I assume saying that he is a Kenyan citizen is a joke, but do you really believe foreigners are not subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States? Are you saying that a group of Japanese tourists can legally go on a killing spree in downtown New York? I don’t think so …
That would be an amusing wrinkle in the illegal immigration debate - if they’re not subject to US law then obviously there is no law broken by crossing the border without permission
I’ve heard this “foreigners are not subject to US law” idea applied to foreigners who are in the United States many times before. It is a really strange idea.
But the Nobel Committee is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. Wouldn’t that make it a de facto arm of the Norwegian government? i.e. a “foreign state”?
If not, then what is to preclude a work around to the constitutional provision by having a foreign state simply appoint a committee to shower our officials with prizes and gifts?
I wouldn’t say so. There’s a big difference between ‘picked by a government’ and “appointed to act on behalf of the government, as an arm of the state” This is reinforced by the fact that, since 1977, the members of the committee cannot be members of the norweigan parliament.
Well, that work around would only really be a gift from a foreign state if the state created and funded the gift. And in that case, I’d agree with you.
Here, however, the prize was created and funded by the will of Alfred Nobel. All he is now is a dead guy. Not a “foreign state.”
Yes, absolutely I do. It’s a devilish little loop hole that the wrong guy found out about. In my many travels in foreign lands I’ve broken just about every law and there’s nothing they could do about it!
No, it wouldn’t, and again, the prize is not the kind of award that the Constitution prohibits. That clause is the reason that some Americans - Rudy Giuliani is one - are recognized by the British government as “honorary knights,” as opposed to actual knights: Americans are not allowed to accept that kind of title. Some cites conflict on this point, but I think when Anthony Hopkins (born in Wales) became a U.S. citizen in 2000, he had to give up his British knighthood. That’s the kind of title and honor from foreign government we are dealing with here.
For starters it would be a waste of the foreign states’ time and money. For another, it would be seen as unabashed bribery. If someone really did this, I suspect the U.S. government would rework the laws about gifts.
Jesus, how many times does this board have to reaffirm the notion that an income tax deduction does NOT result in a net gain to the giver?
If you donate $X to charity, the amount by which your taxes are reduced as a result will always be less than $X, and giving money to charity will always result in you having less money, even after your tax deductions.
Presidents get expensive “gifts” all the time from other heads of state. The Smithsonian is full of them. My question is “does he get to keep the medal?” Perhaps wear it to bed to impress the wife like in “And before you just thought I was the most powerfull man in the world, now I’m the most powerfull man AND a Nobel laurate; give some sweet loving baby!”
All I know about this was learnt from the West Wing–but a quick googling confirms that the deal is that any gifts above a certain value are, legally, given to the United States and owned by the national archives–and the president has to buy back any gifts he wants to keep
That being said, there is at least some precedent for leaving the medal in the White House–that’s where Teddy Roosevelt’s medal is.
I assume it’ll end up either there, or at the Obama Presidential Library–and since the library is operated by the National Archives, (which would own the medal if the President doesn’t retain it), Obama wouldn’t need to buy the medal himself to exhibit it in his library.
Exactly - but maybe it needs to be explained a bit more. If you’re in a 33% tax bracket, every dollar you deduct saves you 33 cents in tax. Therefore a $1,000 tax deduction means you pay $333 less in tax. If that $1,000 deduction comes as a result of a charitable contribution, it has cost you $667 to give away $1,000.
A tax DEDUCTION (which is deducted from income) is not a tax CREDIT (which is deducted from the tax owed).
Exactly. Another way of thinking about it is that the tax code lets you make charitable contributions with pre-tax dollars.
Normally, when you get a paycheck, you have tax withheld. Using the same numbers, if your salary is $1,000, and the tax rate is 33%, you are paid $667 after tax. You have 667 after-tax dollars.
If you’re donating to charity (ignoring caps on deductions), you can effectively use the $1,000, not the $667–you give $1,000, and then take a deduction for $1,000. As Labadad says, you are now down $667 in after-tax dollars, but you’ve given the charity $1,000. In other words, you have given the IRS’ share of that paycheck to the charity.
I have already cited the ruling from the Office of Government Ethics covering this. The prize isn’t a gift in the commonly used sense of the word, it’s more like an award.
Reading through all this, I get that there have been some exceptions made, but I honestly don’t understand why. The Nobel committee itself has admitted that they use the award to “encourage” people (in this case, the POTUS) to be aware of their situations and act toward peace. I mean, they don’t specifically state what actions they wish to be taken, but it’s not not unclear, especially in this case, what they are encouraging.
Part of this encouragement comes in the form of a sizable cash “award.” I am not sure how this would be different from an environmental group giving him an “award” to increase his awareness and remind him of his obligations in an environmental sense, or a pro-business group to give him an “award” reminding him of his obligations to the economy of the USA. Nothing specific, wink wink, nudge nudge, but hey, we think you’re doing a great job and you’re in a position to make some difference, so here ya go…
I think he should be required to refuse the monetary “award” altogether. The honor is in the medal anyhow.
I believe what he (jokingly) meant was that a pack of Japanese tourists can legally take on a title of nobility while hanging out in downtown New York without Congress’ approval. He was talking about a very specific Constitutional clause relating specifically to US citizens.
In terms of the law, a cash award or a fancy jewel-encrusted crown and scepter would be treated just the same. If either one is given in order to “corruptly” influence an official action, then it is bribery. (That’s one of the terms used in the US Code defining bribery.) I’m sure the lawyers here can expound that it would be up to a jury to determine a matter of fact of whether or not the Nobel Prize is awarded “corruptly,” but let’s get real here. The Nobel Prize is the most widely respected award in the world. It isn’t a bribe.
But it would seem that a “prize” that’s concocted simply to try to legitimize an honest-to-god bribe would certainly have an uphill battle to show that the prize wasn’t given in a corrupt fashion.
I can’t speak for the forum, but from experience in a real tax practice: About 80% of people get it the first time. For the remaining 20%, you’ll have to remind them twice a year for the rest of their lives.
