Posted: 1/20/2004 10:21:40 AM EDT
|
www.cnn.com/2004/US/Midwest/01/20/lottery.tax.ap/index.html City misses out on lotto windfall - Winnings not taxable on outdated city charter SOUTH EUCLID, Ohio (AP) -- Rebecca Jemison, who emerged as the true winner of last month's $162 million lottery drawing, is suddenly even richer. This Cleveland suburb is suddenly much poorer. South Euclid city officials were stunned to learn that they can't collect $1.4 million in income taxes from the winning Mega Millions ticket since the city charter wasn't updated to include lottery winnings as taxable income. "It's not a good day for the city," Mayor Georgine Welo said Monday. "We were all excited until we went to go for the money and learned that we are not entitled to it. We are very saddened by the news." Rebecca Jemison took the lump sum payment option of the $162 million jackpot, walking away with $67 million. Now, she's $1.4 million richer. The news came at a bad time for South Euclid, which laid off six workers and made other cuts to help bring its $16.5 million budget down to $13 million, Welo said. The city had planned to use the windfall to rehire some workers and improve parks and recreation programs. City Law Director Michael Lograsso said former Mayor John Kocevar's administration failed to act on a 1996 letter from the Regional Income Tax Agency advising the city to amend its charter if it wanted to tax lottery winnings. That year, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that in order for cities to collect the tax, they would have to specifically state "lottery winnings" as taxable income in their charters, Lograsso said. The tax mix-up is the latest plot twist in an unusually eventful lottery drawing. Days after the December 30 drawing, another woman filed a police report saying she lost the winning ticket and was later found guilty of filing a false police report. |
|
Well, I guess they'll have to join the other 362,497 other US cities that didn't get a windfall from that lottery. What boggles me is the statement, "[i]This Cleveland suburb is suddenly much poorer.[/i]" WTF? [b]WTF?[/b] [size=4]W-T-F?[/size=4] How fucking so? Show me, South Euclid, Ohio, how your municipality is somehow "poorer" for not having gotten your greedy little rat mits on this woman's money [b]that was never fucking yours to begin with, you miserable fucks![/b] Whew! That felt good. |
|
Quoted: i think i would give it to the city as a gift. why not? she is so stinking rich she could wipe her ass with $100 bills. build a rec center or something. that would be cool of her. If it were me I would do a lot of things. [b]I[/b] not the city. [b]I[/b] would build a rec center, or the land for a new park. The last thing I would do would be to voluntarily give my money to the local government so that they can squander it on useless shit. That's the reason everyone in city hall there is so disappointed. They were already picking out their new leather chairs and walnut office furniture. |
|
Quoted: i think i would give it to the city as a gift. why not? she is so stinking rich she could wipe her ass with $100 bills. build a rec center or something. that would be cool of her. Yes, if she calls that community home, it would be nice (but not required!) of her to make a gift. It is complete BS for the city to bitch and moan about this. |
| South Euclid is not really an evil suburb, I live right over the line from them and it is a nice middle class suburb that is starting to get urbanized at the edges. Their money problems really seem to stem from this and an increase in rental houseing. In short, they have been trying to maintain their traditional level of city services with a population that is at once aging and decreasing in per household taxable income. It is a loosing battle. We live one suburb east of them, and intend to move even further east in the next 2 years in large part due to the increasing urbanization that is creeping into our once upper class schools. |