vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I remember reading in an earlier version of Pub 590 (or possibly the Instructions for Form 8606) that timely contributions for Year X to an IRA are deemed to have been made on January 1 of Year X regardless of when they were actually made, but I don't seem to be able to find it now in current versions of Pubs 590a or 590b and so cannot include a citation of chapter and verse. Be that as it may, the calculations on on Form 8606 Part I effectively track basis on an annual basis rather than on a daily basis, and so the fact that the Traditional IRA has a zero balance (and basis 0 too) at some time during the year doesn't matter in the least.  In detail (though you didn't ask for it) Note that the whole $6500 that you put in remains non-deductible in its entirety, but you owe taxes on only $93,900 of that $100K that you rolled over into a Roth IRA and not on the whole $100K as you were assuming would have been the case. So, in effect, of that $6500 nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, you did really get to deduct $6100 from your taxable income for 2016, and make only a $400 nondeductible contribution, exactly equal to your basis in your Traditional IRA as per the Form 8606 calculations.  I can only assume that the software package that you are using reproduces the above calculations exactly and does what the IRS says you must do on Form 8606 rather than what you get by tracking the basis on a daily basis. IRS regulations and instructions are not necessarily the same as what the tax law says; they are interpretations of the tax law based on what the IRS understands the tax law to say. People have challenged various specific IRS regulations and interpretations as being different from what the law says in Tax Court and been successful in some cases and failed in others. If you believe that tracking basis on a daily basis is what the law says (instead of just being reasonable and rational: reasonableness and rationality are not required either of Congress in the laws that they write or the IRS regulations that interpret the laws), you should take up the matter with the IRS or the Tax Court.
"Yes, it is possible to withdraw money from your Roth IRA before retirement (but I wouldn't necessarily advise you to do so.)  Here's the good news, and the bad news: The good news: Unlike a traditional IRA, money contributed to a Roth IRA is done so on an after-tax basis, meaning you don't benefit from a tax deduction on contributions. So, the money you withdraw from your Roth IRA will not be taxed entirely as ordinary income. In fact, you are allowed to withdraw the amount of your original contributions (also known as basis) without any taxes or penalties. Let's imagine you originally deposited $9000 of that current $10K total value – then in such a case, $9000 could be withdrawn tax and penalty free. The bad news: When it comes to the investment earnings – the other $1000 in my example –  it's a different story:  Since you wouldn't be age 59 1/2 at the time of withdrawal, any money taken out beyond your original contributions would be considered a non-qualified withdrawal and subject to both ordinary income taxes plus a 10% early withdrawal penalty.  Ouch! Perhaps you might want to restrict your withdrawal to your original contributions.  I would imagine if you've had the account for such a short period of time that much or all of your account value is original contributions anyway. A good article about the rules for early IRA withdrawals is About.com's Tax Penalty for Early Distribution of Retirement Funds. Note: If your Roth IRA funds were the result of a rollover from another account type, other rules may apply. See Roth IRA (Wikipedia) for more detail; search for ""rollover"". Regarding the withdrawal process itself and the timing, you should check with your account custodian on how to proceed."
No. There is no asset associated with your short position, so there's nothing to gift. The short position in the stock is purely a liability. When you note that you have a profit in the position, what you mean is that the cash you made when you shorted the stock is more than enough to cover the short position. The only asset in this picture, then, is the cash you made when you entered the short position.
Conversions are done on a pro-rata basis.  If you haven't yet paid tax on the money, you need to do so in the process of converting. Let's say you have a total of $50k in your account: If you decide to convert half of this to a Roth ($25k), you'd owe tax on $20k of that, because 80% of your holdings in the traditional IRA have not been taxed yet.  The non-deductible contributions have been taxed, so you don't need to pay tax again on that part. More information is here.
As long as you, or rather, your wife, qualifies for a deposit, the source doesn't matter. As an example, if my child makes more than $5500, and I'd like to help her with her IRA, I can gift her the money for the deposit. The actual funds don't need to be from her income.
If the portfolio itself is taxable, then yes; if you have two stocks and you're rebalancing them, without using new cash, you are forced to sell one stock to buy another. That sale is taxable, unless you're in some sort of tax deferred/deductible account, such as an IRA.   If you're talking about you being in a mutual fund and the fund itself rebalances, the same rules apply as above, though indirectly; you'll have capital gains realized and distributed to you, those gains will be taxed unless, again, your account is a retirement account.
From an India gift-tax point of view, you can receive unlimited funds from close relatives. So if you are getting this from your Father's Brother or Mother's Brother; then it is not taxable. It is a good idea to document this if the amount is large. It serves as record for future. This can be a simple piece of paper or something that's type on Notarized document.
"1) Indeed, if referring to a Roth as the question is, you are right on. But - You can deposit to an Traditional IRA (TIRA). You just can't deduct it. You are then permitted to convert that to a Roth any time. Now, this would appear to negate income issues, right? Not so fast. When you convert, all TIRA accounts must be considered. In other words, when it comes to the TIRA, you only have One TIRA, the ""A"" actually standing for Arrangement, not account. That TIRA may then be spread over as many accounts as you have time to set up. So, if there is any pretax money and/or untaxed gain, it will be prorated and taxed based on your conversion amount. If any of this is not 110% clear, please comment and I will update the answer.  No 401(k) at work?  Note: I edited as my original wording misunderstood the response, and in turn, appeared a bit unkind. Not my intention."
"Earned income is what your software is doing, so it is taxable.  So you can't really make it tax exempt. You can form a business and claim the revenues from that business as income and deduct expenses it costs you to earn that revenue.  If you buy a server to run your software, then that is an acceptable expense to deduct from your revenues.  Others can be more questionable and the best thing to do is to consult a CPA.   If you are still in the testing stage and the revenues will be small then it should not matter.  Worry about the important things, not if you paid the IRS a few hundred to much. Are you in a state/country that allows online gambling?  In most states here in the US you are operating on shaky legal ground.  Before ""Black Friday"" I used to earn a nice part-time income playing online poker."
Tax is payable on one's income in India. All funds are not necessarily income as long as they can be proven not to be an income, for instance a interest free loan & return of its capital. Otherwise, yes the fund can be considered to be income. In your case, from a practical purpose, the 200-300 Rs. transfers per month, if you get audited by IT Dept., perhaps would be discretionary considered to be non-income by the auditing office. Again, from a practical perspective, if Indian IT dept. ever audits you, it perhaps will be for a much larger liability and 200-300 Rs. transfer per month may not matter much.
"You must have $x of taxable income that year in order to make a contribution of $x to IRA for that year. It doesn't matter where the actual ""money"" that you contribute comes from -- for tax purposes, all that matters is the total amount of taxable income and the total amount of contributions; how you move your money around or divide it up is irrelevant."
I must say that this is a question that you should hire a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to answer. It is way above our amateurs' pay-grade. That said, I'll tell you what I personally think on the issue. I'm not a licensed tax adviser, and nothing that I write here can be used in any way as a justification for any action. Read the full disclaimer in my profile. I believe you're right to treat those as assets. You bought them as an investment, and you intend to sell them for profit. Here the good news for you end. As we decided to define the domains as an asset, we need to decide what type of asset it is. I believe you're holding a Sec. 197 asset. This is because domain is essentially akin to franchise and trademark, and as such falls under the Sec. 197 definition. That means that your amortization period is 15 years. Your expenses related to these domains should also be amortized, on the same schedule. When you sell a domain, you can deduct the portion that you have not yet deducted from the amortization schedule from your proceeds. Keep in mind passive loss limitations, since losses from assets held as investment cannot offset Schedule C income.
There can be Federal estate tax as well as State estate tax due on an estate, but it is not of direct concern to you. Estate taxes are paid by the estate of the decedent, not by the beneficiaries, and so you do not owe any estate tax. As a matter of fact, most estates in the US do not pay Federal estate tax at all because only the amount that exceeds the Federal exemption ($5.5M) is taxable, and most estates are smaller. State estate taxes might be a different matter because while many states exempt exactly what the Federal Government does, others exempt different (usually smaller) amounts. But in any case, estate taxes are not of concern to you except insofar as what you inherit is reduced because the estate had to pay estate tax before distributing the inheritances. As JoeTaxpayer's answer says more succinctly, what you inherit is net of estate tax, if any. What you receive as an inheritance is not taxable income to you either. If you receive stock shares or other property, your basis is the value of the property when you inherit it. Thus, if you sell at a later time, you will have to pay taxes only on the increase in the value of the property from the time you inherit it. The increase in value from the time the decedent acquired the property till the date of death is not taxable income to you. Exceptions to all these favorable rules to you is the treatment of Traditional IRAs, 401ks, pension plans etc that you inherit that contain money on which the decedent never paid income tax. Distributions from such inherited accounts are (mostly) taxable income to you; any part of post-tax money such as nondeductible contributions to Traditional IRAs that is included in the distribution is tax-free. Annuities present another source of complications. For annuities within IRAs, even the IRS throws up its hands at explaining things to mere mortals who are foolhardy enough to delve into Pub 950, saying in effect, talk to your tax advisor.
Edited in response to JoeTaxpayer's comment and OP Tim's additional question. To add to and clarify a little what littleadv has said, and to answer OP Tim's next question: As far as the IRS is concerned, you have at most one Individual Retirement Account of each type (Traditional, Roth) though the money in each IRA can be invested with as many different custodians (brokerages, banks, etc.) and different investments as you like. Thus, the maximum $5000 ($6000 for older folks) that you can contribute each year can be split up and invested any which way you like, and when in later years you take a Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) from a Traditional IRA, you can get the money by selling just one of the investments, or from several investments; all that the IRS cares is that the total amount that is distributed to you is at least as large as the RMD. An important corollary is that the balance in your IRA is the sum total of the value of all the investments that various custodians are holding for you in IRA accounts. There is no loss in an IRA until every penny has been withdrawn from every investment in your IRA and distributed to you, thus making your IRA balance zero. As long as you have a positive balance, there is no loss: everything has to come out. After the last distribution from your Roth IRA (the one that empties your entire Roth IRA, no matter where it is invested and reduces your Roth IRA balance (see definition above) to zero), total up all the amounts that you have received as distributions from your Roth IRA. If this is less than the total amount of money you contributed to your Roth IRA (this includes rollovers from a Traditional IRA or Roth 401k etc., but not the earnings within the Roth IRA that you re-invested inside the Roth IRA), you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous Deduction subject to the 2% AGI limit. This 2% is not a cap (in the sense that no more than 2% of your AGI can be deducted in this category) but rather a threshold: you can only deduct whatever part of your total Miscellaneous Deductions exceeds 2% of your AGI.
On a personal income tax return home improvements are generally not deductible on a federal level.  There might be some exceptions made for special tax programs, such as solar panels, but they tend to be the exception rather than the rule.
However, you can withdraw some or all of your excess contributions for 2013 and they will be treated as if they had not been contributed if: You make the withdrawal by the due date, including extensions, of your 2013 tax return (but see the Note under Excess Employer Contributions, later), You do not claim a deduction for the amount of the withdrawn contributions, and You also withdraw any income earned on the withdrawn contributions and include the earnings in “Other income” on your tax return for the year you withdraw the contributions and earnings. Excess Employer Contributions Excess employer contributions are the excess, if any, of your employer's contributions over your limitation on line 8. If you made a qualified HSA funding distribution (line 10) during the tax year, reduce your limitation (line 8) by that distribution before you determine whether you have excess employer contributions. If the excess was not included in income on Form W-2, you must report it as “Other income” on your tax return. However, you can withdraw some or all of the excess employer contributions for 2013 and they will be treated as if they had not been contributed if: You make the withdrawal by the due date, including extensions, of your 2013 tax return (but see the following Note), You do not claim an exclusion from income for the amount of the withdrawn contributions, and You also withdraw any income earned on the withdrawn contributions and include the earnings in “Other income” on your tax return for the year you withdraw the contributions and earnings. There are further instructions on what to do if you don't take care of this until a future year, but it is much better and easier if you take care of this before the end of this year, and handle it correctly on your tax return. I believe that this is how it will all work; however, you'll want to confirm all of this with someone who knows what they are talking about and can look at your individual situation. Hopefully, this answer gives you enough information to be able to ask the right questions."
When you eventually withdraw, you don't pay tax on any distributions that are attributable to those nondeductible contributions (because you already paid tax on that part). There are other cases where basis of your account matters, but that's a whole question in itself - It's enough for now to understand 1. Basis in your IRA as a whole is a well-defined concept with tax implications, and 2. Basis in individual holdings within your account don't matter. So with the brokerage-IRA wash sale, there are two questions: 1. Can you take the capital loss on the brokerage side? 2. If no because of the wash sale, does this increase the basis of your IRA account (as a whole)? The answer to both is ""no,"" although the reason is not obvious. The IRS actually put out a Special Bulletin to answer the question specifically because it was unclear in the law. Bottom line for 9-10 is that you apparently are losing your tax deduction completely in that case. In addition, if you were counting on an increase in the basis of your IRA to avoid early distribution penalties, you don't get that either, which will result in yet more tax if you actually take the early distribution. In addition to the Special Bulletin noted above, Publication 550, which talks about wash sale rules for individuals, may also help some."
