Geithner’s tax reimbursements for taxes he didn’t pay

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 14, 2009 06:42 PM


Er, Tim, I need to lighten my bus…

A former IMF employee e-mailed me yesterday when news of Obama Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner’s tax troubles came to light.

He wrote:

[H]aving worked at the World Bank/IMF I can tell you that as an American working there, they REIMBURSE you for the self-employment taxes! The idea is that American’s get paid “on par” with all the foreigners i.e. NO taxes are withheld. The compromise is that American’s pay the “self-employment” tax but you get a CHECK from the Bank/IMF to pay them with. When I worked there in the mid-70s the reimbursement was one-half of the total self-employment tax. So I think the standard rate was about 6% and normal self-employment was twice that. The reimbursement was about 9% and you filed a special form with the IRS as a US citizen working for an international organization. The bank gave you the check for the 9% at the end of the year. You did not owe anything above the 9%. I can’t remember all that well but I believe you also got a 1099 for the reimbursement. If you know anybody that works there or the UN or the OAS they can tell you how it works now.

Well, guess what? My reader’s story checks out. And now it has come to light that Geithner did in fact get reimbursements for taxes he didn’t pay.

Byron York has the story:

The tax allowance has turned out to be a key part of the Geithner situation. This is how it worked. IMF employees were expected to pay their taxes out of their own money. But the IMF then gave them an extra allowance, known as a “gross-up,” to cover those tax payments. This was done in the Annual Tax Allowance Request, in which the employee filled out some basic information — marital status, dependent children, etc. — and the IMF then estimated the amount of taxes the employee would owe and gave the employee a corresponding allowance.

At the end of the tax allowance form were the words, “I hereby certify that all the information contained herein is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I will pay the taxes for which I have received tax allowance payments from the Fund.” Geithner signed the form. He accepted the allowance payment. He didn’t pay the tax. For several years in a row.

According to an analysis released by the Senate Finance Committee, Geithner “wrote contemporaneous checks to the IRS and the State of Maryland for estimated [income] tax payments” that jibed exactly with his IMF statements. But he didn’t write checks for the self-employment tax allowance. Then, according to the committee analysis, “he filled out, signed and submitted an annual tax allowance request worksheet with the IMF that states, ‘I wish to apply for tax allowance of U.S. Federal and State income taxes and the difference between the “self-employed” and “employed” obligation of the U.S. Social Security tax which I will pay on my Fund income.”

In a conversation today with sources on Capitol Hill who are familiar with the situation, I asked, “Was Geithner made whole for tax payments that he didn’t make?”

“Yes,” one source answered. “He was getting the money. He was being paid a tax allowance to pay him for tax payments that he should have made but had not.”

Is this what Geithner supporter Sen. Orrin Hatch means by “very competent?”

***

Time for the Geithner withdrawal betting pool. My guess? Friday 6:45pm Eastern.

The wheels on the bus go thump, thump, thump…

***

Reader David e-mails:

Michelle,

I just wanted to chime in on the real world application of Tim Geithner’s non-payment of taxes. Most US employees who work abroad usually have a gross up in wages similar to what Geithner got. They get it for the imposition of the income tax of the country they are performing work in. The “crisis of conscience” as it is with Geithner isn’t that he got a gross up. It’s that he received notifications of the tax treatment of the income from his employer and neither he nor his tax advisor (I assume he didn’t prepare his own returns) didn’t question either the documentation IMF gave him or why box 2 and 4 of his W-2 was zero.

As a pretty skilled and experienced tax advisor, I profess to having never heard of the FICA treatment of IMF wages, but I assure you I would have found out when I saw a W-2 with $100k of wages and no FICA withholdings.

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~
Posted in: Tim Geithner

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments


  1. #101
    On January 15th, 2009 at 3:20 pm, MarcoPolo said:

    Misscheryl said: This is one of the coolest pictures I’ve seen lately…
    http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/

    It is very cool, but I have to admit the first thought that crossed my mind was,”God hates trailer parks?”

  2. #102
    On January 15th, 2009 at 3:29 pm, Freddy said:

    It seems to me that this has happened before, and that the reason that the IMF passes out those ‘clarifications’ on a regular basis is because the IRS was demanding that the IMF pay for their ‘employees’ who did not.

    There must be some record of my recollection of this somewhere. Seems hard to find – hmmmm ….

  3. #103
    On January 15th, 2009 at 3:34 pm, Kevin K. said:

    sonofdy said: (#66)

    [Marco Polo (#65)] The fact that we have czars and czarinas in our republic’s administration at all indicates that the socialists have already won. This is only making it official.

    Well technically that would be monarchists since czars were kings, but I get your point.

    Actually, these people would have to be commissars, not czars, under the Soviet model; nor are we a monarchy.

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook