Social Networks We Use


CT Tech Junkie Feed

Connecticut Consumers to Begin Receiving E-Book Settlement Refunds
Mar 25, 2014 4:09 pm
Connecticut residents will start receiving refund checks or credits this week for e-books purchased between April 1,...more »
Like New Jersey, Direct Retail Sales of Tesla Automobiles Not Allowed in Connecticut
Mar 19, 2014 12:24 pm
The Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection is co-sponsoring a contest for the auto dealership...more »

Our Partners


McMahon Releases 2010 Tax Return, Tax Rate 15.3 Percent

by Christine Stuart | Jul 20, 2012 5:22pm
(16) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Congress, Election 2012, Taxes

(Updated Sat. 9 p.m.) Republican Linda McMahon, the former wrestling executive who is running for the U.S. Senate, released her 2010 tax return Friday afternoon after being hounded by the media just a few days ago.

Click the play arrow to watch as Rick Green of the Courant ask her to release the 2010 return in the absence of the 2011 return.

Tim Murtaugh, McMahon’s communications director, said they decided to release the 2010 returns because they’re afraid the 2011 returns won’t be completed prior to the Aug. 14 primary.

The 2010 return, which McMahon filed with her husband Vince, showed the couple made about $30.6 million in income. Most of the income, aside from the $827,500 salary Vince takes from his role as president and CEO of the WWE, comes almost entirely from stock dividends, which are taxed at a rate of 15 percent. The McMahons earned $29.6 million from stock dividends. However, Mrs. McMahon did receive about $155,000 in income from a movie she produced with her son and daughter-in-law.

The McMahons paid about $4.7 million in federal taxes in 2010, putting their effective federal tax rate at 15.3 percent, the lowest tax rate of all the U.S. Senate candidates.

Some of the couple’s investment income is in emerging market investments overseas, which is why they also paid more than $14,000 in foreign taxes. The amount was credited against their U.S. tax obligation. There’s no indication they keep their money in tax haven country’s like the Cayman Islands. Murtaugh said she received a foreign tax credit, but has “no foreign bank accounts.”

The McMahons also made about $122,000 in charitable donations through their personal return and $1.6 million in donations through the Vince and Linda McMahon Family Foundation, including $1 million to Sacred Heart University. They also gave $100,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Stamford, $333,000 to East Carolina University where they attended school, and $25,000 to Stamford Hospital.

Former U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, who is running against McMahon in the Republican primary, has been critical of her for not releasing her tax return earlier. He said he believes she does have control over how quickly, and when it gets completed, but Murtaugh said they’re waiting on information from third parties and have no control over when those documents will be released.

But this isn’t the first time the McMahons have filed for an extension. They also filed for an extension in 2010. The batch of taxes released to news organizations on Friday were filed Oct. 12, 2011.

The release of the taxes gave at least one of her opponents an opportunity to criticize her and her campaign’s tax proposal to lower taxes for the middle class.

“Like many voters in the state, we’re interested in seeing the details, but this certainly helps explain why McMahon is pushing her tax plan so hard,” Ben Marter, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy said. “She stands to benefit ten times what the average Connecticut household would.”

Murphy, the Democratic frontrunner in the race, has an effective federal tax rate of 22 percent. Murphy and his wife reported about $220,000 in income in 2011 and use Turbo Tax to file their taxes. Read more about that here. Click here to read about Shays’ taxes.

Tags: , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(16) Comments

posted by: JusticeCT | July 20, 2012  6:11pm

Who in their right mind would vote for McMahon? Watch the video - why is she so evasive? Why does she think it’s OK to keep voters in the dark about who she is before we vote? Doesn’t her dodging make you want to know what she’s got to hide? These millionaires—McMahon, Wilson-Foley, Romney, Bush—are dangerous.  They chew up our democracy and laugh at us mere mortals as they promote the idea that we have no right to know who they are. JUST SAY NO to pols who think they’re better than us.

posted by: GoatBoyPHD | July 21, 2012  8:33pm


The Murphy campaign is claiming 31% ‘All In’ w/state, local property taxes, social security and charitable giving.

