51 Comments - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 10:48 am: virtually all of the statewide office holders live in or around Chicago. Don’t they all have this “problem”, if it is a problem? - Pot calling kettle - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 10:49 am: I don’t think Gov. B is not the first to do this, just the most open about it. How has it been handled in the past? Or is this situation unique? - GoBearsss - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 10:52 am: I wonder if Mr. O’Connor has any tax liability for using computers provided to him. Because using a typist would cost $30k a year! /snark In all seriousness, I agree, it does seem like a stretch. The underlying argument here is that the Governor should reside in Springfield. This is just another surrogate argument for that main argument. But, then we would all be reading about all his flights to Chicago! - A Citizen - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 10:58 am: I just wonder how many “counts” this will add to the guv’s indictment(s) when the feds get around to it ? Tax evasion is haunting Chris Kelly and soon blags - sorta The Ghost of Christmas Present. - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 10:59 am: I may be wrong but I don’t think previous governors abused this perk like the Blagojevich Family. All other Governors lived and worked in Springfield. How can they possibly get away with saying Chicago is his primary office ? The Governors office is in Springfield at the state capital. This is absurd. If they want to live in Chicago fine. But the taxpayers should not have to pay for it. - GoBearsss - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 11:05 am: “All other Governors lived and worked in Springfield” Quite incorrect. - TAXPROF - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 11:06 am: This is not necessarily a stretch. It basically comes down to where the governor’s tax home is-Chicago or springfield. If it is springfield, then any state provided transportation would be compensation to the governor. See C.I.R. v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465, 66 S. Ct. 250, 90 L. Ed. 203 (1946). and Rosenspan v. United States, 438 F.2d 905, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11774, 27 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 707, 71-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9241 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1971) - Michelle Flaherty - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 11:22 am: Just because others did it in the past doesn’t mean the taxman won’t decide this is the year to crack down. Plus, whatever happened to “no more business as usual.” Now we’re using business as usual as a defense? - Jake from Elwood - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 11:23 am: The prinicipal place of office for the Governor of the State of Illinois is Springfield. Period. President Bush’s principal place of office is not Crawford Texas. Governor Jet Fuel should reimburse the State for any inappropriate use of the Illinois Air Armada. - Leigh - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 11:24 am: I think he is liable for the taxes and I think because the capitol is located in Springfield that is his place of business. But I also think the IRS will be the least of his problems in the upcoming months……. - Bill - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 11:34 am: This is just another exercise by Blago haters who are all sooooo disappointed because Kelly’s problems turned out to be personal and did not involve the governor as they all had hoped. Hence the major grasping at straws. The governor lives in Chicago and works at the James Thompson Center in downtown Chicago. When he goes to the patch on business he is entitled to travel paid for or reimbursed by the state. All of the patch dwellers get reimbursed when they travel to the big city, some on a daily or weekly basis. Why shouldn’t the same thing be true for Chicago residents going to Springfield? Keep in mind that this Dyson person doesn’t work for the IRS. She’s probably a Republican. - plutocrat03 - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 12:03 pm: Only Bill can put on his shades and say that Kelly’s problems are personal. Certainly none of the 600K attributed to Kelly’s companies will be examined in this chapter of the pay to play process in Illinois. Half the time the Governor is described as working from his home office….. someone needs to get their story straight. Heck Lisa M might get the gumption to sue to recover the money spent shuttling the governor. It will be interesting to learn whether the Governor can simply declare himself to be a resident anywhere in the state on a whim. As far as an additional angle, when someone is the Governor’s advisor on gambling and they get in trouble with their own gambling activities, that calls into question any advice that has been given the Gov. - jwscott72 - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 12:05 pm: You’re completely right, Bill. This is obviously a vast right wing conspiracy cooked up by the IRS to make Blago look bad. The Kool-Aid must be extra strong today! Give me a break. - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 12:17 pm: I understand some of you discovered Bill’s true identity last night — meaning you probably drank the same “Kool Aid” as he did - Muskrat - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 12:21 pm: If his home is Springfield, doesn’t he just have to show that any trip to Chicago was necessary for gov’t business, for example to attend a meeting with legislators? it would be a case-by-case call, and he propbably did nothing official on many trips back there, but an industrious lawyer/accountant could reduce the size of the problem. In the alternative, can he claim the trips were political, and charge them to his campaign funds? Since the duties of a (possible future) candidate are even more amorphous than that of a Governor, there would be room to fiddle there, yes? Overlooking the fact that the explanation and payments would have to be retroactive, of course…. - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 12:23 pm: This song is getting soooo old. The constitution says “They [Executive Branch officials]shall keep the public records and maintain a residence at the seat of government during their terms of office.” A residence, not their one and only residence. And the constitution doesn’t even mention the word “Springfield.” Every job in state government has a designated “place”. Gov B has apparently designated Chicago as his place. As have, I imagine, Madigan, White, Hynes, Quinn and Gi-whatever. There is no legal requirement that Gov B actually live in Springfield, that he move his family to Springfield, or that he ever even go to Springfield, other than perhaps for the State of the State. - A little help Rich - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 12:44 pm: - GoBearsss - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 11:05 am: “All other Governors lived and worked in Springfield” Quite incorrect. Ryan had a residence in Country Club, I believe, though Kanakakee was home. Edgar had a house just outside of Spfld. Thompson lived and worked out of the Govs Mansion. Rich, am I remembering correctly? As far as other leaders naming Chicago as their home base, do they fly back and forth daily, at taxpayer expense. No. Michelle, it’s not Business as usual….it’s much worse. - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 12:44 pm: Why can’t these politicians use videoconferencing. We know the state must have zillions of (our) dollars worth of videoconferencing equipment, much if it probably sitting in a storeroom unused or, worse, “missing.” This is the 21st century. All that flying back on forth on state planes by Blago and our feckless legislators and even more feckless state agency executives is, well, retro. The technology for online videoconferencing is much advanced. - cardinals fan - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 12:45 pm: We won’t have this problem with the Governor Quinn administration, let the era of good government begin! - Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 12:48 pm: Thompson moved to Chicago as soon as his daughter was old enough to attend school. - steve schnorf - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 12:49 pm: Every state employee has a “headquarters” city or town. By definition, it’s where the employee spends the majority of his time. The Governor’s is clearly Chicago. Typically, the employee cannot be reimbursed for travel within his headquarters town, but I’m not sure how that applies to a Governor with executive security requirements. The IRS and the law would look like an ass if they tried to rule that a Governor’s executive security transportation and bodyguards were a perk that represented “income” to him. - steve schnorf - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 1:01 pm: little help; Ryan had a residence in Country Club??? - TAXPROF - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 1:07 pm: From the Supreme Court Case Overview of CIR v. Flowers, on LEXIS OVERVIEW: The taxpayer resided in Jackson, Mississippi. When he was offered a job by a company whose main office was located in Mobile, Alabama, he was unwilling to move to Mobile. He made an arrangement with his employer whereby he could continue to reside in Jackson on condition that he pay his traveling expenses between Mobile and Jackson and pay his living expenses in both places. On his tax return, the taxpayer deducted as traveling expenses amounts incurred in making trips from Jackson to Mobile. The Court held the Tax Court properly concluded that the necessary relationship between the expenses and the business of the taxpayer’s employer was lacking and, therefore, the expenses were non-deductible personal expenses. Before a traveling expense deduction could be made under 26 U.S.C.S. @ 23(a)(1)(A), the expense was required to be necessary to the development of the employer’s business. The expenses at issue here were incurred solely as the result of the taxpayer’s desire to maintain a home in Jackson while working in Mobile, a factor irrelevant to the maintenance and prosecution of his employer’s business. His employer did not require him to travel on business from Jackson to Mobile. It comes down to whether the Gov’s decision to maintain his residence in Chicago was a personal decision. If yes, then the travel expenses to the capitol and back are non deductible, just like anyones commuter to work is not deductible. If they are non deductible then they are not excludible as a non compensable fringe benefit under IRC Section 132(d) which states: Working condition fringe defined. For purposes of this section, the term “working condition fringe” means any property or services provided to an employee of the employer to the extent that, if the employee paid for such property or services, such payment would be allowable as a deduction under section 162 or 167 - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 1:15 pm: I find myself in the rare position of defending the Governor. Somewhat. It doesn’t matter what the AP or two tax experts say the Governor owes in taxes for flights. It only matters what the IRS says. Period. But, when it comes to defining what is “official business” for the state’s Chief Executive, I have to assume that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution would prohibit the federal government from defining “official business” for Governors. That seems to be a right of the states, and I don’t think the federal government should be able to use the tax code to bully governors about their job description when an open act of Congress on the matter would clearly be unconstitutional. Steve Schnorf rarely makes a mistake, but he is wrong about one thing. The Governor is explicitly exempted from the Governor’s Travel Control Board rules which define “headquarters”. As far as I know, the only controlling authority is Article V, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution, cited above, which requires all Constitutional officers to “maintain a residence” in Springfield (sorry naysayers, it is the official seat of government). However I don’t believe that phrase has ever been interpreted by the courts, and I’m not sure any Constitutional officer is abiding by it. On the other hand, the continued use of state resources for unofficial business by the Royal Family is embarrassing, to say the least Bill. So is the Governor’s legal defense, declaring Chicago to be the state Capitol. - steve schnorf - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 1:16 pm: Taxprof: what if the employer had 500 or a thousand offices in the state, with employees headquartered at each of them, and the employee having offices at many of them. You’re assuming that the employee has no choice but to be headquartered at one specific one of them (in this case, Springfield) even though he spends more of his work time at another, and any decision otherwise is for personal convenience. BTW, give us some case law that is more to the issue at hand, an elected executive officer of a geographically large political subdivision. - steve schnorf - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 1:18 pm: Dog, good catch. I knew that, although GTCB has made rulings on issues related to a Governor’s residence(s). - TAXPROF - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 1:26 pm: steve: One of the offices must be the taxpayer’s tax home. travel between the tax home and the taxpayer’s residence is non deductible commuting expense (a personal expense) The issue really is whether the governor’s decision to reside in Chicago is a personal decision. If yes, then travel to Springfield should not be deductible. Much like a decision to live in the suburbs instead of downtown does not make a 50 mile commute downtown deductible. Makes no difference whether a politico or private businessman. Representatives and Senators have their tax home as their district-So traveling to the capitol is a business expense. Governor’s tax home may in fact be the capitol. I have not seen a case addressing the issue squarely. As far as the President traveling to Crawford-He has no choice concerning his method of travel-Security concerns take it out of his hands. Perhaps the governor could make this claim as well. - Arthur Andersen - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 1:27 pm: Steve, you used to chair this, so AA could be wrong, but isn’t the Governor specifically exempted from the State Travel rules that require the “HQ” city? I’m not sure that it’s relevant to the IRS matter. For Joe Bureaucrat, the HQ city determination is made by the agency based on where the majority of the work is done. There are probably some Blago folks walking a fine line on that one who are living in Chicago and having a CHI HQ so that all travel to/from SPI, where they really work most of the time, is reimbursed. In fairness, they wouldn’t be the first to use that trick. PS: Is the Country Club dude talking about when the Ryans rented a duplex out on the west side? You couldn’t see the club from there unless you built a cell tower in the back yard and climbed it! - downhereforyears - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 1:31 pm: Bill, Bill, Bill please tell me you really don’t expect the lame excuse about Kelly’s indictment being “personal”. I’m not a big supporter of the Gov’s but I found the Kelly indictment quite enjoyable….wasn’t disappointed at all. But I do wonder how many times Kelly flew on our air fleet. - Holdingontomywallet - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 1:55 pm: A major issue related to this is the travel expenses associated with other senior staff who live in Chicago. It is not uncommon for agencies to have multiple senior staff living in Chicago and commuting to Springfield on a weekly basis. The taxpayers are being hit with hotel expenses, travel expenses, per diem, etc… on a weekly basis. I would guess this total dwarfs the figures in the above article. In addition, some of these people have two offices - one in Springfield and one in Chicago; another major expense You can do the math. I realize there may be a necessity to hire some qualified people in Chicago for positions, but these expenses have significantly increased under this administration. - DC - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 2:30 pm: I’m not sure if my lack of enthusiasm on this story is because I tend to agree with Steve Schnorf, or if because I think Rodney’s folks were astute enough to schedule “official” business on these flights thereby giving some credence to Rod’s official argument. It does beg the question of whether the constitutional requirement to maintain a separate residence in Springfield is needed or whether it confounds the issue by widening the rift between Chicago and Springfield. I would argue that the Governor’s Mansion is more symbolic than practical with respect to being the official “residence” in Springfield. Edgar’s decision to have a log cabin in Williamsville is proof enough that residing in the mansion is not compatible with raising a family. However, while the legal questions swirl, this is yet another illustrative example of how the Governor and his staff have arugably manipulated the system to accommodate their personal preferences. It would appear that the only sacrifice he’s making to lead and govern the state is the few times that he actually (grudgingly) goes to Springfield on the opening day of a perpetual special session. I don’t think we should hamstring future governors with restrictive policies on where their “headquarters” should be, but we also need some minimal expectation that a Governor will actually recognize the importance of governing from an office in the State Capitol, not a “home office” in Ravenswood. If that’s too much to ask, then we’re in world of hurt. - It's Just Me Again - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 2:37 pm: SECTION 1. OFFICERS The Executive Branch shall include a Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Comptroller and Treasurer elected by the electors of the State. They shall keep the public records and maintain a residence at the seat of government during their terms of office. (Source: Illinois Constitution.) Special Note: It just says “maintain a residence”. Would this be enough for Blago to slip through the cracks and have Abby’s statement save him? - A Citizen - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 2:38 pm: Blackhawks games are official business. Um huh! The legislature was just doing Un official business. AhhHah! That’s it, yeh - And guv will swear to it Mr. IRS Taxman. Ubetcha! - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 2:44 pm: TAXPROF: In answer to your question, the Gov’s decision to stay in Chicago was a personal one. As he frequently stated, he did not want to move his daughter out of her posh private school and send her to public school in Springfield. That said, I stand by my earlier post. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the federal government from defining “official business” for state officials. I think it is what the state says it is, or in this case, what Abby Ottenhoff says it is. - GoBearsss - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 2:47 pm: I think its pretty obvious that the Governor set up his tax home in Chicago for beneficial tax reasons. Our low taxes and high quality of life are too hard to ignore! - Golly Ggee Wilakers - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 2:52 pm: Blagofedavich should be allowed to do whatever he wants to do. He is the Govenor of Illinois. Best wishes from the guys Emil, Terry and Chris - DC - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 3:07 pm: He doesn’t pay his taxes until late fall of next year (based on a continuing pattern of filing extensions) and, as a result, this story will probably fade away, replaced by more special sessions, Wrigley Field purchases, airplane upgrades, unnamed co-conspirators, Public Official A news stories, and a fresh round of Golden Horsehoe Award nominees. It’s a great story on a slow news day, but in the end, it will fade (rightly or wrongly). - Hang your Hat at Mister Kelly's - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 3:46 pm: I think AP missed the better part of the airplane travel story. Look at the times and dates the flights were first booked and then compare them to the Gov’s public appearance schedules and I think you will see a predictable pattern emerge. Got a big fundraiser in some non-Chicago part of the state? Quick, scheduling department, make up some excuse for me to give a speech in Anytown, IL, hand over a cardboard check, cut a ribbon, anything, for a 15-minute press appearance. Then it’s off to the nearby fundraiser for hours of partying, and a flight back home to Ravenswood on the taxpayer’s dime instead of the campaign’s, since I’m returning from “official business” aka the press event. IRS forensic auditors might be willing to help the AP guys with this one. I think other governor’s have probably done this trick a time or two in the past, but this guv has earned a frequent-flyer card for it. - steve schnorf - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 3:56 pm: Hat, Govs don’t spend hours partying at fundraisers. They normally don’t spend hours at fundraisers. - Captain America - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 4:12 pm: I agree with Yellow Dog and others that this tax liabilty issue is much ado about little. It’s a civil matter, not criminal. Clerly the Governor abuses the travel perk, and apparently he isn’t really engaged in the nuts and bolts of governing. But those are political issues which will be resolved in 2010, if the Governor survives the legal problems that bedevil his administration. - DC - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 4:31 pm: He is clearly too busy “governing” to be worried about the nuts and bolts of governing. Irrespective of the the outcome of this tax story, it will be another headline listed among other non-favorable headlines that will severely limit his abilty for reelection if he’s naive enough to think his 27% approval rating warrants another request for a statewide electoral mandate. - Bill - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 4:49 pm: ===if the Governor survives the legal problems that bedevil his administration.=== There are no legal problems “bedeviling” the administration. The only ones bedeviled are the Blago haters who keep waiting for something that will never happen. The gov has not been accused of any wrong doing. When someone in his administration does something wrong the Gov takes action to remove that person. Governor Blagojevich is an honest man who has done nothing wrong. Many of you have been waiting for over 4 years for something to happen legally. Good luck with that! - Huh? - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 4:57 pm: Bill - With your blind allegiance of blago, your preception of reality is gravely impared. - capitol view - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 5:02 pm: hey, DC, the Governor’s scheduler just resigned to join his campaign staff. I fully expect him to run again, for two reasons — (1) there may be three or more other candidates with him in the Dem primary and in the next general election for governor, and he may think that he can win out with 26 - 28% of the vote each time; and (2) where else can he go? What higher office is available in 2010? Perhaps if a Dem wins the White House in 2008, we can convince him/her to appoint him ambassador to Croatia… - Hang your Hat at Mister Kelly's - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 5:36 pm: Steve, if the public press event was 15 minutes and the fundraiser was two hours, what was his real purpose in going down there, would you say? Is your answer the same if you know that the fundraiser was scheduled first? Whatever, I’ll just sit back and wait for AP and the IRS and ISBOE to figure it out… So, for those of us that don’t know from personal experience, having never been invited, when you are at one of these fundraisers, what exactly goes on? Just a grip and grin photo op with each donor, or more protracted hobnobbing? Or does everyone just fill out a form like bank deposit slips, eat a cold catered burger and go home? Is there dancing? Come, tell. - annon in the stykes - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 5:55 pm: So it is true….they did move the Illinois capitol to Chicago, the “principal place of business”, the “home office” as it were and the big domed building is now the branch. Hmmmm ? that’s damned interesting !! - RJW - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 7:19 pm: First of all, I believe it has been proven to any person of reason that the Governor does NOT work out of the Thompson Center in Chicago. Sorry, Bill, but you’re wrong on that. Second, regardless of what Steve Schnorf says, I don’t believe the Governor should be able to declare a headquarters like any other state employee. I don’t believe the Governor should be able to declare a headquarters at all. But, if he does the headquarters should obviously be Springfield. It’s the state capital. All Governor’s should have to declare that as their headquarters. They especially shouldn’t be getting tax advantages to travel to and from Springfield. Give me a break!! - Bookworm - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 7:44 pm: The problem here probably isn’t whether Blago really broke any laws. The IRS likely has bigger fish to fry anyway. It’s the message it sends to all the voters who have to endure long commutes, high gas prices, hours or days away from home (because they can’t fly home every night), or who have to uproot their families from communities where they have lived many years, because THEY have no other choice if they expect to keep their jobs. Not to mention all the (Chicago area!) commuters who will have no choice but to wait (in cold, snow, rain, stalled traffic, etc.) for fewer bus and train rides next month because His (H)Airness hasn’t yet bothered to solve that problem! - Disgusted - Monday, Dec 17, 07 @ 11:36 pm: So with the government now situated in Chicago, I guess the poor ol’ governor’s Mansion will be even sadder looking than it is now. It’s Christmas and there’s not a light on anywhere. It’s a great black hole on the landscape of downtown and looks forlorn. Just like younger people who look at those with grey hair and think they’ve lost it, they think the Mansion is old and a waste of time. - annon in the stykes - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 6:31 am: It’s too bad because though symbolic perhaps to some, it’s history & historic value are great, a real part of Illinois & midwestern history. You’d think just for the heck of it the hired help around there would throw up a string of lights as to not look too obvious. Blago not living there really isn’t the biggest problem, it’s his lack of being at the seat of government, namely Spfld, when he needs to be & should be. When you think of governor in any state, your think the “mansion” where most chief executives live. The story is this admin…Blago 1 & Blago 2 are real disappontments, usually at tax payers expense. - A little help Rich - Tuesday, Dec 18, 07 @ 8:32 am: Steve S. Sorry, Country Club Estates. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.