vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The carry forward refers to the ""annual allowance"", which is a limit on the total pension contributions you can make and still get any tax relief at all.  However, the tax relief itself only applies to the year you make the contribution, and you can't carry the contribution itself back or forward to get relief at a higher marginal rate. So, in scenario (1) you get £2K relief and your provider gets £2K relief. But the actual contribution you should make to your provider is £8K. They'll add in the £2K to make a £10K gross contribution, and then you'll claim back the £2K leaving you having contributed £6K net for the £10K gross contribution. The mechanism whereby the pension provider claims back the £2K is called ""relief at source"". For scenario (2) you'll only get basic rate tax relief on the second £10K, because you'll have already reduced your gross income for the year below the higher-rate threshold with the first £10K. If you managed to make pension contributions in excess of the annual allowance even considering carry-forward, then you'd get no tax relief at all on those contributions. Given that the pension would also get taxed when paid, this is not a good deal and people generally avoid exceeding that limit. For (3) I'm not entirely certain, but I think you can carry forward in the circumstances you describe. I think the principle is simply that you could have paid into a pension scheme. In practice I also don't think HMRC will be worrying too much about this precise detail even if they have the opposite interpretation - it'd be a lot of work to check for not much gain."
Look at your options with a 529 program. If the money is used for education expenses: that currently includes tuition, room & board (even if living off campus), books, transportation; it grows tax free. Earnings are not subject to federal tax and generally not subject to   state tax when used for the qualified education expenses of the   designated beneficiary, such as tuition, fees, books, as well as room   and board. Contributions to a 529 plan, however, are not deductible. If it is a 529 associated with your state you can also save on state taxes. You can make contributions on a regular basis, or ad hoc. Accounts can even be setup by other relatives. I have used a 529 to fund two kids education. It takes care of most of your education expenses.  529 programs are available from most states, and even some of the big mutual fund companies. Many have the option of shifting the risk level of the investments to be more conservative as the kids hit high school.  Some states have an option to have you pay  a large sum when the child is small to buy semesters of college. The deal is worth considering if you know they will be going to a state school, the deal is less good if they will go out of state or to a private college.  The IRS does limit the maximum amount that you can contribute in a year an amount that exceeds the 14,000 annual gift limit: If in 2014, you contributed more than $14,000 to a Qualified Tuition   Plan (QTP) on behalf of any one person, you may elect to treat up to   $70,000 of the contribution for that person as if you had made it   ratably over a 5-year period. The election allows you to apply the   annual exclusion to a portion of the contribution in each of the 5   years, beginning in 2014. You can make this election for as many   separate people as you made QTP contributions One option at the end is to take any extra money at graduation and give it to the child so that it can be used for graduate school, or if the taxes and penalties are paid it can be used for that first car. It can even be rolled over to another relative.
"Yes, you can withdraw the excess contribution (or actually any amount you contributed for 2015, not necessarily an excess), plus earnings from that withdrawn contribution, by April 15, and not incur a penalty for the excess contribution. It would count as if you did not contribute that amount at all. The earnings would be taxed as regular income, and the earnings may incur a penalty. Yes, you can ""recharacterize"" (all or part of) your Roth IRA contribution as a Traditional IRA contribution (or vice versa) by April 15. Recharacterization means you pretend the contribution was originally made as a Traditional IRA contribution, and did not involve Roth IRA at all. (""Conversion"" is something very different and can only go from Traditional to Roth, not the other way around.) You are likely not eligible to deduct that Traditional IRA contribution, so you will have to report it as a non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution on a 2015 Form 8606 Part 1. Note that after you've recharacterized it as a Traditional IRA contribution, you can also then ""convert"" that Traditional IRA money to a Roth IRA if you want, achieving the same state as what you have now. Contributing to a Traditional IRA and then converting to a Roth IRA is called a ""backdoor Roth IRA contribution""; if you don't have any existing pre-tax money in Traditional IRA or other IRAs, then this achieves the same as a regular Roth IRA contribution except with no income limits. When you convert, the earnings you have made since contributing will be taxed as income. If you had done the backdoor originally to begin with (convert right after contributing), you would have had no earnings in between and no tax to pay, but since if you do the conversion now you have waited so long, you are disadvantaged by having to pay tax on the earnings in between. If you convert, you will have to fill out Form 8606 Part 2 for the year you convert (2016)."
