Citing what they call an “impossible transaction” the campaign team for Wendy Long sent out a press release today accusing United States Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of filing a false tax return in 2010.

Here is a copy of the press release:

A cursory review of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s taxes indicates a transaction that was impossible.  But the New York Times refused to even examine the issue.
U.S. Senate candidate Wendy Long said, “Two things stand out here: we have a tax code that even a U.S. Senator can’t get right and a liberal media goliath that is playing one side of this election.  Neither is surprising, and both are wrong.”
Long added, “Senator Gillibrand has a history of ‘shorting’ America, but did she short the taxpayers too?  The New York Times doesn’t care.”
Kirsten Gillibrand’s 2010 tax return  shows that she purchased 80 “shares” of Sears Holding Corp. (“Sears”) for $22,780 on January 12, 2010.  Her return shows that the 80 “shares” were sold on June 21, 2010 for $23,980.  This is impossible.
 
The stock price on January 12, 2010 (purchase date) had a low of $97.67 per share and on June 21, 2010 (sale date) it was a high of $77.80 per share.  Details fromYahoo Finance on the Sears stock prices are shown below:
Date
Open
High
Low
Close
Volume
Adj Close
6/21/2010
77.03
77.8
74.06
74.65
1837300
74.65
1/12/2010
98.79
100.95
97.67
100.43
3599600
100.43
If Gillibrand purchased 80 “shares” of the stock for $22,780 on January 12, 2010, it would have meant that the value of the stock was $284.75 per share.  Based on the data reflected in the chart above, that is impossible.
In January, The New York Times used opposition research provided by the Gillibrand in a high profile article on a potential opponent. But when provided with a simple and clear trade that was impossible to occur, the Times refused to even investigate, much less report on the matter.
Concluded Long, “Senator Gillibrand should explain her error and provide all her taxes and backup data to an independent entity, not her brother, for a full review since it’s clear that either through ignorance or intent they aren’t compliant with the law.”