HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dana@hcxio.hdw.csd.harris.com (Dan Aksel)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Question on protecting capitol gains
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:55:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division, Ft. Lauderdale FL
NNTP-Posting-Host: hcxio.hdw.csd.harris.com

In article <1992Oct5.225404.2602@nas.nasa.gov> blake@wk60.nas.nasa.gov (Matthew W. Blake) writes:
>I have an aircraft in a leaseback business.  It has been an active 
>business (vs. passive) for several years and the aircraft is fully 
>depreciated.  I am interested in closing the business and selling
>the aircraft.
>
>How can I protect this money from massive taxation? 

One thing to consider is selling the aircraft on an installment sale basis.
The corporation would continue to be "active" as long as income was recieved.
It is taxed on the income recieved in any given year.

You will have to charge a reasonable interest rate on the sale.

You state you want to close the business.  Do you mean dispose of the assets
to another party or keep them yourself?  If your intent is to keep it yourself
there is no tax consequence anyway.  It has a basis of zero in your hands.  Now
if you sell it personally you've got a gain...
---
Dan Aksel
From: bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Is home office a deduction?
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:25:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Oct2.232502.19022
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <BvIn10.6tK@taligent.com> cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus) writes:
>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.

And expect to need to show it.  A home office deduction is one of the
things that will eject your return with an audit flag on it.  The IRS
has really been cracking down on home offices lately.

  bills
--------
Bill Sears            Sequent Computer Systems            bills@sequent.com

While a transcendant vocabulary is laudable, one must be eternally careful
to ensure that the calculated objective of the communication does not become
ensconsed in obscurity.  Stated simply, it is invariably preferable to 
eschew obfuscation.                                           - Unknown

It isn't pollution that's harming the environment, it's the impurities in
our air and water that are doing it.			- VP Dan Quayle
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:35:03 -0400 
From: Chun Yi Chan <cc6g+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Question about deduction on interest paid for mortgage

Hi there,

Does anyone know how the deduction on interest paid for mortgage work? 
Does the mortgage has to be on a house that is for my primary residence?
 Also, how much can I deduct (max or percentage)?

Thanks in advance.

Chun Yi
From: lizzit@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Lizzette Xixxo)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Per-deium for self-employed
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:37:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: mintaka.1992Sep29.163734.18819
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science

In article <dickerso.717717069@fester> dickerso@cpat.stortek.com writes:
>I've been looking at the Master Tax Guide and it appears that I can simply
>use the Govt. Standard Per-dieum rates and be done with it instead of trying
>to track actual Meals, lodging, Incidental.  I am a consultant, self-employed
>paying my own travel.
>
>Is this correct?

sort of.  if your travel is within the us, you are allowed 26$/day for meals,
$34 for "expensive" localities which are listed in in IRS pubs.  you still
have 2 keep track of lodging and incidentals.  for travel overseas, u r 
allowed the greater of $34/day or 40% of gov per diem for that city for meals,
with lodgings and incidentals again kept seperate.  the meals are still 
subject to the 80% rules, so it's 80% of 40% or 80% of $34.

non-resident aliens are limited to $9/day in any one local over 30 days.
From: ca@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (christopher.arnone)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: HR 4848 Raises Inheritance Taxes by Lowering 600K cap to 200K
Keywords: Inheritance taxes
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:03:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsi.1992Oct6.130343.12831
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


	A bill currently before the house, HR 4848, would raise inheritance
taxes by lowering the federal tax free cap from the current $600,000 to
$200,000.  This $200,000 figure would mean that all assets over that amount
would be taxed at the rate of 31%.  All assets passed to heirs, including
the value of real estate, life insurance policies, cars, cash etc. count against
the $200,000 figure.  It is estimated that this would affect close to 40%
of all U.S. families, unless some additional estate planning is done to work
around this.  There is some talk that additional work on the bill might
include a lowering of the 10K tax free gifting policy currently is place.
(This information is a paraphrase from a CNBC report).

	Of course, the plan is to begin the actual voting process on this bill
next year, when the liberals will have a president who would most likely sign
it.  In reality, there are probably a whole slew of new tax bills being lined
up in Congress in preparation for Clinton's arrival.  I'm sure that they media
won't be providing much coverage on this stuff, other than the standard "taxes
only on the rich" line that the Clinton campaign is touting.

	I would say that we should call or write our Congress person on this,
but its probably a waste of time.  This should be a boom for accountants and
lawyers in the estate planning business, and a major headache for people who
will now have to be very creative to avoid having the government basically
seize a good chunk of their assets when they die.
From: blake@wk60.nas.nasa.gov (Matthew W. Blake)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Question on protecting capitol gains
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:54:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

I have an aircraft in a leaseback business.  It has been an active 
business (vs. passive) for several years and the aircraft is fully 
depreciated.  I am interested in closing the business and selling
the aircraft.  My profit would be around $50K.  This amount, on top of
my family's joint income will mean the IRS gets a BIG share of this $50K.

How can I protect this money from massive taxation? 

I could start another business, buy a big capital asset and section 179
$10,000 as well as try to max out 1st year expenses and depreciation, 
but then I am in the same type of business again with most of my money 
tied up.

Any other ideas?

Incedently, if I start another similar business it would be with a 
sailboat in a charter operation.  Any comments on whether the IRS is 
after this kind of operation more tha an aircraft leaseback?

Thanks for any experience you can share,

Matt Blake
blake@nas.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: dickerso@fester.dell.com (Russell Dickerson - X2787)
Subject: Per-deium for self-employed
Reply-To: dickerso@cpat.stortek.com
Organization: IO SpecialistsConsulting
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:51:09 GMT

I've been looking at the Master Tax Guide and it appears that I can simply
use the Govt. Standard Per-dieum rates and be done with it instead of trying
to track actual Meals, lodging, Incidental.  I am a consultant, self-employed
paying my own travel.

Is this correct?


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Dickerson	Unix/X Consultant	IOSpecialists
(303) 673-5409 ---REPLY TO>>> dickerso@cpat.stortek.com <<<!!!!--------
For every vision, there is an equal and opposite Congressional revision.
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Stock options & Alternative Minimum Tax
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:57:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio

In article <23870@sybase.sybase.com> ganesh@madras.sybase.com (Ganesh Sundaresan) writes:
>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.

I think these are just conservative warnings - to alert you, that's
all.

Look, the instructions say to NOT attach the AMT sheet if you owe no
AMT tax due.  So if you are truly convinced the results of an AMT
calculation will show you owe no tax, just put zero down for the
AMT amount.
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: tpradeep@cs.tamu.edu (Pradeep K Tapadiya)
Subject: PO Box use for home-office - Help
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:00:47 GMT

Howdy netters,

I have rented a PO Box which is used both for my personal and
for my home-based office purposes.

1. Can I deduct the proportion of the rent used for business
  purposes?

2. If I can, is the proportion determined by proportional
  space of the home-office or by the proportion of personal/business
  mail?

3. Where do I show these deductions?

IRS doesn't allow deductions on the basic charges of first phone
line to the house. Based on this, I have a feeling I can't
deduct the rent for the PO Box either.

Thank you for your help.

Pradeep
tpradeep@cs.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: tpradeep@cs.tamu.edu (Pradeep K Tapadiya)
Subject: IRA vs other tax deferral plans
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:36:22 GMT

Howdy netters,

Besides the regular pension plan (teachers retirement service),
our university offers us two more tax deferring choices

1. tax deferred annuity (TDA)
2. deferred compensation program (DCP)

I believe I can put as much as 25% of my income (max. $7500) into
these plans. Besides, I can still have a regular $2000 IRA.

