Is The Mac/Stevie mentioned in Bill's book?

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

That? Was a fabulous joke.

You guys are teases. what was the joke? Also, why wouldn't bodyguards be a business expense? If she wasn't in her business, she wouldn't need them. I mean, I don't need bodyguards, you don't need bodyguards, but famous people usually do.

[strandinthewind]

From the Nicksfix (Kudos to John Kinney abd crew!!!!!)

R&R Convention - 2001
June 14-16, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicks, Lynne Deliver Early Bird Performances



Former President Bill Clinton, a self-proclaimed Fleetwood Mac fan, served as Stevie Nicks' opening act Friday morning at R&R Convention 2001. Nicks admitted that she rarely performs live at 11am, but Island recording artist Shelby Lynne had an even earlier show time, at 9am. Regardless of the hour, Nicks and Lynne each delivered strong performances. Nicks' four-song set included material from her new album, Trouble in Shangri-La, including the current single, "Every Day." Nicks also appealed to Fleetwood Mac fans with the band's classic "Dreams." Lynne, who won a Best New Artist prize at this year's Grammys, performed material from her breakthrough album, I Am Shelby Lynne, and previewed new songs backed by a band that included ace guitarists Sonny Landreth and Michael Landau, and Little Feat keyboardist Bill Payne.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton Amused By Double-Entendre
When R&R Publisher/CEO Erica Farber led a Q&A with former President Bill Clinton following his keynote address and before Stevie Nicks' performance Friday, Farber noted that Clinton was a big Fleetwood Mac fan and asked, "When were you first exposed to Stevie Nicks?" After laughs from Clinton and the audience, Clinton replied, "I've never been exposed to Stevie Nicks!" The comment was received with wild applause.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by dissention

Her bodyguards have nothing to do with her business, either. Gimme a break.

And how do you figure that? If she weren't in the music business, she most likely wouldn't need a bodyguard (since no one would know who she is, and therefore she most likely wouldn't have to worry about stalkers, etc.)... so, to me, that's a business expense.

Originally Posted by dissention

I tried to claim my home office on my tax returns, but was told I couldn't because it wasn't my primary place of business. La Nicks shouldn't get a free ride because she's La Nicks.

No one is saying she should.
You said you tried to claim your home office, too... does that mean you expected a free ride?
I suspect you simply believed it counted as a business expense, as I'm sure Stevie (and, more to the point, her accountant) believed.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

And how do you figure that? If she weren't in the music business, she most likely wouldn't need a bodyguard (since no one would know who she is, and therefore she most likely wouldn't have to worry about stalkers, etc.)... so, to me, that's a business expense.



No one is saying she should.
You said you tried to claim your home office, too... does that mean you expected a free ride?
I suspect you simply believed it counted as a business expense, as I'm sure Stevie (and, more to the point, her accountant) believed.

To quote "Steel Magnolias" - "Spoken like a true smart ass" (heavy lilt required ) AND - I love ya for it!!!!!!

[Gwillaker]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Okay, this is an interesting article (kudos to the site)

http://bla.fleetwoodmac.net/index.ph...v2&id=203&c=11

Los Angeles Times, 11/5/1996, Stevie Nicks in Flap with IRS < Stevie Nicks < Main Page

Los Angeles Times, 11/5/1996, Stevie Nicks in Flap with IRS



Stevie Nicks in Flap With IRS
By James Bates, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times November 5th 1996

Stevie Nicks has good reason not to stop thinking about tomorrow: a looming Internal Revenue Service tax dispute. The IRS is seeking $85,887 in additional taxes from the former Fleetwood Mac singer, saying she improperly took about $270,000 in business expense deductions for makeup, hair styling, clothes a home office and management fees, according to U.S. Tax Court papers reviewed by The Times.

Among the expenses in dispute: $43,291 for clothes worn during performances, expenditures a Nicks lawyer in court documents defends as necessary because "much of this clothing is discarded immediately after use because it simply cannot be reused, given the energy levels of (Nicks') performances and the heat generated on stage from lights and physical exertion".

The case highlights an often murky tax question in the entertainment business: What can artists and performers reasonably claim is necessary to maintain carefully cultivated images?

Over the years, Nicks has projected a gypsy-like persona on stage. In her tax papers, lawyer George G. Short of Santa Barbara argues that her hair and clothing "must be themed to each performance, is not suitable for ordinary wear and is not adaptable to (Nicks') general or continued use". She is required "to maintain a stage persona and appearance".

Short adds, "When not performing, (Nicks') makeup and hair-styling needs are minimal" so she doesn't claim them as a business expense then.

The Nicks case stems from an audit of her 1991 tax return. It has recently come to light in public documents, the result of her decision to appeal the case last month to Tax Court in Alexandria, Va. The majority of such tax disputes are rarely made public because they are usually settled in the early stages.

Nicks, whose real name is Stephanie, was virtually unknown until she joined Fleetwood Mac in the mid-1970's just before the group's career rocketed. With such albums as Fleetwood Mac and Rumours, the band became one of the biggest-selling rock groups of all time, recording such hits as "Rhiannon," "Over My Head," "Dreams" and "Don't Stop," which became the anthem of President Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign.

Nicks also appeals $119,291 claimed as a business expense for payments to her personal manager, along with an additional $33,750 to write off an investment she made in the album Buckingham-Nicks, which she and fellow Fleetwood Mac member Lindsey Buckingham jointly financed in 1974. That album was overshadowed by the success of Fleetwood Mac's albums, court papers say, and the two decided in 1991 to abandon any efforts to continue to promote it.

Nicks also disputes an IRS decision disallowing $50,160 in expenses to maintain a business office in her Arizona home. In the petition, Short argues that Nicks used the office to compose songs, talk with advisors and executives and conduct her business as a songwriter and performer.

Finally, Short argues that Nicks also must spend money on private security services because she can attract unwanted attention "which disturbs and interrupts her trade, both while working from her home and when traveling on business." Short declined to comment on the case beyond what he wrote in court papers. An IRS spokesman said the agency does not comment on pending cases.

Former Fleetwood Mac singer? Whats the name of that band she's been touring with lately?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Gwillaker

Former Fleetwood Mac singer? Whats the name of that band she's been touring with lately?

I think at that time, Stevie had left FM. THANK GOODNESS they got back together!!!!!!!!

[Gwillaker]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think at that time, Stevie had left FM. THANK GOODNESS they got back together!!!!!!!!

Oh

And I agree. The world needs the Mac!

[GretaRhiannon]

Originally Posted by dissention

"...I told her we couldn't, that Hillary was in the next room, but she put soft Jasmine-scented finger to my lips delicately and told me to quiet. Her golden hair billowed past her shoulders and her black skirt blew off to the side as a gust of warm air filled the room. I was mesmerized. Then she turned around slowly...undoing the laces...saying she had met her match..."

what the...LMAO!!! Ok, that was the funniest thing I've read all day...HAHAHA

[hayley]

BTW, back to the original topic-

I looked at the index at B&N last night, and there's no mention of the Mac. Surprising, considering the book is supposedly a 950 page + detail of every person Bill Clinton has ever met in his entire life.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

And how do you figure that? If she weren't in the music business, she most likely wouldn't need a bodyguard (since no one would know who she is, and therefore she most likely wouldn't have to worry about stalkers, etc.)... so, to me, that's a business expense.

You have a point, but it still isn't a business expense. She doesn't need a bodyguard to conduct business, she needs it for safety, there's a difference. And obviously the IRS agrees with me. If anything, it's a personal expense.

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

No one is saying she should.
You said you tried to claim your home office, too... does that mean you expected a free ride?
I suspect you simply believed it counted as a business expense, as I'm sure Stevie (and, more to the point, her accountant) believed.

I didn't expect a free ride, I thought I could claim it as a business expense because I'm not an aficionado when it comes to tax law. My accountant set me straight on that before I even filed, so if Stevie employs an accountant who believed she could claim her home office as a business expense, she needs to inquire about the services of another accountant who knows what they're doing.

As for the clothes that she claimed as business expenses, that's BS, too. Should I be able to deduct the cost of a hazmat suit when I have to purchase one for a job that I'm doing? Should I be able to claim the gas that I put in my car because I'd be prevented from doing business without it? The answers are no and an entertainer is no exception to the rule. We can argue over what her business expenses are and what not, but the IRS clearly defined what is and what isn't when it comes to her, resulting in a huge audit.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Lux

This of course is all narrated in Billy Connolly's agonisingly harsh Scottish accent.

Wait, do Americans even know who he is?

Oh never mind. You'd have to be an Australian to understand the joke anyway.

Proceed..........

Billy Connolly is hysterical. Too bad he makes ****ty movies. He should stick to stand-up.

[strandinthewind]

Actually, a body guard is a legitimate business expense when she is on the road - there really is no question about that. It is a cost of her or any other star doing business and she clearly can prove she cannot do her business without it because she receives threats, people have killed themsleves outside of her concers, etc. I think they were talking about her deducting it from her personal income taxes for the time when she was not working, which correctly should not be a business expense. Again, it depends on how she sets up her business. She probably is some sort of corp.

BTW - the IRS Code allows a hazmat suit to be a legitimate business expense since it cannot be used in any other place, it is protective wear, etc.

For more fun filled facts in the Instructions for Schedules A and B booklet from the IRS - the hazmat allowance and other fun filled facts on un-reimbursed employee expenses are on p. A-5 Happy Reading

Forms 2106 and 2106EZ also allows you deduct you car, gas, etc. that you use for work. You can even sometimes deduct gas and tolls used to go to to charity work.

BTW - here is some info. on a home office. It can be done, it just requires a lot of proof, as it should. If she had a studio and she recorded there, I think she had a good argument as long as her business did not also claim the deduction, etc.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...108138,00.html

Disclaimer - always check with an accountant, which I am not, before filing your taxes because you may or may not qualify!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Actually, a body guard is a legitimate business expense when she is on the road - there really is no question about that. It is a cost of her or any other star doing business and she clearly can prove she cannot do her business without it because she receives threats, people have killed themsleves outside of her concers, etc. I think they were talking about her deducting it from her personal income taxes for the time when she was not working, which correctly should not be a business expense. Again, it depends on how she sets up her business. She probably is some sort of corp.

BTW - the IRS Code allows a hazmat suit to be a legitimate business expense since it cannot be used in any other place, it is protective wear, etc.

Exactly, that's why she was audited! But she claimed more than just a bodyguard while she wasn't working, though.

And I was not able to deduct any hazmat suits on my taxes, FYI.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

And I was not able to deduct any hazmat suits on my taxes, FYI.

Really - I would have been aggressive about that because the current and, I think, past codes clearly allow it if you pay for it and your employer does not reimburse you. The 2003 Instructions for Schedules A & B (Form 1040) booklet, p. A-5, allows an unreimbursed business expense on line 20 of Scedule A for:

Safety equipment, small tools, and supplies needed for your job.

Uniforms required by your employer that are not suitable for ordinary wear.

Protective clothing required in your work, such as hard hats, safety shoes, and glasses.
_________________________________________________


Surely, an unreimbursed expense for a required hazmat suit falls within these criteria and is in line with these non-exhaustive examples

But, the IRS will do what it will do no matter how wrong under its own rules it is

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Lux

This of course is all narrated in Billy Connolly's agonisingly harsh Scottish accent.

Wait, do Americans even know who he is?

I do!