HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Subject: Re: Uniform Gift To Minor Act
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:21:13 GMT
Keywords: transfer, taxable income

In article <1992Nov5.210255.7811@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> eddc@opus.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Carek) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.224202.29610@cbnews.cb.att.com> ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
>>Second, the purpose of the withdrawal does not affect the first
>>statement.   Unlike an IRA where the tax status of a withdrawal
>>depends on its purpose, all withdrawals from a child's UGMA 
>>account must be for the benefit of the child, or you have
>>fraudulently misused the funds and violated your fiduciary duty and
>>may have broken criminal laws and not just some IRS regulation.
>
>How is the statement, "for the benefit of the child", defined?  For
>example, if I build a new home, and one of the bedrooms is for the
>child, could that be defined as "for the benefit of the child".  Or
>what about things like food and clothing for the child?

Be reasonable here.

If you have violated your fiduciary duty, that can be a criminal
offense which, were it to go to a jury, the jury would be asked to
use a reasonable test.

In your example, I doubt a jury would think you could build a new
house and since th child lives in part of it, that you prudentally
spent the child's money.

On the other hand,  if you gave the child a portion of the home by
deed, and the deed was in the name of you (80%) and your child (20%)
as Tenants in Common, you might have a good argument that you truly
used the child's funds to purchase an investment and placed the
investment, as a matter of public record, in the child's name.

You have a legal obligation to provide your children with certain
necessities and it is your obligation, using your funds, to do so.

Above and beyond that, you may invest (not use) your child's funds
in a responsibly prudent way, or in some cases purchase non-obligatory
items for the child.

The test I suggest is:  If you get brought to a jury trial, would a
jury think you violated your fiduciary responsibility?
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
From: mincy@think.com (Jeffrey Mincy)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: property tax/Mortgage Co.
Date: 10 Nov 1992 01:50:20 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: mjolnir.think.com
Keywords: late-payment penalty responsibility?

In article <1992Nov9.191825.21608@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> wrw1@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (wayne.r.wiebalk) writes:
>
>I refinanced my mortgage on 10/1.  I prepaid 4th quarter taxes in the
>settlement check to my new mortgage holder.
>
>My fourth quarter taxes were due on 11/1.
>
>If my mortgage company does not pay my tax bill by tomorrow (the end
>of the 10 day grace period), who is responsible for the inevitable 
>penalty and interest charges?

You are.  The tax assessor doesnt care that you have a mortgage.  Basically
it is your responsibility to see that the property taxes get paid.

Usually mortgage companies just charge your escrow account for any 
penalties and late fees.  If this happens you can usually convince them
to refund the penalty in the escrow account, after writing a letter.


>I am debating going down to the tax office and paying fourth quarter taxes 
>out of my pocket ( again :-(  ) but dread trying to make the mortgage 
>company send *me* the money from my escrow account.

Call the morgage company, talk to someone in escrow and find out what's 
going on, like if they were planning on paying the taxes.  Paying the 
taxes out of your own pocket may be the most expedient thing to do.

-- 

-- jeff
mincy@think.com
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Maxing out on FICA
Date: 10 Nov 1992 10:24:34 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <1992Nov10.040117.15225@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>
>A quick query that someone with Real World Experience can undoubtedly
>answer: what happens with FICA deductions when your tax year salary
>income exceeds the FICA ceiling (about 55K), and is split between two
>consecutive jobs?
>

I've never been in this situation but my understanding is that they
will withold more than the FICA limit.  You can then get the extra
portion refunded to you.  Your employers, however, are screwed.  They
don't get the extra part that they paid refunded.

-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
From: smith@navajo.rc.arizona.edu (dennis smith)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Capital loss limits.
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:17:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721

I have a long term capital loss of more than $3000 for 1992. Do I have
to claim the max of $3000 for this year and carry the rest or I can
chose any amount below the Max and carry the rest.
Thanks in advance.

Dennis
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: breland@cobweb.mcc.com (Mark Breland)
Subject: Re: Maxing out on FICA
Organization: MCC
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:20:24 GMT

Art Kamlet a_s_kamlet@att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus sent direct mail
pointing out a discontinuity in my FICA withholding example...

>I am not sure I understand.  Is the new maximum base $65,000?   If
>it is lower, then the excess FICA withheld by StinkoTech has to be
>refunded by StinkoTech and not by the IRS!

You are absolutely correct!  I goofed...revise the example (as shown
below) such that the StinkoTech non-Medicaid FICA does not exceed
$3441 (or $55,500 of the $65,000 earned).  My mistake and most humble
apologies.  :)

>Most poor schmoes like us most likely get overwithheld only on the 6.2% portion
>as the following example shows:
>
>    Acme Brick earnings 1/1/92 - 8/31/92  = $47,500.00
>                        non-Medicaid FICA = $ 2,945.00
>                            Medicaid FICA = $   688.75
>                               Total FICA = $ 3,633.75
>
>    StinkoTech earnings 9/1/92 - 12/31/92 = $65,000.00
>                        non-Medicaid FICA = $ 4,030.00 --> should be $3,441.00
>                            Medicaid FICA = $   942.50
>                               Total FICA = $ 4,972.50 --> should be $4,383.50
>
>    Total 1992 earnings     = $112,500.00
>    Total non-Medicaid FICA = $  6,386.00
>    Total Medicaid FICA     = $  1,631.25
>
>    Overwithheld non-Medicaid FICA = 6386.00 - 3441.00 = $2,945.00 <- refund
>    Overwithheld Medicaid FICA     = 1631.25 - 1887.90 = $ -256.65
                                                               ^
                                                               |
                                                            no refund


Mark A. Breland
breland@mcc.com  "...speaking only for myself, no others and vice versa etc..."
From: POBASIH%SNYESCVA.BITNET@SHSU.edu
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: RE: Basis of gift for capital gain purposes
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:52:00 GMT
Organization: Fedtax-L<==>Misc.Taxes Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

If the Fair Market Value of the gift is is equal to or greater than the
donor's basis the donee's basis is the same as the donor's basis. If the
the FMV is less than the donor's basis the donee has a dual basis.
If you transfer (or sell) the property for a gain your basis (the donee)
is the donor's basis. If you had sold the property for a loss your basis
would have been the FMV of the property at the time you received the
gift.

I hope this helps.
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: 1992 Tax Info
From: gary@cdthq.UUCP (Gary Heston)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 19:26:48 CST
Organization: Garys' Home for Obsolete Computers

seg3e@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Susan E. Gants) writes:

> My husband and I bought a house this year (our first) and, in
> addition, his income for '92 has increased tremendously.  He's a
> graduate student and will be earning about 10,000+ this year compared
> to about 2,500 last year.  I therefore want to project our tax
> liability before the year end to make any adjustments that might be
> helpful.  However, I can't find any forms for 1992 yet.  Where
> might one obtain them?

They aren't available yet, and won't be until after Jan 1.

Just use the stuff from last year; it'll be approximately
right, barring further insanities from Congress...

Gary Heston, at home....        ...where 25% of last years' Congresscritters
gary@cdthq.uucp                   will be next year.....
From: eddc@opus.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Carek)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Uniform Gift To Minor Act
Keywords: transfer, taxable income
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:02:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]

In article <1992Nov4.224202.29610@cbnews.cb.att.com> ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>
>Second, the purpose of the withdrawal does not affect the first
>statement.   Unlike an IRA where the tax status of a withdrawal
>depends on its purpose, all withdrawals from a child's UGMA 
>account must be for the benefit of the child, or you have
>fraudulently misused the funds and violated your fiduciary duty and
>may have broken criminal laws and not just some IRS regulation.

How is the statement, "for the benefit of the child", defined?  For
example, if I build a new home, and one of the bedrooms is for the
child, could that be defined as "for the benefit of the child".  Or
what about things like food and clothing for the child?


Just curious.

-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------
| David Carek          |  NASA Lewis Research Center  |
| 216-433-8396         |  eddc@lerc.nasa.gov          |
 -----------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (DWT)
Subject: Re: Setting a Corporation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:10:31 GMT
Organization: Contributor Account at ddsw1, Chicago, Illinois  60657

dan@seismo.pnl.gov (Dan Hagedorn) wrote in <1992Nov6.182301.9681@udel.edu>:

| Setting up a corporation os really simple.  You do need to retain an
| attorney.

For most businesspeople, letting an attorney handle incorporation is a very
good idea, but you do not "need" an attorney.

Incorporating is more often a tax decision than a legal one, so if you don't
know enough about the tax ramifications on your own you should consult an
accountant as well, perhaps first.

Here in Illinois the Secretary of State's Corporation Department was very
helpful in guiding me through the process.

There are other things to do, like registering with the state revenue
department and getting business licenses, and such, so you're probably better
off going through an attorney, but it is not a requirement to retain one.

I suspect that Mr. Hagedorn is one, though.

One matter I'd like to bring up for discussion (and I don't know the answer;
if I did I'd "point it out" and not just "bring it up for discussion"): a
professional corporation (that is, a corporation organized for the practice
of a licensed profession) does *not* protect individuals from liability for
the results of performing the profession (i.e., malpractice awards); it does
protect them from liability for other matters (i.e., someone slips in the
office or a supplier claims a check wasn't honored).  I do not know how this
rule applies to other personal service corporations, particularly consultants.

The relatively small difference in liability rules is the reason that most
incorporations of service businesses are for tax or investment considerations
rather than legal ones.  Nonetheless, incorporation is a legal procedure and,
if you don't want to try doing it on your own, you should engage a lawyer.
However, a lawyer's involvement is not required.  Just as any defendant in a
court case (civil or criminal) or any plaintiff in a civil case has the right
to represent himself or herself without the assistance of a professional but
few people should try, the same, to a lesser degree, applies to incorporating.

David W. Tamkin   Box 59297   Northtown Station, Illinois  60659-0297
dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com    CompuServe: 73720,1570    MCI Mail: 426-1818
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: a bill from californi
Date: 8 Nov 92 07:16:12 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information



Doug Sewell, in a message to All on 11-06-92 at 10:33am, said:

DS>||He recently received a bill from California, saying that since he work
   |_______________________________________________________________________
   |in California, he owes them income taxes, and further, that since he sh
   |have known about it, they are assessing penalties (currently about $2K)
 
          California, as with virtually all states that have a state
          income tax, imposes its income tax on non-residents who earn
          income while physically present in the state.  In general,
          adjusted gross income is apportioned to California and non-
          California sources in proportion to the number of days
          worked.  It sounds as if your father does indeed owe some
          tax, although the amount asserted may be incorrect since your
          father did not file a return and take advantage of the deduc-
          tions available to him.  Failure to file and failure to pay
          by one liable for the tax result in the imposition of penal-
          ties.  The amount of your father's income while in California
          probably was reported, as required by law, by his employer. 
          "Malice" is not a defense to a tax that is lawfully owed.  If
          you need more information, write Franchise Tax Board, Sacra-
          mento, CA.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #11645  Old bankers never die; they just lose interest.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: admiral@m-5.Eng.Sun.COM (Michael Limprecht)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Need Tax Accountant Recommendation
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:04:24 GMT
Reply-To: admiral@m-5.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: m-5


I'm looking for a tax accountant that can handle the standard homeowner
tax stuff plus tell me about tax considerations for a business run
out of a home.

Best if this person is in the Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mt View, Palo Alto
area, but it's not a total necessity.

Would also be nice if he/she uses one of the PC tax applications so I
don't have to do everything by hand all the time.


Thanks in advance,

Mick
-------------------------------------------------------------------
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!admiral or admiral@m-5.Eng.Sun.COM
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: dan@seismo.pnl.gov (Dan Hagedorn)
Subject: Re: Setting a Corporation
Reply-To: dan@seismo.pnl.gov
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:23:01 GMT

In article 15662@pica.army.mil, drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G Rears <drears>) writes:
>
>  I have been recently approached to do some consulting work for various
>companies via a consulting firm.  The consulting firm does not want me as
>a employee but as a consultant.  This means that any money I make from
>them would be considered as self-employed income and I would be
>responsible for my own payroll taxes.  If it means anything, I would
>still keep my full time job as well as my Army Reserve Officer Job.
>
>  They have suggested that I form my own corporation.  They said there
>are many tax advantages.  A major one is that I don't pay myself a
>salary but just take out profits from the company.  Also, a lot of my
>current expenses could be charged to the corporation (i.e. additional
>telephone lines, office space, computers, etc).
>
>   Does anybody have any idea on where I can get more information on doing
>this?  Ideally, some books that discussed what is involved and the
>ramifications of doing it.  I guess that I would need a attorney to
>actually set this up.
>

Setting up a corporation is a very good idea from a legal standpoint, as well
as taxwise.  You have cited several tax benefits, for details, you should
consult a good accountant.  He/she can set up the initial paperwork and then
in the out years, you should be able to duplicate what needs to be filled in.

As far as the legal end goes, incorporating removes (to a large degree) 
personal liability from the business.  Should a business go belly-up and 
bankrupt, your personal life's savings can be salvaged, as long as the in and
out flow of cash of the corporation is seperate from your personal money.

Setting up a corporation os really simple.  You do need to retain an attorney.
Here, in Washington state, for about $1000.00 my attorney will set up a 
corporation, file all of the necessary documants, and advise me on how to
conduct business from a legal standpoint.  

I recommend talking with an accountant AND an attorney to see if becoming
incorporated is really a benefit for you.  Unless you make a good deal of
money consulting. it can be better for many, from an income tax standpoint,
to NOT incorporate, and take business losses out of your personal income
tax.  This is what I do, since my outside consulting/business income is
small (< 10K/year).

Anyway, be sure to find out what situation will be of the most benefit to
you in your particular situation.

Good luck.

Dan Hagedorn.



Newsgroups: misc.taxes,comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.os.ms-windows.apps
From: orion@polaris.unm.edu (Tim Guerrette)
Subject: Re: TaxCut Tax Software
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 02:36:18 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

I tried Managing Your Money 9.0 against Quicken 2.0, and Quicken was much better for my Windows enviroment in addition to it was much easier to run... Price was also an issue... I got it from Egghead software for $24.00. 

This leads me to Taxcut from Meca... the price is very high if you were to do the federal, and 2 states that's well over $100.00 dollars. There have to be less expensive software packages from the ASP or something.

If anyone has found anything please let me know...

Thanks,

-- Tim
From: jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy)
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Organization: Hamilton College - Clinton, NY
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:11:58 GMT

In article <9211032313.AA00903@logdis1.oo.aflc.af.mil> rdyreng@logdis1.oo.aflc.af.mil (Russell I. Dyreng;OO-ALC/LILE-1) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct27.232737.20686@cbnews.cb.att.com> ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
>> >
>> >And yet the U.S. has the smallest percentage of eligible votors who
>> >actually turn out and vote, anyway.  We must be doing something
>
>One must keep in mind that the part of the reason for the U.S. voting
>percentage being so low compared to other countries is that in some
>countries you are *required* to vote.  There can be stiff penalties
>for not showing up at the ballot box.
>
I also understand that in some countries where voting is required by
law, as in Australia, the penalty for not doing is minor and hardly
every enforced.  Yet the Aussies turnout, I gather, is close to 80%.
The US had a good year this year and it was, what, 54% nationwide?
(Though I was surprised to read in the local paper here in the Oneida
country area of central New York that almost 80% voted in this election;
an election official said that this was pretty normal around here for a
presidential election; too bad they voted for Bush...).

Joe
jmalloy@hamilton.edu
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: tax on capital gains
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:54:17 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Darrell Steinbach Se Sun, in a message to All on 11-04-92 at 12:03am, said:

DS>|I recently sold a large chunk of stock and am faced with
   |paying taxes on the gain.  Since it is a fairly large gain
   |and since I did not anticipate this to adjust my withholding
   |for the year, can you explain at which level the penalties
   |kick in, what the penalty is, and is there a way to avoid it?
   |_____________________________________________________________

          You can avoid penalties entirely by making an estimated tax pay-
          ment for the quarter in which you made the sale (the last quar-
          ter's estimated-tax filing date is 1/15/93) to bring your total
          withholdings and estimated tax payments up to your actual liabili-
          ty.  The rules on underpayment of estimated tax are faily complex
          and depend on what your income was and how much it varied from
          last year, but you can always avoid the penalty by paying 100% of
          this year's tax.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #11645  As easy as 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: seg3e@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Susan E. Gants)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: 1992 Tax Info
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:06:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia
Originator: seg3e@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU

My husband and I bought a house this year (our first) and, in
addition, his income for '92 has increased tremendously.  He's a
graduate student and will be earning about 10,000+ this year compared
to about 2,500 last year.  I therefore want to project our tax
liability before the year end to make any adjustments that might be
helpful.  However, I can't find any forms for 1992 yet.  Where
might one obtain them?

   Thanks!
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------
Susan E. Gants   Academic Computing   Univ. of Virginia
(804) 924-0620   internet  seg3e@virginia.edu
                   bitnet  seg3e@virginia
From: POBASIH%SNYESCVA.BITNET@SHSU.edu
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: REVIEW LIST
Date: 4 Nov 92 14:51:00 GMT
Organization: Fedtax-L<==>Misc.Taxes Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

REVIEW FEDTAX-L
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: acheng@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Albert Cheng)
Subject: Re: Change in law re: inheritance tax?
Originator: acheng@shalom.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:14:11 GMT


In article <1992Nov12.105039.16903@hemlock.cray.com>, nealg@cray.com (Neal Gaarder) writes:
>...
>A Democratic drafter of the bill told the San Diego Union that he put
>in higher estate taxes because "if we have helped people with their
>long-term care, it is only fair to tax them when they die.

I don't follow it.  Those that need to use government long-term
care probably are penniless.  They that have $200,000+ left
probably never got to use this great "free lunch".  What is so
fair about it?  Did I miss something?