From what I understand about these plans

                   IRA                TDA           DCP
Amount:         $2000 max(1)      <--- $7500 max, both combined--->(1)
Deduction:      $2000 max(2)          no             no
Tax Defer:          yes               yes            yes
Type of
investment:     your pick       limited choices  limited choices(3)
Control over
investment:    full control     employer control partial control

(1) irrespective of whether a person has a pension plan
(2) Depending upon marital and income status
(3) Our list includes a few mutual funds too (including fidelity)

Basically all these choices look almost similar to me. Yet  all
the books I have come across that deal with IRA do not talk
about TDA or DCP. Infact, if I can defer taxes on upto $7500 of
income, TDA and DCP look better than IRA to me. 

Am I missing something, or are A&M employees privileged to have
such options?

Thank you for your help.

Pradeep
tpradeep@cs.tamu.edu
From: joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com (joseph)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: FICA is not a tax (was: Maximum  1992  FICA Tax)
Date: 3 Oct 92 17:38:40 GMT
Reply-To: joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com (joseph)
Followup-To: misc.taxes
Organization: GE Research


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)
>
   Ha he ha aha he ha ha ah......
  [falling of the chair and continuing to] haahe hehhe ahhaa haa
   hah..ahahh aahhhha hhaaa.

  To answer your question, let me refer you to an age old saying 
  which goes something like... "If it quacks like a duck walks like
  a duck...."

  james joseph 

  PS:  I think the expansion for FICA is not what you said it is.
       The last letter stands for "Act".  You know, an act of Congress.
       [to loot you out of your earnings].

       [Getting up from the floor and continuing to] haa heh hahha hha
       haaa...
From: jmuth@pyrps5.eng.pyramid.com (John Muth)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: FICA is not a tax (was: Maximum  1992  FICA Tax)
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:24:42 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation, Mountain View

In article <1992Sep30.210522.12540@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> boaz@lcs.mit.edu writes:
>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)

What planet are you living on? FICA stands for Federal Insurance 
CONTRIBUTION ACT. There is no corporation, there is the Social 
Security Administration. It is indeed a tax. Sometimes they talk about
a "trust fund". This is an illusion. Social Security has been a "pay as
you go" system since it was created in the 30's. 


(Jeez, he thinks they are insurance premiums... From MIT no less...)

-John Muth
From: dhb@ksr.com (Don Barstow)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Distribution of stock shares from a 401K
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:51:57 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp.


At my previous employer, company contributions to the 401K were partly
paid in stock.  Now that I have left, they have sent me a certificate
for these shares.  I was intending on rolling the 401K cash into an IRA
set up with mutual funds. The amount of shares is small, so it seems
pointless to set up a self-directed IRA at a broker just for this.
Thus, I am leaning towards simply keeping them in my regular brokerage
account, and paying the tax and penalty on these shares.

My question is, how do I calculate the taxes to be paid?  Since they
represent company contribution, I would think they are fully taxable,
and the basis of the shares would then be the amount that the company
"spent" to contribute them into my account.  The problem is that the
shares have gone down in value since then, and I am wondering if I
should use market value at time of distribution, instead.

I also assume that whatever I use as the basis then becomes the cost
basis for use in later calculation of capital gains or losses when I
eventually sell the shares.  Is that right?

Thanks for any assistance,
Don Barstow
dhb@ksr.com
From: tar@ISI.EDU (Thomas A. Russ)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Foreign retirement (Was: Wanted STATE tax rates)
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:28:25 GMT
	<1992Oct6.140737.29832@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
Reply-To: tar@isi.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: USC-ISI
In-reply-to: edwardz@ecs.comm.mot.com's message of 6 Oct 92 14:07:37 GMT

In article <...> edwardz@ecs.comm.mot.com (Edward Zhong) writes:
 > 
 > can you retire to a foreign country to avoid either fed or state taxes?
 > assume you have the income from US.
 > -- 

You cannot avoid federal taxes by retiring to a foreign country unless
you also give up your US citizenship.  The US government reserves the
right to tax you on your world-wide income (subject to certain tax
treaty benefits for individual countries).  In any case, they will
certainly tax you on the US source income.

Of course, if you become a permanent resident of another country, you
will need to deal with their tax laws.  Since the US is one of the
industrialized world's lowest taxed countries, you would have to pick
a retirement location carefully.  (For example, almost all Western
European countries have higher income tax rates (which you MIGHT be
able to avoid), coupled with value added taxes of 10-20% (which you
WILL NOT be able to avoid).

It generally is possible to avoid state taxes by establishing
residence in a no income tax state before moving abroad.  You can then
retain state citizenship (and even vote) without needing to pay state
income tax.  (In practice you can avoid state taxes by giving up your
residency in an income tax state and no longer filing, although your
legal position is not as strong.  Some states are rumored to try to
track down people like that.)

- Tom.
--

Thomas A. Russ                                             tar@isi.edu    
USC/ISI, 4676 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, CA 90292      (310) 822-1511
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: edwardz@ecs.comm.mot.com (Edward Zhong)
Subject: Re: Wanted STATE tax rates
Organization: trunking_fixed
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:07:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.082454.12154@athena.mit.edu> w1gsl@athena.mit.edu (Steven L. Finberg) writes:
>I am looking for comparative tax rates, specifically state income, investment
>and inheritance taxes.  Any sugestions where to look for rate tables?

wisconsin has 7% tax on your income and cap gain;
illinois has 3%.

sameone pls post a state tax chart.

>
>Currently PA and Florida are of the most interest.

what are they?

>One big surprise was from a broker who said Florida has a 1.5% tax on the 
>value of a residents portfolio.  Can this be true?
>^^^^^
>
>Which is the best state to retire to?

can you retire to a foreign country to avoid either fed or state taxes?
assume you have the income from US.
-- 
=================================================================================
Ed Zhong, Motorola Inc. (LMPS)      |  my money works for me;
edwardz@ecs.comm.mot.com            |  i work to make my money work for me.
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: question: what rules
Date: 27 Sep 92 06:19:29 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Robert B. Reinhardt, in a message to All on 09-26-92 at 2:44am, said:

RB>|Are there any special tax rules for how you handle money received
   |from an auto insurer, who is paying a settlement for someone who
   |hit your car, totalled it, and it was their fault?
   |_________________________________________________________________


               Generally the proceeds are not income and need not
               be reported at all.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  Nietzche is pietzche, but Sartre is smartre.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
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 23:32:38 GMT

In article <183663@pyramid.pyramid.com> jmuth@pyrps5.eng.pyramid.com (John Muth) writes:
>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

Now, the law itself may not be something to get hysterical about,
but that reasoning sure does add spice to the stew.

-Rob Reinhardt
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: New 20% Withholding T
From: gary@cdthq.UUCP (Gary Heston)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 19:28:21 CDT
Organization: Garys' Home for Obsolete Computers

breinhar@access.digex.com (Robert B. Reinhardt) writes:
   [ much deleted ]
> 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."

So move your money out of that bank (one of the *worst* places
for an IRA) into a mutual fund that lets you pull it on any day
you wish. Make sure you don't exceed the limits on how often you
can roll it over (I know they're there, but not sure how tight
they are).

Then, find another bank to do business with. There's no legitimate
excuse for having an 18-month minimum on an IRA, it's a means of
keeping your money by making it difficult to move.

> 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).

So leave it in the rollover IRA until you get someplace that has
a 401k, and don't contribute to it in the interim.

Gary Heston, at home....
gary@cdthq.uucp
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
From: peter@access.digex.com (peter baltimore)
Subject: Re: Maximum  1992  FICA Tax
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:07:04 GMT

I believe the 1992 FICA max base is $55,400, but I will check at office to
make sure. The rate is still 6.2 for Fica and 1.45 for medicare for a com-
bind rate of 7.65%.