vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
According to pages 6 & 7 of the instructions for form 1040 in 2009 AMT was only temporarily patched for the year. Congress can't politically afford to drastically cut AMT exemptions by 30 to 40%, and may even retroactively change it, if it isn't passed by the end of the year (despite the constitution forbidding ex post facto laws) : What’s New for 2009 ...    Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount increased. The AMT exemption amount has increased to $46,700 ($70,950 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $35,475 if married filing separately)... What’s New for 2010 ...    Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount. The AMT exemption amount is scheduled to decrease to $33,750 ($45,000 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $22,500 if married filing separately). So, if you are married, and several regular tax deductions push your income below the AMT exemption amount of $45,000, it's quite possible you would be required to pay AMT, even if you didn't last year. There is a work sheet for AMT in the instructions for line 43, but the IRS also provides an AMT calculator. According to page 146 (E-8) of the instructions for form 1040 AMT is paid as: the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your taxable income (Form 1040, line 43). It is also the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your alternative minimum taxable income   (AMTI) on Form 6251, line 29. If the [AMT calculation] is larger than your taxable income would otherwise be, enter the amount from column (c) on Form 1040, line 43 [or ...] Form 6251, line 29.  As always, congress finds ways to further complicate things by making a few credits and losses deductible against the absolute minimum you're expected to pay taxes on, making the AMT a misnomer.
My point was to collect as much tax revenue as possible without letting a loophole curtail the collection of said taxes. How ever that is accomplished is a possible solution I support, if the end game eventually disallows paying your own corp in a different country to bring down your bottom line then so be it. Or maybe we should watch what corps categorize as expenses, this is the magic of the internet, people can kick ideas around, you on the other hand had a virtual boner to find a small hole in my suggestion in which you could try to curtail the discussion.    Instead of be anti-intellectual and trying to find tiny flaws in someones suggestions, why not make some of your own. Because last I checked shooting down suggestions while offering none of your own was not a productive practice.
Your first step should be meeting with a CPA or tax attorney who specializes in the taxation of dual citizens. Your local accountant can probably refer you to someone.  There are many people in that situation, and while I'm not familiar with the details, I know there are tax treaties between the U.S. and Canada designed to address your situation.
Consult with a CPA in your local community, since determining how your income is reported is dependent on how it was earned, and how much it was and other factors.  The details are personal, should not be shared on the internet, and don't affect the way we can answer this question.   A CPA might be able to help you with some other advice.  Things like how to structure your expenses to minimize tax burden, while staying within the rules.
If your taxes aren't going to healthcare, they are going for something else. Taxes won't go away even if we eliminate Medicaid, Medicare, social security and the EPA. Politicians are very good at spending money, so they will find a place for your taxes.   The argument isn't taxes or charity. It's where should taxes be spent for the most good. What will keep the US leading the rest of the world? It isn't charity. It is democracy, standards of living and defense spending.
If you're an American, and willing to give up citizenship, good luck to you.  Otherwise, Uncle Sam still wants his due -- Americans are responsible for paying taxes on income earned anywhere on earth, regardless of their residence.
"http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc503.html says you can deduct ""Any prior year's state or local income tax you paid during the year."" So I would say as long as you have good records, you can deduct the excess refund you had to pay back in the year in which you paid it. Whether or not your return was amended shouldn't affect whether or not it is deductible."
"Your contributions must come from ""compensation"". Quoting IRS Publication 590 on IRAs, ""Generally, compensation is what you earn from working."" So it is unlikely that your stock sale proceeds, if they're your sole source of income, can be used to fund your IRA. If you do have W-2 income, or self employment income, you can use the proceeds of a stock sale to fund an IRA. The IRS doesn't care where the exact dollars that go into the IRA come from, only that you earned (from working) at least as much as you contributed."
You may be able to choose.  As a small business, you can expense certain depreciable assets (section 179).  But by choosing to depreciate the asset, you are also increasing the cost-basis of the property.  Are you planning to sell the property in the next couple of years?  Do you need a higher basis? Section 179 - Election to expense certain depreciable business assets
Yes. Here is the chart:  This will tell you if the IRA is deductible. Above these numbers, and you might be able to deposit to Roth, or to an IRA but not take a deduction.
"With these income levels you cannot deduct any IRA contribution. I.e.: you cannot save pre-tax, as you want. But you still can contribute to IRA (as a non-deductible contribution), and using the ""loophole"" transfer the contribution to Roth (you are probably over the limit to be able to contribute to Roth directly). For pre-tax contributions - max out your 401k."
The way deductions work normally does not take into account what account the transaction was made using.  I.e. you report your gross income, your deductions and they subtract the deductions from the income.  What's left is your taxable income.   The tricky part comes with pre-tax contributions to tax advantaged accounts (like 401(k)).  Those plans require the contributions to be made by your company.  Since contributions to 529 plans are not deductible on your federal income taxes, the money is not going to be directly deposited. So it does not matter how the money goes into the plan.  Just make sure you keep a record of your contributions.
There are 3 account types your question discusses and each has its good/bad points. The above is a snapshot of these account types. IRAs have income restrictions that may disallow a deduction on the traditional, or any deposit to Roth, etc.  If this does not address your question, please comment, and I'll edit for better clarity.
In general, you most definitely can. In some cases you must. However for each State you'll have to check whether you can choose how to depreciate. Many States require you to take the same depreciation as on the Federal schedule, including Sec. 179, others won't allow Sec. 179 at all. Specifically to PA, I haven't found any current guidance, but the rules from 2012 put PA in the bucket that requires you to take the same Sec. 179 on the State return as appears on your Federal return. If you elect to expense Section 179 Property for FIT purposes, you are   required to expense the property for PIT purposes. However PA limit for Sec. 179 is $25K, so if your Federal deduction is larger - you can depreciate the rest. Check with a PA-licensed CPA or EA for a more reliable opinion, since I'm not a tax adviser. Just googled it.
"From the way you frame the question it sounds like you more or less know the answer already. Yes - you can make a non-deductable contribution to a traditional IRA and convert it to a Roth IRA. Here is Wikipedia's explanation: Regardless of income but subject to contribution limits, contributions can be made to a Traditional IRA and then converted to a Roth IRA.[10] This allows for ""backdoor"" contributions where individuals are able to avoid the income limitations of the Roth IRA. There is no limit to the frequency with which conversions can occur, so this process can be repeated indefinitely. One major caveat to the entire ""backdoor"" Roth IRA contribution process, however, is that it only works for people who do not have any pre-tax contributed money in IRA accounts at the time of the ""backdoor"" conversion to Roth; conversions made when other IRA money exists are subject to pro-rata calculations and may lead to tax liabilities on the part of the converter. [9] Do note the caveat in the second paragraph. This article explains it more thoroughly: The IRS does not allow converters to specify which dollars are being converted as they can with shares of stock being sold; for the purposes of determining taxes on conversions the IRS considers a person’s non-Roth IRA money to be a single, co-mingled sum. Hence, if a person has any funds in any non-Roth IRA accounts, it is impossible to contribute to a Traditional IRA and then “convert that account” to a Roth IRA as suggested by various pundits and the Wikipedia piece referenced above – conversions must be performed on a pro-rata basis of all IRA money, not on specific dollars or accounts. Say you have $20k of pre-tax assets in a traditional IRA, and make a non-deductable contribution of $5k. The account is now 80% pre-tax assets and 20% post-tax assets, so if you move $5k into a Roth IRA, $4k of it would be taxed in the conversion. The traditional IRA would be left with $16k of pre-tax assets and $4k of post-tax assets."
Putting Chris's comment as an answer: It's your income, not your spouse's income. You can give her the money, but you'll still be paying tax on it To elaborate more - the general principle of income taxation is that income is taxed when received, and specific expenditures can be deducted. If you giving the money to your spouse is not one of this specific deductibles - then it is not deductible. Your income, nevertheless, is still taxed to you - as you're the one to receive it.
If you want to 'offset' current (2016) income, only deductible contribution to a traditional IRA does that. You can make nondeductible contributions to a trad IRA, and there are cases where that makes sense for the future and cases where it doesn't, but it doesn't give you a deduction now. Similarly a Roth IRA has possible advantages and disadvantages, but it does not have a deduction now. Currently he maximum is $5500 per person ($6500 if over age 50, but you aren't) which with two accounts (barely) covers your $10k. To be eligible to make this deductible traditional contribution, you must have earned income (employment or self-employment, but NOT the distribution from another IRA) at least the amount you want to contribute NOT have combined income (specifically MAGI, Modified Adjusted Gross Income) exceeding the phaseout limit (starts at $96,000 for married-joint) IF you were covered during the year (either you or your spouse) by an employer retirement plan (look at box 13 on your W-2's). With whom. Pretty much any bank, brokerage, or mutual fund family can handle IRAs. (To be technical, the bank's holding company will have an investment arm -- to you it will usually look like one operation with one name and logo, one office, one customer service department, one website etc, but the investment part must be legally separate from the insured banking part so you may notice a different name on your legal and tax forms.) If you are satisified with the custodian of the inherited IRA you already have, you might just stay with them -- they may not need as much paperwork, you don't need to meet and get comfortable with new people, you don't need to learn a new website. But if they sold you an annuity at your age -- as opposed to you inheriting an already annuitized IRA -- I'd want a lot of details before trusting they are acting in your best interests; most annuities sold to IRA holders are poor deals. In what.
You don't need to submit a K-1 form to anyone, but you will need to transcribe various entries on the K-1 form that you will receive onto the appropriate lines on your tax return.  Broadly speaking, assets received as a bequest from someone are not taxable income to you but any money that was received by your grandmother's estate between the time of death and the time of distribution of the assets (e.g. interest, mutual fund distributions paid in cash, etc) might be passed on to you in full instead of the estate paying income tax on this income and sending you only the remainder. If so, this other money would be taxable income to you.  The good news is that if the estate trust distributions include stock, your basis for the stock is the value as of the date of death (nitpickers: I am aware that the estate is allowed to pick a different date for the valuation but I am trying to keep it simple here).  That is, if the stock has appreciated, your grandmother never paid capital gains on those unrealized capital gains, and you don't have to pay tax on those capital gains either; your basis is the appreciated value and if and when you sell the stock, you pay tax only on the gain, if any, between the day that Grandma passed away and the day you sell the stock.
You will owe tax on all deductible contributions, and on any gains from those. You will not owe taxes on any non-deductible contribution, but on any gains from those. Non-deductible contributions are called 'basis', and this is tracked on form 8606. As you didn't get a tax break when you contributed them (that's why they are called non-deductable), you don't pay tax now; they came from already taxed money. Everything else is money that was so far tax-free, so you have to pay taxes on it when you roll it to a Roth. Note that if the filing of form 8606 was neglected in the past (needed for non-deductible contributions only), you hurt yourself, as you will effectively pay tax again on that money. You can file adjustements to your taxes for the last three years to correct this, though.
Note that the IRA custodian or trustee is not told that the contributions are not deductible. Earnings on the basis accumulate tax-deferred within the IRA just as do the earnings on the deductible contributions. Now, when you make a withdrawal from your Traditional IRA, no matter which of your various IRA accounts you take the money from, part of the money is deemed to be taken from the basis (and is not subject to income tax) while the rest is pure taxable income. That is, none of the rest is eligible for the reduced taxation rates for Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains and since it does not count as investment income, it is not subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Tax of Form 8960 either. Computation of how much of your withdrawal is nontaxable basis and how much is taxable income is done on Form 8606. Note that you don't get to withdraw your entire basis until such time as when you close all your Traditional IRA accounts. How is all this reported? Well, your IRA custodian(s) will send you Form 1099-R reporting the total amount of the withdrawal, what income tax, if any, was withheld, etc. The custodian(s) don't know what your basis is, and so Box 2b will say that the taxable amount is not determined. You need to fill out Form 8606 to figure out what the taxable amount is, and then report the taxable amount on Line 15b of Form 1040. (The total withdrawal is reported on Line 15a which is not included in the AGI computations). Note that as far as the IRS is concerned, you have only one Traditional IRA. The A in IRA stands for Arrangement, not Account as most everybody thinks, and your Traditional IRA can invest in many different things, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc with different custodians if you choose, but your basis is in the IRA, not the specific investment that you made with your nondeductible contribution. That's why the total IRA contribution is limited, not the per-account contribution, and why you need to look that the total value of your IRA in determining the taxable portion, not the specific account(s) from which you withdrew the money.
This depends in part on who officially owns the account. Federally, 529 plan contributions are not tax-deductible, regardless of ownership.  Anyone can contribute to a 529 plan, though; the earnings of the 529 plan are tax-deferred and are tax-free if they are used for qualified educational expenses. In the state of New York, the account owner is entitled to deduct up to 10,000 (Married filing jointly) from their state taxes; however, that's limited to the account owner only.  If they're not in the state of New York, they may be able to have similar benefits from their home state; check their rules. You may have multiple accounts for one child, though, so if you and they both want to contribute for your child, that's perfectly fine. The limits are at the taxpayer level, so you can deduct $10k for all contributions to all children's accounts in sum (5k per kid if you have 2, and want to contribute equally, for example), but they can do the same. Gift tax is the other relevant thing to consider.  You can contribute $14k per year without either paying gift tax or adding it to the lifetime maximum (which is currently $1.5MM, but could change at any time either up or down).  You can also make a one-time contribution of 70k (5 years' worth) and have that amount exempt as if it were contributed over five years. For more information on all of this, see the New York 529 Page for more details.
Since your income for 2016 is less than $98K, you can deduct the entire IRA contribution even if you or your wife are covered by an employer plan such as a 401(k) plan. Thus, your taxable income will be reduced by the IRA contributions (up to a maximum of $11K (or $12 K or $13K depending on ages)) and this can offset the increase in taxable income due to the distribution from the Inherited IRA. Since money is fungible, isn't this last bullet point achieving the same result as rolling over the entire $9.6K (including the RMD) into an IRA in your name, the very thing that the first bullet point above says cannot be done? The answer is that it really isn't the same result and differs from what you wanted to do in several different ways. First, the $9.6K is being put into IRAs for two different people (you and your wife) and not just you alone. Should there, God forbid, be an end to the marriage, that part of your inheritance is gone. Second, you might not even be entitled to make contributions to IRAs (no compensation, or over 70.5 years old in 2016) which would make the whole thing moot. Third, the amount that can be contributed to an IRA is limited to $5500/$6500 for each person. While this does not affect the present case, if the distribution had been $15K instead of $9.6K, not all of that money could be contributed to IRAs for you and your wife. Finally, the contribution to a Traditional IRA might be non-deductible for income tax purposes because the Adjusted Gross Income is too high; once again, not an issue for you for 2016 but something to keep in mind for future years. In contrast, rollovers from one IRA into another IRA (both titled the same) can be in any amount, and they can be done at any time regardless of whether there is compensation for that year or not or what the Adjusted Gross Income is or whether there is coverage by a 401(k) plan. There are no tax consequences to rollovers unless the rollover is from a Traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in which case, the distribution is included in taxable income for that year.
Yes, provided you're not over the IRA deductibility limit as well. –  JoeTaxpayer♦ Aug 4 at 18:02 Note that if you get refunded for excess contributions, it usually happens in the following year, in which case it doesn't affect the year where these contributions occured -- rather, the refund counts as taxable income in the year you received the refund. –  user102008 Aug 11 at 8:11
If you made a contribution to a Traditional IRA for Year X (whether made during Year X or made in Year X+1 before the due date of your tax return for Year X), then you can withdraw the contribution and any gains on that contribution  by the due date of your tax return. If the contribution was deductible, then of course you must not take a deduction for it in on your tax return for Year X (or any other year for that matter). As for the gains (if any) that were withdrawn, they are taxable income to you for Year X (not X+1, even if the withdrawal occurred in Year X+1). Publication 590a says You generally can make a tax-free withdrawal of contributions if you do it before the due date for filing your tax return for the year in which you made them. This means that, even if you are under age 59-1/2, the 10% additional tax may not apply. and later in the same Publication If you have an extension of time to file your return, you can withdraw them tax free by the extended due date. You can do this if, for each contribution you withdraw, both of the following conditions apply.   -  You did not take a deduction for the contribution.   - You withdraw any interest or other income earned on the contribution. You can take into account any loss on the contribution while it was in the IRA when calculating the amount that must be withdrawn.    If there was a loss, the net income earned on the contribution may be a negative amount. Later, the document says You must include in income any earnings on the contributions you withdraw. Include the earnings in income for the year in which you made the contributions, not the year in which you withdraw them. and The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59-1/2 does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59-1/2 rule, it will be subject to this tax. Since you have a loss on the contributions that you are withdrawing, there is no interest or other income that needs to be reported.
From the IRS: You do not include in your gross income qualified distributions or distributions that are a return of your regular contributions from your Roth IRA(s). It's not just that the particular money you take from the IRA isn't taxable.  It's not counted as part of your income at all, so it won't have any effect on the taxation of other income.
"No, you cannot. ISO are given to you in your capacity as an employee (that's why it is ""qualified""), while your IRA is not an employee. You cannot transfer property to the IRA, so you cannot transfer them to the IRA once you paid for them as well. This is different from non-qualified stock options (discussed in this question), which I believe technically can be granted to IRA. But as Joe suggests in his answer there - there may be self-dealing issues and you better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) if this is something you're considering to do."