And you can bet that it’s going to straight to the vault.
[via @GroverNorquist]
Earlier:
Mitt Romney Unable to Resist the Siren’s Call That Is the Taxpayer Protection Pledge
And you can bet that it’s going to straight to the vault.
[via @GroverNorquist]
Earlier:
Mitt Romney Unable to Resist the Siren’s Call That Is the Taxpayer Protection Pledge
Football is a tough sport. Not the physical demands mind you, it appears to be more of a challenge to stay out of trouble.
Today’s ne’er-do-well is Antrel Rolle of the Arizona Cardinals. The IRS is claiming that the all-pro safety understated his taxable income by 50% in 2005 and 2006 and they sent him a bill for $2.2 million in order to get him back in the Service’s good graces.
Rolle, who does not dispute the claims, does complain that the Service, “violated the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, denied him due process and failed to treat him in a ‘fair, professional and courteous manner.'” Perhaps he was unaware that the IRS is not really known for its good etiquette.
Congeniality aside, it’d be one thing if Rolle had made some mistakes using TurboTax or something (you don’t have to tell Doug Shulman that this shit is complicated) but he seems to have been just ramming onto his Schedule C without prejudice.
Forbes:
Drawing particular IRS attention was Rolle’s report of a Schedule C “sole proprietorship” involving “management and consulting” that he said he operated both years. Over that period he listed $557,000 in revenue and $1.9 million in expenses. The IRS disallowed all but $71,000 of the expenses, which included $254,000 for “advertising” and $372,000 classified as “rent or lease–vehicles.” Rolle said his business was located at an address in Chandler, Ariz., a Phoenix suburb. But “correspondence mailed to that address was returned indicating ‘no such number,’ and electronic research turned up the same result,” the IRS agent wrote.
So you claim over $1 mil in expenses, the IRS takes a look and says that only $71k is actually legit? Hopefully he fired his CPA.
IRS Hits Cardinals’ Antrel Rolle With $2.2 Million Bill [Forbes via TaxProf]
For years prior to 2010, only taxpayers with modified AGI of $100,000 or less generally were permitted to convert a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. For years beginning in 2010 and after, the AGI limitation has been eliminated. Thus, regardless of AGI, all otherwise eligible taxpayers will be allowed to convert an IRA to a Roth IRA. The amount converted is includible in income as if a withdrawal had been made, but no early withdrawal penalties are assessed.
Two-year income spread if conversion done in 2010 – For conversions occurring in 2010, unless a taxpayer elects otherwise, none of the amount is includible in gross income in 2010, with half of the income resulting from the conversion includible in gross income in 2011 and h , income inclusion is accelerated if converted amounts are distributed before 2012. In that case, the amount included in income in the year of the distribution is increased by the amount distributed, and the amount included in income in 2012 (or 2011 and 2012 in the case of a distribution in 2010) is the lesser of: (1) half of the amount includible in income as a result of the conversion; and (2) the remaining portion of such amount not already included in income. The following example illustrates the application of the accelerated inclusion rule.
Example – Betty has a traditional IRA with a value of $100,000 consisting of deductible contributions and earnings. Betty does not have a Roth IRA. She converts the traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in 2010, and as a result of the conversion, $100,000 is includible in gross income. Unless Betty elects otherwise, $50,000 of the income resulting from the conversion is included in income in 2011 and $50,000 in 2012.
Later in 2010, Betty takes a $20,000 distribution, which is not a qualified distribution and all of which, under the ordering rules, is attributable to amounts includible in gross income as a result of the conversion. Under the accelerated inclusion rule, $20,000 is included in income in 2010.
The amount included in income in 2011 is the lesser of (1) $50,000 (half of the income resulting from the conversion); or (2) $80,000 (the remaining income from the conversion). The amount included in income in 2012 is the lesser of (1) $50,000 (half of the income resulting from the conversion), or (2) $30,000 (the remaining income from the conversion, i.e., $100,000 – $70,000 ($20,000 included in income in 2010 and $50,000 included in income in 2011)).
Preparer note – While you cannot elect out of the two year spread on only a portion of the conversion income in 2010 (it’s an all or nothing election), husband and wife may each make separate elections for their individual IRA accounts. For example, a wife could elect to report her conversion income in 2010 and her husband could report his 2010 conversion income in 2011 and 2012. This may result a better spread of the income. The same taxpayer is allowed to make separate elections for separate IRA accounts.
If you need guidance on answering the question, “should my client convert to a Roth?” check out CPE Link’s Federal Tax Update: Part 2 webcast scheduled November-January.. You’ll get a myriad of planning ideas and even access to a simple, but sophisticated, calculator. (Note: The above information was excerpted from Vern Hoven’s manual used in the webcast.) In addition to coverage of the IRA & Individual Retirement area, you’ll get an update on Real Estate & Investment, and Estates, Trusts & Beneficiaries.
Earlier we discussed how Warren Buffett's secretary and glory hog, Debbie Bosanek, has become a poster […]