First, note that if you merely have a 401(k) account but neither you nor your employer contributes to it during the year, then that doesn't prevent you from deducting Traditional IRA contributions for that year, so basically you can contribute to one or the other; so if you only want to contribute below the IRA contribution limit, and don't need the bigger 401(k) contribution limit, and the IRA's investment options are more attractive to you than your 401(k)'s, then it might make sense for you to contribute to only Traditional IRA. If you or your employer is already contributing to your 401(k) during the year, then you cannot deduct your Traditional IRA contributions unless your income is very low, and if your income is really that low, you are in such a low tax bracket that Roth IRA may be more advantageous for you. If you make a Traditional IRA contribution but cannot deduct it, it is a non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution, i.e. it becomes after-tax money in a Traditional IRA, which as I showed in the section above has much worse tax situation in the long run because its earnings are pre-tax and thus taxed again. However, there is one good use for non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions, and that is as one step in a ""backdoor Roth IRA contribution"". Basically, there is an income limit for being able to make Roth IRA contributions, but there is no income limit for being able to make Traditional IRA contributions or for being able to convert money from Traditional IRA to Roth IRA. So what you can do is make a (non-deductible) Traditional IRA contribution, and then immediately convert it to Roth IRA, and if you did not previously have any pre-tax money in Traditional IRAs, this achieves the same as a regular Roth IRA contribution, with the same tax treatment, but you can do it at any income level."
You need an accountant and/or a lawyer who is familiar with the US tax code and the rules in South Korea (assuming from your tag). As the interest will be money generated in the US, you could be required to withhold some of the interest and remit it to the IRS (I believe 30% withholding rate). Since South Korea is a treaty country, your friend can complete and sign a form W8-BEN and give it to you, so you may withhold a lower amount. Your friend would need to file a return if too much was withheld. They may also get taxed in South Korea. There are probably rules in South Korea about minimum interest that must be charged, similar to Applicable Federal Rates for the US, so check with your accountant or lawyer for this. If you craft it correctly, you will be able to have a loan as a mortgage (with the house properly secured), which then would allow you to deduct mortgage interest rates from your return. As far as I am aware, there is no maximum amount for loans.
In Australia anyone thinking about retirement should be concentrating on superannuation. Contribution is compulsory (I think the current minimum contribution rate is 9.5% of salary) and both contributions and investment returns are very tax efficient. The Government site is quite comprehensive - http://www.australia.gov.au/topics/economy-money-and-tax/superannuation - have a read and come back with any specific questions.
Once you declare the amount, the CBP officials will ask you the source and purpose of funds. You must be able to demonstrate that the source of funds is legitimate and not the proceeds of crime and it is not for the purposes of financing terrorism. Once they have determined that the source and purpose is legitimate, they will take you to a private room where two officers will count and validate the amount (as it is a large amount); and then return the currency to you. For nominal amounts they count it at the CBP officer's inspection desk. Once they have done that, you are free to go on your way. The rule (for the US) is any currency or monetary instrument that is above the equivalent of 10,000 USD. So this will also apply if you are carrying a combination of GBP, EUR and USD that totals to more than $10,000.
With the same $1000 pre-tax contribution (so after 25% tax it's a $750 after-tax contribution) to a Roth IRA, growing at the same 5% for 10 years, and no tax at withdrawal, we are left with $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67. You can see they are equivalent even though the nominal amount of tax is different (the lower amount of tax paid now is equivalent to the bigger amount of tax later). With a taxable investment which you will not buy and sell until you take it out, you contribute with after-tax money, and when you take it out, the ""earnings"" portion is subject to capital-gains tax. But remember that the principal + earnings later is equivalent to the principal now, which is already all taxed once, and if we tax the ""earnings"" portion later, that is effectively taxing a portion of the money again. Another way to look at it is the contribution is just like the Roth IRA, but the withdrawal is worse because you have to pay capital-gains tax instead of no tax. You can take the same numbers as for the Roth IRA, $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67, but where the $1221.67 - $750 = $471.67 is ""earnings"" and is taxed again at, say, a 15% capital-gains rate, so you lose another $70.75 in tax and are left with $1150.92. You would need a capital-gains tax rate of 0% to match the advantage of the pre-tax Traditional IRA or Roth IRA. After-tax money in Traditional IRA has a similar problem -- the contribution is after tax, but after it grows into principal + earnings, the ""earnings"" part is taxed again, except it is worse than the capital-gains case because it is taxed as regular income. Like above, you can take the same numbers as for the Roth IRA, $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67, but where the $471.67 ""earnings"" is taxed again at 25%, so you lose another $117.92 in tax and are left with $1103.75.
The HSA money is yours to keep. You can't add new money into the account and get a tax deduction for the new money, but you can spend the old money on medical expenses. First log into the website for the HSA and see if you have money left. This can be important because if there is still money left they might be charging you a monthly fee. You should have gotten a letter from the old company or the administrator when you left the High deductible insurance plan. This would have told you your options regarding the spending or transferring of old funds. HSA related numbers would have appeared on your W2, and you should have a 1099-SA from the administrator. It is likely that there is a copy of the 1099 on the administrators website. The numbers you enter on the tax forms depends on how much you contributed from your paycheck, how much your company contributed, and how much you sent (if any) from other sources besides payroll deduction. You will also have to know how much money was withdrawn from the HSA and how much was used for medical purposes. The last month rule is for those people who start in the middle of the year. If you start partway through the year you are allowed to make the maximum contribution if you still have it at the end of the year, and you expect to keep it. The Last Month Rule The Last Month Rule states that if you are covered by an HSA eligible health plan on the first day of the last month of a given year, you are considered an eligible individual for the entire year. In turn, you can then contribute to the HSA for that full year. If you are covered by an HDHP on Dec 1st of a given year, you may contribute the maximum for that year. For example, you could begin coverage and open up my HSA in November of a given year. Come December 1st, you are covered and per the Last Month Rule, considered an eligible employee for that full year. That allows you to contribute up to that year’s contribution limit, even waiting a few months to make a prior year contribution if you like. Back up the truck and load up the HSA! However, there is a catch.
A USD bank draft from any of the major Canadian banks is a good solution. They clear quickly in the U.S. I use them frequently and have never had a problem depositing them in a U.S. bank account.  If you carry more than $10k across the border, even as a cheque, be sure to declare it.
Its easier than that: employer matching contributions are  always pre-tax. While your contribution is split between the pre-tax and the Roth post-tax parts, matching contributions are always pre-tax. Quote from the regulations I linked to: For example, matching contributions are not permitted to be allocated to a designated Roth account. So the tax you pay is only on the Roth portion of your contribution. One of the reasons for that is the complexity you're talking about, but not only. Matching is not always vested, and it would be hard to determine what portion to tax and at what rate if matching would be allowed to go to Roth.
If she were earning more than you, would you cut your hours and stay at home? Trick question, as it happens; regardless of your answer to that question, you're still at the same point: both of you are doing the thing you're best suited for (or, the thing you prefer). You're both supporting the family, just in different ways, and suggesting that your contribution is more valuable than hers is a great way to head down the road to divorce: it's also just plain incorrect. My wife and I are in almost the identical situation - 2 kids, she works part time in the biological sciences while spending plenty of time with the kids, I'm a programmer outearning her significantly - and I can tell you that I'd more than happily switch roles if she were the bread earner, and would feel just as satisfied if not more doing so. And, I can imagine myself in that position, so I can also imagine how I'd feel in that position as far as how I value my contribution."
"A warrant is similar to a call option (the right to buy stock at a certain price), with the difference that warrants are filled by the issuing company with new shares, diluting the existing shareholders' ownership. The language is a bit confusing, but how I interpret it is: So your 9,000 shares will get you 3,000 shares and 3,000 warrants (the right to buy shares at a maximum price of 0.27 between April 2, 2018 and April 30, 2018.   I think the phrase ""The subscription price is SEK 0.27 per Unit"" means that you can buy each unit for 0.27 SKE (which gets you one share and one option to buy another share."
Is there anything here I should be deathly concerned about? I don't see anything you should be deathly concerned about unless your career outlook is very poor and you are making minimum wage. If that is the case you may struggle for the next 10 years. Are these rates considered super high or manageable? The rates for the federal loans are around twice as high as your private loans but that is the going rate and there is nothing you can do about it now. 6.5% isn't bad on what is essentially a personal loan. 2-3% are very manageable assuming you pay them and don't let the interest build up.  What is a good mode of attack here? I am by no means a financial adviser and don't know the rest of your financial situation, but the most general advice I can give you is pay down your highest interest rate loans first and always try to pay more than the minimum. In your case, I would put as much as you reasonably can towards the federal loans because that will save you money in the long run. What are the main takeaways I should understand about these loans? The main takeaway is that these are student loans and they cannot be discharged if you were to ever declare bankruptcy. Pay them off but don't be too concerned about them. If you do apply for loans in the future, most lenders won't be too concerned about student loans assuming you are paying them on time and especially if you are paying more than the minimum payment.  What are the payoff dates for the other loans? The payoff dates for the other loans are a little hard to easily calculate, but it appears they all have different payoff dates between 8 and 12 years from now. This part might be easier for someone who is better at financial calculations than me. Why do my Citi loans have a higher balance than the original payoff amounts? Your citi loans have a higher balance probably because you have not payed anything towards them yet so the interest has been accruing since you got them.
