Last night, my husband and I watched Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. They were rebuilding a home for a local family here in Tenn. Being the tax nerds that we are, my husband and I began discussing the tax implications of having a TV show upgrade your home.

It's sad, the show picks people who are in dire straights, but it's entirely possible that the tax burden for the improvements could bankrupt them.

This morning, my husband, using his mad law librarian skills, sent me not one, but two scholarly papers on the tax implications of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition(1). Interestingly, the IRS hasn't taken a stand on the issue at all.

The show uses an interesting tax loophole to claim that the upgrades (or even the building of a brand new house) are tax free. Under the IRS tax code(2), if you lease your primary residence out for less the 15 days, the income you earn under the lease is tax free. So what the show does, on paper, is lease the residence for $50,000, paid in appliances and other fixtures. The labor is volunteer labor from the community so it is not included in the cost of the upgrade.

Also, if a lessee makes improvements to property, those improvements are not taxable to the lessor(3).

If the IRS chooses to look into this, it probably won't hold water. The IRS uses a "substance over form" doctrine for ruling on tax issues. That is to say, the IRS doesn't look primarily to how something is set up on paper, but to what is actually going on in reality. The IRS has mixed success actually following its substance over form doctrine, but in this case, the substance is pretty clear.

Interestingly, I doubt that the IRS will look into this overmuch. The show works very hard to find families in extreme need. For example, the episode last night- a family's home was completely destroyed by a tornado. Father is a firefighter, mother was a medical tech. Note the "was." She threw her body over her two children to protect them from the house collapsing in on them and is permanently paralyzed from the waist down. When the show was filmed, she had been out of the hospital, where she spent three months, for less than month. The IRS does not particularly want the bad press for going after families that have suffered extreme tragedy and are the recipients of corporate and community charity as a result- even when that charity comes in the form of an hour long advertisement for Sears and any number of name brand appliances and tools.

Frankly, I agree with the most likely public sentiment- these people shouldn't be asked to shoulder the tax burden of either community charity or of the corporate advertising that benefits them. To do so would make the show go from being commercial, but with a true benefit to the recipients, to strictly exploitive. It's a purely emotional appeal, but somehow, having a home that is handicapped accessible and a pool in the backyard doesn't make up for three months in the hospital and the loss of one's legs.

On the other hand, should the family choose to sell the property rather then keep it for their personal use, I am all for the improvements affecting their capital gains on the selling price the property brings. It being the primary residence means that there are ways to avoid many of the tax implications of the sale, but if the money is not reinvested into a new primary residence, then the sale does become, IMO, a commercial profit making venture and should be taxed as such.

Anyway, I found the articles fascinating and the whole concept of the tax implications of receiving charitable giving very fascinating. I may look further into it.


1. The Unexpected Tax Consequences of "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" by Jennifer Nash and The Extreme Home Renovation Giveaway: Constructive Justification for Tax Free Home Improvements on ABC's Extreme Makeover: Home Edition by Brian Hirsch.
2. I.R.C. Sec. 280A(g)
3. I.R.C. Sec. 109

Women who belittle women deserve to be belittled

Maureen Dowd has managed to thoroughly piss me off again. Her column in today's New York times is a searing indictement of- the government? Nope. The media for it's coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death? Nope.

Chicklit.

That's right, apparently, Dowd wandered into a bookstore for the first time in the past decade and realized that books written by women for women have moved out of its ghetto and made their way into the front of the store. Apparently, unknown to Ms. Dowd, reading for entertainment has become quite a hit, and she isn't happy about it.

Not only is her column condescending, outdated, and factually wrong (one of the books she cites as a sign of the epidemic of pink is actually written for the tweener girl audience, not for adults), but it seems to indicate a deep-seated dislike of women reading and writing about women.

