MoCo Council candidate Natali Fani-Gonzalez under review for possible tax evasion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The twitter replies on this are as you would expect.

If you are a hardcore partisan to the left- this is a gross attack on a veteran family, and nothing more than a conservative hit piece.

If you are on the right- clearly the family has illegally tried to benefit from an exemption that is unearned.

The truth almost certainly lies somewhere in the middle. Her husband was wounded/injured in combat. They have filed the VA claims because of that. Maybe they were turned down. Maybe they are still in process. Maybe they appealed the initial ruling.

Unless I missed something, none of us really know.

She should make a statement and tell us what the status of the claim is.

The truth is, even if they *did* falsely claim the benefit- she will win easily anyway.

Her husband has a history of financial mismanagement. He’s been sued in Maryland courts over 10 times for failure to pay debts. Add that context to this situation and it’s hard not to see it as willful shenanigans.

Why are women responsible for their h’s actions?

Are women not responsible for marital assets? It’s an interesting proposition which would effectively roll back women’s financial rights 100 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a 100% disabled veteran who is a judge. No visible disabilities btw.

False. To retain 100% disability first of all means that you cannot work.

That's not true, it means you can't work in the job that you had previously.

If you work your disability payments are reduced and the hours you can work are capped to retain the disability.

disability is not a permanent state, it was never (hopefully) supposed to be so.

As people get medical interventions the hope is that they are not 100% disabled.

Riding a bike does not mean you are not 100% disabled, people with PTSD can ride a bike.

The VA, which is the sole arbiter of whether someone has a service-connected disability for the purposes of the property tax benefit, has criteria for this. A panel and a judge found that he wasn’t even temporarily totally disabled. It’s a public record. In light of that finding, the next question is how they got the property tax benefit.

It was 100% but later 30%

It’s not complicated.

She should not have claimed the benefit for every year that it was less than the 100%, should have know not to do so and also should repay the back taxes owed.

This is not a great way to start one’s political career and I do worry about the quality of her decision making.

Because it’s financial and she refuses to be transparent, this is much worse than Brandi Brooks.

I agree but the OP is not informed.

Riding a bike does not mean you are not disabled.

Being 30% disabled does not mean you were never 100%

Is it really that hard to report facts.

The only known and important facts are:
- the VA and a court have determined that he is not 100% disabled
- a 100% disability is required to claim the benefit

[Anonymous]

What is clear is she is going to wait it out for now and hope no major outlets pick up on this and do some digging into her taxes, and potential family finances.

If she wanted to put this to bed instantly, it would have happened by now.

(Recall how that strategy worked for the council re the planning board)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is clear is she is going to wait it out for now and hope no major outlets pick up on this and do some digging into her taxes, and potential family finances.

If she wanted to put this to bed instantly, it would have happened by now.

(Recall how that strategy worked for the council re the planning board)

The Republican Party is disgusted but this is why one-party rule is bad.

This lady’s life cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Her finances are a mess and she seems to be a thin skinned liar to boot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The twitter replies on this are as you would expect.

If you are a hardcore partisan to the left- this is a gross attack on a veteran family, and nothing more than a conservative hit piece.

If you are on the right- clearly the family has illegally tried to benefit from an exemption that is unearned.

The truth almost certainly lies somewhere in the middle. Her husband was wounded/injured in combat. They have filed the VA claims because of that. Maybe they were turned down. Maybe they are still in process. Maybe they appealed the initial ruling.

Unless I missed something, none of us really know.

She should make a statement and tell us what the status of the claim is.

The truth is, even if they *did* falsely claim the benefit- she will win easily anyway.

Her husband has a history of financial mismanagement. He’s been sued in Maryland courts over 10 times for failure to pay debts. Add that context to this situation and it’s hard not to see it as willful shenanigans.

Why are women responsible for their h’s actions?

Are women not responsible for marital assets? It’s an interesting proposition which would effectively roll back women’s financial rights 100 years.

m

If she is not named in the lawsuit no she is not responsible for his action. What rolls women’s back 100 years is blaming them for their H’s actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a 100% disabled veteran who is a judge. No visible disabilities btw.

False. To retain 100% disability first of all means that you cannot work.

That's not true, it means you can't work in the job that you had previously.

If you work your disability payments are reduced and the hours you can work are capped to retain the disability.

disability is not a permanent state, it was never (hopefully) supposed to be so.

As people get medical interventions the hope is that they are not 100% disabled.

Riding a bike does not mean you are not 100% disabled, people with PTSD can ride a bike.

The VA, which is the sole arbiter of whether someone has a service-connected disability for the purposes of the property tax benefit, has criteria for this. A panel and a judge found that he wasn’t even temporarily totally disabled. It’s a public record. In light of that finding, the next question is how they got the property tax benefit.

It was 100% but later 30%

It’s not complicated.

She should not have claimed the benefit for every year that it was less than the 100%, should have know not to do so and also should repay the back taxes owed.

This is not a great way to start one’s political career and I do worry about the quality of her decision making.

Because it’s financial and she refuses to be transparent, this is much worse than Brandi Brooks.

I agree but the OP is not informed.

Riding a bike does not mean you are not disabled.

Being 30% disabled does not mean you were never 100%

Is it really that hard to report facts.

The only known and important facts are:
- the VA and a court have determined that he is not 100% disabled
- a 100% disability is required to claim the benefit

We know the VA court ruled him 100 at some point.

Then they ruled him 30% at some point.

At that point he did not change his status on his taxes and he owes ~$30K in taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is clear is she is going to wait it out for now and hope no major outlets pick up on this and do some digging into her taxes, and potential family finances.

If she wanted to put this to bed instantly, it would have happened by now.

(Recall how that strategy worked for the council re the planning board)

The Republican Party is disgusted but this is why one-party rule is bad.

This lady’s life cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Her finances are a mess and she seems to be a thin skinned liar to boot.

*disgusting

[Anonymous]

Really wish another candidate had won the primary, there was a really good candidate who was a local restaurant owners, but no, we had to get this person, handpicked by Navarro.

Do better next time local democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a 100% disabled veteran who is a judge. No visible disabilities btw.

False. To retain 100% disability first of all means that you cannot work.

That's not true, it means you can't work in the job that you had previously.

If you work your disability payments are reduced and the hours you can work are capped to retain the disability.

disability is not a permanent state, it was never (hopefully) supposed to be so.

As people get medical interventions the hope is that they are not 100% disabled.

Riding a bike does not mean you are not 100% disabled, people with PTSD can ride a bike.

The VA, which is the sole arbiter of whether someone has a service-connected disability for the purposes of the property tax benefit, has criteria for this. A panel and a judge found that he wasn’t even temporarily totally disabled. It’s a public record. In light of that finding, the next question is how they got the property tax benefit.

It was 100% but later 30%

It’s not complicated.

She should not have claimed the benefit for every year that it was less than the 100%, should have know not to do so and also should repay the back taxes owed.

This is not a great way to start one’s political career and I do worry about the quality of her decision making.

Because it’s financial and she refuses to be transparent, this is much worse than Brandi Brooks.

I agree but the OP is not informed.

Riding a bike does not mean you are not disabled.

Being 30% disabled does not mean you were never 100%

Is it really that hard to report facts.

The only known and important facts are:
- the VA and a court have determined that he is not 100% disabled
- a 100% disability is required to claim the benefit

We know the VA court ruled him 100 at some point.

Then they ruled him 30% at some point.

At that point he did not change his status on his taxes and he owes ~$30K in taxes.

According to the documents, when he first filed his claim, I believe in 2017, he was given an interim/temporary 100% disability status. His claim was adjudicated in early 2020 and he was awarded a 30% disability status. He then appealed which ruled in 2022 and confirmed the 30% disability status.

He began receiving the tax benefit from the time of the interim/temporary status through present. I don’t believe that they should have continued to receive the benefit once it was adjudicated and pending appeal. So at minimum they should have paid property tax in 2020, 2021 and 2022.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The twitter replies on this are as you would expect.

If you are a hardcore partisan to the left- this is a gross attack on a veteran family, and nothing more than a conservative hit piece.

If you are on the right- clearly the family has illegally tried to benefit from an exemption that is unearned.

The truth almost certainly lies somewhere in the middle. Her husband was wounded/injured in combat. They have filed the VA claims because of that. Maybe they were turned down. Maybe they are still in process. Maybe they appealed the initial ruling.

Unless I missed something, none of us really know.

She should make a statement and tell us what the status of the claim is.

The truth is, even if they *did* falsely claim the benefit- she will win easily anyway.

Her husband has a history of financial mismanagement. He’s been sued in Maryland courts over 10 times for failure to pay debts. Add that context to this situation and it’s hard not to see it as willful shenanigans.

Why are women responsible for their h’s actions?

Are women not responsible for marital assets? It’s an interesting proposition which would effectively roll back women’s financial rights 100 years.

m

If she is not named in the lawsuit no she is not responsible for his action. What rolls women’s back 100 years is blaming them for their H’s actions.

Spouses are not liable for the unsecured debts of their spouses in Maryland. However, they are liable when those unpaid debts result in liens against marital assets and they are liable when litigation involves marital assets, even if they are not in their name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is clear is she is going to wait it out for now and hope no major outlets pick up on this and do some digging into her taxes, and potential family finances.

If she wanted to put this to bed instantly, it would have happened by now.

(Recall how that strategy worked for the council re the planning board)

It will be interesting to see how DAT rules and we should be able to see any retroactive taxes on her bill, which is publicly available. I presume they would not offer a payment plan that was not connected to the property because if the past taxes owed are unpaid the property would be subject to a tax sale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really wish another candidate had won the primary, there was a really good candidate who was a local restaurant owners, but no, we had to get this person, handpicked by Navarro.

Do better next time local democrats.

Yeah she wasn’t my pick either, but it was kinda clear from the beginning that she would win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is clear is she is going to wait it out for now and hope no major outlets pick up on this and do some digging into her taxes, and potential family finances.

If she wanted to put this to bed instantly, it would have happened by now.

(Recall how that strategy worked for the council re the planning board)

The Republican Party is disgusted but this is why one-party rule is bad.

This lady’s life cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Her finances are a mess and she seems to be a thin skinned liar to boot.

Two thoughts here:

1) How was there not more vetting here by the dems themselves? You always check your own candidates first, because you know this stuff will come out in oppo anyway so you can fix it, or get ahead of it, or pick a different candidate.

2) Yes the GOP is disgusting. If the shoe was flipped though (forget republicans since they dont even matter in moco), if it was David Blair, or Mark Elrich, or Esther Wells or literally anyone not in the "club", this story would have huge, huge legs and not be "how dare anyone attack veterans! pearl clutching

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is clear is she is going to wait it out for now and hope no major outlets pick up on this and do some digging into her taxes, and potential family finances.

If she wanted to put this to bed instantly, it would have happened by now.

(Recall how that strategy worked for the council re the planning board)

The Republican Party is disgusted but this is why one-party rule is bad.

This lady’s life cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Her finances are a mess and she seems to be a thin skinned liar to boot.

Two thoughts here:

1) How was there not more vetting here by the dems themselves? You always check your own candidates first, because you know this stuff will come out in oppo anyway so you can fix it, or get ahead of it, or pick a different candidate.

2) Yes the GOP is disgusting. If the shoe was flipped though (forget republicans since they dont even matter in moco), if it was David Blair, or Mark Elrich, or Esther Wells or literally anyone not in the "club", this story would have huge, huge legs and not be "how dare anyone attack veterans! pearl clutching

So this story really does have legs? Been watching this thread but didn’t know how much of it was bunk. Why haven’t I seen us in the news?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is clear is she is going to wait it out for now and hope no major outlets pick up on this and do some digging into her taxes, and potential family finances.

If she wanted to put this to bed instantly, it would have happened by now.

(Recall how that strategy worked for the council re the planning board)

The Republican Party is disgusted but this is why one-party rule is bad.

This lady’s life cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Her finances are a mess and she seems to be a thin skinned liar to boot.

Two thoughts here:

1) How was there not more vetting here by the dems themselves? You always check your own candidates first, because you know this stuff will come out in oppo anyway so you can fix it, or get ahead of it, or pick a different candidate.

2) Yes the GOP is disgusting. If the shoe was flipped though (forget republicans since they dont even matter in moco), if it was David Blair, or Mark Elrich, or Esther Wells or literally anyone not in the "club", this story would have huge, huge legs and not be "how dare anyone attack veterans! pearl clutching

So this story really does have legs? Been watching this thread but didn’t know how much of it was bunk. Why haven’t I seen us in the news?

If it doesnt- she could literally instantly put it to bed. "Here is the verification that we are eligible"- boom, no story.

Or- "We are in the middle of the appeals process and can't comment further" - also- pretty much done.

But vague "how dare you go after veterans?" ain't gonna cut it.