"MTW" <mtwingcpa[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

Neither. It's based on case law and very old Treasury
decisions. The capital gains reverse method was explained in
Revenue Ruling 66-6, 1966-1 C.B. 160 {yes, 66-6 -- not
exactly an auspicious number}, and the general method was
applied in Rev. Ruling 72-42, 1972-1 C.B. 398 to conclude
that a refund claim filed on 2/29/x4 for a payment made on
2/28/x2 was timely because the 2-year statute of limitations
did not run out until 3/1/x4.

Bob Daniels ("Who is number One?" "You are number Six." - 'G)

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"MTW" <mtwingcpa[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

Include the first day just means that, since you are
starting the count on January 1, you include that date in
the six months. The six months then ends on June 30 rather
than going from January 2 through July 1.

The phrase "in six months" means the day after expiration of
six months. So the second payment is due July 1.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Steve Pope <spope33[at]speedymail.org> wrote:
- quote -

"I'm just a little boy of five."

Frederick,
who was apprenticed to a pirate king
until his 21st birthday.

__
Art Kamlet ArtKamlet [at] AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

- quote -

So would that mean that if a contract called for two
installment payments and stated, "The first payment shall be
due on January 1st, the second payment shall be due six
months thereafter," that the second payment would be due on
June 30th (NOT on July 1st)?

Also, FWIW, it is interesting to note that the long term
capital gains holding period is apparently calculated in
exactly the REVERSE methodology. The day of purchase is
ignored and the holding period begins on the NEXT day. I'm
not sure whether this is based on statute or on regulations.

MTW

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Drew Edmundson wrote:

- quote -

In each case I think you have to find the actual statute and
see what it says. Plus, I think you would have to consider
prevailing case law in the state in question.

What I find confusing under the IRC is that it appears ALL
age limitations use essentially the same language (ie: "has
attained the age of XX"), but the IRS has taken it upon
itself to interpret this differently depending on the
particular age in question. I don't see where they can get
off doing that.

MTW

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Bob Sandler <bob_usenet[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

What about if the child was born on Feb. 29?

This would seem to say he never attains most ages.

Steve

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"MTW" <mtwingcpa[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

but not when it costs them taxes. Some of them want their
cake and to eat it too. Not everyone is this way.

When does one turn 18 for voting? On their birthday or on
the day before? In NC all the stores consider one underage
on the day before their 21st birthday. Same with DMV for
drivers license and for tobacco products. The stores,
rightly or wrongly, use the birth date. So it isn't just
tax law.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Bob Sandler wrote:

- quote -

Okay.

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Drew Edmundson wrote:

- quote -

Who are you blaming? Seniors for (apparently) wanting rules
that are consistent with the Social Security
Administration's? Or the IRS for promulgating a revenue
ruling for which there is arguably no statutory (or common
law) support?

Meanwhile, I agree, the situation sucks. <grin
MTW

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

That document apparently predates Rev. Rul. 2003-72. It is
dated April 2003, and Rev. Rul. 2003-72 was issued in August
2003.

- quote -

As Drew Edmundson has pointed out, Rev. Rul. 2003-72 says
otherwise. "... a child attains a given age on the
anniversary of the date that the child was born. For
example, a child born on January 1, 1987, attains the age of
17 on January 1, 2004."
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2003-33_IRB/ar06.html

Bob Sandler

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

That document apparently predates Rev. Rul. 2003-72. It is
dated April 2003, and Rev. Rul. 2003-72 was issued in August
2003.

- quote -

As Drew Edmundson has pointed out, Rev. Rul. 2003-72 says
otherwise. "... a child attains a given age on the
anniversary of the date that the child was born. For
example, a child born on January 1, 1987, attains the age of
17 on January 1, 2004."
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2003-33_IRB/ar06.html

Bob Sandler

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"A.G. Kalman" <glendale202-taxes[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

Alan,

I suggest you read Rev. Rul. 2003-72 where you will see that
for tax purposes one turns 17, 18, etc. on his or her
birthday. As best I can tell this is the rule for every age
except 65 when one still turns the day before his or her
birthday.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

MTW wrote:
- quote -

See my earlier post as the IRS changed this a few years ago.
E.g., the rule for when you actually attain 13, 17, 19, 24
and 65 are all the same. It's the common law rule: the day
before. A person born on Jan. 1, 1988 would have celebrated
the 17th birthday on 1/1/05 (the anniversary date), but
would have attained age 17 on 12/31/04 and therefore would
not have been an eligible child for the child tax credit in
2004. This rule is not used for 59 1/2 or 70 1/2. The IRS
uses the anniversary date plus 6 months. I know the 70 1/2
date is in the Sec. 401(a) regs in the form of a Q & A. I'm
not sure where the 59 1/2 rule is documented.

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Victor Roberts <xxx[at]lighting-research.com> wrote:
- quote -

Well the IRS used to use the same rule for 18, 17, etc. All
but for the half years. There was a big stink a few years
ago where some kids birthdays on 1-1 made them 17 for the
prior year and eliminated the child credit. So IRS nicely
changed the rule. That is when the 2003 Rev. Rul. came out.

But they couldn't change the 65 year test or it would upset
the seniors born on 1-1. People want simple until it comes
to themselves. Then simple is "unfair."

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

joeu2004[at]hotmail.com wrote:

- quote -

Actually, I think the answer to that is "it depends."
According to the so-called common law rule (which I ineptly
referred to earlier), you "attain" a particular age at the
earliest moment (midnight?) on the day BEFORE your
birthdate.

It appears that the IRS follows this approach with respect
to age 65. I note that the Social Security Administration
ALSO follows this approach. However, for all other age
measurements it appears that the IRS interprets "attainment"
as occurring ON your birthdate (or six months later as in
your case).

The problem with this, as someone noted, is that the common
law approach probably SHOULD prevail in the absence of
specific statutory language that calls for a different
result. I don't see such language in the case of most age
definitions in the IRC. So, go figure. <grin
MTW

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Drew Edmundson <drewsbeagles[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

- quote -

Thanks.

- quote -

The "day before 65" rule seems to be used only for year-end
purposes. As far as I can tell this is not written into the
law, which I believe says "attained" but the IRS had decided
that you "attain" 65 on December 31 if you were born on
January 1.

I have been taught here that tax regulations are not
necessarily logical; but logical or not, I believe they
should be consistent. Using the "day before" rule for
attainment of agree 65 at year end, while not using it for
"attainment" of age 18 or 70 1/2 or 59 1/2 seems to be the
height of inconsistency.

--
Vic Roberts
Replace xxx with vdr in e-mail address.

Moderator:
Consistency would be nice. As Mister Spock would say
"It is logical". But you are referring to the work
product of the Congress of the United States which has
less respect for consistency and logic than I have for
precedent.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

joeu2004[at]hotmail.com wrote:

- quote -

Oops, your right! Thanks for your explanation. This stuff
gives me fits.

MTW

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

I can't understand how anyone could justify 180 days, but
the exact number of days for a non-leap year is 182.5 days,
which I would be willing to round up to 183.

--
Vic Roberts
Replace xxx with vdr in e-mail address.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

Well, I'm still looking for the law itself. I have cited two
NY tax publications which have different statements
regarding the pension exemption, and neither has the same
wording as the New York Consolidated Law.

Note that Social Security regulations do not use the term
"59 1/2" which I believe is ambiguous. The Social Security
regs state "59 years plus six months." Nice!

--
Vic Roberts
Replace xxx with vdr in e-mail address.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Drew Edmundson <drewsbeagles[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

Thanks!

--
Vic Roberts
Replace xxx with vdr in e-mail address.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >