Toll Brothers 4Q net income soars on tax benefit

NEW YORK (AP) — Toll Brothers says its fiscal fourth-quarter net income soared, helped by a large income tax benefit and a 48 percent rise in revenue. The luxury homebuilder delivered more homes and its order backlog increased.
CEO Douglas C. Yearley Jr. said in a statement on Tuesday that higher home prices, low interest rates, pent-up demand and improving consumer confidence prompted buyers to return to the housing market this year.
Last week a batch of government reports showed that rising home values, more hiring and lower gas prices pushed consumer confidence in November to the highest level in nearly five years. On Tuesday, Core Logic reported that a measure of U.S. home prices rose 6.3 percent in October compared with a year ago, the largest yearly gain since July 2006.
For the three months ended Oct. 31, Toll Brothers Inc. earned $411.4 million, or $2.35 per share. That's up sharply from $15 million, or 9 cents per share, a year ago.
The latest quarter included an income tax benefit of $350.7 million.
Excluding the tax benefit and other items, earnings were 35 cents per share.
Analysts expected earnings of 25 cents per share for the quarter, which typically exclude one-time items, according to a FactSet poll.
Revenue increased to $632.8 million from $427.8 million, topping Wall Street's forecast of $565.1 million.
Homebuilding deliveries climbed 44 percent to 1,088 units, while net signed contracts jumped 70 percent to 1,098 units. The average price of homes delivered increased to $582,000 from $565,000 a year earlier.
Toll Brothers, based in Horsham, Pa., may benefit by catering to the luxury sector. Its target market includes households that typically make more than $100,000 a year, can afford to make a down payment of as much as 30 percent, have great credit record and an unemployment rate about half that of the general population.
Backlog, a measure of potential future revenue, rose 54 percent to 2,569 units. The cancellation rate declined to 4.6 percent from 7.9 percent.
The company's full-year net income jumped to $487.1 million, or $2.86 per share, from $39.8 million, or 24 cents per share, a year earlier. Annual revenue climbed 27 percent to $1.88 billion from $1.48 billion.
Toll Brothers anticipates delivering between 3,600 and 4,400 homes in 2013 at an average price of $595,000 to $630,000 per home.
Its shares fell 57 cents, or 1.8 percent, to close at $31.86 Tuesday. Its shares peaked for the past year at $37.08 in mid-September.
The company has operations in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington

Read More..

IRS finalizes new tax for medical devices in healthcare law

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Internal Revenue Service on Wednesday released final rules for a new tax on medical devices, products ranging from surgical sutures to knee replacement implants, that starts next year as part of President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare law.
The 2.3-percent tax must be paid, effective after December 31, by device-makers on their gross sales. The tax is expected to raise $29 billion in government revenues through 2022.
Companies including Boston Scientific Corp, 3M Co and Kimberly-Clark Corp have been lobbying the U.S. Congress for a repeal of the tax.
A repeal bill passed the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives in June, but it has not been voted on by the Democratic-controlled Senate.
"The excise tax is on the medical device manufacturers and importers (who) will now have access to 30 million new customers due to the health care law," Treasury Department spokeswoman Sabrina Siddiqui said in a statement.
Many medical devices that are sold over-the-counter - such eyeglasses, contact lenses and hearing aids - are exempt from the tax, as are prosthetics, the IRS said.
The tax applies mostly to devices used and implanted by medical professionals, including items as complex as pacemakers or as simple as tongue depressors.
Products sold for humanitarian reasons, such as experimental cancer treatment devices, are not exempt from the tax.
Some medical device companies are hoping to delay the tax's start date as part of a resolution of the "fiscal cliff" deadline at the end of the year involving many tax and spending measures, said Steve Ferguson, chairman of Cook Group Inc.
"We would like to be part of the punt," Ferguson said, referring to an extension of current tax policy into 2013.
In one potentially problematic aspect of the tax, companies selling dual-use products to medical and non-medical customers must pay the tax on those products, potentially putting them at a competitive disadvantage, said Lew Fernandez, a director at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and a former IRS official.
For example, it remains "an open question" when latex gloves come under the tax, he said.

Read More..