If the company that owns the lot is selling them it is doing so because it feels it will make more money doing so.  You need to read carefully what it is you are getting and what the guarantees are from the owner of the property and the parking structure.  I have heard from friends in Chicago that said there are people who will sell spaces they do not own as a scam.  There are also companies that declare bankruptcy and go out of business after signing long term leases for their spots.  They sell the lot to another company(which they have an interest in) and all the leases that they sold are now void so they can resell the spots.  Because of this if I were going to invest in a parking space, I would make sure: The company making the offer is reputable and solvent Check for plans for major construction/demolition nearby that would impact your short and long term prospects for rent. Full time Rental would Recoup my investment in less than 5 years.  Preferably 3 years.  The risk on this is too high for me with out that kind of return.
Theoretically there is limited demand for risky investments, so higher-risk asset classes should outperform lower-risk asset classes over sufficiently long time periods. In practice, I believe this is true, but it could be several decades before a risky portfolio starts to outperform a more conservative one. Stocks are considered more risky than most assets. Small-cap stocks and emerging market stocks are particularly high-risk. I would consider low-fee ETFs in these areas, like VB or VWO. If you want to seek out the absolute riskiest investments, you could pick individual stocks of companies in dire financial situations, as Bank of America was a couple years ago. Most importantly, if you don't expect to need the money soon, I would maximize your contribution to tax-advantaged accounts since they will grow exponentially faster than taxable accounts. Over 50 years, a 401(k) or IRA will generally grow at least 50% more than a taxable account, maybe more depending on the tax-efficiency of your investments. Try to contribute the maximum ($17,500 for most people in 2014) if you can. If you can save more than that, I'd suggest contributing a Roth 401k rather than a traditional 401(k) - since Roth contributions are post-tax, the effective contribution limit is higher. Also contribute to a Roth IRA (up to $5,500 in 2014), using a backdoor Roth if necessary.
Fair point.  I think malpractice insurance is more to protect the patient than the doctor, even though the doctor pays the premiums   The government requires it so they can't kill or injury a patient and then just declare bankruptcy without paying damages.  If claims were allowed for negligence that insurer would be creating what's known as a moral hazard issue and there would essentially be nothing stopping corporations/executives from constantly screwing over the public.  That insurer would be bankrupt in no time.
The $5500 pre-tax contribution is equivalent to only $5500 * 0.75 = $4125 after-tax, i.e. you are only short $4125 from your bank account at the end of the year after making a $5500 deductible contribution, whereas you are short $5500 after making a $5500 non-deductible contribution, so it's not a fair comparison. The non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions are not taxed when withdrawn (though the earnings earned from those contributions are still taxed), so that's why you are left with a greater amount. This is a similar situation to what happens when you try to compare a $5500 deductible Traditional IRA contribution to a $5500 Roth IRA contribution -- it will look like the Roth IRA case leaves you with much more money, but that's again because you are effectively contributing more money, because the Roth IRA contribution is after-tax, so it's not a fair comparison. (The Roth IRA case will produce a much greater ""advantage"" than the non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution case, because for a Roth IRA, both the contributions and earnings will not be taxed at withdrawal.)"
I believe that it's not possible for the public to know what shares are being exchanged as shorts because broker-dealers (not the exchanges) handle the shorting arrangements.  I don't think exchanges can even tell the difference between a person selling a share that belongs to her vs. a share that she's just borrowing.  (There are SEC regulations requiring some traders to declare that trades are shorts, but (a) I don't think this applies to all traders, (b) it only applies to the sells, and (c) this information isn't public.) That being said, you can view the short interest in a symbol using any of a number of tools, such as Nasdaq's here.  This is often cited as an indicator similar to what you proposed, though I don't know how helpful it would be from an intra-day perspective.
Well, I know why the Rabobank in the Netherlands does it. I can go back around one year and a half with my internet banking. But I can only go further back (upto 7 years) after contacting the bank and paying €5,- per transcript (one transcript holds around a month of activities).  I needed a year worth of transcripts for my taxes and had to cough up more than €50. EDIT It seems they recently changed their policy in a way that you can request as many transcripts as you like for a maximum cost of €25,- so the trend to easier access is visible.