HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmv@cci632.cci.com (James Villard)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Maximum  1992  FICA Tax
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:14:30 GMT
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY

In article <lcev9kINNl5n@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> tut@cairo.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill) writes:
>Here is my fica.tax file with SS information going back to 1988 and
>401(k) information going back to 1990.  I'm not sure if marginal rates
>are correct for 1992, but they were for 1991.
>
>1988 Social Security
>	tax rate	7.51%
>	wage base	$45000
>	maximum tax	$3379.50
>1989 Social Security
>	tax rate	7.51%
>	wage base	$48000
>	maximum tax	$3604.80
>1990 Social Security
>	tax rate	7.65%
>	wage base	$51300
>	maximum tax	$3924.45
>1991 Social Security
>	tax rate	6.2% + 1.45%
>	wage base	$53400 and $125000
>	maximum tax	$3310.80 + 1812.50
>1992 Social Security
>	tax rate	6.2% + 1.45%
>	wage base	$55500 and $130200
>	maximum tax	$3441.00 + 1887.90
>
>1990	401(k) max	$7979
>1991	401(k) max	$8475
>1992	401(k) max	$8728
>
>Marginal Tax Rates	single	  	married
>		   	------	  	-------
>		15%	to $20350	to $34000
>		28%	to $49300	to $82150
>		31%	above that	above that

for 1992 Marginal Tax Rate is

                        single       stand   per exp
                        ------       -----   -------
                15%     to $21450    $2300   $3600




DISCAIMER: The above constitues the beliefs of myself and not neccessarily
of my employer.

 ___________________________________________________________________________
|                                                                           |
|  James M. Villard                         E-mail: jmv@.cci.com            |
|___________________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: Is home office a deduction?
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:41:23 GMT

In article <1ai5tfINN5fa@travis.csd.harris.com> dana@hcxio.hdw.csd.harris.com (Dan Aksel) writes:
>This right here rules you out.  Big brother requires you use the office
>REGULARLY.  I asked what regularly meant.  The answer was "every day a
>normal business of that type would be expected to be open."

That doesn't necessarily mean that a deduction would be disallowed.
What hours do you expect a consultant to be in the office?  What about
a general contractor?  A surveyor?  You simply have to show that you
use the office regularly as your primary place of business, not that
you keep 9 to 5 hours there.
--
-- Christophe

"He presented it with a length of string, and then passed on to the
Statue of Corrupted Endeavor, there to await the arrival of autumn."
From: boaz@concerto.lcs.mit.edu (Boaz Ben-Zvi)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: FICA is not a tax (was: Maximum  1992  FICA Tax)
Date: 4 Oct 92 21:15:20 GMT
Reply-To: boaz@lcs.mit.edu
Organization: Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT

I wrote:
> Why is FICA called a "tax" ? 

In article <1992Oct3.173840.4332@crd.ge.com>, joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com (joseph) writes:
|>    Ha he ha aha he ha ha ah......
|>   [falling of the chair and continuing to] haahe hehhe ahhaa haa
|>    hah..ahahh aahhhha hhaaa.

Now it is my turn to laugh: I never paid, and never will, a single penny
to FICA !!!!  (One of the benefits of my J-1 Visa status in this country).

In other countries, less "advanced" than the US (i.e., where the Metric
system is used, where employees get paid leave when a child is born,
where firearm ownership is strictly controlled, where the achievements of 
school kids are not ranked somewhere between Jordan and Mozambique ....)
the payments for social security are NOT called taxes (and are not used to
offset the national debt.)

In article ... garym@netcom.com (Gary Martin) writes:
|> Section 1 of the part of the Internal Revenue Code (USC Title 26)
|> dealing with Social Security taxes (a codification of the Social 
|> Security Act of 1935) begins with:
|> 
|> "There is hereby imposed a TAX ON THE INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL 
|> (emphasis added)"

Thanks for the detailed (and serious, for a change) answer.

-- Boaz

===============================================================================
  _              _            __         __ ___  _ _   __ ___    ____      ___
 /_) _  _  __   /_) _   __ __ _/    o     |   |   \| __ |   |     /    \ |   |
/__)(_)(_|__/  /__)(_'_/ /   /__\/_(        __|_ __\    | __|_     \  __\| __|_
          __)                                           |                      
===============================================================================
 Boaz Ben-Zvi <boaz@crl.dec.com>           Home: (617) 494-1279  <boaz@mit.edu>
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: boaz@concerto.lcs.mit.edu (Boaz Ben-Zvi)
Subject: FICA is not a tax (was: Maximum  1992  FICA Tax)
Reply-To: boaz@lcs.mit.edu
Organization: Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:05:22 GMT

In article <lcev9kINNl5n@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, tut@cairo.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill) writes:
|> Here is my fica.tax file with SS information .... 

|> 1988 Social Security
|> 	tax rate	7.51%

  Why is FICA called a "tax" ?  FICA stands for the Federal Insurance
Corporation of America, and payments for insurance are premiums, not
taxes !! (It so happened, as a convenience, to be collected by IRS)

-- Boaz

===============================================================================
  _              _            __         __ ___  _ _   __ ___    ____      ___
 /_) _  _  __   /_) _   __ __ _/    o     |   |   \| __ |   |     /    \ |   |
/__)(_)(_|__/  /__)(_'_/ /   /__\/_(        __|_ __\    | __|_     \  __\| __|_
          __)                                           |                      
===============================================================================
 Boaz Ben-Zvi <boaz@crl.dec.com>           Home: (617) 494-1279  <boaz@mit.edu>
===============================================================================
From: mpb@troy.uucp (22161-bunz)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Doubly Deducted?
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:31:40 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

In article <1932@msa3b.UUCP>, kevin@msa3b.UUCP (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) writes:
> My company has a "flexible spending plan" which allows employees to
> have a set dollar amount withheld from each paycheck. Medical expenses
> not covered by insurance can be submitted for reimbursement from this
> money. The advantage here is that the employee gets to pay medical
> expenses with untaxed income. This is all IRS approved.
> 
> Now on Schedule A, one can deduct medical expenses that exceed
> some limit (7%?) as long as those expenses are 'not reimbursed by
> SOMEONE ELSE' (emphasis mine).
> 
> If I pay medical expenses from the flex account, and deduct those
> expenses on Schedule A, I believe I have complied with the letter
> of the law, yet this has the effect of doubly deducting the expenses.
> 
> Have I missed something?  Has the IRS missed something?
> Note that this is all hypothetical of course.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kevin Kleinfelter @ DBS, Inc (404) 239-2347   ...gatech!nanovx!msa3b!kevin
> Dun&Bradstreet Software, 3445 Peachtree Rd, NE, Atlanta GA 30326-1276
> WARNING: I have been advised that email to kevin@msa3b.UUCP may bounce.
> It looks like email will have to go via 'gatech' because that is well-known.

Yes, and No.  You've missed the point that the FRA contains your employeer's
money, that they will give to you to pay medical expenses with.  In effect
you have become self insuring to a limited extent.  THE IRS hasn't missed
anything, if they catch wind of this they'll nail you!

What was your SSN again (hypothetically speaking of course).

Marc
From: jmuth@pyrps5.eng.pyramid.com (John Muth)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: New 20% Withholding T
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:33:08 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation, Mountain View

In article <1686DCE80.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
> 
>This is really strange.  I find myself typing things to "defend" a law
>with which I disagree.  I do *not* favor this law.  I just don't see it
>as an extreme hardship to get around the withholding.  The intent is to
>make it very painful not to roll it into another retirement account.
>Too many people were tempted to take some of the money out during the
>60-day window.  This is a wrong-headed way for Congress to remove the
>temptation, but they usually try to kill gnats with sledgehammers.  This
>is far from the stupidest law they have ever passed.  I would rather
>fight over things that really matter.

You completely misjudge the situation. This law had nothing to do with 
getting you to be more careful with your retirement money. The intent of this
law was to come up with some money so the could "fund" the latest extention
to unemployment. Under the budget agreement they couldn't extend unemployment
benefits unless they came up with a way to pay for it. Someone had a 
computer model that said if they withhold 20% of lump-sum distributions
and refunded them the following year, the extra cash flow could pay for
the extention. The rest, as they say, is history.

-John Muth
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: ff76@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: Tax free bond funds: Are capital gains tax free as well?
X-Sender: usenet@mercury.unt.edu (UNT USENet Adminstrator)
Followup-To: misc.taxes,misc.invest
X-Organization: University of North Texas
X-Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22: 40:20 GMT
X-Newsgroups: misc.invest
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:47:32 GMT
X-From: ff76@vaxb.acs.unt.edu

If I buy shares of a tax free (municipal) bond fund, am I liable for taxes on
the capital gains (appreciation of net asset value), while the income
distribution is free of tax?  Or, are both capital gains and income
distributions tax free?

Thanks, in advance, for your for your response.

- Jhinuk -

Jhinuk Chowdhury

FF76@VAXB.ACS.UNT.EDU
University of North Texas

Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: James.Braunsdorf@bbs.rn.com (James Braunsdorf)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 13:36:46 EST
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Subject: Re: Educational expense - help
Distribution: world
Reply-To: James.Braunsdorf@bbs.rn.com (James Braunsdorf)
X-Posting-Software: UnixBBS 1.03b S/N 145921

In some areas it depends on previous court cases defining the
profession.   In the case of education, the NEA fought court battles in
years past that established education as one field or profession, so
that once a teacher qualified for a license to teach and entered the
profession, further degrees that often allowed greater pay schedules
were deductible even if they also qualified one to teach a different
subject . It also applied if yo qualified to be a principal or
superintendent of schools.
       James Braunsdorf
From: tut@cairo.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Maximum  1992  FICA Tax
Date: 28 Sep 1992 21:46:28 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo

Here is my fica.tax file with SS information going back to 1988 and
401(k) information going back to 1990.  I'm not sure if marginal rates
are correct for 1992, but they were for 1991.

1988 Social Security
	tax rate	7.51%
	wage base	$45000
	maximum tax	$3379.50
1989 Social Security
	tax rate	7.51%
	wage base	$48000
	maximum tax	$3604.80
1990 Social Security
	tax rate	7.65%
	wage base	$51300
	maximum tax	$3924.45
1991 Social Security
	tax rate	6.2% + 1.45%
	wage base	$53400 and $125000
	maximum tax	$3310.80 + 1812.50
1992 Social Security
	tax rate	6.2% + 1.45%
	wage base	$55500 and $130200
	maximum tax	$3441.00 + 1887.90

1990	401(k) max	$7979
1991	401(k) max	$8475
1992	401(k) max	$8728

Marginal Tax Rates	single	  	married
		   	------	  	-------
		15%	to $20350	to $34000
		28%	to $49300	to $82150
		31%	above that	above that

Newsgroups: misc.taxes,biz.misc,misc.invest,alt.internet.services
From: davidra@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (David Rabson)
Subject: list (daily/weekly) currency exchange rates sought
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:43:10 GMT

Does anyone know of a list (print or electronic) of major-currency exchange
rates on either a weekly or a daily basis going back one year?  In the
absence of a list all in one place, I can of course always wade through
back issues of the Financial Times, Economist, etc.

I've already spent some time checking the usual servers and lists.

This is crossposted to misc.taxes because of its relevance to U.S.
citizens living abroad.

D. Rabson
davidra@dionysos.thphys.ox.ac.uk
From: ganesh@madras.sybase.com (Ganesh Sundaresan)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Stock options & Alternative Minimum Tax
Date: 25 Sep 92 18:13:14 GMT
Organization: Sybase, Inc.

I hear there are some changes with the AMT computation 
requirements. Apparently, exercising incentive stock options 
in a tax year would necessitate doing AMT computations for 
that year (or something like that). 

While I'm too poor to worry about AMT, I find the very idea
of having to formally establish that AMT does not apply 
totally distasteful. In fact I dumped a tax-free bond fund
I once had for that very reason (income from "private-activity
bonds" triggers having to do the computation).

Does anyone know anything about these alleged new rules 
re. AMT and exercising stock options? The 1991 book on AMT 
does not say anything about this, so presumably this is new.

Ganesh.
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: king and kerri
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:17:11 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Kenny J. Hart, in a message to All on 09-27-92 at 4:34am, said:

KJ>|When Rodney King gets his money from the city and county
   |of LA, is that money taxable, or does he get it all??
   |________________________________________________________

               Damages recovered in court are taxed depending on
               what they are a substitute for.  If, for example,
               Mr. King recovers for lost wages, such damages are
               taxable as wages.  Damages for personal injury
               are, subject to certain limitations, tax-free. 
               BTW, in no event will Mr. King "get it all."  His
               lawyers will get the first 1/3.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  ASCII stupid question - get a stupid ANSI
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: sz@cup.portal.com (Sam - Zimmerman)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: FREE TAX SOFTWARE ??
Date: Sat,  3 Oct 92 15:34:05 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

Any one out there know of free Tax Software for 91.

-sz
From: rajain@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Info Required: Proposed bill HR 4418
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:47:19 GMT


Hi there:

	The header says it all. Is there any more development on the
proposed bill HR 4418 ? It was supposed to repeal the "Tax Reform Law" 
of 1986 so that students do not have to pay taxes on fellowship/stipend
income. 

Please email your replies directly to me at:

	rajain@sml3.ecs.umass.edu
    or  rajain@ecs.umass.edu

Thanks in advance,

	Rajat.
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: FICA is not a tax (was: Maximum  1992  FICA Tax)
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:19:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.210522.12540@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, boaz@concerto.lcs.mit.edu (Boaz Ben-Zvi) writes:

|>   Why is FICA called a "tax" ?  FICA stands for the Federal Insurance
|> Corporation of America, and payments for insurance are premiums, not
|> taxes !! (It so happened, as a convenience, to be collected by IRS)


The government could pass a law to call it GOOFY (Gifts to Offset
Overspendig For Years) or BULLSHIRP (Benevolent Underwriting of Lilly
Livered Saps Having Insufficient Retirement Preparation).  The government
can call FICA anything it wants to.  But, it looks like a duck, walks
like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and you'd better believe that FICA
is a _TAX_.  

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Subject: Re: Doubly Deducted?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:21:34 GMT

In article <1932@msa3b.UUCP> kevin@msa3b.UUCP (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) writes:
>My company has a "flexible spending plan" which allows employees to
>have a set dollar amount withheld from each paycheck. Medical expenses
>not covered by insurance can be submitted for reimbursement from this
>money. The advantage here is that the employee gets to pay medical
>expenses with untaxed income. This is all IRS approved.

This is a Health Care Reimbursement Account (HCRA) and it is a
useful benefit.

>Now on Schedule A, one can deduct medical expenses that exceed
>some limit (7%?) as long as those expenses are 'not reimbursed by
>SOMEONE ELSE' (emphasis mine).
>
>If I pay medical expenses from the flex account, and deduct those
>expenses on Schedule A, I believe I have complied with the letter
>of the law, yet this has the effect of doubly deducting the expenses.
>
>Have I missed something?  Has the IRS missed something?
>Note that this is all hypothetical of course.

You cannot deduct on Schedule A any items that you were reimbursed
for under an HCRA.  Period.
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
From: txwizard@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (txwizard)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: job market
Keywords: jobs!!!1
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:18:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: ut-emx.80765
Reply-To: txwizard@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (txwizard)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: txwizard@bashful.cc.utexas.edu

Can anyone tell me the status of tax jobs out there?  If you
can give me your input via e-mail I would greatly appreciate
your advise.  I promise that I won't hold anybody on their
opinion.

Thank you in advance.

Mike Kim
 
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: breinhar@access.digex.com (Robert B. Reinhardt)
Subject: Re: New 20% Withholding T
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:30:50 GMT

In article <1686F129EB.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.164141.23726@access.digex.com>
>breinhar@access.digex.com (Robert B. Reinhardt) writes:
> 
>>
>>Okay Jim, let me step back in here for a sec...How about a case
>>(mine for example) wherein you go to work for a new employer, who
>>does not allow you to participate in their 401(k) program until
>>you've completed the 6-month probationary period.  So, until then
>>you roll over the entire (or less 20%) into a conduit IRA, which
>>has to remain put for 18-months (minimum maturity date offered
>>at my bank).  Then, at the end of 18 months, I want to roll that
>>money back into a 401(k) [ finally ], I can't because the maturity
>>date of my conduit IRA isn't within 7 days of the quarterly
>>"open election period for making changes to the 401(k) account."
>>This can't be too unheard of since 2 out of my last 3
>>employers worked this way (the other didn't even have a 401(k)
>>plan, which is yet another problem in this situation).
>>
>>                                 Robert B. Reinhardt
>I am not an expert in this law, or in tax law.  I disagree with this
>law.  I am not trying to say it is a good law.
> 
>My company also has a period during which I cannot participate in
>the 401(k) plan.  They would have accepted my rollover from the
>previous employer during that period.  I did not actually perform
>the rollover, because the company managing the previous employer's
>401(k) would have charged me a 7% early withdrawal penalty.  I
>opened an IRA with that company by filling out a fairly complicated
>form, but no other hassle.  My money will be there for about 6 more
>years, while I have a brand-new 401(k) with my new employer.  At the
>end of that time, I have the option of making a rollover or leaving
>the existing IRA in place.  I now have two separate retirement
>accounts with two large financial management companies.
> 
>I repeat:  what is the big deal here?  One more account to balance
>statements for?
> 
>This will be my last post on this law.  I DISAGREE WITH IT, OKAY?
>If you feel your future has been threatened, go bomb the Capitol or
>something.  I just hated to see people go into hysterics over nothing.
> 
>Jim McMaster

Please don't feel obligated to respond, but I want you to know
that I understood from your first post your lack of support,
hysterics, etc.  I am curious however, to know if you think that
only matters of hysteria are appropriate for the newsgroups, or
if its OK to just discuss news and associated issues?

All I wanted (and I got it) was for people to look at this issue
and discuss it (and possibly inform people who didn't have a clue
because, they too are not on their reps. mailing list).

Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: New 20% Withholding T
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:08:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.164141.23726@access.digex.com> breinhar@access.digex.com (Robert B. Reinhardt) writes:
>Okay Jim, let me step back in here for a sec...How about a case
>(mine for example) wherein you go to work for a new employer, who
>does not allow you to participate in their 401(k) program until
>you've completed the 6-month probationary period.  So, until then
>you roll over the entire (or less 20%) into a conduit IRA, which
>has to remain put for 18-months (minimum maturity date offered
>at my bank).  Then, at the end of 18 months, I want to roll that

Don't use the services of a bank which offers you such poor
choices as to where and for how long to invest your IRA.  Call
one of the larger investment houses and they will be glad to
give you all sorts of choices (including a simple money market
fund) with all sorts of maturities. (i.e. Fidelity)

>money back into a 401(k) [ finally ], I can't because the maturity
>date of my conduit IRA isn't within 7 days of the quarterly
>"open election period for making changes to the 401(k) account."
>This can't be too unheard of since 2 out of my last 3
>employers worked this way (the other didn't even have a 401(k)
>plan, which is yet another problem in this situation).

Put the rollover money into a money market fund and withdraw it
(actually transfer it) on the exact day that YOU choose. (and
during the period which your current employer allows transfers)

Mark
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: passive income rules
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:44:21 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Carol Anne Ogdin, in a message to All on 10-03-92 at 8:14pm, said:

CA>|I'm about to engage in a contract for services for which I will
   |receive some compensation in the form of royalties on products
   |ultimately sold.
   |I've heard some concerns expressed about higher tax rates on
   |"passive income" from royalty agreements.
   |_______________________________________________________________

               This is not passive income at all.  It is equiva-
               lent to the income an author receives from writing
               a book, where the amount received depends on the
               publisher's sales of the book.  It is personal
               service income and should be reported on Schedule
               C.  BTW, royalties are not subject to taxation at
               a higher rate in any event.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  Heisenberg may have been here.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.taxes