Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Many of you may have seen the story as covered by Channel 4. If not, the coverage can be found here.
Yesterday, a suit was filed to remove Schneider from the ballot for mayor in the August election. Here is the background of the story.
Schneider has yet to pay property taxes as a resident of Missouri. Upon further investigation, he declared to the St Louis County Department of Revenue that he did not become a resident of Missouri until February 2006. If this is true, he would have received a waiver for the first year and expect to pay for 2007. These waivers are completely normal for the first year of residency.
Yet, if he became a resident in February 2006 he is not qualified to be on a ballot.
According to City Ordinance Section 110.130, the qualifications to run for City Council include that one is to be a resident of Overland for one year at the time of the election (April 2006). If he, truly became a resident of Missouri in February 2006 that means he was only a resident for two months, not a full year.
According to City Ordinance Section 110.010 and RSMo section 77.230, the qualifications to run for Mayor include that one is to be a resident of Overland for two years at the time of the election. Again, if he truly became a resident of Missouri in February 2006 then he does not meet the residency requirement. Thus, since he does not meet the residency requirement, he should be removed from the ballot.
Now, it could be that he was a resident prior to February 2006. If so, that means he is not paid up-to-date on his personal property taxes. As required by RSMo section 115.342, one must be fully paid for their taxes to appear on a ballot. At the time of filing, he signed an affidavit with the following wording:
Schneider has yet to pay property taxes as a resident of Missouri. Upon further investigation, he declared to the St Louis County Department of Revenue that he did not become a resident of Missouri until February 2006. If this is true, he would have received a waiver for the first year and expect to pay for 2007. These waivers are completely normal for the first year of residency.
Yet, if he became a resident in February 2006 he is not qualified to be on a ballot.
According to City Ordinance Section 110.130, the qualifications to run for City Council include that one is to be a resident of Overland for one year at the time of the election (April 2006). If he, truly became a resident of Missouri in February 2006 that means he was only a resident for two months, not a full year.
According to City Ordinance Section 110.010 and RSMo section 77.230, the qualifications to run for Mayor include that one is to be a resident of Overland for two years at the time of the election. Again, if he truly became a resident of Missouri in February 2006 then he does not meet the residency requirement. Thus, since he does not meet the residency requirement, he should be removed from the ballot.
Now, it could be that he was a resident prior to February 2006. If so, that means he is not paid up-to-date on his personal property taxes. As required by RSMo section 115.342, one must be fully paid for their taxes to appear on a ballot. At the time of filing, he signed an affidavit with the following wording:
AFFIRMATION OF TAX PAYMENTS:
I hereby declare under penalties of perjury that I am not currently aware of any delinquency in the filing or payment of any state income taxes, personal property taxes, real property taxes on the place of residence, as stated on the declaration of candidacy, or that I am a past or present corporate officer of any fee office that owes any taxes to the state, other than those taxes which may be in dispute.
.............................. Candidate's Signature
.............................. Printed Name of Candidate."
Thus if he became a resident prior to February 2006, he is not fully paid on his taxes and should be removed from the ballot.
Either way you look at it, Schneider should be removed from the ballot.
posted by suzyjax at 7:12 AM
16 Comments:
I wonder why Schneider’s residency status was not caught, when he ran for Councilman in 2006.
Wouldn’t this disqualify him as a Councilman too?
I think you are right. However, if noone contests it, it just stands on the ballot.
Suzyjax in the comments on my site that can be seen here I have been posting information as I come across it.
One interesting angle I found was State ex rel. King v. Walsh where the court ruling seemed to broaden the definition of residency. In an AG Opinion William Webster stated among other things that:
"the establishment of one's residence is largely a matter of intention. Intention must be considered in light of physical acts performed in conformity with the intent to establish the fact of residency."
As I said there I am not sure if this would apply nor am I certain that it would resolve the personal property tax issue that might result from establishing residency for 2005.
Do you have any insights on this one?
Schneider’s situation appears to be a no win situation. Either his date of residency was falsified or he falsified his Personal Property Tax Declaration. Not a good place to be, when in the public or political arena.
You are right, residency is hard to prove. However, when one signs a declaration with the dept of revenue stating they have not been a resident of the state until Feb 2006 they kind of cook their own goose.
Re: King vs Walsh
Isn't one way to show intent is in filing residency, paying taxes at that place of residency and registering to vote?
BTW, I wonder when Schneider did register to vote in Overland.
On a lighter note, check out Knodes website, it's funnier than crap. He is going to support and campaign for Peggy 160 Keller. What the funniest thing was when he stated Quote "Her past employeement has given her experience in solving difficult problems and finding the right solutions" End of Quote
Number one, what the hell is "employeement" LOL
Number two, a general office gal Friday gives Keller experience in managing a city? LOL...this is too much. Or was Knobe talking about the "babysitting"?
You could of course establish residency with ease based on King v. Walsh however, in this case residency might not mean tax liability.
Ultimately this case comes down more to the potential arrears issue than it does to the residency issue.
What could come into play at this point is who owned the vehicle.
For example, though I was behind on my taxes if my vehicle was Owned by The Overland Examiner rather than me I would have no personal tax liability (assuming no legal agreements with the purchase, financing, etc makes me personally liable should the company default).
That's where it looks like this case is going to come down to: ownership and the associated liability.
Does anybody recall Schneider driving his vehicles with Minnesota plates on them in 2005 or 2006, or were they Missouri plates?
I saw Mrs driving a yellow T Bird with Minnesota plates after Mr was elected
Dazzle,
Ahhhhh, that explains it then, taking your word for it. Schneider didn't claim the vehicles in 2005 and kept them registered in Minnesota to avoid paying property taxes. It appears he finally registered them sometime in 2006. I guess trying to save a few bucks came back to bite him in the behind.
Its a eye catching car so I took notice who owned it. Also having out of state plates I wondered who was at Overlands meeting from Minn. not many of those cars driving around here. Take my word for it. Before he was elected I did not know who they were.
The ownership might come into play if it was owned by a corporation. But, if his company was a sole-properitorship or partnership that might be different.
That said, the declaration he signed stated he became a resident in Feb 2006 not that he owned/did not own cars in Feb 2006 or earlier.
Either he is lying to the tax collector or he is lying to the citizens.
I've seen this claim several times. Don't take this the wrong way but have you actually seen this declaration?
I can't assume that the declaration exists where Mr. Schneider specifically stated he was not a resident of Missouri until Feb 2006 anymore than I can assume that Mr. Schneider's claim that his company owned the vehicles is accurate. I have to see the documentation.
No "taking the wrong way" on my part. However, this "declared residency" is what folks have been told by the collector of revenue. Now, that could be a miswording on their part or it could be they are willingly sending us all on a goosechase. I have to start with the goodwill of these folks who have no agenda.
I understand. My problem is that I am hearing the claims of both sides from either the candidates themselves or strong supporters so I have a tendency to take everything from all sides with a grain of salt until I see / hear whatever is out there it support it.
Post a Comment
<< Home