She complains about the pink covers, as if the authors get any say about the color of their bookcovers, or the color is indicative of the subject matter. Jennifer Weiner fought for her book Goodnight, Nobody to be another color, but marketers at her publishing company worried that readers would not realize it was a new book by her- despite the fact that her name is larger than the title on the front. She also complained about the skinny girl on the front, but was ignored. (Her newest collection of short stories has a light blue cover.)

That's not the real issue though. The heart of the matter is that Dowd is buying into the old, tired, frustrating, disgusting idea that women's writing for other women is frivilous, meaningless, and personal whereas men's writing is literary, meaningful, and universal. Her condescending attitude and dismissal of chicklit make it very clear that she's never read anything in the genre, and that she is clueless as to why millions of women buy and read these books.

Bookstores moved chicklit out of the ghetto because these books sell. While the "literary world" is arguing about what books constitute literature and have meaning, women have spoken quite clearly with their credit and library cards. Bring on the pink covers!

Chicklit is often meaningful, relevant, and fun. It connects readers to other readers who are excited about the next book in the series. It reminds women that they are not alone. It also deals with topics that are weightier than its ever given credit for. For example, I think chicklit finally broke the code of silence around the exhausted mommies- women who didn't want to admit that having kids isn't always all it's cracked up to be spoke up first in fiction. Chicklit writers also deals with issues like infidelity, friendship, sexism, and workplace issues with a refreshing honesty.

Her advice to read the Red Badge of Courage was particularly out of line. If you're at all well-read or educated, you should have read The Red Badge of Courage in high school (or junior high). So Ms. Dowd can shove her literary pretentions up her ass.

Ms. Dowd is, frankly, an idiot- a sexist idiot whose own writing reads more like a stilted gossip column than the books she chooses to malign. The NY Times should be embarrassed for running this dated, sexist, poorly written, badly researched piece of crap. Her writing, reading recommendations, and examples all lead me to believe that Ms. Dowd's reading level and interests are at about the 8th grade level.

For more on this topic I recommend the following (literate) columnists:

Jennifer Weiner

Galleycat

Sexual Harassment

Study: http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/news/magazine.htm

I found this study interesting, but not particularly surprising.

I do find it interesting, that, like rape, we work very hard to make sexual harassment look like something other than it is. In the case of rape, we work to make it look like a violent attack by a stranger in the night, when more often, it is a woman being violated by someone she trusts- a friend, a date, a family member. We try to make ourselves more comfortable with the interplay between men and women by placing sexual violence in the realm of "other" or "stranger", and as a result we don't really teach people what rape IS. We somehow classify "date rape" as a lesser crime than "rape".

I loved that Berdahl firmly does not blame the victim in this study. Instead:

Asked what advice she would give a talented female student with leadership aspirations, Berdahl said the onus shouldn't be on women to avoid discrimination; it should be on those in charge to prevent it.

And in the meantime?

"Women are already navigating these social conflicts to the best of their ability," she said. "But ultimately, it's not their responsibility, nor is it in their control."*

Not very comforting. It's hard to admit that you can't change to make things easier for you, and most women know that they walk a tightrope in the workplace- too sexy or feminine and you aren't respected, not "female" enough and you're sabotaged and harassed. And still not respected. It's depressing.

And no one likes to be told that there is something about their career trajectory that they can't control. In this day and age when everyone is supposed to be shooting to be the next CEO like previous generations attempted to be PotUS, we're supposed to all have an equal chance at success.

But, that simply isn't the case. Classism prevents mobility- if you don't have the clothes, the car, the image, the diction you're not going to move beyond the lower rungs. Gender, gender roles, connections, education, background- these things all play a part in deciding how high our ceilings are. I suspect that the illusion of upward mobility is one of the carrots that keeps Americans pushing up our productivity levels year after year. Young workers put in long hours, give up their lives, and become immersed in a corporate culture in order to succeed, but the fact is, most of us won't. The average lawyer practices law for only three years after leaving law school- accountants are the same way- three years until they leave public accounting, at least, if not the whole profession.

Gender roles, class, and workplace behavior are topics that have somewhat fallen off the radar. Actually discussions of class in America are pretty much NEVER on the radar. I don't have any solutions to offer. Think about your individual behavior in the workplace- do you punish women who do not meet your gender expectations? Do you shun them? Like rape, sexual harassment is a grossly misunderstood issue. It is a joke and a perceived romantic farce, I hope Berdahl's study gets the press it deserves and creates an opportunity for real dialogue about harassment in workplace gender roles.

* Carol Goar, Toronto Star, 24 January 2007

Economics

The death of Milton Friedman has created a lot of conversation about free market economics over the various news and blog sources that I read. He was a genious, and he shaped the modern American economic system- good and bad- from the 1940's onward. His work is so influential that it doesn't even seem radical anymore. We take many of his ideas for granted. They are merely "the way things are". That's pretty amazing.

In any basic economics course, students are indoctrinated into his work. I use the word "indoctrinated" intentionally. It's not the Friedman's ideas are wrong, but the values underneath them need to be challenged.

Friedman and the economists created under his auspices are interested in market efficiency, and, in fact, Economics has become the study of how to make a market efficient. It seems to me that no one is really asking a more complicated, underlying question. Given that, according to our prevailing market theory, there is always a trade off between efficiency and equity, is making the market more efficient the ethical choice? Is it even the best choice for our society?

Capitalism as a philosophy insists that we have an obligation to the free market. The free market has no room for worker protections, for equality in hiring, for anti-trust legislation. It has no room for the government to step in and protect the individual from industry. It encourages consumerism as morality- we buy things to define our values- things for ourselves, things for our homes, things for other people. It supports work ethic as the only ethic- and it implies insidiously that wealth comes to those who deserve it as a reward for an ethical life.

It is, at its core, a morally bankrupt system where wealth is the defining measure of moral goodness and the accumulation of wealth is a valid ethical choice regardless of the consequences to our society, environement, or psyche.

We need a new model for our society.

Insult and Injury

This semester, the University of Louisville has made several decisions that dramatically decrease the quality of experience for their students. From small irritants to serious changes, these policies all serve to make students feel unwelcome on campus.

First, the smallest irritant. The university spent a huge sum of money building a new natatorium. The building is nice and the pool is wonderful, record numbers of students are signing up for water classes, and the swim team is frequently making the press. The issue? The towels. The school provides towels for swimmers, but if you are taking a class. (i.e. If you are a student, not an alumni or athlete, then you get a dishtowel.) If you are an alumni or guest swimmer, you get a large, fluffy spa towel. Just another small way students are reminded that the university will never put us first.

Second is the student body's understandable outrage over the new "student health" fee. It works like this. If you are a UofL student, and you don't have health insurance, the university required you to pay an additional $100 a semester for student health services. It doesn't matter if you never use the student health center, if you live off campus, if you already have a preferred healthcare provider, or if are so poor that you are eligible for county assistance through the health department. UofL wants your money. And (and this is where the insult comes in), if you actually use the service you are being required to pay for, you will be charged office fees anyway!

The student health fee is particularly egregious because it disproportionately affects poorer students- those more likely to have chosen a state college for financial reasons and more likely to be struggling to find resources to finish. Added to the fees for the new career center, the hike in printing costs, the disgusting amount students pay for textbooks, and the repeated double decimal rise in tuition rates, this "health" fee is a harsh reminder that despite the university's claims to be a student focused not-for-profit organization, it's actually a money-grubbing institution that views students as cash-cows.

And last comes that perennial issue, parking. Now, I don't mind parking at the stadium, and I appreciate UofL's partnership with TARC, but parking fees are going up and parking places are on the decline. The City of Louisville, perhaps taking its cue from the university, is also working to make students feel unwelcome, reducing public street parking in areas surrounding the campus. UofL has turned 2 more parking lots into mud zones- apparently, according the signs, in order to build yet another athletic building.

It is also noteworthy the number of students who have paid for the higher cost parking permits who are still parking at the stadium because the university grossly oversold its upperclassman and resident parking passes. That's right. Even students who pay to live on campus are parking out by the football stadium. Too bad the school's TARC busses stop running before 10 pm.

Basically, the university is doing everything in its power to siphon more money out of students, to make them feel unwelcome on campus, and to create an environment where graduation is difficult, students are powerless, and poorer students get left behind. Two years ago, I would have recommended the University of Louisville to anyone. Today, I'd tell them to apply elsewhere.

Thank you, UofL, for making me feel like I'm getting mugged everyday I'm on campus.

Thank You for Talking

Earlier this week my husband and I watched Thank You for Smoking, a witty, vicious little movie about spin. The movie follows the life of a fictional lobbyist for the tobacco industry named Nick Nailer (played by Aaron Eckhart). He narrates the story as well as living in the action.

I was intrigued by the movie because it is about a totally morally bankrupt character surrounded by other morally bankrupt characters. They are not inhumanized or villianized, particularly; they just go about their daily lives with little regard to the consequences of their actions and absolutely no sense of personal responsibility.

I enjoyed the movie because it wasn't a triumph of the better human qualities or a story about a Scrooge-like change of heart. Nailer simply goes on about his business of defending corporations with no introspection what-so-ever. In fact, none of the characters ever have a moment when they exam their lives and their motives.

The movie was funny, in that brutal, honest, and mean sort of way.

What makes it worth writing a post about however, is my curiosity as to how audiences perceived the film.

Did they share my horrified amusement at a character who really is utterly amoral? I suspect that the answer is "No."

See, Thank You for Smoking pretends to be a redemption story. It neatly follows the arc we all expect to see from a story about a man's enlightenment. He is alienated and reunited with his son. He confronts someone who is directly affected by his work, and he loses everything when someone more ruthless than he is sells him out.

And I suspect that many viewers took the story at face value, and failed to recognize that the redpemption in this film is a farce.

The movie neatly skewers the genre- the character makes a dramatic "courtroom" stance, and then, when faced with reporters and an offer to take back his own life, he turns it down.

But, unlike Scrooge and countless other such tales, we get to see the rest of the story, and the rest of the story is that the character doesn't change. In fact, except for the name on his office door, nothing changes.

And that is the point of the film.

Breaking Free from the Cycle

Lookie here, some commercial bastard has decided to create a magazine to undo 100 years of the women's movement and use its sexist premises to sell us things based on our "natural rythmns".

As if it's not bad enough to create a magazine claiming that women are ruled by their uterii, this fucker also reinforces the women should be spending their time, since each week of our cycles is broken down into the categories: Shopping, Food, Travel, and DIY (the DIY is the typical Cosmo "selfhelp" crap, btw). How exciting. Nowhere in there is the things I'd like to see like

Week 2: Exciting
This would be the best time to stage your carefully planned hostile takeover of yet another company.

Nope, it's Here's how to remodel your bathroom!!

I have a fucking brilliant idea, how about we get past the stage where we assume that women's uterii float around their body fucking up their ability to think logically and act normal? I know it's goddam radical, but really, it's time we moved on.

How about we stop subverting women's self esteem, security, and rightful place as half of the human race to the almighty dollar?

You know what? Men have crappy days. They have times of the month when they feel lethargic or pissy. Do you know what we call that? Nothing. We just accept that a guy is having a down day and move on. When women have the same thing, we call it abnormal. Know why? Because we have set men up as the goddam standard of "normal" for the entire history of the study of biological science.

Move on, people. There's nothing to see here except the tatters of Victorianism that still bind us to patriarchy wrapped neatly in the commercial need to undermine women in order to make them buy crap.

How about we just live everyday and stop pretending we need someone else to tell us what we need to be happy?