vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Here's the best explanation I found relating to why your T4 box 39 might not have an amount filled in, even when box 38 has one: Department of Finance – Explanatory Notes Relating to the Income Tax Act [...]. It's a long document, but here's the part I believe relevant, with my emphasis: Employee Stock Options ITA 110(1)   [...]   Paragraph 110(1)(d) is amended to include a requirement that the   employee [...] exercise the employee’s rights under the stock   option agreement and acquire the securities underlying the agreement   in order for the deduction in computing taxable income to be   available [...] ensures that   only one deduction is available in respect of an employment benefit. In other words, if employee stock option rights are surrendered to an   employer for cash or an in-kind payment, then (subject to new   subsections 110(1.1) and (1.2)) the employer may deduct the payment   but the employee cannot claim the stock option deduction. Conversely,   where an employer issues securities pursuant to an employee’s exercise   of stock options, the employer can not deduct an amount in respect of   the issuance, but the employee may be eligible to claim a deduction   under paragraph 110(1)(d). Did you receive real shares based on your participation in the ESPP, or did you get a cash payment for the net value of shares you would have been issued under the plan? From what I can tell, if you opted for a cash payment (or if your plan only allows for such), then the part I emphasized comes into play. Essentially, if conditions were such that your employer could claim a deduction on their corporate income tax return for the compensation paid to you as part of the plan, then you are not also able to claim a similar deduction on your personal income tax return. The money received in that manner is effectively taxed in your hands the same as any bonus employment income would be; i.e. it isn't afforded tax treatment equivalent to capital gains income. Your employer and/or ESPP administrator are best able to confirm the conditions which led to no amount in your box 39, but at least based on above you can see there are legitimate cases where box 38 would have an amount while box 39 doesn't.
"Stocks (among other property) currently is allowed a ""stepped-up basis"" when valuing for estate tax purpose.  From the US IRS web page: To determine if the sale of inherited property is taxable, you must first determine your basis in the property. The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following: The fair market value (FMV) of the property on the date of the decedent's death. The FMV of the property on the alternate valuation date if the executor of the estate chooses to use alternate valuation. See the Instructions for Form 706, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return. If you or your spouse gave the property to the decedent within one year before the decedent's death, see Publication 551, Basis of Assets. Your question continues ""the person that died still has to pay taxes on their profits in the year they died, right?"" Yes. The estate would be subject to tax on realized gains/losses prior to death."
"logically, yes. legally, no. any reasonable definition of an ""investment"" must include some types of gambling and insurance. lottery tickets specifically are really crappy high risk/high return investment.  obviously most people try to avoid investments with a negative average expected future value, but from a purely semantic perspective anything with a potential future value is an investment. conversely, anyone with a gambling problem should not pretend they are not gambling when making focused investments in high volatility stock options. that said, the irs taxes gains and losses differently depending on whether they are classified as ""gambling"", or just ""crappy investing"". so you will not be able to deduct your gambling losses from your earned income (unlike investment losses which can be deducted up to 3k$ per year)."
I don't believe you can do that. From the IRS: Finally, certain types of property are specifically excluded from Section 1031 treatment. Section 1031 does not apply to exchanges of: I highlighted the relevant items for emphasis.
For every document that the IRS posts, there will be a correlating instructions page. This would be the instructions for the 1099-B, here. Furthermore, as you will be reporting this on Form 8949, as a substitute for previously used Schedule D; instructions are here.This article explains that the best course of action is to donate the shares as the cost basis would switch to FMV (fair market value) of the assets today. But as this did not happen, I would recommend contacting the purchasing company directly. Being a share holder, and by purchasing the shares from the source, the accounting department should still have recorded the date of purchase along with the price sold. It may take effort to prove who you are, but if their accounting records are well documented, this will not be an issue.  If nothing else, claim a 100% capital gain on the entirety of the sale, and pay the tax. That is stated here.
The rules are complex. See How to Deduct IRA Losses, at Smart Money.  You must liquidate the entire account (bad) and the loss is subject to the amount exceeding 2% of your AGI. If you are subject to AMT, you may lose any or all of that remaining amount.
Would I be taxed at my personal income tax rate upon withdrawal of the   funds for this loan from my professionally managed, balanced 401k (not   Roth funds)? Yes. This is a regular distribution. Why wouldn't you be taxed? What's gifting has to do with anything? If taxable, this would move me to the next higher tax bracket. Depending on your other income - it may, or may not. Whether or not taxable when pulling funds out of the investment   account, when I'm repaid, do I owe Federal tax only on the interest   income portion of repayment funds or on the lump sum & interest   received (all of which which would return to my retirement account in   lump)? Only interest. And you will not return it to your retirement account. Not in a lump and not in installments and not in any other way.
"Rob - I'm sorry your first visit here has been unpleasant. What you are asking for is beyond the capability of most software. If you look at Fairmark.com, you find the standard deduction for married filing joint is $12,200 in 2012, and $12,400 in 2013. I offer this anecdote to share a 'deduction' story - The first year I did my MIL's taxes, I had to explain that she didn't have enough deductions to itemize. Every year since, she hands me a file full of paper substantiating medical deductions that don't exceed 7.5% of her income. In turn, I give her two folders back, one with the 5 or so documents I needed, and the rest labeled ""trash"". Fewer than 30% of filers itemize. And a good portion of those that do, have no question that's the right thing to do. e.g. my property tax is more than the $12K, so anything else I have that's a deduction adds right to the number. It's really just those people who are at the edge that are likely frustrated. I wrote an article regarding Standard Deduction vs Itemizing, in which I describe a method of pulling in one's deductible expenses into Odd years, reducing the number in Even years, to allow a bi-annual itemization. If this is your situation, you'll find the concept interesting. You also ask about filing status. Think on this for a minute. After pulling in our W2s (TurboTax imports the data right from ADP), I do the same for our stock info. The stock info, and all Schedule A deductions aren't assigned a name. So any effort to split them in search of savings by using Married Filing Separate, would first require splitting these up. TurboTax has a 'what-if' worksheet for this function, but when the 'marriage penalty' was lifted years ago, the change in status had no value. Items that phaseout over certain income levels are often lost to the separate filer anyway.
I'll add this to others: Having non-deductible portion in your IRA requires additional tax forms to be attached to your tax return, and tracking. If you plan to have long-term investments in your non-deductible IRA (such as, say, target funds or long-term stock positions that you expect to hold till retirement) it may be better to keep them in a non-IRA account. This is because the income tax on the withdrawals from the IRA is at ordinary rates, and from the regular investment account is at capital gains rate. While the rates can definitely change, traditionally capital gains rates are significantly lower than the ordinary income bracket rates. So generally I think that having non-deductible IRA deposits is only useful if you're planning a ROTH conversion in a near future.
"Yes, it can be done.  See ""Scenario 4"" at Isolating 401(k) basis - Fairmark.com.  Though that article is primarily about getting after-tax 401(k) money into a Roth IRA, Scenario 4 applies to the scenario you are asking about. At a high level you do exactly what you say -- transfer the pre-tax money from your trad IRAs to a 401(k) (btw, a solo 401(k) will work for this also -- doesn't have to be your employer's -- but then you need to be eligible to set up a solo 401(k)).  This is allowed because qualified plans can't accept after after-tax traditional IRA money, so the transfer overrides the usual pro rata rules and ""strains"" the basis out and leaves it in the trad IRA.   However, there's a mismatch between the intent of Congress (as indicated by the Joint Committee on Taxation report on the law) and the actual text of the law as detailed in the Fairmark article which while it doesn't stop you from doing this adds a couple of hoops to jump through if you want to be in total compliance with the law."
"IRA contributions are limited; you cannot ""dump the excess into a retirement account like an IRA"" if the excess is more than $5500. Furthermore, as @firefly points out, you need to have earned income (technical term is compensation and it includes self-employment income, not just wages) to contribute to an IRA, and the limit mentioned above is actually the lesser of your earned income and $5500. (There are other limitations for people with high gross income, but these likely will not affect you) On the positive side, if your earned income is small, you can contribute your entire taxable earned income including the money withheld by your employer for Social Security and Medicare tax and Federal, State and local income taxes to an IRA, not just your take-home pay. For example, if your earned income is $5500 and take-home pay after tax withholding is $5000, you are still entitled to contribute $5500. So, where do you get that withheld money from so that it can be put into your IRA? Well, it can come from the student loan or interest earned from a bank or from the dividends and capital gains on your investments, etc. Money is fungible; it is not the case that only the cash received (or deposited into your bank account) as your take-home pay can be contributed. Subject to other limitations mentioned, your earned income can be contributed, not just your take-home pay."
"-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love). How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for? There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). ""Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible."" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds. So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50. As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset.
"Assuming that the assets in the ""old"" TFSA are in cash, you could simply withdraw the money and redeposit it in the ""new"" TFSA, in the following year!!. The yearly limit is on your gross deposits for the year, not the net. This method obviously works best near the end of December.  You should expect the new TFSA to briefly question the amount;  they don't want to help you make a costly mistake. At other times, the direct transfer in @Grade EhBacon's answer would be better."
Long ago when I was applying for my first mortgage I had to list all my income and assets. At the time I had some US Savings Bonds from payroll deduction. I asked about them. The loan officer told me that unless I was willing/planning on selling them to make the down payment, they were immaterial to the loan application. So unless you have a habit of turning RSUs into cash, or are willing to do so for the down payment, it is no different from having money in a 401K or IRA: the restrictions on selling them make them illiquid.
The law says that you cannot make a contribution (whether tax-deductible or not) to a Traditional IRA for any year unless you (or your spouse if you are filing a joint tax return) have taxable compensation (income earned from the sweat of your brow such as wages, salary, self-employment income, commissions on sales, and also alimony or separate maintenance payments received under a divorce decree, etc) during that year, and you will not be 70.5 years old by the end of the year for which you are making the contribution. The contribution, of course, can be made up to Tax Day of the following year, and is limited to the lesser of the total compensation and $5500 ($6500 for people over 50).  Assuming that you are OK on the compensation and age issue, yes, you can make a contribution to a Traditional IRA for an year in which you take a distribution from a Roth IRA. Whether you can deduct the Traditional IRA contribution depends on other factors such as your income and whether or not you or your spouse is covered by a workplace retirement plan.
Trusts are a way of holding assets with a specific goal in mind. At its simplest, a trust can be used to avoid probate, a sometimes lengthy process in which a will is made public along with the assets bequeathed. A trust allows for fast transfer and no public disclosure. Depending on the current estate tax laws (the death tax) a trust can help preserve an estate exemption. e.g. Say the law reverts back to a $1M exemption. Note, this is $1M per deceased person, not per beneficiary. My wife and I happened to have assets of exactly $2M, and I die tomorrow. Now she has $2M, and when she passes, the estate has that $2M and estate taxes are based on this total, $1M fully taxed. But - If we set up trusts, that first million can be put into trust on my death, the interest and some principal going to the surviving spouse each year, but staying out of the survivor's estate. Second spouse dies, little or no tax due. This is known as a bypass trust. Another example is a spendthrift trust. Say, hypothetically, my sister in law can't save a nickel to save her life. Spends every dime and then some. So the best thing my mother in law can do to provide for her is to leave her estate in trust with specific instructions on how to distribute some percent each year. This is not a tax dodge of any kind, it's strictly to protect the daughter from her own irresponsibility. A medical needs trust is a variant of the above. It can provide income to a disabled person without impacting their government benefits adversely. This scratches the surface, illustrating how trusts can be used, there are more variation on this, but I believe it covers the basics. With the interest in this topic, I'm adding another issue where the trust can be useful. In my article On my Death, Please, Take a Breath I described how an inherited IRA was destroyed by ignorance. The beneficiary, fearing the stock market, withdrew it all and was nailed by taxes.
"Assuming you are Non-Resident Indian for tax purposes, this transaction is not taxable. Indian tax law doesn't qualify ""gifts"" as taxable income."
"Sounds like your grandmother's estate had taxable income and the estate did not pay the estate ""INCOME"" tax.  Rather the estate shifted the burden to pay that tax on the beneficiaries which is why you received a K1.  If that K1 reports income received by you, then YES you would have to amend your tax return.  I am in exactly that same situation now.  After the October 15 deadline to file 2012 tax returns, I received a K1 for income received from my dad's estate.  I now have to file a late amended 2012 income tax return and pay income tax on what I inherited. My dad had a small estate, but the money that made up that small estate all came from an IRA he had.  He designated the estate as his beneficiary.  So when the stocks in the IRA were sold, that all became taxable income to the beneficiaries of the estate. Anything involving taxes is confusing at best.  But do not confuse estate income tax, with estate tax -- they are two different taxes. Hope this helps."
Why shouldn't I just keep my money in the savings account and earn the same amount (both accounts have the same APY in this case)? I will assume that you are transferring money from your savings account into a Traditional IRA and deducting the contribution from your income. While you may think that the money that is being transferred is yours already -- it is sitting in your savings account, for Pete's sake! -- you are deducting that amount in getting to your taxable income, and so you are effectively contributing it from current income and not paying taxes on the amount contributed. So, consider the same amount of money sitting in your savings account versus the same amount of money sitting in your Traditional IRA account. While you will earn the same amount of interest in both accounts, you will have to pay taxes each year on the interest earned in the savings account. You might choose, as most people do, to not take money out of the savings account to pay theses taxes but just pay them from ready cash/checking account/current income etc., or these taxes might just reduce the refund that you will getting from the IRS and your State income tax authority, but in either case, you have paid taxes on the interest earned in your non-IRA savings account, and of course, long ago, you also paid taxes on the original amount in the non-IRA savings account. So, if you take any money out of the non-IRA savings account, you don't pay any taxes on the amount withdrawn except possibly for the interest earned from January 1 till the date of withdrawal (which you are paying from ready cash). On the other hand, consider the Traditional IRA. The original deposit was not taxed in the sense that you got a deduction (reduced tax or increased refund) when you made the contribution. The annual interest earned was not taxed each year either. So when you make a qualified withdrawal (after age 59.5 or by meeting one of the other exceptions allowing withdrawal before age 59.5), you are taking money on which you have not paid any taxes at all, and the IRS wants its cut. The money withdrawn is taxable income to you.
"What you're describing is a non-deductible traditional IRA. That is what happens when your employer 401K or your high income disqualifies gou from using a traditional IRA the normal way. Yes, non-deductible traditional IRAs are stupid.** Now let's be clear on the mechanism behind the difference. There's an axiom of tax law that the same money can't be taxed twice. This is baked so deep into tax law that it often isn't even specified particularly. The IRS is not allowed to impose tax on money already taxed, i.e. The original contribution on an ND Trad IRA. So this is not a new kind of IRA, it is simply a Trad IRA with an asterisk. **But then, some say so are deductible traditional IRAs when compared to the Roth. The real power of an ND Trad IRA is that it can be converted to Roth at all income levels. This is called the ""Roth Backdoor"". It combines three factors. Contribute to an ND Trad IRA, stick it in a money market/sweep fund, and a week later convert to Roth, pay taxes on the 17 cents of growth in the sweep fund since the rest was already taxed. The net effect is to work the same as a Roth contribution - not tax deductible, becomes a Roth, and is not taxed on distribution. If you already have traditional IRA money that you contributed that wasn't taxed, this really screws things up. Because you can't segment or LIFO your IRA money, the IRS considers it one huge bucket, and requires you draw in proportion. EEK! Suppose you contribute $5000 to an IRA in a non-deductible mode. But you also have a different IRA funded with pretax money that now has $45,000. As far as IRS is concerned, you have one $50,000 IRA and only $5000 (10%) is post-tax. You convert $5000 to Roth and IRS says 90% of that money is taxable, since it's the same pool of money.
First: In most cases when you inherit stocks the cost basis is stepped up to the date of the death of the person you inherited them from. So the capital gain/loss is likely reset to zero. The rules vary a bit for joint accounts, but retirement accounts (401k/ROTH) are considered individual accounts by the IRS. The rules on this have changed a lot in recent history, so it may depend on when he died. Update: As JoeTaxpayer pointed out and I confirmed via this site , the gains are NOT stepped up for retirement accounts, so this is a moot point anyway.  Further evidence that retirement accounts can be complicated and seeking professional guidance is a good idea. ...[T]here is no step-up in cost basis   upon the death of the IRA owner. Most   other assets owned by an individual   receive a step-up in cost basis upon   the death of the person, eliminating   all capital gains on those assets up   to that point in time. Second:  Even if you can deduct an investment (capital) loss, you can only deduct it to offset capital gains on another investments. Also you can only do this up to $3k per year, though you can roll over excess capital losses into future years. Bottom line: I really doubt you are going to be able to claim a deduction. However, due to the complexity of the situation and the amount of money involved. I strongly suggest you talk to a qualified tax adviser and not rely solely on information you gather through this site.