Mitt Romney's new rich-guy problem

He's done a Cameron: Got in trouble for a horse.

Mitt Romney's done a Cameron. He's in trouble because of a horse.

The New York Times:

Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann, who plan to attend the opening of the Olympic Games in London this summer, now have a personal rooting interest in the event. Jan Ebeling, Mrs. Romney’s longtime riding tutor, and his horse Rafalca, co-owned by Mrs. Romney, earned a berth on the United States Olympic dressage team on Saturday.

Mitt Romney owns a horse. Not just any horse – an Olympic standard dressage horse. You know dressage – it's that horse-based sport which is second only to polo in its near-total lack of relateability to your average American voter.

The Romneys actually declared a loss of $77,000 on their ownership of the horse in 2010, and according to Matt Yglesias, the horse-related tax code is more complex than us non-horse-owning mortals could comprehend:

The way this works is that [the horse's owners] have together formed a corporate entity called "Rob Rom Enterprises LLC" which owns Rafalca and pays for his upkeep. The Romneys reported $77,731 in "passive losses" related to their investment in Rob Rom Enterprises but of that their account only deemed $50 to be actually eligible for deduction. The forms don't explain the thinking behind that, but it's probably because losses from your horse corporation can't be used to offset unrelated income. If Rafalca had brought in more money, then Rafalca's care and feeding expenses could be deducted from that income, but in 2010 Rob Rom Enterprises doesn't seem to have had much income.

That said, now that Rafalca is heading to the Olympics, he's likely to suddenly start bringing in a lot more money, which that $77,000 can be offset against. So at some point, Romney probably will end up paying less taxes because of a horse.

Horses: Not good for your reputation as a world-leader (unless you're Putin)

A dressage horse (and rider). Not Romney's dressage horse, sadly. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images
Show Hide image

What did Jeremy Corbyn really say about Bin Laden?

He's been critiqued for calling Bin Laden's death a "tragedy". But what did Jeremy Corbyn really say?

Jeremy Corbyn is under fire for describing Bin Laden’s death as a “tragedy” in the Sun, but what did the Labour leadership frontrunner really say?

In remarks made to Press TV, the state-backed Iranian broadcaster, the Islington North MP said:

“This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy. The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died.”

He also added that it was his preference that Osama Bin Laden be put on trial, a view shared by, among other people, Barack Obama and Boris Johnson.

Although Andy Burnham, one of Corbyn’s rivals for the leadership, will later today claim that “there is everything to play for” in the contest, with “tens of thousands still to vote”, the row is unlikely to harm Corbyn’s chances of becoming Labour leader. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.