H&R Block 2Q loss narrows as revenue rises

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — H&R Block's fiscal second-quarter loss narrowed, helped by cost-cutting efforts. Revenue climbed mostly because of a strong tax season in Australia.
The nation's largest tax preparation company typically turns in a loss in the August-to-October period because it takes in most of its revenue during the U.S. tax season. H&R Block's quarterly performance beat analysts' estimates and its stock hit the highest level in more than two years.
The company is optimistic and gearing up for its busy season.
"The U.S. tax season is right around the corner and we believe we're on pace to deliver significant earnings and margin expansion in fiscal 2013," President and CEO Bill Cobb said in a statement on Thursday.
For the three months ended Oct. 31, H&R Block Inc. lost $105.2 million, or 39 cents per share. A year earlier it lost $141.7 million, or 47 cents per share, for the quarter.
Its loss from continuing operations was 37 cents per share. Analysts surveyed by FactSet expected a bigger loss of 41 cents per share.
Selling, general and administrative expenses declined and the quarter was free of any impairment charges. The prior-year period included a $4.3 million impairment charge.
Revenue rose 6 percent to $137.3 million from $129.2 million. This topped Wall Street's forecast of $129.6 million.
Shares of H&R Block gained 89 cents, or 5.1 percent, to close at $18.26. Earlier in the session the stock reached $18.40, its highest point since May 2010.
Tax services revenue increased 7 percent primarily due to the strong Australian tax season. Corporate revenue fell because of lower interest income from H&R Block Bank's shrinking mortgage loan portfolio.
H&R Block disclosed in October that it hired Goldman Sachs to help it explore options for its banking arm, H&R Block Bank. Those options, Block said, could result in the company no longer being regulated as a savings and loan holding company by the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve announced some proposed rules in June that would impose higher capital requirements on savings and loan holding companies. H&R Block contends that if the proposed rules are enacted it would have to hold on to significant additional capital.

Read More..

Tax filing delay looms if no fix for minimum tax: IRS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top U.S. tax collector warned on Thursday of a delayed start to 2013's tax season if Congress fails to reset the alternative minimum tax (AMT) on high-income taxpayers so that it does not sweep in millions of middle-income people.
Without another adjustment by lawmakers soon to the AMT, "many of us will see a delayed filing season," said Steven Miller, named just last month as Internal Revenue Service acting commissioner.
Miller did not give an exact date by which Congress must approve an AMT "patch" to prevent a delay to the tax season, which is scheduled to begin on January 22.
"We don't have any drop-dead time in mind," Miller told reporters after a speech at a conference in Washington.
But his remarks came on a day of continued stalemate in Washington between Democrats and Republicans over what to do about the "fiscal cliff" approaching at the end of the year.
The AMT is a crucial part of the assorted tax increases and automatic spending cuts that make up the so-called "cliff," a convergence of events that, absent congressional action, threatens to plunge the U.S. economy back into recession.
"Many people don't realize that they could potentially face a significantly delayed filing season and a much bigger tax bill for 2012," if the AMT is not dealt with, Miller said.
"In programming our systems, the IRS has assumed that Congress will patch the AMT as Congress has for so many years.
"And I remain optimistic that the fiscal cliff debate will be resolved by the end of the year. If that turns out not to be the case, then what is clear is that many of us will see a delayed filing season," Miller said.
The AMT is a tax intended to make sure that at least some tax is paid by high-income people who otherwise could sharply reduce or eliminate their regular income tax bills through using tax loopholes. About 4 million people annually pay the AMT.
Unlike the regular income tax, the AMT is not indexed for inflation. So the thresholds that determine who must pay the tax have to be regularly raised. This prevents the AMT from hitting middle-class people whose incomes may have crept upward on the back of inflation, but who are not wealthy.
Congress last patched the AMT in late 2010. Without another patch, the AMT could hit as many as 33 million people for the 2012 tax year, according to the IRS.
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York said on Thursday he is "hopeful" that the AMT problem will be fixed with a broader "fiscal cliff" resolution before December 31.
Republicans in Congress may see the AMT as leverage in their "fiscal cliff" negotiations with President Barack Obama and the Democrats.
The IRS might have until mid-January to implement an AMT patch and still start the tax season on time, if Congress approves the fix as expected, said Richard Harvey, a tax professor at Villanova University and a former IRS official.
The AMT "is a ticking time bomb that is going to go off some time in January," Harvey said.

Read More..

Oregon governor says Nike plans to hire thousands

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Sporting goods giant Nike plans to expand its operations in Oregon and hire as many as 12,000 new workers by 2020 but wants the government to promise it won't change the state tax code, prompting a special session of the Legislature.
Gov. John Kitzhaber said he'll call lawmakers together Friday in Salem to create a new law authorizing him to grant Nike's wish.
The governor did not release information about the company's expansion plans but the $440 million project would create 2,900 construction jobs with an annual economic impact of $2 billion a year.
Nike Inc. has its headquarters in Beaverton. Company officials could not immediately be reached.
The Legislature is due to meet in its regular annual session beginning Jan. 14, but Kitzhaber said Nike needed certainty sooner. The company was being wooed by other states, he said.
"Getting Oregonians back to work is my top priority," Kitzhaber said in a news conference.
Either the governor or the Legislature itself can call lawmakers into session at times other than the state Constitution specifies.
For much of the state's history, the Legislature's regular sessions have been held every other year, at the beginning of odd-numbered years. That's the kind of session the Legislature is scheduled to begin early next year.
In recent years, the Legislature has moved to meet annually, running test sessions of briefer sessions in even-numbered years. Those led to voter approval of a constitutional amendment in 2010 that called for annual sessions.

Read More..

Constitution Check: Is the Supreme Court partly to blame for Newtown?

Lyle Denniston looks at how the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment leaves legislators entirely free to write new regulations against gun possession in sensitive public places.
The statements at issue:
“The gun lobby, timid politicians and the Supreme Court continue to aid and abet rampant gun violence that is nothing less than domestic terrorism, carried out with weapons of mass destruction that are too freely owned and carried.”
– Arnold Grossman of Denver, author of a recent book, One Nation Under Guns: An Essay on an American Epidemic, in a letter to the editor of The New York Times on December 15, commenting on the mass murder of students in Newtown, Connecticut.
“This latest terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School is no fluke.  It is a result of the senseless, immoral neglect of all of us as a nation to fail to protect children instead of guns…”
– Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children’s Defense Fund, in a comment quoted in The Washington Post on December 15.
“The day before a gunman massacred 20 schoolchildren in their classrooms in Connecticut on Friday, lawmakers in Michigan passed a bill – over the objections of the state’s school boards – that would allow people to carry concealed weapons in schools.”
– Michael Cooper, New York Times reporter, in the opening paragraph of a story published on December 16 under the headline, “Debate on Gun Control Is Revived, Amid a Trend Toward Fewer Restrictions.”
We checked the Constitution, and…

check

Americans’ belief in their Constitution and in its power to right the wrongs in society leads them inevitably to look there for a solution to a tragedy like the killing of 20 students in their Connecticut classrooms. If only the Supreme Court could change its mind about the Second Amendment “right to keep bear arms,” lawmakers and judges might find a way to reduce gun violence.
As a search begins for ways to ensure that there are no more Newtown tragedies, it is not at all surprising that some would see a direct connection between the expanding constitutional right to have a gun–and that right is, indeed, expanding–and the occurrence of another massacre with guns. As is often true with such suggestions, it is too simplistic, as a matter of constitutional reasoning as well as practical reality.
Establishing a new constitutional right, as the Supreme Court did in 2008 in interpreting the Second Amendment to include a personal right to possess a gun for self-defense, does not ensure that such a right will not be abused. And neither does the expansion of that right to include carrying a gun in public places, as a federal appeals court in Chicago ruled just three days before the shooting in Connecticut. The Supreme Court had recognized a gun possession right within the home, and the appeals court said the logic of that extended outside the home, too.
Both of those decisions were based on the protection of a social value: the capacity to defend one’s self against an imminent physical threat. And neither one of them suggested that a school is a proper place to have a gun and have it ready for use. Indeed, both of those rulings left legislators entirely free to write new regulations against gun possession in sensitive public places, and to impose strict enforcement of such limitations.
Constitutional rights, however established, are never so absolute that they tell the people that “anything goes.” Having the right to practice one’s religious faith does not create a right to impose the tenets of that faith on others; one can try to persuade, but cannot coerce. Having the right to publish a newspaper does not generate a right to print absolute falsehoods that cause injury. Having the right to be free from police invasions of a home does not create a right to use a home as the headquarters of a criminal gang.
About Constitution Check
In a continuing series of posts, Lyle Denniston provides responses based on the Constitution and its history to public statements about its meaning and what duties it imposes or rights it protects.
Having a right, constitutional or otherwise, is an opportunity but it is not a license. And having Second Amendment rights is no different in that respect.
If Americans are persuaded that the courts are getting the Second Amendment wrong, and are convinced that cutting back on the amendment’s scope is a way to reduce gun violence, they have it within their political power to demand that legislatures apply that amendment sparingly, and they have it within their citizen power to try to get the Constitution amended.
And, when a new court case arises in which a plea is made to expand the Second Amendment further, there are opportunities for citizen activism, to try to help shape how that case will be decided.  That, though, is supposed to be an orderly process, in which the ultimate value is reasoned judgment, not bumper-sticker slogans and loose logic.
Amid the grieving over the Newtown deaths, and amid the new national debate that seems to be developing over what to do about such tragedies, reflection and creative imagination might well serve one of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment: the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Lyle Denniston is the National Constitution Center’s Adviser on Constitutional Literacy. He has reported on the Supreme Court for 54 years, currently covering it for SCOTUSblog, an online clearinghouse of information about the Supreme Court’s work.

Read More..

Report: GOP to try own tax hike as cliff talks stall again

Just hours after there was a reported breakthrough in fiscal cliff negotiations, there were signs on Tuesday that the GOP will move forward with a proposed tax hike, without involving the Democrats.
Politico and The Hill said House Speaker John Boehner was preparing a bill that called for a tax hike on households making more than $1 million a year. If the proposal is similar to other ideas floated out by the GOP earlier this month, the Bush-era tax cuts would remain in place for the non-millionaires.
“For weeks, Senate Republicans–and a growing number of you–have been pushing for us to pivot to a “Plan B.” I think there’s a better way. But the White House just can’t seem to bring itself to agree to a “balanced” approach, and time is running short,” Boehner said in prepared remarks.
The Republicans control the House and in theory, can pass almost any budget measure, but the Senate is controlled by the Democrats. What’s unknown is how many GOP members in the House would vote for any form of a tax hike.
Influential activist Grover Norquist, among others, are strongly opposed to such measures.
On Monday, President Barack Obama proposed a tax hike on households making more than $400,000 a year, backing off a previous pledge to see taxes on incomes of about $250,000. The Obama administration also proposed savings from spending and entitlement cuts between $930 billion and $1.2 trillion.
Boehner rejected that proposal, insisting the spending cuts match tax revenue increases. He says the Obama plan calls for $1.3 trillion in new tax revenue, and only $930 billion in spending cuts.
“Any movement away from the unrealistic offers the president has made previously is a step in the right direction, but a proposal that includes $1.3 trillion in revenue for only $930 billion in spending cuts cannot be considered balanced,” Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said in a statement.
The Obama plan also called for an automatic extension of the debt ceiling for two years.
“Most importantly, we’d lock in a process for tax reform and entitlement reform in 2013–the two big goals we’ve talked about for years,” Boehner said.
After the fiscal cliff talks broke down in November 2011, Republicans sought tax reform as a long-term solution to the nation’s borrowing problems.
The current GOP proposal realizes most tax revenue increases by closing tax loopholes and tightening other regulations.
If a deal isn’t reached by January 1, 2013, huge automatic spending cuts will go into effect, along with the restoration of higher tax rates for most Americans.
Economist fear the harsh measures will trigger another short-term recession.

Read More..

Why gun control, fiscal cliff issues are on collision course

Congress now faces two critical issues with an early January deadline, gun violence and the fiscal cliff, which could lead to an extraordinary session to start off the New Year.

Joint_Session_of_Congress
An intersection of the two hot-button issues is the prospect of deep cuts to the nation’s mental health system. But also on the radar is the distinct possibility that fiscal cliff and gun control debates could happen at the same time in Congress in January and early February.
President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner had been in negotiations about across-the-board cuts that would include spending reductions on Medicaid as part of any fiscal cliff deal.
According to a 2005 government analysis, about 60 percent of mental health care nationally is paid for by public funds, with much of that help delivered through Medicaid.
And on Wednesday, President Obama made it clear that easier access to mental health care, along with tighter gun laws and more education efforts, are the key goals of his new gun violence policy.
The Medicaid issue is, in many ways, a stumbling block in any fiscal cliff deal.
Earlier this year, the Obama administration offered to include $100 billion in Medicaid savings as part of a fiscal cliff settlement. But last week, the newspaper The Hill said the Obama team took that offer out of the talks.
But given the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings and the renewed push for mental health care programs, it would be very difficult for the Obama administration to cut any Medicaid funds.
In addition, President Obama tied the issues of gun control and the fiscal cliff together at his Wednesday press conference.
President Obama claimed Republicans were too focused on besting him in the fiscal cliff negotiations.
“If this past week has done anything, it should just give us some perspective,” Obama said. “If you just pull back from the immediate, you know, political battles, if you kind of peel off the partisan war paint, then we should be able to get something done.”
President Obama also demanded the gun task force, led by Vice President Joe Biden, deliver actionable recommendations in the next six weeks. Such actions would likely include a national ban on assault weapons.
In normal circumstances, any debate over the Second Amendment would be contentious in Congress.
The additional factors of the outrage over the Sandy Hook shootings, and the very real possibility that the fiscal cliff debate could spill into next month, could lead to a situation where Congress would need to debate both issues, under intense public pressure.
The GOP and Democrats are reportedly between $300 billion and $500 billion apart on a new budget deal that would avoid huge automatic spending cuts and tax revenue gains on January 1. (That gap excludes the $100 billion in Medicaid cuts that likely won’t happen.)
While Congress could delay part of the fiscal cliff cuts and hikes, global markets are on edge about the United States seeing another financial downgrade, and how the failure to reach a deal will affect investors.
Boehner’s Plan B to include a tax hike on millionaires as part of a House bill is apparently dead, after the White House said it would veto any such measure.
Now, Boehner has 11 days to put together another deal, find a way to get the Democrats to agree to it, and get it passed by January 1.
And if the fiscal cliff situation continues into January and isn’t resolved, the vote on a likely assault gun ban would soon follow.
The National Rifle Association will have a press conference on Friday to discuss its plan to contribute to measures to prevent another Sandy Hook situation.
But it’s widely expected the NRA will lobby hard to prevent a strict assault weapon ban from passing through Congress, where Republicans control the House.
Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.

Read More..

Constitution Check: Who has the power to fill the president’s cabinet seats?

Lyle Denniston looks at the controversy over two Cabinet nominations by President Barack Obama, and how it further erodes the constitutional respectability of the nomination and confirmation process.
The statement at issue:
“With Chuck Hagel, a former senator from Nebraska, emerging as a front-runner to be President Obama’s next secretary of defense, critics are taking aim at his record on Israel as well as remarks he made about pro-Israel lobbying groups in Washington….For the White House, it is the second time a candidate’s record has come under fire even before a nomination was announced.  Last week, Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, withdrew her name from consideration for secretary of state after coming under weeks of withering assault by Republicans.”
–Mark Landler, New York Times reporter, in a story published on December 19 discussing the developing opposition from “Jewish leaders” to a potential Hagel nomination.
We checked the Constitution, and…

check

Article II, Section 2, clearly defines two separate powers over the selection of federal government officials, including those who will serve in the president’s Cabinet. The power to make the initial choice–the nomination–lies with the president, and the power to give “advice and consent” (or the power to advise and reject) lies with the Senate. Each, of course, may be influenced by outsiders exercising their First Amendment right to “petition” the government.
Ever since the Senate, in 1795, reacted to criticism of John Rutledge’s views on a peace treaty by rejecting his nomination to be chief justice, the American public has been able to claim a voice in the nomination and confirmation process.
But one may also assume that the Founding Generation believed that it would be better for the country to let that process work, hopefully in a reasoned exercise of informed discretion–and especially so when nominations to some of the government’s most powerful offices are at stake.
About Constitution Check
In a continuing series of posts, Lyle Denniston provides responses based on the Constitution and its history to public statements about its meaning and what duties it imposes or rights it protects.
It is true, of course, that this process has not been working very well, for many nominees, and it often deteriorates into the worst kind of partisan squabbling. Still, the constitutional ideal would seem to be to let the president and the Senate work their wills.
A popularity contest, even before a nominee has been chosen at the White House, might not help improve the official process. And a popularity contest may actually be a bad idea when it produces mostly distortion or misinformation about a potential candidate’s background.
Defenders of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice as a possible nominee to head the State Department argue that that was the case with the attack on her before President Obama had settled on any nominee for that post. Similarly, defenders of Chuck Hagel as a possible nominee to lead the Pentagon are now claiming that the Rice episode is being repeated in the developing attack on him even before any nominee is named.
The White House may not have helped itself, in either of those cases, by allowing presidential aides to float the names of people who were on the president’s “short list” for either post, because that allowed opponents to start building their challenges in advance. It may be that the White House let the names be known in order to test the initial reaction–sending up trial balloons.
Even so, there is a constitutional question arising here: is the president’s power of choice being diminished, and is the Senate’s power of review being preempted? What happened to the traditional view that a president was more or less entitled to have a Cabinet of his own choosing, and to the traditional view that the Senate would give such choices a respectful hearing? The nomination and confirmation process, like so much else in official Washington, seems to be in trouble if not actually broken.
It is one thing to allow interest groups to have their say, as they certainly have a right to do, but it is another thing to hand over to them a power to veto, in advance, the president’s choice and to take control of the Senate process even before it has begun.
President Lyndon Johnson was famous for refusing even to propose a nominee, if the identity of the person he wanted to select became known in advance. That was not a good idea, and neither is it a good idea to keep the public out of the process before Senate hearings begin.
But neither is it a good idea, in constitutional or good government terms, to have the public dialogue be one that is dominated by opponents using smear tactics and half-truths. That approach has turned American political campaigns into a sorry spectacle, no doubt discouraging talented people even from running for office.
How many individuals, qualified to become members of the president’s Cabinet, would choose to give up that chance rather than run such an obstacle course? If there were sound reasons for opposing Susan Rice and Chuck Hagel for seats in the Obama Cabinet, those should have been aired. There could have been a serious dialogue about that, in both cases. That, however, is not what occurred, and the result was further erosion in the constitutional respectability of the nomination and confirmation process.
Lyle Denniston is the National Constitution Center’s Adviser on Constitutional Literacy. He has reported on the Supreme Court for 54 years, currently covering it for SCOTUSblog, an online clearinghouse of information about the Supreme Court’s work.

Read More..

The daily gossip: Ben Affleck is open to running for Senate, and more

5 top pieces of celebrity gossip — from Claire Danes' newborn baby to Psy's pricy new Los Angeles condo
1. Ben Affleck is open to running for Senate
In recent months, Ben Affleck has been in the news as much for his political activism as for his filmmaking — but would he ever give up the gridlock and constant scrutiny of Hollywood filmmaking for the gridlock and constant scrutiny of Congressional politics? "One never knows. I'm not one to get into conjecture," said Affleck during a Wednesday taping of Sunday's Face The Nation, reports USA Today. "I do have a great fondness and admiration for the political process in this country." Affleck refused to speculate any further, but just to be safe, rival politicians should probably keep a DVD copy of Gigli handy.
2. Claire Danes and Hugh Dancy have a baby
Claire Danes may spend at least 80 percent of her Showtime series Homeland sobbing, but the Emmy-winning actress has something to smile about this week: A newborn son. People reports that the baby is the first for Danes and husband Hugh Dancy. The couple named the child Cyrus Michael Christopher Dancy, forgoing a tradition of completely insane celebrity baby names in favor of something that's merely unusual.
3. Lindsay Lohan accused of keeping $200,000 worth of Million Dollar Decorators furniture
After the scathing reviews she received for Liz & Dick, you'd think Lindsay Lohan would be happy to appear in anything. But the New York Post reports that the tabloid fixture has decided to pull out of an appearance on Bravo reality series Million Dollar Decorators — though not before receiving $200,000 worth of furniture for her Beverly Hills home. Bravo has confirmed that Lohan "was not available for the reveal shoot," but that the series was "still able to capture the outcome" — so if you've always wanted to see Lindsay Lohan's house without Lindsay Lohan in it, you're in luck.
4. Brad Pitt and John Legend praise Obama's stance on marijuana
President Obama's decision not to make the federal prosecution of marijuana users a "top priority" has endeared him to thousands of extremely relaxed supporters across the nation — and at least two high-profile supporters: Actor Brad Pitt and singer John Legend. In a recent statement, Pitt and Legend offered "joint praise" of Obama's platform, says E! Online, presumably while snickering.
5. Psy buys a condo in Los Angeles
Hey, pricy condo! After dancing his way into our hearts earlier this year, viral-video sensation Psy has horse-danced his way into a $1.25 million condo in Los Angeles' exclusive Blair House in Beverly Hills, reports TMZ. The "Gangnam Style" singer reportedly paid for his new pad entirely in cash, an act of extravagance that even surpasses that of "galloping" through a stable in a blue tuxedo.

Read More..