pop culture

Image details: "sTORI Telling" Book Launch Cocktail Party - Arrivals served by picapp.com

As excited as I am about the upcoming premiere of “90210″ (and no, I am not embarrassed to say that there’s not an episode of the old one that I haven’t seen), I am a bit perplexed as to why my readers are suddenly searching for news about Tori Spelling.

I haven’t posted about Tori since 2006 following the death of her father (and the ensuing inheritance drama).

Is there a Tori Spelling tax story that I should be aware of? Cause I haven’t seen one…

{ 1 comment }

Image details: Prices For U.S. Food Staples Rise Steeply served by picapp.com

A court in London has ruled that Pringles, the iconic snacks in the ubiquitous red tube, are not potato chips.

Really.

Apparently, there are not enough potatos in Pringles to have them legally qualify as “potato chips” or “potato crisps.” That matters to the tax office because in the UK, most food is exempt from a steep 17.5% sales tax. The taxing authorities, however, claimed that Pringles fell under an exception for potato chips, sticks or puffs and “similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch.”

Procter & Gamble, Pringles parent company, said no. The company claimed that Pringles are not made like potato chips since they are cooked from baked dough and not slices of potato; in fact, Pringles are just 42% potato. Additionally, Pringles have a shelf life of 15 months, versus four months for potato crisps - chew on that for a bit.

The company further argued that potato chips “give a sharply crunchy sensation under the tooth and have to be broken down into jagged pieces when chewed,” while Pringles are “designed to melt down on the tongue.”

The courts agreed: Pringles is not made largely from potatoes, does not look, feel or taste like a potato chip and is therefore, tax-exempt.

I’m not quite sure what kind of victory that is, really. Pringles “wins” because it proved that it’s not the product that it markets itself as… Or does it? On the Pringles web site, Pringles is consistently referred to as a snack - and not as potato chips. And now, legally, a Pringles chip has been ruled as something (I’m not sure what) other than a potato chip. My four year old, however, begs to differ: just this morning, she declared them “potato chips.” I think I just discovered the secret to the UK Tax Office’s appeal…

(Hat Tip: TaxProf Blog)

{ 4 comments }

Image details: The 46th Annual TV Week Logie Awards served by picapp.com

Paul Hogan, who rose to prominence in the 1980s as “Crocodile Dundee”, feels pretty important these days. He is being pursued by the Australian Tax Office and the Internal Revenue Service for moneys allegedly owed.

Hogan estimates that he has paid the ATO $100 million in tax. Yet, the ATO continues to pursue him - and has asked the IRS for help. Hogan, originally from Australia, now lives in the US.

The IRS has ordered several US banks to hand over records to the ATO - but Hogan has lashed back, claiming that Australian officials were not legally entitled to such information.

Hogan’s very public reaction to the ATO: “Come and get me, you miserable bastards.”

Hogan later continued, speaking about the investigation, “As a guy who brought millions into Australia, they should build a statue at the tax office to me and send me a Christmas card. I lived in America and still paid tax in Australia for 4 1/2 years when I could have paid tax in America, and it would have been cheaper, because I thought we needed the money back home more than they needed it here.”

Apparently, he believes the whole thing is a load of cods wallop…

{ 2 comments }

A federal judge has granted Wesley Snipes’ request to travel overseas while he waits the outcome of his appeal.

Snipes had requested to go to London to sit in on the editing process for his new horror flick Gallowwalker and to fly to Bangkok to film the action thriller Chasing the Dragon. The prosecution argued that Snipes was a flight risk based on his prior behavior but the judge apparently disagreed.

{ 0 comments }

Yeah, yeah, I know. It was a bad joke last year, too, but I was hoping that it would grow on you.

I’m speaking again at BlogHer - this time, it’s in San Francisco (insert squeals here).

My session is Friday morning, July 18 at 10:30am. The description is here:

If you’re a blogger, and your blog contributes to your livelihood…whether through direct monetization or as a platform to get freelance and consulting work…then it’s a business. But what does that mean? What should you be thinking about? Three experts are on hand to get down to brass tacks. Starting with taxes. Kelly Phillips Erb is back to give you the low-down. Linsey Krolik will answer your legal questions, including when incorporation makes sense. Finally Sabrina Parsons will try to demystify the number one question many freelancers and consultants have: How do I quote for my services and build a proposal that attaches the appropriate value to my time and the work I do?

If you’re coming, too, please stop by and say hello! I’d love to meet my fellow bloggers!

If you haven’t yet signed up for BlogHer, pop on over and do it. It’s sooo much fun - and did I mention that it’s tax deductible?

And as if you’re not excited enough that I’ll be there and speaking, there are some really awesome speakers lined up - like Dana Loesch of Mamalogues, Gwen Bell, Joanne Bamberger of PunditMom and Susan Wagner at Fashion Find (who I had the pleasure to meet last year and she is just fabulous). The closing keynotes include Heather Armstrong (you know her as Dooce) and Stephanie Klein.

So what are you waiting for?

{ 3 comments }

Wesley Snipes has filed a request in federal court for permission to leave the country for two trips while his appeal on tax evasion charges is being considered.

Snipes has requested to go to London to sit in on the editing process for his new horror flick Gallowwalker.

Snipes has also requested permission to fly to Bangkok to film the action thriller Chasing the Dragon. Production is set to begin on that film in early September and last about 8 weeks.

Snipes had been scheduled to report to federal prison on June 3 to serve a three year sentence for failing to file tax returns but is free on bail pending an appeal.

Snipes’ attorneys argued for the request, claiming:

He has never presented and does not currently present a risk of flight. Further, the circumstances of the work, surrounded by a cast of other actors and film and production professionals as well as Mr. Snipes’ contractual obligations to complete these films provide additional assurances that he does not present a risk of flight; were he to abscond under these circumstances, it would destroy his ability to earn a living for the rest if his life. Mr. Snipes will of course voluntarily return after his work on this film, as he has done each time he has been granted permission by this Court.

It is essential that Mr. Snipes complete these two projects to satisfy his civil tax liabilities and provide for his family.

I would agree that in most cases, it’s better to have a taxpayer who is working than one who is not. However, Snipes hasn’t exactly been cooperative with respect to his arrest and his trial. He initially refused to return to the US from Namibia to face charges of tax evasion though he claims that his attorneys told him that they were working it out. Nonetheless, a warrant was issued for his arrest and he responded by comparing himself to a rape victim.

My best guess is that his request will be granted. Of course, I’ve been wrong a couple of times thus far with respect to this Snipes case. The twists and turns have kept it interesting at best…

{ 3 comments }

Image details: Royal - Final Round Of French Presidential Elections served by picapp.com

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has introduced a proposal to ban advertising from state-owned television channels.

In the US, there are usually limitations on advertising on public television. Most public television in the US is financed through a mix of corporate and government contributions and donations of private individuals.

However, in a number of countries in Europe, state broadcasters are funded through a mix of advertising and public money. Sarkozy now wants to phase out ads from France’s public TV stations. To make up the difference in funding, he wants to institute new taxes on private broadcasters, such as TF1 SA, and telecom operators, such as France Télécom SA. TF1 is France’s most-watched television, with its popular mix of gameshows, reality TV programs and American prime-time series such as House and Grey’s Anatomy dubbed in French.

As you can imagine, France’s private TV companies are not happy with this new tax. They claim that the new tax forces them to subsidize state-backed competitors.

Likewise, the European Commission is “not enthusiastic” about the French plans. “For the European Commission, it is important to increase citizens’ purchasing power and growth in Europe. It is not in favour of a new tax on sectors that are drivers of growth,” said commission spokesman Martin Selmayr.

Nonetheless, Sarkowsky plans to move ahead with the move as of January 2009.

Stay tuned to see what happens!

{ 0 comments }

Okay, so it’s not quite summer yet. But it sure feels like it in Philadelphia - we’ve hovered near the 100 degree mark for three or four days in a row. The heat and humidity is beginning to make me wish fondly for coastal NC summers (and if you’ve been to coastal NC in the summer, you know that it’s freaking hot).

So since it feels like summer, I am announcing the second “taxgirl Goes to the Movies” contest a few weeks early…

Last year was a lot of fun. You can review last year’s entries and see the winning entry here.

Here’s how it works: I am one of those annoying people that you don’t want to see a movie with… I constantly question the tax consequences of plot lines. It’s a sickness. And since I’m such a giver, I’m sharing it with you!

Just like last summer, I’m asking you to nominate films for me to review - with a twist. You make the nomination and if I agree, I’ll blog about the tax consequences of the events in the movies. You know, like the fact that Julia Roberts’ character still has to report her income from prostitution in Pretty Woman… and how Nicolas Cage’s character has to pay income tax on all of his winnings in It Could Happen to You and still has a gift tax issue to wrangle with. Trust me, you don’t get this level of film review anywhere else…

To nominate a film, leave your suggestion in the comments. No porn - my mother could be reading. Nothing too violent - I’ll close my eyes for the entire movie and then I won’t be able to review it. And it has to be in English or have English subtitles. And nothing with Jessica Simpson or Lindsey Lohan in it - that’s just mean and wrong. You can suggest all of the Luke Wilson or Jonathan Rhys-Meyers movies that you want (keep your snickering to yourself, please).

The movie has to be something that’s been released recently or is easily available on cable, DVR, iTunes or Comcast OnDemand (believe it or not, we don’t have a DVD player). I don’t have the wherewithal to dig up obscure movies.

Note that films that I reviewed last year are not eligible for review this year.

I’ll choose the films for review throughout the summer based on your nominations - at my discretion. It is, after all, my blog, and I can’t be forced to watch Scarlett Johansson films if I don’t want to. Each time that I post a review, you can “vote” on the review with your comments - there is no limit on the number of comments that any one person can leave so long as you add to the conversation with something new.

The person who initially nominated the most commented film review of the summer will receive a cool taxgirl tee. Depending on the number of entrants, I may have some consolation prizes… We’ll see how it goes.

Please make sure that you include a valid email address in the comments. I won’t reveal your email address (it doesn’t show up in the comments) but I’ll need it in case you’re a winner.

Start posting your suggestions below. The contest ends on Labor Day. Time begins… now!

Technorati Tags:
taxgirl, movies

{ 11 comments }

Keith Olbermann’s trademark “Worst Person In the World” segments - usually reserved for Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly - may be coming back to haunt him. After revelations that he owes the state of New York $2,269 in back taxes for his corporation, Olbermann Broadcasting Empire, many of his former targets are turning the tables.

The New York Post and sites like Olbermann Watch are hammering Olbermann for the tax deficiency, noting that Olbermann has been quick to criticize others in the past.

MSNBC has characterized the tax bill as “a bookkeeping disagreement between Keith’s accountants and the state, which was resolved months ago.” Yet, Olbermann Watch reports that there are now five tax warrants which are still outstanding.

This is one of those tax situations that I just don’t get. Unlike the Wesley Snipes debacle, where millions of dollars are at stake, this is a matter of a few thousand dollars. Why not simply pay the disputed tax and file for refund if you are sure that it’s an error? Many taxpayers aren’t in a financial position to simply pay up and fight later - but I am sure Olbermann is. Why would you expose yourself to this kind of negative publicity - unless - maybe - you like it?

Is there something I’m missing here?

{ 4 comments }