Billionaire hedge fund manager Julian Robertson won a $27 million tax case after convincing a a judge that he wasn't a resident of New York City in the year 2000 -- and it all came down to four days.

The way the law works is that anyone who spends more than half the year living in New York City is subject to the jurisdiction's taxes -- in 2000, the top tax rate was 3.78%, meaning that Mr. Robertson must have earned around $700 million in the year 2000.

The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance argued that because he couldn't provide proof that he didn't spend more than half the year in New York City, he had to pay the tax. Robertson and his lawyers, family, and his assistants spent countless hours pouring over schedules, calendars, tickets, etc. to convince a judge that he spent less than half the year in NYC proper -- with a good chunk of the rest of his time spent on Long Island.

In an interview with KMBC's Donna Pitman, First Lady of Personal Finance Suze Orman trashed the big banks for inexplicable fee and interest rate hikes on consumers -- and offered a ringing endorsement of credit unions.

"Don't get me started with these credit card companies, these banks -- it's like, 'What are they thinking?'" Orman said.

"Here's the answer: Credit unions," she said. "They are different than banks. Most banks are owned by their shareholders. They're responsible to these shareholders and it happens to be on the stock exchange, so anything to increase earnings and profits. Credit unions have members. They're responsible to the members. So, many credit unions -- not all -- are giving you no balance-transfer fees, low interest rates. They're being ethical and honest."

Another key advantage to working with a credit union instead of Chase, Bank of America, or Citi, is that most credit unions are not staffed by the dumbest people you will ever meet in your entire life -- which matters when your financial well-being is on the line.

To find a credit union in your area, visit the National Credit Union Administration's credit union locator.

The New York Times reports on a topic that's long been a pet peeve of many financial-minded people: those pesky FreeCreditReport.com ads that are a classic bait and switch marketing technique designed to coax consumers into signing up for expensive monthly credit monitoring services.

The FTC is now running its own spoof ads warning consumers about the misleading marketing. According to the Times, "But while the government has taken issue with the ads, it has had little to say about credit monitoring services themselves, a rapidly expanding niche approaching $1 billion in sales for which millions of people have signed up, often unwittingly. The problem, say critics, is that most people really don't need it."

Even as endowments tanked, employees were laid off, and tuition bills were hiked in the face of decimated 401(k)s and home values, the presidents of the "top" (whatever that means) private college and universities in the United States still managed to take home 6.5% more cash in 2008 than they did in 2007.

Take a look at the list of the highest paid college presidents:

Shirley Ann Jackson, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - $1,598,247
David J. Sargent, Suffolk University -- $1,496,593
Steadman Upham, University of Tulsa -- $1,428,275
Richard S. Meyers, Webster University -- $1,429,738

It's hard for me to imagine why anyone should get $1,598,247 for running Hartford, CT-based Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Given that school's student body of just 5,394 undergraduates, that works out to nearly $300 per student flowing directly into the pocket of the president. Perhaps that explains the 2009-2010 sticker price of $39,165 -- and the fact that 70% of students graduate with an average of $30,375 in debt -- nearly 50% higher than the national average among college graduates.

Look, I don't doubt that these college presidents provide value to the schools they work at -- mainly in the form of fundraising. But at a time when so many of their students are struggling and debt loads are ballooning, it would be nice to see them take a break from pay increases. Sadly, that didn't happen.

On reason that large colleges -- especially public colleges -- generally offer a good deal is that administrative costs scale well: A school with 10 times as many students will generally have far lower per capita administrative costs.

I bought a framed poster on eBay for $40 (including shipping) but the seller -- apparently the dumbest person in the world -- decided that the best way to ship framed art was to wrap it in saran wrap and then stick it -- with no further padding -- in between a couple slabs of cardboard.

I took it to the frame shop at Michael's to find out how much it would cost to have the glass replaced, and was astounded when she mentioned the words "one hundred and twenty dollars" -- explaining that it would be less except that it's a custom-sized frame so they'd have to special order the piece of glass.

So then I took the mess to a local glazier's shop -- located in a rundown building in a much less expensive part of town -- and was astounded when he told me his fee: $15.50.

I couldn't believe it. I told him the price that the clerk at Michael's had quoted me and his response was classic: "The problem with that is that it's just ripping people off. There is absolutely no possible justification for charging someone that kind of money for a piece of glass of that size. It's a ripoff."

Bottom line? The framing shops inside big discount craft stores might (and might not) be good for a lot of things. But if you have a frame with a piece of broken glass, take it to your local glazier.

Over at Washington Monthly, Stephen Burd takes an extended look at one of the biggest -- and least reported on -- financial crises facing young people: unethical for-profit college foisting massive debt loads on their students. These debt loads often carry exorbitant interest rates and lack any consumer protections whatsoever.

The stories Burd tells are egregious: Slick, misleading advertising luring prospective suckers students into meetings with admissions officers -- glorified salespeople straight out of Glengarry Glen Ross. The admissions people then lie to students about the benefits of the program, and sign them up for high-interest student loans without explaining the terms.

Over on our listserv, WalletPOP bloggers and editors occasionally -- and by occasionally I mean daily -- get into heated debates about personal finance topics that are way too boring to think about let alone discuss for the vast majority of people with healthy social lives.

Last week, we ended up debating credit cards -- and whether people really need a credit card. Here's my argument against credit cards:

The more I read about it, think about it, and live it, the more convinced I am that people should not have credit cards.

Fact: People who pay with credit cards spend more money. This has been demonstrated by at least half a dozen studies.

Eilene Zimmerman over at The New York Times offers some great advice for a parent who wants to know "What, if anything, can parents of high-school-age children do to guide them toward their true professional calling?"

Zimmerman writes: "Some parents are apt to put pressure on their children about choosing a first career, thinking that it will determine the course of their lives. Yet as adults, we often reinvent ourselves more than once, moving among professions. So whatever your children choose now won't necessarily define their future."

The Service Employees International Union reports that the American Bankers Association is having a conference this weekend. The ABA is a trade group and powerful lobbying organization representing the banking industry. Because so many of its members received bailout money, it's fair to say that U.S. taxpayers are paying for this party.

Here's what the bankers will have to look forward to:

• a luxurious riverboat cruise
• a historical mansion tour
• a roaring 1920s big band gala
• celebrity appearances by Newt Gingrich & George Will

The first three sound like fun, but to be fair, having to sit through a Newt Gingrich speech is probably an excessive punishment for destroying the economy.

Gingrich is a strange choice to speak at the ABA party because he was, to his credit, a vocal opponent of the bailouts. Back in September of 2008, he was asked about the TARP plan on NPR and provided a surprisingly candid answer: "Well, I think you have a Goldman Sachs chief of staff to the president and the Goldman Sachs secretary of the Treasury. And they convinced the president that the American people ought to send $700 billion to Wall Street, which I think is a very, very bad idea, and I would argue is a very un-Republican idea. I don't understand what they think they're doing."

And yet now he's speaking at a conference for an organization that lobbied for the bailout -- and against regulation to prevent future financial disasters.

Worse? The money that he'll be paid for speaking will come -- in a distant sort of way -- out of the very bailout package that he so vocally-opposed. Everyone has his price, apparently.

September homes sales jumped 9.4% to the highest level in two years, according to the National Association of Realtors, as home buyers took advantage of low prices to qualify for the first-time home buyer tax credit which is scheduled to expire in December -- although it seems likely to be extended in some form.

According to The Associated Press, "The National Association of Realtors said Friday that sales rose 9.4 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.57 million in September, from a downwardly revised pace of 5.1 million in August. Sales had been expected to rise to an annual pace of 5.35 million, according to economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters."

Stabilization in housing -- if it indeed that and not just the mother of all head fakes -- is good for the broader economy, but the housing bust has also created fantastic opportunities for first-time buyers. According to an upcoming report from NAR, first-time buyers accounted for an astounded 45% of all home sales over the past year.

"The current housing supply is the lowest we've seen in two and a half years," NAR Chief Economist Lawrence Yun said. "If we could continue to absorb inventory at this pace, home prices would return to normal, modest appreciation patterns next year."

But keep this in mind: The National Association of Realtors is a trade group and Lawrence Yun is one of the four or five dumbest people in America and has been wrong about everything that he's ever said in his entire life.