Tax Returns

[Itsy]

I had posted about this somewhere else a few months ago, but will try to clear up what's been posted above.

#1 - Casey would not have been eligible for either the EIC (earned income credit) or the $1000 child tax credit (for children under age 17) if she had zero income. Yes, she could have lied (ha!) and filled out a Schedule C claiming she made money cleaning or babysitting and received both after paying self-employment taxes, BUT...

#2 - The IRS rules have been changed for quite some time now regarding situations like the A's where an adult child and her/his child(ren) live with their parents. IRS rules now state that which ever taxpayer makes the most money *must* claim the grandchild(ren) in order to minimize the EIC (if any) & child tax credit, along with the additional tax credit (another credit available to taxpayers depending on income & number of children claimed) due to the household, as obviously they contribute more support than the lesser earning person(s), and this saves the IRS tons of money. C&G could also claim Casey if she made under the maximum income (varies each year based on the amount one gets for claiming oneself as "single"), and Casey would still get back all of federal income tax withheld.

#3 - Yes, C&G can go back three years & amend their tax returns to claim Caylee if Casey didn't claim her. And even if Casey filed false tax returns for 2007 & 2008, C&G could still amend and Casey would have to repay whatever benefit she received. I kinda doubt they'd do that to her, though, lol. Don't want Casey getting into even more trouble!

 

[Itsy]

What about taxes on that 200k for selling the pics and videos of Caylee?

Depends on who received the check. If Casey was already in jail at the time the check was written, I've wondered if it went into the "foundation" account. And even LE has to get a court order to look at all of the returns for all parties involved - except the foundation, IIRC the IRS rules. Think the foundation would be public record info.

 

[Firefly]

Now I'm confused, how can you get a tax refund if you haven't paid any taxes?

ITA, How could ICA claim anything when she wasn't even "working?"
If this girl couldn't take care of her own life, I can't even imagine her having the brains to be responsible enough to file a tax form. Plus, filing a tax form would have to have her disclose her income for the year and from whom.
Did Casey EVER put any tax claims in with or w/o Caylee. Has that even been established?

 

[DaughterAlice]

ITA, How could ICA claim anything when she wasn't even "working?"
If this girl couldn't take care of her own life, I can't even imagine her having the brains to be responsible enough to file a tax form. Plus, filing a tax form would have to have her disclose her income for the year and from whom.
Did Casey EVER put any tax claims in with or w/o Caylee. Has that even been established?

Going along the same lines as you & Zsa Zsa, what if she never filed any claims at all? I think we do know she did have a legitimate job at one time (I forgot where) but even if she filed for THAT year, what if she never actually filed again? How long would it take for the IRS to catch up with her? No job = no W2. No unemployment. No form of income whatsoever except for the thousands she stole from her parents . . . . Maybe no one ever claimed little Caylee. So sad.

 

[Itsy]

Well, if Casey filed a fraudulent return using a Schedule C (for self employment income) she would *not* have to disclose where she earned the income from. All she would have to do is indicate what type of work she was supposedly doing. (Even if she were audited, she could say she was paid in cash & gee, I don't know how to get in touch with those people anymore.) Non-employees are usually only issued a 1099-Misc for earnings of $600+...you may (or may not, lol) be surprised at how many people that earn under the $600 and don't receive the 1099 don't claim it on their taxes.

But you are right, legally she could not have claimed anything when she wasn't working; therefore she was not eligible for any sort of refund.

Hard to tell if she ever filed with or w/o Caylee as the IRS doesn't give out that info to anyone but the taxpayer. I'm not sure if LE or the SAO has requested it, but I never noticed it in any of the docs.

 

[Itsy]

Going along the same lines as you & Zsa Zsa, what if she never filed any claims at all? I think we do know she did have a legitimate job at one time (I forgot where) but even if she filed for THAT year, what if she never actually filed again? How long would it take for the IRS to catch up with her? No job = no W2. No unemployment. No form of income whatsoever except for the thousands she stole from her parents . . . . Maybe no one ever claimed little Caylee. So sad.

As long as no wages are reported to the IRS under one's name & SS#, they don't care if you don't file (or work). If you have filed for years & years and all of a sudden don't file, they may write you a letter asking why. But someone in Casey's position - I don't see that happening. It's only when someone DOES get a W-2 or 1099 and doesn't file it that they eventually catch up to the person. They want their cut, yanno.

 

[GoneWithTheWind]

****respectfully snipped *****
I would like to know who claimed the $200,000 income from ABC on their taxes.[/QUOTE]

That is the 200,000 dollar question. It is definitely income, and the IRS, wants one third of that.

 

[SuperChick]

not sure but i would guess that IF G and C claimed them, they probably claimed casey was in school. i think (and it's been awhile since i had to worry about it) that you can claim a child up to the age of 24 if they are still in school (sometimes i get the ages for taxes and insurance mixed up so i could be wrong). and yes i know it's hard to believe the anthonys may lie but there is always that possibility. if they let casey claim her, she could have gotten back quite a bit of money. many many years ago when my daughter was very young, i remember i paid in just over 300 in taxes and thanks to the earned income credit, i got back over 700. it was like the government's incentive to work as opposed to sitting home and drawing welfare. not sure if the laws are still the same though. not sure why you ask this but i'm sure will all the attention this case has gotten, somebody from the IRS has already checked them out.

As a tax professional, I can answer with certainty that you recieved earned income credit because your had EARNED INCOME, and you are correct about the logic behind the law. Casey, having no income, would not be enititled to anything. Even with a child, you need INCOME to be required to file a return. Also, they could not claim Casey was a student because these days the govenment requires the school to provide 1098 forms proving exactly how much tuition was paid if they were a full or part time student. Casey and Caylee can be claimed as dependents. If they weren't, it was a waste of money.

 

[Gaia713]

not sure but i would guess that IF G and C claimed them, they probably claimed casey was in school. i think (and it's been awhile since i had to worry about it) that you can claim a child up to the age of 24 if they are still in school (sometimes i get the ages for taxes and insurance mixed up so i could be wrong). and yes i know it's hard to believe the anthonys may lie but there is always that possibility. if they let casey claim her, she could have gotten back quite a bit of money. many many years ago when my daughter was very young, i remember i paid in just over 300 in taxes and thanks to the earned income credit, i got back over 700. it was like the government's incentive to work as opposed to sitting home and drawing welfare. not sure if the laws are still the same though. not sure why you ask this but i'm sure will all the attention this case has gotten, somebody from the IRS has already checked them out.

If memory serves, you have to EARN some money to submit a tax return and Casey hadn't worked since 2002 (I think that was when she lost her job at Universal). I don't think you can call Casey's thieving ways "income" for the IRS. I seriously doubt that Casey was EVER in a position to claim Caylee on her taxes.

 

[SuperChick]

I know nothing of thier financials, but I can tell you that the 401k withdrawls they made would not only be taxed, but they would pay a 10% penalty on the money. That money must also be reported as income. You know George is incapable of planning more than 5 minutes in advance, so he probably didn't withhold any taxes when he cashed in his 401k. I doubt Cindy did either. But even if she did, tax time they would have to pay back all that money in penalties.

Lesson: Never make early pension withdrawls without talking to a tax person!

Cindy makes too much money I'm sure to qualify for earned income. They probably owed money to the govenment that year. The stimulus money was seperate. That would put even more pressure on Cindy and George, which they turned on Casey. Not that Casey didn't deserve it, But the whole family makes poor financial choices.

They probably never questioned Casey's taxes, not wanting to know the answer. Not wanting to know she didn't have w2's. They willingly turned a blind eye to so many warning signs, only thinking of themselves, I can't help but hold them partially responsible for Caylee's death.