Re: state taxes confusion

<KEBSCHULLW@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1135953306.576498.174200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Richard Macdonald wrote:
>> <KEBSCHULLW@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1135916951.798508.119640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > Richard Macdonald wrote:
>> >> <KEBSCHULLW@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:1135888978.827277.176910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >
>> >> >> Since taxable social security is all from social security and does
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> contain any income from tax refunds, 26 USC 111(a) has absoultely
>> >> >> no basis on the determination of how much Social Security is
>> >> >> taxable
>> >> >> under present statutes.
>> >> >
>> >> > INCOME PLUS 50 PERCENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS ARE USED TO
>> >> > DETERMINE THE TAXABLE PORTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. THE
>> >> > TAXABLE
>> >> > PORTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS MAY BE LIMITED TO 50 OR 85
>> >> > PERCENT
>> >> > OF THE SS BENEFIT. SECTION 111(a) PRECLUDES THE INCLUSION OF
>> >> > ITEMIZED
>> >> > DEDUCTION RECOVERIES IN THE CALCULATION OF TAXABLE SOCIAL SECURITY
>> >> > BENEFITS. THE FACT IS THAT IRS INSTRUCTIONS CAN RESULT IN AN
>> >> > INCREASE
>> >> > IN TAXABLE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A TAX REFUND
>> >> > BEING
>> >> > EQUAL TO UP TO 85 PERCENT OF THE REFUND.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Now I do agree that Congress has a collective
>> >> >> cranial rectal prolapse by
>> >> >
>> >> > FAILING TO EXCERCISE OVERSIGHT.
>> >> >
>> >> >> including state tax refunds in the calculation
>> >> >> of how much social security is taxable, but that is COngress'
>> >> >> fault,
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> the IRS's as they are stuck followint the laws that Congress
>> >> >> enacted.
>> >> >
>> >> > THEY DIDN'T DO THAT.
>> >> >
>> >> > In 1994 Professor Matthew J. Barrett of Notre Dame Law School
>> >> > concluded
>> >> > in a law review articfe that the IRS Instructions that result in the
>> >> > taxable income attributable to an itemized deduction recovery
>> >> > exceeding
>> >> > the amount of the recovery violate section 111(a) of the IRC. I
>> >> > agree
>> >> > with Professor Barrett.
>> >
>> >> So where is 26 USC 111 referenced in this section (section 86):
>> >
>> > The key is that section 111 is not referenced in section 86(b)(2)(A)
>> > and so it remains in force. Hence, itemized deduction recoveries are
>> > not included in the calculation of taxable Social Security benefits.
>>
>> Right so the Gross income from refunded state taxes IS
>> included in Modified Gross Income per 26 USC 86.
>
> WRONG!

So where is any reference to Section 111(a) listed
as not being included in MAGI for Section 86:

26 USC 86(b)(2) MODIFIED ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME
For purposes of this subsection, the term "modified adjusted gross
income" means adjusted gross income--
(A) determined without regard to this section and sections 135,
137, 199, 221, 222, 911, 931, and 933, and


.

Relevant Pages