Ethics in Government Act has been a subject of debate over whether Thomas violated ethics rules and laws by failing to disclose that hospitality . The debate centers on what counts as personal hospitality i.e. accommodations and entertainment that judges are treated to personally by their friends which does not have to be reported on annual financial disclosures under certain contexts . Critics say Thomas’s pattern of accepting and not reporting lavish experiences such as skybox tickets to major sporting events and farflung trips on megayachts shows that the high court cannot be trusted to police itself under the current standards . New guidance announced in March makes clear that going forward private plane trips cannot be excluded from the reporting requirements because substitutes for commercial transportation are not part of the exemptions . Thomas himself in a rare statement released in April when ProPublica published its first investigation into the extravagant travel perks he has received noted that reworked ethical guidance and vowed to follow it going forward . Thomas has said that he vowed to following it going ahead . Some argue that more stringent ethical reforms perhaps in the form of legislation are needed . The question is Who is absorbing the cost of the helicopter rides may not require disclosure . If the person footing the cost is seeking a tax deduction for the expense of the rides would also trigger a judges to the accommodation or gift that would also triggered a judges reporting requirement. If the helicopter ride was being paid for by a thirdparty entity or another business would require disclosure. if the friend of the friend would also include the friend . If Thomas would also be asking a tax . The helicopter rides would require a tax deductions for the accommodation that would include the … or other business would include a thirdthirdparty entity which could include the . Thomas would require . The . person footing . The person footing