Linda’s state tax was listed as $2.1 million or another 6.8% to up that here figure to 22.1%.

Then there’s property tax and $1.72 million in charitable giving (5.6%) which further closes the gap to a couple points.

Here’s the real essence of the difference. Over the last 5 years the WWE averaged $23.8 million in taxes a year. Combine that with Linda’s above taxes and charitable giving and that $30 million to $34 million in unadjusted gross income is basically a wash. An effectie tax of 100%.

WWE taxes
24.3 -  2007
23.9 -  2008
29.1 -  2009
28.5 - 2010  
12.0 - 2011  
23.6 Million Average
from Wikinvest


posted by: Reasonable | July 21, 2012  9:35pm

JusticeCT:  Your limited Democratic psychology to berate Republicans, by using Linda McMahon “as the worm to catch your fish,” is amusing.
You are using Linda as a smokescreen for Pres. Barack Obama’s leading deficit spending Congressional Connecticut henchman—Chris Murphy! That’s why voters will support Chris Shays on Election Day, as unlike “big spender Murphy” statesman Shays—balanced the federal budget for four years. “If you tell the truth, JusticeCt, you won’t get caught in a lie!”

posted by: borisvian | July 22, 2012  11:51am

“Reasonable”: JusticeCT without much political ideology pointed out that a dishonest, incapable person is trying to evade answering.

Your answer would’ve been “reasonable”, if you could somehow discredit that fact of evasion. Instead, you’ve put up a hysterical smokescreen, trying to evade the subject and trying to discredit him on things he didn’t even say. It is very unreasonable, indeed.

By the way, Linda McMahon was pathetically stonewalling, and lying to Rick Green that his question was already answered.

posted by: MGKW | July 22, 2012  1:14pm

Note to all(especially to Reasonable, which you are not):

Linda McMahon defended WWE as “family entertainment” on Bill O’Reilly’s TV show.
She hopes she forget about that—-that’s all you have to know..This job creator made her money on moral corruption, blood, and doing harm to others…the Repubs has a short memory when it comes to her business history….That’s all you have to know.

posted by: Bosco | July 22, 2012  2:18pm

Not to defend McMahon - I am a CPA with roughly 400 clients (none nearly as wealthy as the McMahons).  Roughly 60 of my clients are on extension.  3/4 of those are on extension for matters out of their control-waiting for tax information from an investment (such as a partnership) is the biggest reason.  So while I am not a fan of hers, I do believe her when she states that she does not know when the preparation of her 2011 income tax returns will be completed.

posted by: DrHunterSThompson | July 22, 2012  9:51pm

well, a few things: 1) they work the tax code in their favor, we all do - no big deal. 2) the tax code needs radical overhaul.  they should pay more - all those with investment income should - lots more.  the code should hit you hard for investment income and lightly for “working” income - wages, etc. 3) she’s is evasive, phoney, and a really bad candidate.  we all know if she didn’t have her own $$ she wouldn’t be here.

it will be over for her, finally, in november.


posted by: Mansfield1 | July 23, 2012  9:59am

15.3% and so Linda needs a huge tax cut?  And she says we “know all we need to know?

Notice that Anne Romney said the same thing:  “We’ve given all the information necessary and that’s enough.” 

This is about their prosperity alone, it won’t benefit any poor chump who’s just trying to stay in the middle class.  Her $6000 per family tax cut doesn’t apply to ordinary folks anyway, just the people above 250K.

posted by: Jesterr72 | July 23, 2012  9:59am

“...the [tax] code should hit you hard for investment income and lightly for “working” income - wages, etc”

Really??  The money I set aside to invest has ALREADY BEEN TAXED - it is after-tax income on money I earned.  Now, I take a risk and invest it and you want to tax the gains at the same rate again???  Boy, you Liberals have no clue how capital flows to build enterprises, hire labor, etc.
Do what you suggest, and watch unemployment skyrocket…

posted by: Reasonable | July 23, 2012  10:13am

MGKW: And Chris Murphy is even a worst bet to vote for than Linda McMahon.  That’s why the intelligent vote must go to Chris Shays, who balanced the federal budget for four years—while Chris Murphy voted for three trillion dollars of Pres. Barack Obama massive, deficit spending in four years.
Chris Murphy is a leader in “burying our country to oblivion.” 
A vote for Chris Murphy—is like putting another nail in our national coffin.  If you don’t want to see American buried from within, you must vote for Chris Shays, not Chris Murphy—“the bad political actor” who is leading us to CURTAINS, AMERICA! There is no future to our once great country—“if we keep putting bankruptcy-driven politicians like Chris Murphy in office.

Vote for Chris Shays—as insurance for the salvation of America.  Chris Shays is the only patriotic vote to give—if you really love this country.

Also, I agree with Susan Bysiewicz, the Democrat senate candidate who has not “sold her soul” to bankrupt Pres. Barack Obama’s disastrous spending policies, Murphy should return the the hedge fund contributions he received as a pay-off from Wall Street. He won’t be watching Wall Street, as long as Wall Street has Murphy in their back pocket.

posted by: MGKW | July 23, 2012  2:14pm

Unreasonable (Joe McCarthy):

Did not want to go down that road but if you insist…

Bush Tax Cuts
No regulation

All of above caused the current situation we are in and were supported by by Shays so please tell the truth…

Second, stop with the socialism routine its entirely wrong and boring…socialism occurs the state owns the means of production…with healthcare the insurance cos are still in control of the market and still have pricing authority…

Quit with the Joe McCarthy routine—-that is below what our democracy represents, however, it appears that many on the right still want to practice it.

posted by: Reasonable | July 23, 2012  8:02pm

Borisvian & MGKW: Chris Shays says he would never vote for Linda McMahon, and I wouldn’t either, as voting for her is a wasted vote—just like voting for Chris Murphy, who is Pres. Barack Obama’s voting robot—has helped amass a $3 trillion dollar massive deficit spending hole in the past four years.  Just the opposite, Chris Shays balanced the federal budget for four years.  Our min-boggling Obama-Murphy deficit spending must be stopped.

Only Chris Shays has proved that he can balance the budget.  You don’t have to be “Smarter the a Fifth Grader” to realize that only Chris Shays deserves to be elected to the U. S. Senate—on Election Day.
He has proved he has—and will get the job done. Our bankruptcy deficit spending Obama-Murphy team must go, as they are leading our country to fiscal oblivion—that must be stopped.

posted by: borisvian | July 24, 2012  11:12am

“Reasonable”: I agree with you, Linda McMahon is even worse than Chris Shays.

Unfortunately, you weren’t able to make a case for CS and if you don’t mind, I’ll still vote for Chris Murphy.

We need someone who is not only able to intellectually understand our complex society’s problems but who also has the willingness and consistency to move forward, as opposed to the Republicans’ tribal mentality.

posted by: CitizenCT | July 24, 2012  1:08pm

Chris Murphy was one of only 90 congressmen and the only one from CT that voted against the department of defense appropriations act last week.  This bill is critical to CT defense contractors like Electric Boat and Pratt and Whitney.  Murphy voted against this critical bill for jobs in CT.  Even Nancy Pelosi voted for it.  Murphy’s priorities are not the same as the people of CT.

posted by: Doutful | July 29, 2012  12:45pm

Linda McMahon is a negative factor in competing against Chris Shays..  Her total inexperience and big money ads, daily mailers and empty jobs plan, can’t compete with a professional like Shays—who has proved his worth, by balancing the budget four times, and knows how to win an election—by winning 19 elections, so far. Despite a $49 million dollar campaign outlay against Sen. Richard Blumenthal, McMahon lost her only election bid.  She will lose to Shays in the Republican Primary, also.  Money can’t buy you everything, Linda.

posted by: SalRomano | July 31, 2012  5:14pm

It’s a shame.  Linda just lost $500. million dollars on her WWE stock—and now she will lose to Chris Shays.