798 users online (89 members and 709 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    374

    Question Tax Returns

    The Anthonys, I am guessing, would fill out their taxes like all of us do. So in 2007, and again in 2008, who put Caylee down as a dependent on their tax returns ? Was it KC ? ( what tax returns , right ?) or grandma and grandpa ? If it was grandma and grandpa, they were saying, on those documents, that they were providing most of the money to support Caylee. I don't doubt for a minute that they DID provide 100% of the money to support Caylee. But.....

    If my child were a single mom, without a great paying job, I'd probably tell her to go ahead and claim the baby on HER taxes. It isn't much, but it probably helps her more than it helps the grandparents, maybe in a refund or something. G & C probably get to claim interest on the mortgage, any charities they contributed to, etc. So why the heck not tell KC to go ahead and get a little money back, or at least have less to pay in taxes. by claiming financial responsibility for her own baby.

    Or...did they also claim KC as a dependent ? I don't know if you can do that with an adult child, but if they could,would they ? AND...
    If they went ahead and put Caylee down as a dependent, does it mean they believed whatever cockamainy story KC dreamed up as to why she wasn't filing her taxes. Or, did they KNOW KC had no job. No job= no need for a nanny . They cannot have it both ways. Either she had a job, paid taxes, paid a nanny, or she didn't.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11,323
    Not to mention, this whole family (of grifter type characteristics) doesn't go after child support for Caylee from her biological father, but that's another story.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    76
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Waiting
    Posts
    4,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovi Girl View Post
    The Anthonys, I am guessing, would fill out their taxes like all of us do. So in 2007, and again in 2008, who put Caylee down as a dependent on their tax returns ? Was it KC ? ( what tax returns , right ?) or grandma and grandpa ? If it was grandma and grandpa, they were saying, on those documents, that they were providing most of the money to support Caylee. I don't doubt for a minute that they DID provide 100% of the money to support Caylee. But.....

    If my child were a single mom, without a great paying job, I'd probably tell her to go ahead and claim the baby on HER taxes. It isn't much, but it probably helps her more than it helps the grandparents, maybe in a refund or something. G & C probably get to claim interest on the mortgage, any charities they contributed to, etc. So why the heck not tell KC to go ahead and get a little money back, or at least have less to pay in taxes. by claiming financial responsibility for her own baby.

    Or...did they also claim KC as a dependent ? I don't know if you can do that with an adult child, but if they could,would they ? AND...
    If they went ahead and put Caylee down as a dependent, does it mean they believed whatever cockamainy story KC dreamed up as to why she wasn't filing her taxes. Or, did they KNOW KC had no job. No job= no need for a nanny . They cannot have it both ways. Either she had a job, paid taxes, paid a nanny, or she didn't.
    Ah! The elusive tax returns! Yes, it has been pondered for a while as to whether or not the A's claimed Caylee or if KC had filed any tax returns. IIRC, we have not seen any tax returns on any of the A's. I can't help but think that LE has looked at them, though. We may never know the answer, but I for one would love to know the answer to who was claiming who. As to the A's claiming KC, I don't think they could unless she was going to college. We are still able to claim our 21 yo son, but he is a full-time college student and we have the bills to prove it.




    It Was Ancient Aliens!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    897
    To allow Cindy and George to claim Caylee would be admitting that Casey didn't have a *high-paying, important* job as an event planner.

    I'd bet the farm that Casey pulled an, "Oh, mom, I filed with H & R Block! I'm getting a $250 refund," pile o' poo on her 'rents and circumvented any hopes they may have had for ever claiming Caylee.
    We have enough youth. How about looking for a Fountain of Smart?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,235
    I thought I remembered Cindy talking about the tax issue and I finally found a copy of it on the NG site: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../30/ng.01.html


    "UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, did you or your husband claim Casey, your daughter, as a dependent on your taxes?

    CINDY ANTHONY: No. I haven`t claimed Casey since she was 18 years old.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So it`s fair to say that she paid her own taxes or should have paid her own taxes?

    CINDY ANTHONY: Yes.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Did you ever see any documents coming in, like a W-2, to the house?

    CINDY ANTHONY: Yes, I have seen a W-2 form.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Another thing I should have told you earlier, and I apologize. I`m going to ask a question. You probably know what I`m asking you, but because we want to make this clear -- let me finish the -- I appreciate what you`re doing, but let me finish my question and then we`ll go from there, OK? So back during the 2004 time period, are you saying you saw a W-2 come in?

    CINDY ANTHONY: Yes, I did.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. How about in 2005?

    CINDY ANTHONY: I don`t recall.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, don`t recall seeing it. And how about going forward from there, 2006, 2007...

    CINDY ANTHONY: No.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... and then 2008?

    CINDY ANTHONY: No. The only reason is because that was her first W-2 and I actually helped her with her taxes. I did not need to help her do that after that year. So that`s why I would not have had a reason to look at her...

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But on that point, after 2005, did you ever see her doing her taxes?

    CINDY ANTHONY: No.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know if she ever received a tax refund?

    CINDY ANTHONY: All I`ve seen was an H&R Block card from her."
    The heart of the pure can see, but my eyes have never seen the unicorn . . .

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Culpeper, Virginia
    Posts
    3,188
    You can claim any relative in your household that you provide more than half of the living expenses for, and that dependent can only make so much income (somewhere under $5000/year)-Unless that person claims themself. So yes, if KC did not file a return on her own behalf, CA could have claimed her. It is referred as a "qualifying relative" and can be any age.
    Age thing applies to insurance.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    31
    George and Cindy could have claimed Casey as a "qualifying child" if Casey provided less than half of her own support for the year, was in school full time, and was under the age of 24. Since she wasn't in school and didn't qualify as a "qualifying child", they could have claimed her as a "qualifying relative" at any age above 18 if they paid more than half of her support for the year and if she made less than the personal exemption amount, which is $3,650 this year.

    It used to be set up where any parent, grandparent, uncle, aunt, or sibling who was too old to be a "qualifying child" and lived in the same house as a child could claim the child as a "qualifying child" as long as the child did not provide more than half of his or her own support for the year. Some families would have the lowest income relative in the house claim the child to maximize the earned income credit. It's still set up similar, but now a non-parent can claim the child only if their AGI is higher than the parent(s).

    In either case, George and Cindy could have claimed Caylee given that Casey wasn't making much, if anything. The earned income credit probably would have made it more beneficial for Casey to claim Caylee in years that she had income.

    I would like to know who claimed the $200,000 income from ABC on their taxes.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    431

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by ExpectingUnicorns View Post
    I thought I remembered Cindy talking about the tax issue and I finally found a copy of it on the NG site: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../30/ng.01.html


    "UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, did you or your husband claim Casey, your daughter, as a dependent on your taxes?

    CINDY ANTHONY: No. I haven`t claimed Casey since she was 18 years old.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So it`s fair to say that she paid her own taxes or should have paid her own taxes?

    CINDY ANTHONY: Yes.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Did you ever see any documents coming in, like a W-2, to the house?

    CINDY ANTHONY: Yes, I have seen a W-2 form.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Another thing I should have told you earlier, and I apologize. I`m going to ask a question. You probably know what I`m asking you, but because we want to make this clear -- let me finish the -- I appreciate what you`re doing, but let me finish my question and then we`ll go from there, OK? So back during the 2004 time period, are you saying you saw a W-2 come in?CINDY ANTHONY: Yes, I did.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. How about in 2005?

    CINDY ANTHONY: I don`t recall.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, don`t recall seeing it. And how about going forward from there, 2006, 2007...

    CINDY ANTHONY: No.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... and then 2008?

    CINDY ANTHONY: No. The only reason is because that was her first W-2 and I actually helped her with her taxes. I did not need to help her do that after that year. So that`s why I would not have had a reason to look at her...

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But on that point, after 2005, did you ever see her doing her taxes?

    CINDY ANTHONY: No.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know if she ever received a tax refund?

    CINDY ANTHONY: All I`ve seen was an H&R Block card from her."
    BBM
    ExpectingUnicorns - love this line of questioning. I suspect the Unidentified Male is none other than Lieutenant Columbo!!!! That's who needs to cross examine CA.
    “When the lives and the rights of children are at stake, there must be no silent witnesses.” Carol Bellamy

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    31
    The unidentified male is John Dill of Morgan & Morgan. These questions were asked during Cindy's deposition in the civil suit. The tax related questions start on page 7. http://www.thehinkymeter.com/Library...depo040909.pdf


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,658
    What about the tax info on their scam foundation?? I'd really like to see that.
    Justice for GEORGE!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,285
    Just what we know about the psychology of the key individual involved, KC, we can know with almost 100% accuracy that she was the one who claimed Caylee.

    Allowing her parents to claim Caylee would have reduced their tax burden owed (and maybe gotten them a little back in a return). Whereas KC filing with Caylee would have gotten KC a nice big check to herself from the government (Child Tax Credits) on no taxes witheld or paid. Gee either reduce what Mom and Pop owe, or get $3000 or so for herself. I wonder what she did?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    31
    I can see Casey being stubborn and not allowing George and Cindy to claim Caylee, but Casey would have needed to either receive a W-2 or report self-employment income in order to be able to file and claim Caylee herself. Since Casey usually lied about working, it wouldn't surprise me if she went a couple of years without receiving a W-2 while Caylee was alive. If George and Cindy understood the tax laws and had known that Casey didn't receive any income, they could have claimed Caylee without Casey's permission.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,285
    Quote Originally Posted by J4A View Post
    I can see Casey being stubborn and not allowing George and Cindy to claim Caylee, but Casey would have needed to either receive a W-2 or report self-employment income in order to be able to file and claim Caylee herself. Since Casey usually lied about working, it wouldn't surprise me if she went a couple of years without receiving a W-2 while Caylee was alive. If George and Cindy understood the tax laws and had known that Casey didn't receive any income, they could have claimed Caylee without Casey's permission.
    No she actually doesn't. All she would have needed is to file with no income. The tax preparrer would have done it for her and taken their cut out of the return she got just for the child tax credit.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,547
    Quote Originally Posted by faefrost View Post
    No she actually doesn't. All she would have needed is to file with no income. The tax preparrer would have done it for her and taken their cut out of the return she got just for the child tax credit.
    Now I'm confused, how can you get a tax refund if you haven't paid any taxes?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Tupac returns from the dead
    By badhorsie in forum Celebrity and Entertainment News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-19-2012, 05:09 PM
  2. Conan O'Brien Returns!!!
    By SheWhoMustNotBeNamed in forum Celebrity and Entertainment News
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-13-2010, 03:47 PM
  3. Boy Finds $573, Returns It To Family
    By 2sisters in forum News that makes you smile!
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-19-2006, 10:24 PM