On Jun 29, 8:12*pm, Barry Margolin <bar...[at]alum.mit.edu> wrote:
- quote -

When they codified, true.

But __bills__ usually do provide a good deal of justification
and other related information. Moreover, before they are
codified, enacted law is reported as Public Law, which
often has the justification intact.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

<curiousgeorge408[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

Thanks to a friend on Congressional budget committee staff I know the answer
to this one. It is obvious if you look at the table of budget projections
for the bill in question. They needed a huge spike in projected revenue in
2012 and 2013 to squeeze the bill through budget rules. It just about jumps
off the page at you.

The provision has an interesting provenance. If you look at the final
pre-conference versions of the bill passed by the House and the Senate
you'll find the Roth 2010 provisions in neither. They sprang fully formed
from the Conference Committee's forehead.

The provision is a budget buster in what were then the out years for
projections. That's why I keep saying don't bet on its still being law in
2010.

--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <xd-dnTjVvpYz1fXVnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d[at]comcast.com> ,
joetaxpayer <joetaxpayer[at]nospam.com> wrote:

- quote -

Laws don't generally include the rationale.

I think this was just one of Bush's tax cuts.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar[at]alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

curiousgeorge408[at]hotmail.com wrote:

- quote -

Yes, 2011 return has a normal due date of 4/15/12

- quote -

Well, if you choose to do it, it's half one year, half two years. When
Roth IRAs were first allowed, there was a chance to claim 1/4 each year
for 4 years.

- quote -

my bad - I meant to provide a link for those interested in reading that
section. http://www.rothira.com/conversions.htm

Joe

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jun 29, 7:35*am, joetaxpayer <joetaxpa...[at]nospam.com> wrote:
- quote -

..... Which are filed in 2012 and 2013, right? (For most taxpayers.)

Okay, thanks for the citation. Just curious: why would Congress
allow us to defer the taxable income one year?

I know: in matters of tax law, never ask "why?". But perhaps
HR 4297 provides some insight that you can share.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

curiousgeorge408[at]hotmail.com wrote:
- quote -

From H.R.4297 (Otherwise known as TIPRA - Tax Increase Prevention and
Reconciliation Act of 2005);

"unless the taxpayer elects not to have this clause apply, any amount
required to be included in gross income for any taxable year beginning
in 2010 by reason of this paragraph shall be so included ratably over
the 2-taxable-year period beginning with the first taxable year
beginning in 2011.'."

So - your interpretation is correct, the 2010 conversion is included as
income on returns for 2011 and 2012, if you choose.

Two comments for you - If there is any post-tax money in the IRAs, you
may not separate it out, you must convert in the same proportion as the
IRAs contain. e.g. if the accounts total $100K, and $20K is post tax
money, 80% of the money converted is taxable. Also, I always suggest
folk look at http://www.fairmark.com/refrence/index.htm to understand
their current tax bracket. Depending what your motivation is for
converting, you want to be aware that a conversion may push you into the
next tax rate, which, in general, should be avoided.
Joe

www.blog.joetaxpayer.com

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Normally, if I convert funds in an Trad IRA to a Roth IRA
in 2008, for example, am I correct that that amount is
included in __2008__ taxable income?

But I've read in two places that funds converted in 2010
can be reported "as taxable income in __2011__ and
__2012__", and (I infer) none is reported as taxable
income in 2010.

Is that right?(!) Or do they really mean that is reported
as taxable income on returns __filed__ in 2011 and 2012
-- that is, the tax years 2010 and 2011?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >