PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #12

[J. J. in Phila]

I think you are misreading the definition of reportable and non-reportable income under the Ethics Act (link previously provided). But that is just my own opinion.

No, I did not.

Payments from a pension totally funded by the official are not included.

"Income." Any money or thing of value received or to be received as a claim on future services or in recognition of services rendered in the past, whether in the form of a payment, fee, salary, expense, allowance, forbearance, forgiveness, interest, dividend, royalty, rent, capital gain, reward, severance payment, proceeds from the sale of a financial interest in a corporation, professional corporation, partnership or other entity resulting from termination or withdrawal therefrom upon assumption of public office or employment or any other form of recompense or any combination thereof. The term refers to gross income and includes prize winnings and tax-exempt income. The term does not include gifts, governmentally mandated payments or benefits, retirement, pension or annuity payments funded totally by contributions of the public official or employee, or miscellaneous, incidental income of minor dependent children.

http://www.ethics.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/ethics/8995/the_ethics_act/539789

Emphasis added.

Payments into a pension fund are not "income," quite obviously. Income refers to to money coming in, not being paid out.

 

[Saunterer]

The form filed in 2006 has been posted.

The forms (much like tax returns) cannot be completed until the year ends.

The was no requirement for a form to be filed in 2007.

The filing in 2006 was for the year 2005. There absolutely was a requirement to file in 2007 for the year 2006, the year after RG left office (link previously provided). According to you, that last required filing does not exist. My question is why RG's representative would have bothered to file for 2005, but not for 2006.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The filing in 2006 was for the year 2005. The required filing in 2007 was for the year 2006 (the year after RG left office). Where is that last required filing? According to you, it does not exist. My question is why RG's representative would have bothered to file for 2005, but not 2006.

The question itself is inaccurate.

The last required filing was was in 2006, which would cover 2005. It had to be filed by May 1 2006. It was filed prior to that deadline.

There was no requirement to file, in 2007, for 2006, because RFG was not holding office at any point in 2006. I fail to see why there is any confusion.

The statute says:

Each public official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the commission no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position.

http://www.ethics.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/ethics/8995/the_ethics_act/539789

The clause refers to the period when has to file the form, not the reporting period. He has to file the SFI before May 1 each hear he hold office and the year after he leave office.

 

[Saunterer]

No, I did not.

Payments from a pension totally funded by the official are not included.

"Income." Any money or thing of value received or to be received as a claim on future services or in recognition of services rendered in the past, whether in the form of a payment, fee, salary, expense, allowance, forbearance, forgiveness, interest, dividend, royalty, rent, capital gain, reward, severance payment, proceeds from the sale of a financial interest in a corporation, professional corporation, partnership or other entity resulting from termination or withdrawal therefrom upon assumption of public office or employment or any other form of recompense or any combination thereof. The term refers to gross income and includes prize winnings and tax-exempt income. The term does not include gifts, governmentally mandated payments or benefits, retirement, pension or annuity payments funded totally by contributions of the public official or employee, or miscellaneous, incidental income of minor dependent children.

http://www.ethics.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/ethics/8995/the_ethics_act/539789

Emphasis added.

Payments into a pension fund are not "income," quite obviously. Income refers to to money coming in, not being paid out.

Payments include interest and dividends. However, to the extent those payments are connected to a retirement, pension or annunity, funded totally by contributions of the public official, they are not reportable under the Ethics Act. MOO

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Payments include interest and dividends. However, to the extent those payments are connected to a retirement, pension or annunity, funded totally by contributions of the public official, they are not reportable under the Ethics Act. MOO

If totally funded by the officeholder, which RFG's pension was not. There is a limitation, for tax purposes, on contributions to pensions.

Further, if RFG was doing something along those lines, why not just announce it? There is nothing inappropriate about saving for retirement.

 

[Saunterer]

The question itself is inaccurate.

The last required filing was was in 2006, which would cover 2005. It had to be filed by May 1 2006. It was filed prior to that deadline.

There was no requirement to file, in 2007, for 2006, because RFG was not holding office at any point in 2006. I fail to see why there is any confusion.

The statute says:

http://www.ethics.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/ethics/8995/the_ethics_act/539789

The clause refers to the period when has to file the form, not the reporting period. He has to file the SFI before May 1 each hear he hold office and the year after he leave office.

Your view is not consistent with the law: Each public official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the commission no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. LG filed in 2006 for the year 2005, but apparently (according to you) not in 2007 for the year 2006 (the year after RG left office). I find that curious, even though LG had no duty under the statute to file anything on RG's behalf (in regard to the Ethics Act).

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped.

<modsnip>

Emphasis added.

My statement is, since it deals with when to file, not the reporting period. I'm sorry if that is not clear.

It is also the position of the Ethics Commission, who put that on their form and in their guide. Both have been linked. I kind of think they have a better understanding of the law.

 

[Saunterer]

If totally funded by the officeholder, which RFG's pension was not. There is a limitation, for tax purposes, on contributions to pensions.

Further, if RFG was doing something along those lines, why not just announce it? There is nothing inappropriate about saving for retirement.

We (the public) are not entitled to know every detail. We (the public) have been told that RG's finances were investigated and that nothing unusual was found.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

We (the public) are not entitled to know every detail. We (the public) have been told that RG's finances were investigated and that nothing unusual was found.

Who "told" us that? I have never seen it, apart from a single poster's comments.

Both LE and the family have never said, **Oh, Ray had his money in retirement funds.** LE has never indicated that there was anything except the about $100 k in joint accounts.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Let's look at what LE and the family really have said:

RFG took out about $16,000 in cash from ATM's over a 2.5 year period (average $125 week). Darrel Zaccagni, then lead investigator [Rickard later indicated it was $10 K over a shorter period of time.]

http://www.post-gazette.com/frontpa...n-photos-of-DA-his-look-alike-from-Texas.html

RFG had just over $100,000 in a joint account with LG (half of which would not be counted for inheritence taxes). Darrel Zaccagni, May 13, 2006

http://www.centredaily.com/2006/05/13/3802/missed-leads.html

"You know, we have one person working on the financial part of it to try to create a picture of what went on financially." DA Parks Miller, Disappeared, 2/28/11 [Taped in October 2010]

"He was making a fair amount of money; but, at least from a forensic accounting standpoint, the thought is there that there should have been more cash." Tony Gricar, 1/25/11

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/25/case-of-missing-pa-district-attorney-ray-gricar-baffles-police/ (currently not coming up).

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I think that it is quite clear that a public official in PA leaving office in 2005 would not have to file a SFI form in 2007.

It is also clear that neither the family nor LE has ever said to the public that RFG's finances were "investigated and that nothing unusual was found." They might do it in the future, but they have not.

 

[Salem]

I am shocked and dismayed that you deliberately altered my post to which you are responding here. [modsnip]

Saunterer - Posters often shorten a quoted post just to save space, or to only quote those portions to which they want to reply.

I have compared the two posts and your quote is word for word and has only been shortened to address your comment.

If you have questions, please pm a mod.

Salem

 

[Saunterer]

I think that it is quite clear that a public official in PA leaving office in 2005 would not have to file a SFI form in 2007.

It is also clear that neither the family nor LE has ever said to the public that RFG's finances were "investigated and that nothing unusual was found." They might do it in the future, but they have not.

I think it is quite clear to everyone else reading here that the law (previously linked) clearly states otherwise. A public official who left office in 2005 was required to file an SFI for years 2005 and 2006, and those statements were due in 2006 and 2007, respectively.

RG was required by law to file SFI's for years 2005 and 2006. He did not...obviously because he was not around. His failure to comply with the law was inactionable...obviously because he was not around.

LG was authorized by the court to act on RG's behalf in all matters. In 2006 she chose to file an SFI for RG for 2005. But did she also file an SFI for RG in 2007 for the year 2006?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I think it is quite clear to everyone else reading here that the law (previously linked) clearly states otherwise. A public official who left office in 2005 was required to file an SFI for years 2005 and 2006, and those statements were due in 2006 and 2007, respectively.

No, it refers to when the form is filed and says so specifically. So does the previously linked form, and does the previously linked the publication from the State Ethics Commission. I find them a trustworthy source.

Since this was the process LG followed apparently, so does she, on advice from her attorney, who at least twice, as a candidate, had to fill out the forms. Much I had to for about a decade.

I left office in 1992 and filed my last form in 1993.

 

[Trackergd]

Were a form required to be filed in 2007 for 2006, I suspect that no one ever questioned it in light of the events that unfolded and possibly thought it would be an undue burden on LG given the circumstances.

I am much more interested in what the petition to repress the tax return was all about.

I will write out part of this for your pleasure.

Application to Excuse Filing Complete Inheritance Tax Return with Register of Wills.

COMES NOW, Laura Gricar, personal representative of the Estate of Ray F. Gricar, and hereby filled this application for relief from the filing requirements of 72 PS 9136(f) upon the following grounds:

1. Ray F. Gricar dies a resident of this County, and Lara A Gricar was appointed personal representative of the Estate.

2. A part of the duties of personal representative is to file and Inheritance Tax Return

3. 72 PS 9136(f) requires that this return be filed in the County of the decedent's residence, with a second original copy to be forwarded to the Department of Revenue for review and audit.

4. Lara A. Gricar regards the information in the return to be confidential.

WHEREFORE, Lara A. Gricar respectfully applies to the Court for an order directing that the copy to be retained in the Register's office be limited to Rev-1500, side 1 of the Inheritance Tax Return, with the complete return to be contained only in the originally-singed Return to be forwarded to the Department of Revenue.

Respectfully submitted (by Goodall).

No date submitted was filled in, yet approved by the court on 25 July of 2011.

No matter how you look at this, pro or con, it does make you scratch your head a bit and wonder.

With the settlement of a small estate, it begs the question, what else was there? It's not like the joint account was a huge secret. One would wonder why the joint account was not with his partner, or at least a second joint account with his partner. The major (or only) joint account was with his daughter. To me this is long range tactical planning. I have a domestic partner, I am considering putting my son on my deed. That is long range planning.

My next concern is taking a day off, telling his partner what amounts to a rather unfair untruth (than in retrospect probably left her wondering to this day what that trip was about), shutting his cell phone off, meeting with another woman and then going missing with his car turning up wiped clean. Sorry, to me that all amounts to willful deception with regard to the events leading up to his going missing. The going missing part is another story all together.

If he was going to pick up evidence or to interview a witness, I would assume he (as I would have done) would have told a trusted staffer just in case things went south in a big way, naming names, places etc...

 

[nevereverever]

It's obvious to me that no filing was required in 2007. LG was fulfilling her duties in filing the 2006 one (by May 1 on the year following his last year in office), and that's all. Not sure why that is being harped on, but anyway...

I have to say I am curious how he was planning to support himself in his retirement, with just $100k. He was not an old man. Was there any indication he was planning on still working after he retired as DA? I ask because, as a lawyer myself, I know very few lifelong lawyers who actually retire when they "retire." They seem to always be still doing some work, even if it's just here and there. We have a bit of a psychopathy like that lol.

 

[Saunterer]

Trackergd:
Link to Form REV-1500 (3 pages):
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/inheritance_tax/14695

From your posts last month, you received sides 1 and 2 of REV-1500, but only side 1 was filled out. On side 1, which of the 11 numbered ovals were filled in?

You indicated side 2 of REV-1500, with the financial details, was not filled out. But included with the documents you received was a "Notice of Inheritance Tax", and that document did contain financial details, which you posted. Is that notice essentially the same format as side 2 of REV-1500?

I assume you did not receive the third page of REV-1500. Is that correct?

TIA for your reply.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It's obvious to me that no filing was required in 2007. LG was fulfilling her duties in filing the 2006 one (by May 1 on the year following his last year in office), and that's all. Not sure why that is being harped on, but anyway...

I have to say I am curious how he was planning to support himself in his retirement, with just $100k. He was not an old man. Was there any indication he was planning on still working after he retired as DA? I ask because, as a lawyer myself, I know very few lifelong lawyers who actually retire when they "retire." They seem to always be still doing some work, even if it's just here and there. We have a bit of a psychopathy like that lol.

He would have a pension provided by the county, so RFG would not have had to "live off his savings."

He was not planning to practice at all; he said it publicly and privately. BB suggested that he do disability cases and offered to show him how; RFG declined.

 

[nevereverever]

He would have a pension provided by the county, so RFG would not have had to "live off his savings."

He was not planning to practice at all; he said it publicly and privately. BB suggested that he do disability cases and offered to show him how; RFG declined.

Ahh his pension, of course. Forgot about that.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Ahh his pension, of course. Forgot about that.

I had the same basic question about RFG not practicing, but from what he said and from what BB said, he was apparently serious about it. I don't think his pension would have been reduced had he continued to practice.