|
#4
| |||
| |||
| David Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU wrote: - quote - > Well I think your application of the law is correct. The
Nada! I searched.> only possibility I see other than the ones you pointed out, > is look for any authority on exceptions to the 12 month > rule. There is authority for exception to the 60 day rule > for reasonable cause, maybe there is something on the 12 > month rule. -- Alan http://taxtopics.net << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#3
| |||
| |||
| "A.G. Kalman" <glendale202-mtm[at]yahoo.com> wrote: - quote - > I need confirmation that I am interpreting the rules and
Well I think your application of the law is correct. The> process for rollovers (not trustee to trustee transfers) > from a traditional IRA to another traditional IRA. > An elderly couple both in their late 60s removed the wife's > funds from Bank A IRA in Dec. 2003, and deposited them into > Bank B IRA in the same month. The funds in Bank B IRA were > invested in a 6 month time deposit. When the CD matured in > June 2004 they removed the funds and deposited them the same > day into Bank C IRA who was offering a better rate. The > customer representative in Bank C told them it was okay > because the first rollover had occurred in 2003 and this > rollover was occurring in 2004. Their income is normally > below the filing threshold. However, the amount of the Dec. > 2003 distribution was considerable and was coded as a normal > distribution. > They had not filed a tax return for 2003. I informed them > that the 2003 distribution needed to be accounted for on a > tax return as a nontaxable rollover and I would prepare the > return. (I bet all you Californians are saying "They > probably got a notice from the CA FTB asking why they hadn't > filed! You're right!) I then informed them that the > distribution in June 2004 violated the 12 month rollover > rule and is fully taxable in 2004 as a normal IRA > distribution. I also informed them that the amount that was > now sitting in Bank C IRA was an excess contribution and > unless they removed it with the earnings, it would be > subject to the annual 6% excise tax. > Did I get this right? > I also don't believe that there is any way to retroactively > change the tax situation. I'm thinking that their only > recourse is to try to get Bank C to make them whole or to > take Bank C to court as they relied upon the erroneous > advice of the bank's representative. only possibility I see other than the ones you pointed out, is look for any authority on exceptions to the 12 month rule. There is authority for exception to the 60 day rule for reasonable cause, maybe there is something on the 12 month rule. -- David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU Woods Financial Services Norwood, MA 02062 www.woods-financial.com << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
| A.G. Kalman wrote: - quote - > I need confirmation that I am interpreting the rules and
Right on the button, Alan. And the 6% if not withdrawn by> process for rollovers (not trustee to trustee transfers) > from a traditional IRA to another traditional IRA. > An elderly couple both in their late 60s removed the wife's > funds from Bank A IRA in Dec. 2003, and deposited them into > Bank B IRA in the same month. The funds in Bank B IRA were > invested in a 6 month time deposit. When the CD matured in > June 2004 they removed the funds and deposited them the same > day into Bank C IRA who was offering a better rate. The > customer representative in Bank C told them it was okay > because the first rollover had occurred in 2003 and this > rollover was occurring in 2004. Their income is normally > below the filing threshold. However, the amount of the Dec. > 2003 distribution was considerable and was coded as a normal > distribution. > They had not filed a tax return for 2003. I informed them > that the 2003 distribution needed to be accounted for on a > tax return as a nontaxable rollover and I would prepare the > return. (I bet all you Californians are saying "They > probably got a notice from the CA FTB asking why they hadn't > filed! You're right!) I then informed them that the > distribution in June 2004 violated the 12 month rollover > rule and is fully taxable in 2004 as a normal IRA > distribution. I also informed them that the amount that was > now sitting in Bank C IRA was an excess contribution and > unless they removed it with the earnings, it would be > subject to the annual 6% excise tax. > Did I get this right? due date of return. - quote - > I also don't believe that there is any way to retroactively
Suing the bank is a long shot, don't you think? And how> change the tax situation. I'm thinking that their only > recourse is to try to get Bank C to make them whole or to > take Bank C to court as they relied upon the erroneous > advice of the bank's representative. could Bank C "make them whole"? by paying "their" tax? When presenting a case to Bank C however, point out that the rule is not a second distribution in the NEXT year, but a full 12 months AFTER the first. ChEAr$, Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
| "A.G. Kalman" <glendale202-mtm[at]yahoo.com> wrote: - quote - > I need confirmation that I am interpreting the rules and
You got it right. They blew their IRA. Good luck going> process for rollovers (not trustee to trustee transfers) > from a traditional IRA to another traditional IRA. > An elderly couple both in their late 60s removed the wife's > funds from Bank A IRA in Dec. 2003, and deposited them into > Bank B IRA in the same month. The funds in Bank B IRA were > invested in a 6 month time deposit. When the CD matured in > June 2004 they removed the funds and deposited them the same > day into Bank C IRA who was offering a better rate. The > customer representative in Bank C told them it was okay > because the first rollover had occurred in 2003 and this > rollover was occurring in 2004. Their income is normally > below the filing threshold. However, the amount of the Dec. > 2003 distribution was considerable and was coded as a normal > distribution. > They had not filed a tax return for 2003. I informed them > that the 2003 distribution needed to be accounted for on a > tax return as a nontaxable rollover and I would prepare the > return. (I bet all you Californians are saying "They > probably got a notice from the CA FTB asking why they hadn't > filed! You're right!) I then informed them that the > distribution in June 2004 violated the 12 month rollover > rule and is fully taxable in 2004 as a normal IRA > distribution. I also informed them that the amount that was > now sitting in Bank C IRA was an excess contribution and > unless they removed it with the earnings, it would be > subject to the annual 6% excise tax. > Did I get this right? > I also don't believe that there is any way to retroactively > change the tax situation. I'm thinking that their only > recourse is to try to get Bank C to make them whole or to > take Bank C to court as they relied upon the erroneous > advice of the bank's representative. after the bank, however. They will surely hide behind their "we don't give tax advice" disclaimer. Barry Picker, CPA/PFS, CFP << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
| | |||
| |||
| "A.G. Kalman" <glendale202-mtm[at]yahoo.com> wrote: - quote - > I need confirmation that I am interpreting the rules and
Yes> process for rollovers (not trustee to trustee transfers) > from a traditional IRA to another traditional IRA. > An elderly couple both in their late 60s removed the wife's > funds from Bank A IRA in Dec. 2003, and deposited them into > Bank B IRA in the same month. The funds in Bank B IRA were > invested in a 6 month time deposit. When the CD matured in > June 2004 they removed the funds and deposited them the same > day into Bank C IRA who was offering a better rate. The > customer representative in Bank C told them it was okay > because the first rollover had occurred in 2003 and this > rollover was occurring in 2004. Their income is normally > below the filing threshold. However, the amount of the Dec. > 2003 distribution was considerable and was coded as a normal > distribution. > They had not filed a tax return for 2003. I informed them > that the 2003 distribution needed to be accounted for on a > tax return as a nontaxable rollover and I would prepare the > return. (I bet all you Californians are saying "They > probably got a notice from the CA FTB asking why they hadn't > filed! You're right!) I then informed them that the > distribution in June 2004 violated the 12 month rollover > rule and is fully taxable in 2004 as a normal IRA > distribution. I also informed them that the amount that was > now sitting in Bank C IRA was an excess contribution and > unless they removed it with the earnings, it would be > subject to the annual 6% excise tax. > Did I get this right? - quote - > I also don't believe that there is any way to retroactively
Good luck. There are two reasons for the fine print> change the tax situation. I'm thinking that their only > recourse is to try to get Bank C to make them whole or to > take Bank C to court as they relied upon the erroneous > advice of the bank's representative. "consult your tax advisor" stuff that's in any IRA agreement. One is that they know squat about taxes. The other is liability prophylaxis. -- Phil Marti Clarksburg, MD << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#-1
| |||
| |||
| I need confirmation that I am interpreting the rules and process for rollovers (not trustee to trustee transfers) from a traditional IRA to another traditional IRA. An elderly couple both in their late 60s removed the wife's funds from Bank A IRA in Dec. 2003, and deposited them into Bank B IRA in the same month. The funds in Bank B IRA were invested in a 6 month time deposit. When the CD matured in June 2004 they removed the funds and deposited them the same day into Bank C IRA who was offering a better rate. The customer representative in Bank C told them it was okay because the first rollover had occurred in 2003 and this rollover was occurring in 2004. Their income is normally below the filing threshold. However, the amount of the Dec. 2003 distribution was considerable and was coded as a normal distribution. They had not filed a tax return for 2003. I informed them that the 2003 distribution needed to be accounted for on a tax return as a nontaxable rollover and I would prepare the return. (I bet all you Californians are saying "They probably got a notice from the CA FTB asking why they hadn't filed! You're right!) I then informed them that the distribution in June 2004 violated the 12 month rollover rule and is fully taxable in 2004 as a normal IRA distribution. I also informed them that the amount that was now sitting in Bank C IRA was an excess contribution and unless they removed it with the earnings, it would be subject to the annual 6% excise tax. Did I get this right? I also don't believe that there is any way to retroactively change the tax situation. I'm thinking that their only recourse is to try to get Bank C to make them whole or to take Bank C to court as they relied upon the erroneous advice of the bank's representative. -- Alan http://taxtopics.net << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
| Tags |
| ira, month, rollovers, rule, violating |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | Last Post | |
| Roth IRA fund rollovers to other funds still within the Roth vehic Cassie: What are the steps needed to post this transaction? Fidelity listed it as an "exchange", but would it actually be a sell and then buy the new fund?... | Microsoft Money | 1 | 05-08-2007 01:35 AM | |
| Balancing oddities when statement dates are not consistent same day of month (and may be 0, 1 or 2 in a calendar month) kaplan3jiim@comcast.net: I have a business checking account which receives one large deposit somehwere between the 30th and 3rd of each month and then disburbses 5 checks. ... | Microsoft Money | 3 | 11-04-2006 03:56 AM | |
| debt reduction planner not updating month to month properly (2007 j141cjm: Money 2007 Premium... I use the debt reduction planner, and specify a fixed amount to pay off every month. Let's say, $500. However, I don't... | Microsoft Money | 4 | 08-22-2006 12:05 PM | |
| Need Clarification of 12 Month IRA Rollover Rule A.G. Kalman: IRC Sec 408(d)(3)(B) is where one finds the rule that limits IRA to IRA tax-free rollovers to only one during any 12 month period. Any distribution... | Taxes | 4 | 07-03-2003 08:17 AM | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |