Re: Re:The lawyer's statement regarding my tax-on-nothing

"Shyster1040" <Shyster1040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7ffe26a37ecf63a8c3af4d0d7ec6847b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In other words, if I can paraphrase, the VCR assumed that the amount by
> which each employee's contribution exceeded the maximum amount was an
> amount contributed by the employee rather than by the employer (i.e., if,
> originally, employee put in $500 and employer put in $500, but the limit
> was $800, then the VCR figured that this was best treated as a $500
> contribution by employer, a $300 contribution by employee, and a deemed
> excess contribution of the employee of $200).
>
> So, for employees still there, they would get an actual distribution of
> $200 from the plan (and presumably would have to include that in gross
> income for the year of distribution).
>
> But, for employees not still there, the VCR assumed that the excess
> distribution amount had been taken out when the lump-sum distribution was
> made to the employee upon termination of service; and since that amount
> was deemed to be out of the original employee-made constributions, it was
> assumed that such an employee retained the amount of that deemed excess
> contribution and lost all of the employer contributions because of
> non-vesting.
>
> Does that sound like a good characterization?

Shyster - That's not quite it. After this weekend, I'll see what IRS put in
writing. I know what was claimed, but if it's their written word, it would
make a better reply. As for Paul's know-it-all statements: it took this jerk
a long time even start to grasp what was going on, although if you check out
his early posts on the subject, he didn't know squat. Of course, that never
stops Paul A Thomas from coming on strong with all the answers. And of
course Paul won't ever admit that he is full of bull when he spouts off, and
then finds out he's in left field. His story (and I do mean "story") now is
closer to fact, but still full of baloney. (I worked hard to give him the
true picture, but he would rather make up his ideas on "fact.") I'll be glad
to give you a full explanation, with what quotes I have (you know IRS does
not like to put their positions in writing). Give me a day or two, and don't
take anything from the JERK seriously. Paul Thomas is for amusement only -
for those with a perverted sense of humor.
----------------------------------------------
" Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
(Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

ak



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Paul Thomas hears, but doesnt get it
    ... > the view of any particular employee - that is, ... > assuming that the matching contributions are intended to vest in at least ... > the power under a plan that is in fact qualified at the time of election, ... > the separate limitations on the maximum elective deferral amount). ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • How to get the most recent value from a table column?
    ... I want create a query that has the following fields on ... Employee: employee number that did this task ... Amount: amount of salary given for this employee for this particular ... But I cannot join weekno in both tables together since ...
    (microsoft.public.access.queries)
  • Re: more help with skipping blank lines
    ... amount of code) is to use a subreport for the column listing of benefits. ... >>I have a report that lists various employee benefits. ... When the graph is there, ...
    (microsoft.public.access.reports)
  • skipping blank lines - again
    ... If the amount is displayed in it's own ... >> I have a report that lists various employee benefits. ... When the graph is there, ...
    (microsoft.public.access.reports)
  • Re: Must select email address from GAL
    ... Server 2003/SP1 + Exchange 2003/SP2 ... I have a Distribution Group called sales@xxxxxxxxxxx and give an employee ... Send of Behalf Of rights to this distribution. ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)