tomp: There is a HUGE difference between AVOIDING taxes and EVADING taxes. The former is the time-honored American tradition. The latter gets you jail time.

John: agreed, but how many can tell the diff? I am just taking note of the fact that so much of this conversation is along the lines of, "Hey Pot, I'm, kettle. You're Black!"

ps: it only gets you jail time if you can't pay up... amply proved by the case in point... and Leona Helmsly (sp?) on the opposite.

That's where I'm at, did he know, or should he reasonably have know, that he owed those taxes for 4 years, not just the 2 the IRS found. It depends on what he did wrong, and what the IRS told him he did wrong.

Not to be repetitive but, evading taxes is a time honored American tradition. He thought the IRS missed 2 yrs of taxes and thought he could skate.

Who here would have done more?

FWIW, I think there's a real problem here. Originally it was probably an honest mistake, but then the IRS flagged him about it. So he paid 2 years when he should've known full well that he owed 4 years. I find that questionable.

That's where I'm at, did he know, or should he reasonably have know, that he owed those taxes for 4 years, not just the 2 the IRS found. It depends on what he did wrong, and what the IRS told him he did wrong.

FWIW, I think there's a real problem here. Originally it was probably an honest mistake, but then the IRS flagged him about it. So he paid 2 years when he should've known full well that he owed 4 years. I find that questionable.

It could still *possibly* be honest forgetfulness, but then you start questioning the guy's ability (as above, is he a crook or incompetent?).

I'd buy that if it was a one year tax return problem or hiccup...this wasn't. Hell, i'd buy that if after the third year he had an epiphany and cut a check. He didn't fully pay up until right before he was picked.

The IRS informed him in 2006 that he owed for 2003 and 2004, which he paid promptly after being informed. The Obama team informed him that he also owed for 2001 and 2002, something I gather the IRS hadn't realized, and he again paid promptly after being informed.

Now, you can question whether Geithner knew about the 2001-2002 mistake in 2006, after the IRS notified him about the 2003-2004 mistake, or whether he reasonably should have looked into those years and discovered it himself, and those are perfectly valid questions.

Again, I'm not sure if he neglected to pay any of the IMF's portion, or if he just miscalculated the IMF's portion. If it's the former, he should have checked previous tax filings. If it's the latter, and the IRS only informed him about 2003-2004, he can reasonably assume that the IRS had already checked previous years, and that they were calculated correctly.

so I'm guessing this error was caused by a lack of attention

I'd buy that if it was a one year tax return problem or hiccup...this wasn't. Hell, i'd buy that if after the third year he had an epiphany and cut a check. He didn't fully pay up until right before he was picked.

As far as him being a money genius...i've read quite a few articles citing many top Wall Street types saying he's brilliant. I don't expect you'd get that job in tough times if you were not a stand out amongst stand outs.

I have to believe running the Treasury in the middle of an economic meltdown with no "road map" out has to be a bit more challenging than prepping even the most difficult tax return.

I have to believe that running the Treasury will be his primary focus every day, instead of a necessary annoyance once a year.

Everybody keeps calling this guy a financial markets genius, so I'm guessing this error was caused by a lack of attention, not lack of ability.

From the little bit I heard about this on NPR last night, it seems that working for the IMF makes your taxes a bit, well, interesting.

I have to believe running the Treasury in the middle of an economic meltdown with no "road map" out has to be a bit more challenging than prepping even the most difficult tax return.

What isn't clear to me is whether Geithner failed to pay both halves of FICA, and just pocketed the extra money, or if he paid some portion of them, believing that it was the correct amount, but in reality was less than he owed. It doesn't sound like he failed to pay any of them.

If Geithner failed to pay any taxes, his half or the IMF's half, then that is a serious question. If Geithner thought his employer was paying the employer's share, and that he was only responsible for the employee's share, that is an oversight (the article's mention of self-employment tax leads me to believe this is the case). If Geithner just made mistakes in calculating his total tax liability, that's an honest mistake, especially given the complexity of our tax code.