Did These Pro-Hamas Students at CA State Polytechnic University Carry Out an Insurrection?
If Columbia University's President Considers This a Form of Protesting, The Terror Camp...
Former Rolling Stone Editor's Biting Attack on the NYT's 'Adults' Piece About Speaker...
The Left Gets Its Own Charlottesville
Pro-Hamas Activists March on NYPD HQ After Police Dismantled NYU's Pro-Hamas Camp
Democrats Are Going to Get Someone Killed and They’re Perfectly Fine With It
Postcards From the Edge of Cannibalism
Why Small Businesses Hate Bidenomics
The Empire Begins to Strike Back
The Empires Begin to Strike Back
Ted Cruz Insists University Professors Turning 'Blind Eye' to Antisemitism 'Should Resign...
With Cigarette Sales Declining, More Evidence Supports the Role of Flavored Vapes in...
To Defend Free Speech, the Senate Should Reject the TikTok Ban
Congress Should Not Pass DJI Drone Ban Legislation
Republican Jewish Coalition Endorses Bob Good's Primary Opponent Due to Vote Against Aid...
Tipsheet

Acting Out: Robert Redford Sues New York for $1.6 Million Bill

Is it too late to film a sequel to "The Sting?" Hollywood actor Robert Redford is suing the state of New York after facing a nasty $1.6 million tax for the sale of his company's part-ownership of the Sundance Channel in 2005.

Advertisement

In May, the New York Department of Taxation and Finance claimed Redford owed $845,066 in taxes, plus $727,404 in interest on the sale of Sundance. Redford, however, claims he already paid off taxes from his income on the sale in the state of Utah. He sued the department on July 30 in the Albany County Supreme Court. From his complaint:

Sundance T.V.'s (INC) business activity in 2005 was "limited to the holding of an interest in Limited. INC managed its passive investment in Limited, paid its business expenses and maintained its books and records, all from its out-of-state location," Redford says in the complaint.

Limited, in turn, owned part of the Channel and received trademark revenue from it. "Neither NC nor Limited had an office, or property, or employed anyone within New York," the complaint states. "Neither entity had any property, payroll or receipts, located in or deemed attributable to the conduct of a trade or business in New York.

"Plaintiff did not use his ownership interest in INC, nor did he use his indirect ownership interest in Limited or Channel, in any trade or business carried on by him in New York. Further, plaintiff did not have any property, payroll or receipts located in or deemed attributable to the conduct of a trade or business in New York.

"In 2005, Limited sold a portion of its interest in Channel to an unrelated third party. The gain related to this sale was passed through to the direct and indirect partners of Limited, including plaintiff by way of INC."

Advertisement

The actor will soon find out if his case has a happy ending. Whatever the outcome, at least he's proving there are wealthy liberals who don't want to pay higher taxes.

A copy of Redford's lawsuit can be read here.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement