Talk:Son of Boss

Frankly, I was astounded

Frankly, I was astounded that the Son of BOSS was not an article; so, I created it. SOB (son of boss) has resonated and grown to tremendous levels and the cost of lost revenues to the IRS has not been calculated.Wikipietime (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If it hasn't been calculated, how can say it's "grown to tremendous levels"? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This subject isn't notable enough to be an article. From your recent activity, Wikipietime, I can see you have a bone to pick with Romney and also in his association with the Marriotts. Unless you can prove this is a real issue with verifiable references, I'm going to move to have this article deleted. Some suggestions for expansion include how does the maneuver work? How was it discovered? Why it is illegal or, at the very least, unethical? All you have now is a restatement of what the J. Willard Marriott article says (which you also wrote).—Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the concerns and points made. I have found sources citing calculations and will be referencing soon. As far as not being "notable to be an article", I am admittedly a new contributor and am trying to learn. This is why I became intrigued with Son of Boss and where it originated and evolved. If it originated with Romney, as the sources state, then so be it. I would suggest that all contributors are predisposed with a bias for more knowledge on the article they initiate. One needs to only do a search to find the proliferation of the term, right up to current supreme court cases. So, I disagree with your ascertion and marking as a POV and that it should not be an article and would invite you in helping to make it a more complete, unbiased article. Your confusing message of moving for deletion and then proposing suggestions makes me wonder if perhaps their is a bias on your behalf. I would ask for helpful contributions and patience as I proceed. This undoubtedly will be a politically charged topic due to the political season; but, that is unfounded reasoning for deletion or inactivity. Mitt Romney has proven remarkable business and tax acumen and is due full accreditation for his innovations. I have no "bone" to pick with the Marriott's. It was the environment where the idea was conceived and implemented. In closing, who would be trolling and interested in this topic in light of this article "Of course, editing Wikipedia pages seems to be a favorite sport for politicians and their aides these days. A recent BuzzFeed report found multiple edits of Congress members’ Wikipedia pages tied to the IP address shared by all congressional offices. Not surprisingly, much of the editing included the removal of controversial information." from Forbes. Frecklefoot, do you have any connection? Wikipietime (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am a Congressional Wikipedia mole. That is why in my years on Wikipedia I've spent most of my time editing articles on video games and pop culture. It's worked very well, catapulting me to the level of Senior Editor Level III where now I can edit articles with wild abandon and fill them full of propaganda and misinformation favorable to my party.

Please. All your edits so far have been anti-Romney and anti-Marriott. I don't care if you do have a anti- anything stance, as long as the content you add is backed up. The last few edits you made improved the article. I encourage you to keep expanding on the article, such as adding an explanation of how the scheme works. Just stating that it can be done in various ways isn't sufficient. I still have no idea how the scheme works.—Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Frecklefoot, looks like an tremendous job has been done by someone; and to think, deletion was proposed. I continuing on with my research and will have some additions soon. My apology, in advance if they or anti whatever. Yes, you are a remarkable contributor to wikipedia, and I sincerely thank you. Removing ones biases is akin to denying ones heritage. I can understand in your case having been a part of the LDS that a biased slant would be perceived. This is a pivotal time in our country and the career creating implementation strategies of Son of BOSS by Mitt Romney is a top notch thriller. I am finding that KPMG can rightfully claim some of the innovation. For understanding SOB, the analogy that I found which one should first grasp is the benefit of hiding a needle in a haystack. A large and complicated business structure has to be built in tax havens in other countries - the haystack. Conceivably, the haystack could be so large that deciphering would take decades. This, I would propose is the main leg of the strategy and why the IRS made recent changes requiring "listed transactions" to be brought forward. Will Son of BOSS emerge in Mitt's personal returns? My research continues unabated and with zeal. I am finding the IRS release http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=146999,00.html particularly rich and tracking the individual relationships. Any help would be appreciated!Wikipietime (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I am astounded that this article appears right when needed, with little sourcing or actual decent information on the scandal. Seems like a well-placed page that thousands will be viewing to check the veracity of the claims made by a current President of the United States against his soon-to-be rival. Charming. PoltiFact has already dubbed this accusation as baloney. I hope that the community will do a better job of 1)explaining this SoB thing better - Forbes has a great article, as do many other business sites. 2) Any mention of Mitt Romney or the President should be removed until FACTS can be found. I checked around on other wiki pages that are on topics mentioned in both POTUS and Gov. Romney adds - curiously this is one of the only ones that mentions an add discussing an unproved connection.

