A STRATEGY FOR AVOIDING THE INCOME LIMIT FOR ROTH IRA CONTRIBUTIONS HAS SUPPOSEDLY BEEN ENDORSED BY AN IRS OFFICIAL
I’m not endorsing it, but an IRS official supposedly has. It’s a strategy for making Roth IRA contributions indirectly, by first contributing to a conventional IRA, then converting the conventional IRA to a Roth IRA, as a means of avoiding the income limit for contributions to Roth IRAs. The details are in a Forbes article posted last week.
I didn’t spend much time trying to absorb the details of this story so I can’t say for sure, but it sounds to me like people in Philadelphia have figured out how to game the system by which property owners receive notice of delinquent property tax foreclosures.
It also sounds like the scammers are selling the properties to which they have fraudulently obtained title to innocent buyers who are not getting title insurance. Don’t do that. I mean, don’t buy property without title insurance. That should be the simple way for buyers to avoid being victims of this scam. I’m not sure there’s an easy fix for the owner who lost the property in the property tax foreclosure, however.
The United States Supreme Court has been made up of nine justices since 1869. The law that makes it so is in “an Act to amend the Judicial System of the United States,” adopted by the United States Congress on April 10, 1869. The citation is 16 Stat. 44, which contains Chapter 22 of laws of the Forty-First Congress.
It took me about fifteen minutes to find a copy of the actual government record.
Authoritative information is readily available, so don’t believe what anyone says just because it sounds like they know what they’re talking about.
According to the Daily Star, the City of Tucson has been “less than forthcoming regarding details” of a streetcar derailment last week. Well, of course they want to keep it quiet. It might be bad PR.
But why isn’t the local alternative weekly all over city officials for being less than forthcoming? Could it be that they also don’t want a project that aligns with their ideology to get any bad PR?
Apparently even the Star didn’t report the incident until a week after it happened.
At least one opinionator thinks it’s the latter:
“tax evasion is pervasive among the rich, deserving athletes or idle rentiers alike. Why? Not because they are evil people or impervious to the consequences of their actions, but because they are wooed by a global tax evasion industry….”
That’s from a New York Times editorial, quoted at the TaxProf Blog.
Remember, claiming that you don’t have to pay federal income tax is only going to get you in trouble. Just ask the IRS.
As I understand the law, restrictions on free speech cannot extend beyond what is necessary to protect other vital interests. Frankly, I don’t know exactly where the courts have drawn the line between statements that are protected free speech and statements that can be prohibited because they create an illegally hostile workplace or otherwise constitute illegal harassment. But I do know that there is no general interest in “equality” that would permit the government to outlaw speech that may be disparaging or advocate inequality as to particular groups (See Matal v. Tam and National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie).
Also as I understand the law, public universities are government actors. Government actors cannot discriminate among speakers based on the content of the speakers’ messages. It’s that simple.
So no matter how lofty their credentials and how sophisticated their arguments, ignore the commentators who are trying to rewrite First Amendment law to make free speech subordinate to “equality,” or subject to government deciding that the message is deserving of an audience.
WHAT DOES THE NEW SUPREME COURT DECISION MEAN FOR PEOPLE SELLING GOODS OVER THE INTERNET? I DON’T KNOW YET
I haven’t had time yet to read the Supreme Court’s opinion in South Dakota v. Wayfair, the decision issued last week on the ability of a state to collect sales tax from a seller who has no physical presence within the state. I don’t trust (and neither should you) any mainstream media reports about what a Supreme Court opinion says. I’ll try to summarize the opinion after I have read it.
In the meantime, however, here’s a link to a post that describes the practical problems faced by businesses who sell products or services in more than one state. Those problems will now be visited upon businesses selling over the internet, at least to the extent that individual states are going to try to collect sales tax from such businesses. More on that later, as well.
Go to deconcinimcdonald.com, where you’ll see a link under Recent News that takes you to my latest Tax Law Special Report. There you can read my comments on why I think there should be more opportunities for tax-advantaged savings, and why I think those opportunities can and should be provided without the creation of yet another set of tax rules.
While I’m on the subject, here’s a link to a recent post on the Tax Foundation’s site that makes some of the same points that I made in my Special Report.
Specifically, my June newsletter is about (a) existing tax-advantaged savings vehicles, i.e. retirement accounts, education savings accounts, and health savings accounts, and (b) why I think there should be savings accounts in which the earnings are not taxed regardless of the purpose of the savings.
I will give you the link here as soon as the newsletter is posted to my firm's website.
In the meantime, here's another article bemoaning the fact that Americans aren't saving enough. If that's true, then my idea should be a no-brainer, right?
The contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation.