[dino_bobba_renno]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

ya but what im saying is other than the $160k cash, the rest of it was jewelry, cars, etc, so its hard legally to set a precedent here that wouldn't interfere with legitimate gift-giving in the country. You have to set a standard that can be universally applied.

Well that's not entirely true. Gifts for business purposes are taxable and in my mind’s eye this is exactly what this is. I can't give any one business acutance more than $100 worth of hockey tickets a year (funny thing is each ticket is worth up to $120) without the benefactor being taxed for it. Each and every time this guy saw her there was a business transaction so therefore the gifts were received during the course of business so there's no reason it shouldn't be taxable.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Each and every time this guy saw her there was a business transaction so therefore the gifts were received during the course of business so there's no reason it shouldn't be taxable.

That's the thing...I don't think the gifts were necessarily given each and every time they saw eachother, in fact the article suggests that the bigger gifts were given AFTER she quit stripping. I think it would be very hard to prove there was a direct corelation between the time the gift was received and the time she spent as a "companion". You raise a valid point about business gifts though, I wonder what the criteria for that is?

[ASLplease]

this sounds more like a gold digger relationship, than it does a 'hooker for hire'. they were gifts, imo.