Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Tax_Counsel

  1. How common is your name? Are you sure the case you found is actually your appeal and not the appeal for someone else? In any case, the appeal is decided based on the transcript of the proceedings in the trial court that the trial court provides. So the information used by the court of appeals is drawn right from the trial court records. It is not the appellate court decision that is holding you back, though. It is your conviction record. Even if you could change how the appeals court opinion reads (and you can't) it still would not change the fact that you were convicted of the offense. It is the conviction that employers are concerned about.
  2. The step mother would not have a right to visitation if it is not specified in the order. The issue would be whether under the current order he may allow his wife to spend time with the child during his visitation time. I suggest you see a family law attorney for a review of the order to see how that would go. You might need to modify the order to make it clear that if he's not there to take the kid during his visitation time that none else may substitute in during his time.
  3. Typically when the plan requires the loan be paid off at separation from the company the window for doing that is pretty short. So if the OP can't do that, the roll over may give him/her the extra time needed to come up with the cash.
  4. Here's how it will go. The plan administrator at your old job will send a Form 1099-R to the IRS and to you in January or February next year reporting the unpaid loan amount as a distribution for 2019. But how you report that on your 2019 return depends on whether you get the money and do the roll over before the due date of the 2019 return. The roll over is done simply by coming up with the cash in the amount of the deemed distribution and putting it into an IRA or qualified plan by that date. So if you plan to do that, you'd wait to file your 2019 return until you did the roll over (but ensuring the return gets filed on time) and report on the return that the deemed distribution that was reported on the Form 1099-R was timely rolled over. That would then avoid having to include it in your income and avoid the early withdrawal tax. If you can only come up with part of the funds to do the roll over you can do the partial roll over and at least avoid including that part in your income. The part you don't roll over would still be included in income and subject to the early withdrawal tax. No, I am not. Bschade3 would have to come up with the cash to make the roll over contribution by the return due date. That may mean taking out a personal loan or whatever to do it.
  5. The distribution received from the trust and estate are not included in income for income tax. However, depending on the details of trust and estate of the taxable income of the estate/trust might get passed on to you. For example, there might be some interest income that passes to you to include on your income tax return. Any federal estate tax or Connecticut estate or inheritance tax should have been paid by the estate prior to distribution. If the tax is not paid the government may come after the beneficiaries to collect it.
  6. You left the job this year (2019) and triggered the repayment requirement. If you don't timely repay the loan, the loan amount still owed is deemed a distribution of that amount to you for 2019 unless you roll over the loan amount into an IRA or other qualified retirement plan by the due date (including extensions) for filing your 2019 return. So if you get the extension to file to October 15, 2020 you'd have until then to do the roll over. If you fail to make the rollover then the loan ends up as a distribution for 2019, with the result that you have income in that amount for 2019 and would also be subject to the early withdrawal tax if you were not at least age 59ยฝ on the date of the deemed distribution.
  7. Under the federal tax law, the employer may require in the plan documents that outstanding loans be repaid when the employee leaves the company or the plan is terminated. So whether you must repay the loan now depends on what the plan documents and your loan documents say. The plan trustee must follow the rules provided for in the plan. So read the plan and see what it says. If it does require that you repay it when you leave then the trustee must apply that rule and you are stuck with that. However, in the event that you cannot repay it, you can avoid the immediate tax consequences by rolling over the outstanding balance into an IRA or other eligible plan by the due date to file your return for the year, including extensions. So if you get an extension until October 2020 you would have that long to roll it over and avoid the income inclusion and early withdrawal tax. See the IRS page on Retirement Loan Topics. If you need to get some other loan to cover the roll over that might still be a better outcome for you than the tax hit. You could see a local attorney to find out if under your state's tort law you might have a claim here for negligence against Prudential. The problem that I see, though, is that if the answer is clearly in the plan documents it is likely that you would be expected to have looked at those and you'd have had the right answer. Since the plan documents should have been readily available to you, relying on the customer service people may not have been reasonable in the sense meant by the law. But you can discuss that with the attorney to see how that might impact things. Many civil litigation attorneys give free initial consultations, so you'd only lose a little time. In the end, though, if you can do the rollover, that's probably your best solution to this.
  8. Chapter 720 of the Florida statutes covers HOAs. Part I of those statutes will have the rules you are interested in. Section 720.3055 requires that all HOA contracts for goods and services that will not be completed within one year must be in writing and that if the total cost of those goods/services will exceed 10% of the annual budget then the contract must be done via a competitive bid, but the statute expressly states that it is not required that the lowest bidder be selected. The rights and obligations of the association are addressed in ยง 720.303. Yes. Take the various HOA covenants, rules, etc to a local attorney familiar with HOA law for assistance and advice. Without reading all those documents I cannot tell you whether the board is violating anything with this work or what remedies you have, if any, to stop the work at this stage. One of the reasons I decided long ago to never buy in a HOA controlled area if at all possible.
  9. A lot depends on the law regulating HOAs in your state, and you did not say in what state this is taking place. I might guess from your member name that you are in Florida, but that's just a guess. It also depends very much what the HOA covenants, conditions, and rules say about the powers of the board. If enough other neighbors in the HOA agree with you, then look at the rules to see if you can force a vote on the issue to get the lighting redone or, failing that, plan to remove the board at the next election and get in board members who will fix it.
  10. This very likely this amounts to a trespass of your property. You have the option of towing it (after providing whatever notice might be required under your state's law) to a junkyard and then suing the handyman and son in small claims court to recover your expenses in doing it.
  11. I'm going to guess that you meant the second sentence to read: "However, it has NO real truth as it relates to state governments." ๐Ÿ˜‰
  12. The law depends on the the state where the property is located, and you did not mention the state. However, you are unlikely to find a statute (not statue) that states this. You'd be looking for case law that would allow the neighbor limited access to the other property for that purpose. It is always better, however, to simply discuss the matter with the neighbor and work out a mutually satisfactory resolution to the issue of access to his/her property.
  13. Not quite everywhere. In California and perhaps a few other states, the employer would have to provide the computer used for the telecommuting if it may only be used for work. Unfortunately for the OP, NC is not one of those states.
  14. What job were you going for and what were the charges against you?
  15. Not legal advice. Only a lawyer licensed in the relevant jurisdiction may provide legal advice. What we may legally do here is provide general legal information.
  16. Laws requiring drivers to have auto insurance are clearly not bills of attainder. A federal district court, quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, explained what a bill of attainder is as follows: Riley v. Knowles, No. 1:16-CV-0057-JLT, 2016 WL 259336, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2016). Auto insurance laws do not impose punishment on anyone without a trial. Having to pay for insurance is not punishment and if you fail to obey the law, the punishment for that is only imposed after a trial. The standards for a bill of attainder are set explained by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Franceschi v. Yee, 887 F.3d 927, 941 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 648, 202 L. Ed. 2d 493 (2018). The insurance requirements do not name specified persons or groups, but rather anyone with the general characteristic of driving a car. The insurance requirements also do not inflict "punishment" without a trial. (Having to pay for insurance is not "punishment".) So your argument on the bill of attainder fails. I want the other drivers sharing the road with me to be competent. How would you ensure that people are reasonably competent to drive without requiring some test of that competence. Or do you really not care if those around you on the road are not safe drivers? I think you are correct that most people would reject eliminating driver's license requirements and requirements for auto insurance. I'd be among those lobbying against you should you try to get those laws repealed in my state.