Those choices aren't mutually exclusive.  Yes, most discussion of the mortgage interest deduction ignores the fact that for a standard itemizer, much, if not all of this deduction can be lost.  For 2011, the std deduction for a single is $5,800. It's not just mortgage interest that's deductible, state income tax, realestate tax, and charitable contributions are among the other deductions. If this house is worth $350K, the property tax is about $5K, and since it's not optional, I'd be inclined to assume that it's the deduction that offsets the std deduction. Most states have an income tax, which tops off the rest. You are welcome to toss this aside as sophistry, but I view it as these other deductions as 'lost' first.  I'm married, and our property tax is more than our standard deduction, so when doing the math, the mortgage is fully deductible, as are our contributions.  In your case, the numbers may play out differently. No state tax? Great, so it's the property tax and deductions you'd add up first and decide on the value the mortgage deduction brings.  Last, I don't have my mortgage for the deduction, I just believe that long term my other investments will exceed, after tax, the cost of that mortgage.
Tax obligation for your parents: NIL The transfer would come under the Gift Tax act. There is no limit on the amount for near relatives. So you can send unlimited amount to your parents and this would not be taxable. However if you parents invest this in FD, Interest on savings, etc ... this income would be taxable.   Nope there is no tax exemption for you on this amount.
"Is this legal? Why not? But you might have trouble deducting losses on your taxes, especially if you sell to someone related to you in some way (which is indeed what you're doing). See the added portion below regarding dealing with ""related person"" (which a sibling is). The state of Maryland has a transfer/recordation tax of 1.5% for each, the buyer and seller. Would this be computed on the appraised or sale value? You should check with the State. In California property taxes are assessed based on sale value, but if the sale value is bogus the assessors have the right to recalculate. Since you're selling to family, the assessors will likely to intervene and set a more close to ""fair market"" value on the transaction, but again - check the local law. Will this pose any problem if the buyer needs financing? Likely, banks will be suspicious.Since you're giving a discount to your sibling, it will likely not cause a problem for financing. If it was an unrelated person getting such a discount, it would likely to have raised some questions. Would I be able to deduct a capital loss on my tax return? As I said - it may be a problem. If the transaction is between related people - likely not. Otherwise - not sure. Check with a professional tax adviser (EA or CPA licensed in Maryland). You mentioned in the comment that the buyer is a sibling. IRS Publication 544 has a list of what is considered ""related person"", and that includes siblings. So the short answer is NO, you will not be able to deduct the loss. The tax treatment is not trivial in this case, and I suggest to have a professional tax adviser guide you on how to proceed. Here's the definition of ""related person"" from the IRS pub. 544: Members of a family, including only brothers, sisters, half-brothers, half-sisters, spouse, ancestors (parents, grandparents, etc.), and lineal descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.).
Your question doesn't make much sense. The exceptions are very specific and are listed on this site (IRS.GOV). I can't see how you can use any of the exceptions regularly while still continuing being employed and contributing. In any case, you pay income tax on any distribution that has not been taxed before (which would be a Roth account or a non-deductible IRA contribution). Including the employer's match. Here's the relevant portion: The following additional exceptions apply only to distributions from a   qualified retirement plan other than an IRA:
No, given the circumstances, no tax due.  The fact that the wife wants cash makes my next comment moot, but for others - An IRA in either flavor belongs to the individual and cannot be gifted as such. But. Under a QDRO, a Qualified domestic relations order, the account may be transferred as an IRA. For a spouse who doesn't need immediate access and would prefer the gross amount and continued growth, this might be preferable to getting the cash. For a pretax IRA, cashing out the whole account can be costly compared to the partial distributions each year.
You can deduct retirement contributions (above the line even), but not as a business expense. So you can't avoid the SE taxes, sorry.
If you're current employer who is running the 401k says no you can't. You may be able to get a loan against those assets, that's more common. However, this post will be down voted to oblivion because you want r/personalfinance . This isn't the sub for this question.