Once again, the part about a POTUS add (unfounded allegations) should be removed, and this article needs better research. I see many here are in good faith offering information about SoB, but the whole timing of this by a "new" member is rather suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.17.204 (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to thank everyone for participating in my endeavor and exposing the real agendas that may be underway. Fortunately, this issue is not going away and will be the topic of tremendous scrutiny with the exposing of the latest cache of Bain documents. Wikipietime (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

At some point, perhaps we should add a brief plain English description of exactly how the Son of BOSS scheme was supposed to work, and explain in plain English why it did not work. No time for that right now; I will try to come back to this. Famspear (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Big Fish of Son Of BOSS - the ones who have been caught.

Fellow wikipedians, I am researching for a candidate to designate as the Father of Son of BOSS and place into the main article. Any help in contributing, exploring candidates would be appreciated. Apparently, in my nativity I donned Mitt Romney with out having performed due diligence. A thorough search for the individual who made the most significant contribution to the Son of BOSS implementation would first require a roster of those already indicted. Their cost to the taxpayers are known. As the recent Concrete ruling by SCOTUS over the statute of limitations and with the phasing in of Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act in 2013 the maneuvering is frenzied. The door is closing and the selection of a "winner" is possible. On a political vein; perhaps, this could be a crucial factor to the importance of Mitt Romney winning the 2012 presidential election. He is admittedly someone who knows and understands business.

The nine KPMG individuals named in the indictment are:

• Jeffrey Stein, former Deputy Chairman of KPMG, former Vice Chairman of KPMG in charge of Tax, and former KPMG tax partner;
• John Lanning, former Vice Chairman of KPMG in charge of Tax, and former KPMG tax partner;
• Richard Smith, former Vice Chairman of KPMG in charge of Tax, a former leader of KPMG’s Washington National Tax, and former KPMG tax partner;
• Jeffrey Eischeid, former head of KPMG’s Innovative Strategies group and its Personal Financial Planning Group, and former KPMG tax partner;
• Philip Wiesner, former Partner-In-Charge of KPMG’s Washington National Tax office and former KPMG tax partner;
• John Larson, a former KPMG senior tax manager;
• Robert Pfaff, a former KPMG tax partner;
• Raymond J. Ruble, a former tax partner in the New York, NY office of a prominent national law firm; and
• Mark Watson, a former KPMG tax partner in its Washington National Tax office.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=146999,00.html Wikipietime (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

We, as Wikipedia editors, can't designate a "Father of the Son of BOSS". That would constitute original research, which is prohibited here. All we can do is report on what others have found. If someone else—in a reputable and verifiable source—has named a "Father of the Son of BOSS", we can reflect that information in the article. But we can't come up with that person ourselves.

BTW, I edited your post above to fix the formatting to what I think you intended. You're welcome. :)—Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This blatant lack of NPOV (on the part of Wikipietime) has no place on Wikipedia. Perhaps this isn't the place for you. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney's role on Marriott's audit committee

Mr. Vernon made the change that Mitt Romney left the board in 1998; where as the referenced source states that he headed from 1993 to 1998. Inferences that he was no longer on the board is conjecture. The article clearly states: "He joined the company’s board in 1993, and has served on it for 11 of the past 19 years, including six as chairman of the audit committee." I would like to see a more experienced editor than myself weigh in on this matter, since I have undeservedly obtained a reputation as anti Romney. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-22/romney-as-auditing-chairman-saw-marriott-son-of-boss-tax-shelter-defy-irs.html

Several major news stories have just come out, Aug 9, 2012, with reference to SOB indicating the increasing political charged nature of the topic. Wondering how this political charged nature should be included in the article? Wikipietime (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

On Romney leaving the audit board in 1998: CNN. If you did a search for "Mitt Romney Marriott Board" it's the first link. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I posted this up top, but I will repeat it here: Frankly I am astounded that this article appears right when needed, with little sourcing or actual decent information on the scandal. Seems like a well-placed page that thousands will be viewing to check the veracity of the claims made by a current President of the United States against his soon-to-be rival. Charming. PoltiFact has already dubbed this accusation as baloney. I hope that the community will do a better job of 1)explaining this SoB thing better - Forbes has a great article, as do many other business sites. 2) Any mention of Mitt Romney or the President should be removed until FACTS can be found. I checked around on other wiki pages that are on topics mentioned in both POTUS and Gov. Romney adds - curiously this is one of the only ones that mentions an add discussing an unproved connection. Once again, the part about a POTUS add (unfounded allegations) should be removed, and this article needs better research. I see many here are in good faith offering information about SoB, but the whole timing of this by a "new" member is rather suspicious.

If I could delete this section I would. This is so partisan; to publish unfounded allegation in an encyclopedia is WRONG. DELETE THIS SECTION UNTIL FACTS ARE AVAILABLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.17.204 (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

User Wikipietime accusation of unrelenting bias appearing at NPOV/Noticeboard

I really did not have any desire to be such a controversial force in trying to put into the record historical facts. But apparently the discussion has left this talk page and escalated to . Oh well, tis the season. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&pe=1&#Wikipietime Wikipietime (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed in first section?

Brand new to the contributing/editing side of Wikipedia, but I created an account to ask this question: doesn't there need to be some sort of citation to back up the claim in the first section that "The Obama campaign recently attacked Mitt Romney for his supposed role in this scheme. However, it has been proven by fact checkers to be completely false and untrue."? I don't feel qualified to make any edits, but that struck me as a dubious assertion, and not very aligned with the standards I've come to expect from reading Wikipedia articles. A little help from more experienced editors here? Cainamkayak (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I added a {{cn}} tag there several times. It keeps getting deleted. There's currently an edit war going on on this article.—Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Usually citations are not needed in the lead section because it is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. Those citations should be in the body of the article. However, whether or not citations are included in the lead is determined on a case-by-case basis. I would think if the content is particularly controversial a citation in the lead would be appropriate. See WP:LEADCITE for more info. 72Dino (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

So, Freckles, do you retract "This subject isn't notable enough to be an article."? right after I created the article? You know, I am no genius; it seems anyone could have seen this Achilles heel of an issue coming. Now it looks as it has reached the spontaneous combustion level. Wikipietime (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I do now, but I don't think this is a contest of any sort. The initial version of the article didn't have any useful content. Just so you know, don't insert your comments in the middle of a conversation. Always append them to the end of a conservation (I moved your last comment to the appropriate place).—Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks a lot for your effort, unpaid; but, not unappreciated. It is encouraging that there are such resolute, dedicated editors. It is going to be a wild couple of weeks for SoB, I enjoy our democracy and the freedom we have in expressing our opinions - and citing sources, too. I will ponder and try to square up with the bias quagmire as it relates to wiki... So, you like games; and made lots of entries. Whereas, personally I am not a gammer and have seen my son spend his entire youth, shall I say, addicted to them. We have both have biases towards games. Pertaining to political arena, I lean socialist and want everyone brought along. This predates Romney by many years. I liked Gilligan, not Thurston; but appreciated the artfulness of Thurston and Mitt's personality, not to mention their business acumen. One final thought, did you hear rumour has it Jon Huntsman, Sr. is the leaker? Look for me over there! With much improved manners.Wikipietime (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Il223334234 (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Requested move

Son of BOSS → Son of Boss – Although Google Scholar shows fairly mixed usage in business journals, general searches skew heavily towards "Son of Boss." On the first page of a news search, only Accounting Today capitalizes. All this suggests to me that the capitalization is preferred only in specialized sources. Among the many reliable sources using the proposed capitalization are Forbes, PolitiFact, and the IRS. And remember, "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." (WP:MOSCAPS) I'd be more inclined to accept the capitalization as is if we had an article on the original "BOSS," but that doesn't seem to be the case. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, I'd be fine with Son of boss as well. It just doesn't look as right to me, and most sources seem to still be capitalizing the B. --BDD (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom.—Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I see it both ways, too. To me, "BOSS" implies the acronym that it is, while "Boss" implies that we're literally talking about the son of someone's boss. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral I would like to state that I think it is meant both ways, The scheme was put in full throttle mode by Willard Mitt Romney, who was named after Mariott's father. To omit this relationship from would be remiss; otherwise, where did the Son come from? Furthermore, I think it would be right to fully investigate for sources of the term for possible inclusion into the main article.Wikipietime (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of how they may have used the tactic, I don't think the Romneys have anything to do with the naming of "son of boss." "Son of" just indicates it's a new version of the older BOSS tax shelter. See here for other iterations of the phrase. And I'm not disputing the capitalization of the earlier BOSS; I've just seen "Son of Boss" more often written without the acronymic capitalization, like with radar, sonar, or scuba. --BDD (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Valid points, to be sure. Knowing and citing when "Son of" started appearing would be telling. Their are many other iteration nomenclatures available,e.g. web 2.o vs Son of Web. "Son of" used with Boss/BOSS is a play for the slanderous useage of SOB, in my opinion. One only has to review the heated litigation and monetary stakes of the issue, to see where the SOB could very well be the case. I am not willing to resign the son of Willard Marriot, Bill Marriot, who was at the helm of Marriot, while Willard Romney was the head of audit, off the mark. A stretch, perhaps? Impossible, not hardly. The people close to these issues will be coming forth in the years to come to tell their stories. Wikipietime (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.