickets is that some of those tickets were waived?

My experience has been that the community outreach people in the Mayor's Office and Councilmembers' Offices are generally hard-working, first rate people. They are the people we go to when problems need solved. They work very long hours and put up with difficult people. People like me.

Ken, I see your article as an attack on people like Andrew Huff and Michelle Molotsky and many others - honest and dedicated public servants who sometimes have to stay at meetings till conclusion and shouldn't be penalized for doing their jobs.

If you want to attack Evans, go ahead. But when you beat on his staffers for doing their jobs to the best of their abilities, you really grind my gears.

Pick on Jack all you want, Ken. But don't try to tar his staffers with vague accusations of criminality because he picked up one parking ticket a month for the past three years and they don't report it on their income tax.

That's less than petty.

by Mike Silverstein on Aug 25, 2011 6:03 pm • link • report

@ Silly Girl:

For God's sake, read the article.

NOT TAX PAYER FUNDS! PRIVATE FUNDS!

by Tearinmybeer on Aug 25, 2011 6:12 pm • link • report

@7r3y3r - I honestly don't care about any of that. It's not an article about where to draw the line. If that was the purpose of the article, you might have seen more reasoned discussion in the comments.

Instead, the article leads with the angle that staff aren't paying their taxes. And that's the issue that several paragraphs are devoted to.

The article should have been devoted to the issue of whether paying for parking tickets is a good idea and the "taxable income" issue should have been dropped. A mention might have been included if it was better researched (note that Ken's IRS Pub. 529 cited above only deals with deductions and doesn't support the position that employer paid parking tickets are taxable income as he claims).

by Greg on Aug 25, 2011 6:24 pm • link • report

Mr. Archer - i do believe you are confusing two separate things. a business deduction is not the same as an expense reimbursement. publication 529 is the wrong link to point to in this particular case. why dont you try this one:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/fringe_benefit_fslg.pdf

by addagin on Aug 25, 2011 6:26 pm • link • report

also, you may want to refer to the definition (in the eyes of the IRS) of a business expense. it is (i would say quite purposefully) a general description - "the cost of carrying on a trade or business." another link i would point to is the following:

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=109807,00.html

by addagin on Aug 25, 2011 6:33 pm • link • report

Ken, I see your article as an attack on people like Andrew Huff and Michelle Molotsky and many others - honest and dedicated public servants who sometimes have to stay at meetings till conclusion and shouldn't be penalized for doing their jobs.

I am a former Council staffer. I spent several years doing my turn as one of those people, staying at events -- official DC government proceedings, ANC meetings, PSA meetings, neighborhood associations -- until all hours.

However, I don't see Ken's article as an attack on my work in any way. Why? Because I did that for someone who wasn't Jack Evans.

We were told not to expense tickets; we could not expense anything performed in relation to constituent services beyond the absolute legal minimum we could have paid. You took a taxi, or ate at a restaurant? The tip came out of your pocket. And yet, we still showed up to everything and stayed until whenever, just like Evans's people do.

I was honored to work with Michelle Molotsky on a couple of things, and I have nothing but respect for her work. (Andrew Huff I never dealt with.) I have no doubt that if she ever had a parking ticket paid by the office, she did so with no ill intent. But I also know her well enough to know that she has the soul of a true public servant, and would have stayed there regardless, like we did in other offices.

This is no endorsement of Ken's stance on the tax issue -- although taxation was never one of my major areas, after thinking it over I find Lydia's objection very convincing. But it's unfair to every current and former Council staffer who doesn't work for Evans to suggest that our outreach to the community was somehow inferior because we had to shoulder our own fines.

by cminus on Aug 25, 2011 6:46 pm • link • report

i do apologize for the numerous comments i have posted here. i felt there was some confusion. but, finally, i would like to say that it is a serious accusation to make about another not paying his or her tax liability. i know the IRS takes these things very seriously. one must be very clear on his or her responsibilities there.

by addagin on Aug 25, 2011 6:47 pm • link • report

The revelation raises questions about the liability of Evans' staff, and their employer, to pay taxes and fines on reimbursements not reported as income

This is pretty much all Ken had to say about his staff. He went on to say, "According to Natalie Wilson, a spokesperson for the CFO, "based on District tax law, the income received is taxable to the recipient/employee."

