Yet Another Appointee with Tax Problems

Capricia Penavic Marshall, President Obama’s nominee for chief of protocol at State (an ambassadorial position) failed to file taxes in 2005 and 2006.  She filed late in November, citing various excuses that are ever-so-slightly plausible.

Marshall joins Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, and others.  (And eventually-to-be Senator Al Franken got a jump on all of them.) [UPDATE: It’s noteworthy, as explained later in the article, that, unlike the other figures, Marshall was actually owed $37,259 in refunds!]

Previously, I wondered whether Democratic politicos are especially prone to tax issues, the Obama vetting process is simply bad, or some combination.

But Obama’s not a slow learner.  After so many instances, there has to be method to this madness.  Perhaps this is his plan for ending the budget deficit?

As an aside, in hindsight, this is clearly a post he should have filled earlier, what with the various DVD, iPod, and reset button gaffes.

FILED UNDER: General, , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. kth says:

    “Failure to file taxes” (I understand it’s the articles usage, and not yours) is a misnomer, and probably a deliberate one. One files tax returns, but one does not file taxes, one pays them (or fails to). And this person did pay, in fact was entitled to a refund:

    Ms. Marshall may fare better because, after ultimately filing the 2005 and 2006 federal and local paperwork, she was entitled to $37,259 in refunds, according to data she provided to Mr. Lugar.

    Undoubtedly it’s not cool not to file returns. But this isn’t remotely the same as someone not paying their taxes, or only paying them when they were about to be considered for a big appointment.

  2. odograph says:

    My first thought, before learning of the details, was that those folks in Washington were sending us a bad message … that they apparently believe that if you don’t pay taxes, the government isn’t going to find you.

    At least this one did try to pay taxes, and the government did find her. One for the home team.

  3. brainy435 says:

    As much as I would love to lump this in with the many other hypocritical appointments Obama has made, this doesn’t belong. She’s not a tax cheat.

    That said, I would question the judgement of anyone not aware enough to track down $40, 000 owed to them. If she can’t be bothered enough to follow through on these things when it’s in her interest to do so, what is she going to let through when it’s not her that will suffer the consequences? Or, if $40, 000 of her own money means so little to her, how much of OUR money will her office have to spend to get her attention?

  4. just me says:

    That said, I would question the judgement of anyone not aware enough to track down $40, 000 owed to them.

    I agree with this one. I would think somebody would have a sense that they have overpaid taxes by 40k over two years. Shoot I am well aware that the government owes me a few thousand each year and file to make sure I get the return.

    I don’t think failing to file a return, when money is owed is in the same league as failing to pay owed taxes or failing to claim income to avoid the tax. But I can’t help but wonder why Obama keeps running into trouble with nominees who can’t seem to file tax returns, fill the forms out correctly, or pay taxes owed.

  5. Besides, she’s kind of hot. You know, for a bureaucrat.

  6. G.A.Phillips says:

    Dude, Obama’s friends ain’t got no tax problems…..

  7. G.A.Phillips says:

    Besides, she’s kind of hot. You know, for a bureaucrat.

    LOL, you posting from the bar?

  8. LOL, you posting from the bar?

    Here’s the way it works: there’s a three beer goggle for Washington people. New Yorkers get a two beer goggle discount. Californians have to make it on their own: the competition is much tougher out here.

  9. Pete Burgess says:

    More compelling reasons for The Fair Tax.

  10. G.A.Phillips says:

    Here’s the way it works: there’s a three beer goggle for Washington people. New Yorkers get a two beer goggle discount. Californians have to make it on their own: the competition is much tougher out here.

    In Wisconsin we get the girls drunk so that we are more appealing…..

    Its like reverse psychology….

  11. bigfire says:

    As Leona Helmsley so famously put it “Taxes are for little people”.