  17. I have met some that were able to be convinced. I've probably met a lot more of those folks than you have as I was a tax protest coordinator at IRS for two years and dealt with those sorts of folks on a daily basis. There were certainly quite a few who so badly wanted to believe the misinformation they'd heard about taxes, and driver's licenses, and all the rest of it that they'd refuse to believe the correct law even if I shoved it in front of their nose. But some did see the light. Some after I pointed out what the law was, others once they saw me carting off their assets to pay those taxes they claimed the government could not impose. ๐Ÿ˜† So never assume that someone is unwilling to learn until that particular persons shows you otherwise.
  18. It would be a section 501(c)(3) organization, not 501c3. Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(3) is the tax code provision that allows for tax exemption of these organizations. The rules under IRC ยง 501 bar certain exempt organizations from qualifying for exemption if they discriminate on the basis of race or religion. No organization fails to qualify for exemption based on sex discrimination. Nor does the federal law prohibiting discrimination by places of public accommodation bar discrimination on the basis of sex. It may be that the organization violates some other federal or state law that prohibits sex discrimination, but that would depend on the details of what the club does and the state(s) in which it operates. Contrary to what some folks believe, sex discrimination is not always illegal. You tagged your question on a 5 year-old thread. This forum (and many others too) discourages reactivating dead threads (known as necroposting). In the future, instead of necroposting, please just start a new thread. If you think an older thread has info useful to your question, you may link that old thread to the new one.
  19. It appears that you have an attorney (the disclosure document you posted refers to that attorney) so you should ask her what you need to do. It's not clear to me what it is that concerns you about the disclosures. I also do not know what charges you face nor do I know what is the purpose of the 7/31/2019 court appearance. Is it a preliminary hearing? Motion hearing? Trial on the charges? In any event, your lawyer is in the best position to advise you on this.
  20. Where a defendant is tried for an adult offense โ€” a crime โ€” he or she is guaranteed the right to a jury by the federal constitution. So unless this is a very minor offense (one that equates to what the Supreme Court refers to as a petty offense) the defendant has that right to jury trial, regardless of the age of the victim. Do you disagree with that? As to Pennsylvania specifically, the scope of Juvenile Court proceedings is set out in 42 Pa Cons. Stat. ยง 6303, which states the following: Nothing there indicates an adult charged with a crime where a juvenile was involved gets tried in Juvenile Court. Do you have something that says they are tried in that court in Pennsylvania?
  21. Cases in which the defendant is a minor are often tried by a judge rather than jury. But I don't think the OP is a minor, or even close to being one. The OP stated that: (Bolding added.) It would be a remarkable thing if the OP were both a grandparent and still a minor (i.e. under age 18). Wouldn't you agree? ๐Ÿ˜‰
  22. The case would be tried to a jury, not the judge. And if the jury acquits, the reason why the jury made that decision is not disclosed. It might be that the jury was convinced that the child was in the care of someone else, might be something different. Maybe the jury just didn't like the prosecutor, for example.
  23. The state really does matter. Because in most states real estate owned by the decedent at death is included in the decedent's probate estate unless it was owned jointly with someone else as joint tenants with a right of survivorship or tenants by the entirety. In those states, if the estate sells it, technically only the executor needs to sign off on the sale unless court approval is needed prior to the sale (some states require that, though most don't). But while the executor can sell it without the consent all the beneficiaries some will still try to get the consent of all of them anyway as protection against some later challenge by the beneficiary.
  24. Unfortunately we do not have the complete exact text of the waiver here to read, so it might be that if we read the whole thing it would come across differently. But that said, I agree that as described by the OP it does not appear that he or she would be required by that waiver to disclose anything. It simply allows the employer to collect the information (which does not mean the same thing as requiring the employee to provide it โ€” the employer might collect the information by other means) and to retain it.
  25. And by "how large" I assume you mean to ask how many employees the employer has. ๐Ÿ˜€ There are a number of measures of how large a company is, after all, like gross revenue, annual sales, number of offices/stores, etc., though of course those in HR would generally look at size by the number of employees, since most of the laws they deal with use that criteria.
  • Create New...