Of course I don't know Ken but I don't think I would easily dismiss what a spokesperson for the CFO had to say. Maybe she's totally wrong as some of you suggest she is. That doesn't change the fact that Ken wasn't wrong for basing his conclusion on what (we all should hope as) the subject matter expert said. They went further by attempting contact the players here...no response.

So while we may not like how this article presents, this really isn't a case of a rogue blogger writing for sensational effect. That does happen here..but not this one. It's why I'm chuckling at some of you who have such a problem with this when you don't at other times.

Tickets were paid for and I don't understand why they couldn't take the train or a cab. The locations were in DC and likely ticketed in the downtown or some other commercial area. I'm hoping the new cc meter system eliminates the need for stuff like this to continue happening.

by HogWash on Aug 25, 2011 7:06 pm • link • report

Are we talking tickets for expired meters? Or for parking in front of hydrants or crosswalks.
IMO there is a difference.

by Drez on Aug 25, 2011 8:01 pm • link • report

@ Drez:

Ask Ken Archer, super journalist/blogger. I'm sure he did all the research.

by kwamster on Aug 25, 2011 8:55 pm • link • report

It was an open question.

by Drez on Aug 25, 2011 9:43 pm • link • report

Are we talking tickets for expired meters? Or for parking in front of hydrants or crosswalks.
IMO there is a difference.

The reports that are provided by Council members of their use of Constituent Service Funds don't provide the purpose for particular expenditures. The Office of Campaign Finance should really allow Council members to provide more info in the reports. All we know is that these payments were made to a P.O. Box that is used to pay parking tickets, and that Evans' Chief of Staff told the Post that they paid their parking tickets with this fund.

I would love to tell you more, but received no response to 2 inquiries made to Evans' office.

by Ken Archer on Aug 25, 2011 10:09 pm • link • report

These tickets, if you read the article more carefully, were paid directly by the fund to the DMV. They were not paid to the staff or offered as reimbursements. Therefore, it would be totally impossible to require that someone pay tax on it. Am I right or am I right?

First, I'm simply reporting what the CFO's spokesperson said. The full question that was posed to the CFO's office was this:

In today's Washington Post, it was reported that Councilmember Evans reimbursed his staff for a couple thousand dollars of parking tickets because, according to his Chief of Staff, "Sometimes, we will go to a community event at night and park at a meter where it's only good two hours. That would be a work expense." Does the CFO consider reimbursement of city employees for parking tickets to be income to the employees that should be reported as such?

The OCFO's one sentence response was as reported.

Based on District tax law, the income received is taxable to the recipient/employee.

So, OCFO had the full context of the question, and needless to say they could have easily called the office of Mr Evans - chair of the committee that oversees their office - before replying.

Second, the idea that somehow a law about what is taxable income doesn't apply if the payment is made on your behalf instead of directly to you, or is made from an account different than the employer's checking account, demonstrates the distorted lens through which many view parking fines.

I'm not accusing Evans of some cover-up or large-scale misappropriation of funds. I haven't placed this in the context of the current scandals, but in the context of Evans' campaign to roll back parking meter rates and hours of enforcement. The central issue, as the headline indicates, is that this demonstrates Evans' continued lack of understanding of the purpose and function of parking laws and fines.

by Ken Archer on Aug 25, 2011 10:31 pm • link • report

"I'm not accusing Evans of some cover-up or large-scale misappropriation of funds."

Uh - yeah you are Ken and in a way that makes you look uninformed and rushed to get this story out. That Evans would try to roll back meter rates to help cushion what amounts to 2-3 parking tickets per month is even more ludicrous.

Look - let's call an ace an ace here. You and David have it out for Jack Evans and will go after him for just about anything. I live in Ward 1, so I don't have a horse in this race, but it is oh so obvious.

Ask David why he, Charles Allen from Wells' office and Elissa Silverman from the DC Fiscal Policy Institute have been meeting on how to get Evans out of the way so that the progs can get their income tax increase. Again, fine by me and to each his/her own. Just think you should be more straightforward about it.

I don't blame Evans' office for one minute for not calling you back. They can obviously smell a hatchet job from a mile away and they were right.

by kwamster on Aug 25, 2011 10:46 pm • link • report

Here is the fault in your question, Ken:

"Does the CFO consider REIMBURSEMENT of city employees for parking tickets to be income to the employees that should be reported as such?"

The article and Ms. Grant's comments read that there were no REIMBURSEMENTS. There were payments to the DC Treasurer. No staff paid a ticket and then got reimbursed. So, with a faulty question up front, how you can you expect a correct answer from the OCF?

Hmmmm?

by kwamster on Aug 25, 2011 10:48 pm • link • report

#1 - I would take an actual tax expert's advice on the matter far more seriously than I would take an OTR press person.

#2 - It's clear that the solution to this issue is to not allow Georgetown University to expand and destroy the historic integrity of the neighborhood.

#3 - The author has to be the most regularly fisked contributor to this site. Articles subject to such repeated fiskings do not help this site's reputation or credibility when it comes to Council politics.

#4 - The attempt to link this non-story as not really the latest of continuous slams against Evans, but about his non-understanding of parking laws is simply laughable. If you're going to do a hatchet job on someone, either do it proudly or do it more subtly.

by Fritz on Aug 25, 2011 10:55 pm • link • report

@Ken - Your question to OTR elicited the right response (and the fact that you're hanging your entire argument on their press spokesperson's one sentence reply to you is rather telling).

The problem was that your question said Evans "reimbursed" employees for the tickets; he did not reimburse them, he paid them with office funds.

You should have consulted a tax expert before posting this story. You've got several people here who have pointed out your errors on tax law, yet you've failed to acknowledge or respond to their specific references to IRS guides.

by Fritz on Aug 25, 2011 11:01 pm • link • report

The problem was that your question said Evans "reimbursed" employees for the tickets; he did not reimburse them, he paid them with office funds. You've got several people here who have pointed out your errors on tax law, yet you've failed to acknowledge or respond to their specific references to IRS guides.

I've responded multiple times, but I'm happy to respond again.

First, when an employer reimburses a parking fine, that's taxable income. There are a couple IRS publications that state this clearly, but here is the one I linked to earlier. This publication lists deductions that you can make from your income on your 1040, like unreimbursed employee expenses. It then lists non-deductible expenses, and says this:

You cannot deduct fines or penalties you pay to a governmental unit for violating a law. This includes an amount paid in settlement of your actual or potential liability for a fine or penalty (civil or criminal). Fines or penalties include parking tickets, tax penalties, and penalties deducted from teachers' paychecks after an illegal strike.

Second, many commenters insist that if an employer pays for something on an employee's behalf instead of paying them directly, that that somehow gets around laws on taxable income. It doesn't, and if it did employers would be paying their employees rent and reducing their salaries accordingly.

Third, many commenters insist that if an employer pays them from an account other than their employer's checking account, that somehow that gets around laws on taxable income. It doesn't.

by Ken Archer on Aug 25, 2011 11:21 pm • link • report

@MLD "Parking is a tax-free fringe benefit, they shouldn't be taxing you for that...

Many years ago (30?) the IRS put a limit on how much that benefit can be tax free. I.e., If you're employer is paying $300/month for your parking, part of that is taxable to you ... the part over the limit as defined by the IRS. (It used to be anything over $150 when I studied tax law, but I'm sure the limit is much higher nowadays ...) This was one of the ways the Reagan White House found new revenue to pay for tax rate cuts. They also eliminated personal interest tax deductions. It used to be that ALL interest payments were tax deductible. As a way to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, the Reagan White House took away this deduction ... leaving only interest on a primary or secondary personal residences as tax deductible ... and the HELOCS and other home equity lines and loans were born!

by Lance on Aug 25, 2011 11:29 pm • link • report

"Ask David why he, Charles Allen from Wells' office and Elissa Silverman from the DC Fiscal Policy Institute have been meeting on how to get Evans out of the way so that the progs can get their income tax increase.

Okay, maybe I'm late to the party ... but is it because of the income tax issue or is it because of Wells. Either way, again the question comes up on how GGW can be viewed as a reliable source for news if it itself is helping to makes/steer that news.

by Lance on Aug 25, 2011 11:47 pm • link • report

@kwamster 'The article and Ms. Grant's comments read that there were no REIMBURSEMENTS. There were payments to the DC Treasurer. No staff paid a ticket and then got reimbursed'

It's still a reimbursement ... In the eyes of the law it doesn't matter how the money got exchanged ... it's the purpose behind it ... And in this case, these privately raised funds were used to pay an obigation of the staffers. Now, the only reason the staffers had these obligations in the first place because they were necessary and customery in doing the business of the District. Hence why they are not taxable.

by Lance on Aug 26, 2011 12:00 am • link • report

Ken, it is obvious you are confusing earnings tests and deductions, so let me try to explain what other people are telling you...and let me try to do so in a manner that even you will understand.

There are two separate tests here that come into play: an earnings test and a deduction test.

1) For the government to be able to tax something as INCOME, it must pass an earnings or income test. Some things don't.
a) If you work at a checkout counter at the Safeway or at the Hawaiian Shave Ice stand in Bethesda, the money that people give YOU to pay for their groceries or snow cones isn't income. It goes to Safeway Corp or to the guy who owns the snow cone stand.
b) If Safeway gives you a white paper hat to wear, YOU don't pay income tax on the hat, because it is part of a uniform that you would customarily wear only at work.
c) If you work somewhere else and use your car and bring it into work with a full gas tank, it is NOT considered income if your boss pays to refill your tank at the end of the work day, assuming you used your car exclusively during the day as part of your job. Since you started with a full tank and ended with a full tank, you realized no income.
d) If you make deliveries and, in the regular course of your job, you pick up a parking ticket and the boss pays it, the IRS has ruled repeatedly that you have not realized any income, since the tickets are "in the regular course" of doing your job, and you have not made a profit. That's why FedEx and UPS drivers don't get socked for 50k every year in additional earnings for the parking tickets they get while making deliveries. You may not like that, but that's what the IRS and the Tax Court have ruled. Get over it.
e) To use your other example, if your boss directly pays your mortgage, that IS income because you have received something of value (shelter and future home ownership) that is not an expense incurred in the regular course of your job duties.

Got that, Ken? It's gotta meet the income test before you can talk about taxing it or about deductions.

Now, let's talk about your fixation with deductions and Form 529.

We all agree that traffic fines and penalties cannot be counted as deductions.
That means that FedEx, UPS, Jack Evans, or whoever pays the ticket cannot turn around and claim that thirty bucks or hundred bucks as a business expense and a tax deduction.

Now do you see how this works? It's not income to the person driving the car, and the person who pays the ticket cannot claim it as a business expense deduction. Capiche?

Ken, I don't consider myself a tax expert, but every January for about ten years, I'd sit down and plan and write a Tax Tips series as part of my job at ABC News. Colleagues like Melanie Hobson, Lisa Stark, and Richard Davies would voice the pieces, which often dealt with changes in the tax code and dealt every year with business expense deductions. Every year, I consulted with experts provided by IRS, with people from Kiplinger's Personal Finance, with Congressional staffers who had written newly-enacted tax legislation, and with tax prep experts. Every year, I interviewed those people and used soundbites of them in our reports.

As I said, I don't consider myself a tax expert. But I still know a lot of them. And I sometimes still reach out to them. And I trust their informed opinion a lot more than that of a spokesperson at the CFO's office.

I hope this puts this matter to rest, and you owe some apologies. The IRS does take seriously accusations of tax cheating.

by Mike Silverstein on Aug 26, 2011 9:19 am • link • report

@Mike Silverstein -
Your ridiculously snide comment in (d) insinuates that the IRS has ruled or would rule that getting parking tickets is in the regular course of business for a city council member staffer. For delivery persons (UPS.FedEx drivers) that's an understandable conclusion. For legislative staff members? Prove it.

by 7r3y3r on Aug 26, 2011 9:28 am • link • report

@Ken - Actually, you haven't responded to addagin's statements and links to IRS forms. Instead, you keep doubling down on repeating what you've already said and what many have disproved with actual tax law knowledge.

If you and GGW are going to essentially slander Council staff by accusing them of being tax cheats, at the very least you should contact an ACTUAL TAX EXPERT, not send an inaccurate email to a tax office press person and then use their ONE SENTENCE response as the entire basis of your allegations being substantiated.

by Fritz on Aug 26, 2011 9:36 am • link • report

I really, really, hope that Ken Archer reports his fantasy football winnings to DC every year. Because audits really suck.

by charlie on Aug 26, 2011 9:59 am • link • report

Now, let's talk about your fixation with deductions and Form 529. We all agree that traffic fines and penalties cannot be counted as deductions. That means that FedEx, UPS, Jack Evans, or whoever pays the ticket cannot turn around and claim that thirty bucks or hundred bucks as a business expense and a tax deduction.

I refer to this publication because the IRS help line points to it when answering this question. IRS Publication 529 deals with individual deductions, not business deductions which is what you are talking about. And I agree with your point that many employee expenses (e.g. 50% of meals) can be reimbursed but are not deductible to the business.

Pub 529, however, lists the "unreimbursed employee expenses" that can be deducted from an individual's income on their 1040, and then specifically excludes parking tickets.

By your logic, then, a parking ticket can be reimbursed by your employer, but if it isn't it can't be deducted from your personal income as an "unreimbursed employee expense".

To use your other example, if your boss directly pays your mortgage, that IS income because you have received something of value (shelter and future home ownership) that is not an expense incurred in the regular course of your job duties.

That's a good point. A better example would be babysitting your kids while you are at a meeting. For many workers, that's a far more necessary expense that's incurred as a direct result of going to an evening meeting than are parking tickets. But it's not a reimbursable business expense, and it doesn't matter if an employer pays your babysitter directly from a non-business account.

by Ken Archer on Aug 26, 2011 10:15 am • link • report

@Mike Silverstein, as an employee of ABC news, most people would trust what "you" have to say versus that of someone who works in their home studio. It's fine for you to think that your associates are experts in their field. But it's ridiculous to assert that the Office of Chief Financial Officer knows less about taxes than the average curbside tax preparer.

Maybe the woman was way off base here but I find it quite odd that you've written an entire diatribe railing against "staff members" being victim of a reporter's personal vendetta, defending the fact that they are mere citizens doing the work of the city. Yet, you have absolutely no problem insulting the intelligence of the CFO spokesperson and ultimately the entire dep't (who also do the work of the city) because you dispute "facts" that they gave.

On any given day, your disagreement shouldn't force you to resort to character assissinations - not when you're complaining about Ken doing the same thing.

@Fritz, no, they shouldn't have consulted a "real" tax expert because they already contact the department that should know everything about DC tax law. Maybe they didn't. But they shouldn't have done more on this. This wasn't medical...a situation where a 2nd "expert" opinion may be needed. It's what should be standard knowledge for someone who works in the (or any city's) CFO's office.

by HogWash on Aug 26, 2011 10:53 am • link • report

@HogWash: I'm sorry, but a one sentence response from the tax office press spokesperson in response to an inaccurate scenario is not sufficient when you're essentially accusing people of engaging in tax fraud.

by Fritz on Aug 26, 2011 11:15 am • link • report

If an employer agrees to pay for an employee's parking ticket, while the employee was on official business, then the employer is saying that this is an ordinary and necessary expense. If the business was just happily paying all of its employees' parking tickets, regardless of whether or not they were for a business purpose, willy-nilly, then there definitely would be payroll taxes involved. I think the original response from Evans' office was prudent, in saying that all tickets were incurred on Council business, they mean that that tickets were all ordinary and necessary for business to be conducted. The article writer could look into the veracity of that statement, however we are talking about what a little over three grand over three years, so to me it doesn't jump right out to be a case of abuse. Anyway, who knows for sure.

by toorad halea on Aug 26, 2011 11:52 am • link • report

Now that I think about, three grand over three years seems like chump change, given the notoriety and prolific nature of the District's meter maid ticket-writing abilities.

