- The Washington Times - Thursday, January 24, 2002

The D.C. Office of Personnel is reviewing the residency status of Inspector General Charles C. Maddox because some D.C. Council members claim he is not a "bona fide" resident, as is required for all D.C. government agency heads, but instead lives in Maryland.
"Inspector General Charles Maddox is not a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia," council member Kathy Patterson, Ward 3 Democrat, said yesterday in a written statement.
Mr. Maddox testified during a Jan. 17 hearing at the Wilson Building that he owns two condominiums in the District, including one that he shares with his adult son at Logan Circle in Northwest. His wife's principal residence is in Upper Marlboro, but he pays D.C. taxes. Last year his Maryland home was taxed as part of his principal residence, Mr. Maddox said.
In a letter obtained by The Washington Times yesterday, Mr. Maddox said that he is a D.C. resident, and that any tax records indicating his principal residence is not in the District are simply oversights and not intentional.
Mr. Maddox said he reviewed his tax records with his wife who does the family's taxes during the Martin Luther King holiday weekend and found in 2000 "that income taxes for my salary were paid to the District however, the tax on my [federal Civil Service] pension income was inadvertently sent to the state of Maryland."
Mrs. Patterson takes issue with his assertions.
"[The fact] that Mr. Maddox owns a home in Maryland that is taxed as an owner-occupied home contradicts his assertion of District residency," Mrs. Patterson said.
Mr. Maddox also failed to change the address section on the bill for his Virginia Bar Association annual dues because he wanted the bill to go to the Maryland address. He said the two discrepancies were mistakes and apologized.
He said he is in the process of amending his income tax return for 2000 "in order to include additional D.C. taxes" taken out of his pension.
"I regret the concern caused by my failure to update my property tax record for the condominium in D.C. where I live," Mr. Maddox said. "Furthermore, I am taking steps to ensure that, in the future, the proper amount of taxes on my pension will be withheld by the District of Columbia."
Mrs. Patterson also dismissed Mr. Maddox's assertion that in several jurisdictions a person must reside in a home for 180 days for tax purposes. She said that definition of residency is very different from the "common sense" definition in the D.C. personnel office's regulations.
The regulations state that a person can be considered a D.C. resident if his "actual, regular and principal place of residence" is in the District. Mrs. Patterson said the common-sense rule has not been met.
She said Mr. Maddox should have taken the actions necessary to convert his principal residence in Upper Marlboro to his home in the District before taking the job as inspector general in 1999. She said the conversion should have covered dwelling place and tax status as well as personal habit.
Sources close to the issue say the inquiries into Mr. Maddox's residency are an attempt to force the inspector general to release a report on campaign finance improprieties in Mayor Anthony A. Williams' office still under investigation.
But Mr. Maddox disagrees.
"I am confident that this is not politically motivated and, as I said I believe the hearing was appropriate and looked forward to addressing the council, mayor and the public on this matter," Mr. Maddox said.
"Like the mayor, I take the residency requirement very seriously, and I want to be as up front as possible."
The hearing was called by council member Vincent B. Orange Sr., Ward 5 Democrat and chairman of the Government Operations Committee, to determine Mr. Maddox's residency and term limits. Mr. Orange believes the inspector general's term expired Jan. 15.
That contention was made moot when former Inspector General E. Barrett Prettyman and Daniel A. Rezenek, general counsel for the D. C. Financial Control Board, confirmed that Mr. Maddox is serving a six-year term and not completing Mr. Prettyman's term, which would not have expired until 2004.
Several attempts to contact Mr. Orange were unsuccessful.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide