I post this in general questions because it seems that there would be a clear answer for it. It seems to boil down to two questions.
-
Has Congress given him permission to accept this award?
-
Is the Nobel committee a “foreign state”?
- I don’t think they’ve seen any reason to.
- Not by any reasonable definition of the phrase.
-
President Obama is a Kenyan citizen and is not subject to the laws of the United States. He doesn’t need our congress’s permission to do anything.
-
Not according to the laws of Kenya.
Also, even if he were American, no.
The link in the OP already contains enough details to resolve this issue.
Seriously? No. It’s a committee funded by an endowment from the Nobel estate. It’s not a country or a government. “Nobel Laureate” is also not a title; that article refers to knighthoods and baronets and such. Obama is eligible, he’s not the first sitting president to win, and he doesn’t need permission from Congress. The suggestion that he needs it is a waste of time, like the idea that he was not “really” president because he said a couple of words out of order in the oath of office.
And again, both Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson accepted the Nobel Prize for Peace while in office. It does not appear that either of them had to receive dispensation from Congress to accept the awards.
And if you really, really want to argue the point, the precedent was already set when Theodore Roosevelt was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 and again when Woodrow Wilson was awarded in 1919. Both were sitting presidents at the time of their awards.
ETA: Simulpost!
Please desist.
**
Gfactor**
General Questions Moderator
I will point out that a lot has changed since 1919 - specifically, laws about accepting gifts while President are much tighter now. And while I do not think this is any reason to forego the prize, it does affect the dispensation of the money associated with it.
I strongly suspect he’ll donate the money. It may be to his nascent Presidential Library fund, but he’ll almost certainly donate it.
It’s more than just a suspicion–Obama has publicly announced his intention to donate the prize money.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/09/president-obama-to-donate-nobel-prize-money-to-charity/
I’d be shocked if he gives it to his library fund. Wait and see, i suppose.
Right. But I’m not sure whether a straight pass-through to charity is even wise, since charitable donations can be claimed as a deduction for income tax purposes. That has a value as well.
The smart thing to do IMHO would be to treat the monetary portion of the prize as the property of the American people and turn it in to the Treasury.
Most of the Presidential Libraries/Museums I’ve been to are loaded with gifts from various dignitaries. That’s what prompted my comment. I do agree that such a donation in Obama’s first term would be a PR disaster. He’ll probably give it to the Red Cross or something.
IANAL, and this is not tax advice–it’s just common sense reasoning, and a quick skim of the IRS website.
A charitable donation deduction can only be used to reduce taxable income. However, you have to remember that the nobel prize money is also taxable income to the winner–and it is that income that the deduction would offset. If obama accepted the prize money, and then gave it away without taking the deduction, he’d owe about half a million in tax–more than his annual salary.
Donating the prize and claiming the donation means (assuming he can take the full deduction) that Obama can offset the income he earns from the prize, and no more–he is neither taxed on the prize money when he’s donating it, nor can he use the deduction to offset any other income. Donating the prize money, just brings him back to where he was before winning the prize.
(As a side note–the IRS has a procedure where you can donate the full value of a nobel prize or similar award, and not recognize it as income–which gets you around deduction limitations, but has the same basic effect—the money goes to charity, and the winner has no additional taxable income, and no additional deduction from the prize money).
Publication 17 (2022), Your Federal Income Tax | Internal Revenue Service)
Whoosh?
You’d hope so, but one never can tell…
I shouldn’t have posted that regardless of whether I was being ironic. I wouldn’t have if the question hadn’t already been answered. I just like to be edgy.
However, the Office of Government Ethics has held in similar cases that the Nobel Prize award money does not constitute a gift in the traditional sense of the word, but an award.
See for example:
[Moderator comment]
When being ironic or sarcastic in GQ, it’s usually best to add a smiley. In my experience, there is no comment so outlandish that one can rule out 1) someone who actually believes it having posted it; or 2) someone taking the comment seriously even though it was tongue-in-cheek.
Because of this, as moderators we often have to take posts at face value, even if they might be intended as jokes. So try to make it clear.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Actually Nobel Prizes (and similar things) are exempted from income taxes if the prize money is immediately donated to charity. So Obama will not have to pay any additional taxes if he donates the money.
There’s a good article on this very topic here.
Very true–that’s why I mentioned that procedure in the post you quote. Technically, the prize money isn’t exempted from taxes (as would be the case if it was counted in gross but not taxable income)–it is excluded from gross income–it’s as if you never received the prize money.
It’s also important to realize that the default is that the prize money is taxable income–the exclusion is something that you have to qualify for (partly by donating the money, and only some kinds of prize qualify).