by toorad halea on Aug 26, 2011 12:01 pm • link • report

I'm sorry, but a one sentence response from the tax office press spokesperson in response to an inaccurate scenario is not sufficient when you're essentially accusing people of engaging in tax fraud

Hey, did you (or anyone else here) equally have a problem with the Wells article where David used his conversation w/Wells as his only source and ultimately accused the entire DC Council of corruption? Just trying to strike an ire-balance here.

by HogWash on Aug 26, 2011 12:10 pm • link • report

I would say that tax fraud accusations can have serious implications with the IRS. Calling the DC council corrupt, well, that's just politics and media ;-)

by toorad halea on Aug 26, 2011 12:16 pm • link • report

@Ken Archer
If you think the employees whose tickets were paid are possibly cheating on their taxes, why haven't you reported them to the IRS and the DC Office of Revenue and Tax? Isn't that your civic duty? After all you asked them if they had reported the amounts of the tickets as income on their tax returns, and you seem to believe their silence is evidence of their wrong-doing. Putting aside the fact that you don't have any right to know the details of their income tax returns, as they are career civil servants, not political appointees or elected officials, you seem to believe that you have evidence of income underreporting. Why haven't you reported these potential criminals to the authorities? (After all, assuming that they DID underreport their income, they probably owe about $1.50 each.) I'd love to hear your answer.

by Fantine on Aug 26, 2011 12:41 pm • link • report

I second Fantine. I think the author of this post should have focused more on the fact that Evans' office considers parking tickets to be ordinary and necessary to conduct business. I think the author should not have brought up the whole issue with (ostensibly) hard-working employees who are just trying to pay their bills and to make the world more liveable place for us all. Even so, I would be hard-pressed to believe that three grand in parking tickets over three years in a city which does few things so well as writing parking tickets is so outrageous...

by toorad halea on Aug 26, 2011 12:53 pm • link • report

@HogWash 'It's what should be standard knowledge for someone who works in the (or any city's) CFO's office.

True. But the likely scenario is that the wrong question was asked which resulted in what is a very obviously wrong answer. The less likely scenario is that this person from the tax office really didn't understand the question or the answer. Either way, that answer, to any of us with even minimal tax training (I have an accounting degree) is very obviously not the correct answer to the question Ken is telling us he posed.

by Lance on Aug 26, 2011 3:27 pm • link • report

And of course, the elephant in the room is that the very same tax office being quoted which (officially) lost $50 Million in tax payer money through more than a few of its employees collusion to embezzle and which (unofficially) actually lost closer to a quarter billion dollars in tax payer money but which the District chose not to publicize since the insurance limit was $50 million.

by Lance on Aug 26, 2011 3:32 pm • link • report

We need to recall David Catania, who does he think he is? Because someone doesn't agree with him on an issue, he goes after them personally. David doesn't
need or deserve to be AG or Mayor of this City. Too petulant.

by Victoria on Aug 26, 2011 3:51 pm • link • report

Be very careful, Ken. Jack's dubious constituent's services fund paid off a lot of unnamed people (and/or their groups), who might also be appointed to different city boards as commissions, and who are now on the hook to defend Evans at all costs whenever any citizen has the audacity to question or criticize anything Evans does as an elected official. Since none of those upstanding (paid) loyalists are going to speak up (to avoid sparking the shitstorm that will surely ensue once all payees realize that payments may not have been terribly equitable across the ward), you can never know who's going to run Evans' offense. #WatchYourBack.

Since Evans at least admitted that he gave money to ANCs, the current or former ANCs who received money should all be the first ones to fess up about the amounts and purposes of those payments.

Isn't just about anything a constituent service? Parking tickets, trip to the beauty shop/salon, manicures and pedicures, and/or picking up some new shoes to look nice at a public meeting are all important to me as a constituent and should all be reimbursable expenses that go with the job.

by CCCA Prez on Aug 28, 2011 11:11 pm • link • report

Be very careful, CCCA Prez.

Remember how expensive those court costs were the 1st time?

by Davison Peters on Aug 29, 2011 9:45 am • link • report

Martin-
You throw too many wild punches and, as a result, drain your own strength without often impacting those who you target.

by Mark on Aug 29, 2011 10:36 am • link • report