In article <3cac6b7b-60f3-45f0-a508-8f5082ca7c66[at]i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com> ,

- quote -

I believe a company can pay medical expenses tax-free, providing the
policy is fair and does not provide excess benefits to high-paid
employees. I don't know if that sort of matching would qualify.

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 Aug 27, 2:04*pm, Stuart Bronstein <spamt...[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -

That was my initial impression of how that worked, but after looking
at the information on their website I'm not really so sure anymore.
Some of the passages that I, as a tax layman, thought could be
problematic are:

"Make A Connection with Your Sponsored Child

As a sponsor, you can build a personal, one-to-one relationship with
your sponsored child through letters, and learn about his or her
family, community, daily life and hopes for the future. Regular health
and progress reports will show you how your sponsorship is improving
the child's life. Your correspondence and special gifts give your
sponsored child hope, nurturing and confidence. You may even visit
your sponsored child and see first-hand the difference your
sponsorship contributions are making."

That certainly makes it sound an awful lot like there is some
specific, designated individual that the sponsor it connected with.
Now, it's possible that this is all part of the marketing, and the
funds in fact, get amalgamated. At another point this is spelled out
thusly:

"...when you sponsor a child, CCF uses your monthly sponsorship
donations, combined with donations from sponsors of other children in
your child’s community, to support community wide programs and
facilities that change lives and plant the seeds of self-sufficiency."

So, to that extent it seems to involve a more broad-based effort that
wouldn't be problematic. But it still seemed like things were skating
awfully close to having a designated individual beneficiary.

They are certainly a well-established and highly regarded charity. I
somehow doubt that the IRS would really want to question this in any
case.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com" <removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

My understanding is that with organizations like that your contribution
doesn't actually go to the individual child but to support the
organization's operations as a whole. The "sponsor" program is really
nothing more than a marketing scheme to get people to contribute more.

- quote -

I was familiar with that language, but I didn't think of applying it in
this kind of context. I thought the language in §170(c)(2)(C) applied
to employees and managers of the nonprofit, not to its proper
charitable beneficiaries.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 <IzVrk.176794$102.16452[at]bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> ,
Gil Faver <rowdy'sboss[at]xxyz.com> wrote:
- quote -


Not sure if you were asking a rhetorical or real question?


AMT credits are available only for those situations where income
is shifted from one year to another. It is not available for cases
where AMT applies because of, say, high income or disallowed
deductions/exemptions.


The two most common income shifting AMT situations, and thus
available for AMT credits, are i) acquiring and selling shares
acquired via ISO exercise; and ii) use of different depreciation
schedules.

For example, using 200DB for regular tax but 150DB for AMT could
mean you claimed lower depreciation expense for AMT during the
year and thus higher income for AMT that year. Eventually, if
you hold the property until it is fully depreciated, you will have
claimed the same amount for AMT and for regular tax, but income
has been shifted from one year to another.
--


ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Stuart Bronstein" <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B025DBA6E439avocatstuyahoofr[at]130.133.1.4...
- quote -

is it simple to be able to get an AMT credit in future years for some items,
but not all? I don't really understand this part, or even what is or isn't
excluded for AMT calculations. Not simple at all. Maybe if it replaced the
regular income tax, it would become simple, since it would be the rule
rather than the exception. But as an add on, it is not at all simple.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Harlan Lunsford <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

I must agree with you because I said almost the same thing
to my older son this morning. But for tax purposes ....

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Harlan Lunsford wrote:
- quote -


That's often a condition placed on the recipient which makes it not
truly a gift (in the pure sense only, of course, even though it would
still meet the letter of tax law, etc., ...).

And, of course, there's always the subjectiveness to which one can only
counter w/ imo, $0.02, ymmv, etc., etc., ...

--

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Harlan Lunsford <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

The way it is currently administered, perhaps. But so many are
clamoring for tax simplification. The AMT is very simple. Of course
it eliminates some deductions that have been used to encourage certain
behaviors that are considered desirable, and perhaps even some
deductions that some would consider to be "fair."

But it's certainly simple.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Gil Faver wrote:
- quote -


ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Mark Bole wrote:
- quote -

With good crack like this, and meaningful tax discussions, it's never a
slow time.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

dpb wrote:
- quote -

Hah! Not so. If I give a relative some money, he/she better use it for
what it is intended. otherwise, they'll never see another dime of my money.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com wrote:
- quote -

I was just being silly, which is how I was reading this particular
sub-thread at the time I posted.

Is this the slow time of year for tax preparers, or what? ;-)

-Mark Bole

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Harlan Lunsford wrote:
....
- quote -


If so or if not specifically but the gifts freed up other monies to pay
non-related medical, still fail to see where there's any moral or
ethical dilemma???

A gift, after all, is a gift -- once it's given, there can be no strings
or it isn't actually a gift after all...

--

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 Aug 21, 11:21 am, Tom Russ <t...[at]isi.edu> wrote:
- quote -

Deductions should certainly be allowed here as you're sponsoring a
random child. Now if you happen to know that person, then the
deduction may be fraud. I found the text of the law at

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2...0----000-.html

but don't see any clear language to support my hypothesis.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Gil Faver wrote:
....
- quote -

immoral?

--

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 Aug 21, 4:39 pm, Mark Bole <ma...[at]pacbell.net> wrote:
- quote -

What are you talking about?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Harlan Lunsford" <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:t8krk.15576$vX2.2077[at]bignews6.bellsouth.net...
- quote -


so, if a young person earns money and has no tax liability, and wisely socks
it away for a rainy day, and then when he becomes a taxpayer uses it for a
home mortgage or necessary medical expenses, he cannot take the deduction?
Where will this all end? limitless tracing rules, endless persecution of
workers and savers, and . . .

what's wrong with tax simplification? A gift is a gift. A deduction is a
deduction. An alternative minimum tax is . . .

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Harlan Lunsford <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

Yes, that is exactly what he is saying.

- quote -

I suggest you reconsider the ethics of the situation.
Mother and father each give their son $12,000 and son
uses the #24,000 total to pay the medical expenses of
his wife. What is then unethical about taking the
medical deduction on Schedule A?

Why would the source of the gift determine the ethics
of the deduction?

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Arthur Kamlet wrote:
- quote -

And I reckon it goes back to what we learned long ago that somehow
congress got into the act, allowing deductions in order to socially
engineer the economy. After all, the revered mortgage interest
deduction was enacted as a social policy, helping to subsidize a solid
American icon, home ownership. And medical deductions to ease the
burden of "catastrophic" (congress' words, not mine) illnesses.

Still, there are people who give freely to the church of their choice,
yet decline to take a perfectly legitimate charitable contributions
deduction. Go figure.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

dpb wrote:
- quote -

impression that the "gifts" were in order to help the recipient pay
medical expenses. But, maybe not.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >