To BenefitsLink home page           EmployeeBenefitsJobs.com is where the best employers find the best candidates!

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) · 0 New Messages

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Prohibited Transaction
jpod
post May 11 2009, 10:47 AM
Post #1


Registered User


Group: Registered
Posts: 1,075
Joined: 11-February 01
Member No.: 6,418



If an IRA "blows up" under Code Section 408(e), the IRA owner is not liable for the 4975 excise tax. A strict reading of 4975 suggests (to me) that other disqualified persons who participated in the pt remain jointly and severally liable for the excise tax. On the other hand, if the IRA blows up under 408(e), it ceases to be treated as an IRA as of Jan. 1 of the year of the pt, so how could there be a 4975 liability if the account is not considered to be an IRA? Is anyone aware of any IRS authority on the issue of whether other disq. persons remain exposed to the 4975 excise tax?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
J Simmons
post Jun 7 2009, 11:37 AM
Post #2


Registered User


Group: Registered
Posts: 2,138
Joined: 23-July 06
Member No.: 16,532



QUOTE (jpod @ May 11 2009, 09:47 AM) *
If an IRA "blows up" under Code Section 408(e), the IRA owner is not liable for the 4975 excise tax. A strict reading of 4975 suggests (to me) that other disqualified persons who participated in the pt remain jointly and severally liable for the excise tax. On the other hand, if the IRA blows up under 408(e), it ceases to be treated as an IRA as of Jan. 1 of the year of the pt, so how could there be a 4975 liability if the account is not considered to be an IRA?
You make a very logical point. The IRS could take the position, I suppose, that the account was as of the time of the PT yet an IRA, and that those disqualified persons are not absolved of the PT liability merely by operation of the other PT penalty, i.e. the account being stripped of its IRA status retro to January 1 of the year of the PT.
QUOTE (jpod @ May 11 2009, 09:47 AM) *
Is anyone aware of any IRS authority on the issue of whether other disq. persons remain exposed to the 4975 excise tax?
I'm not aware of any authority on the issue, but have never heard of the IRS attempting to impose any penalty except the stripping of IRA status from the account.


--------------------
John Simmons
jsimmons@ida.net


Note to Readers: For you, I'm a stranger posting on a bulletin board. Posts here should not be given the same weight as personalized advice from a professional who knows or can learn all the facts of your situation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sieve
post Jun 7 2009, 05:24 PM
Post #3


Registered User


Group: Registered
Posts: 1,721
Joined: 28-June 08
From: Metro Detroit
Member No.: 27,055



Look at p. 45, col 2 (at the bottom) of IRS Pub. 590 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf), where it states what you would suspect based on the statutory language: loss of IRA status as of a specific date (but no PT excise tax) to the IRA owner or beneficiary who engages in an IRA PT (resulting, of course, in income tax and potential early distribution excise tax), and PT excise tax for any other person entering into a PT with an IRA.

This post has been edited by Sieve: Jun 7 2009, 05:25 PM


--------------------
Larry S.

NOTE: This post is intended for informational purposes only, and may not be relied on for any other reason. (After all, I'm a Sieve, and the information in this post may be full of holes.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st November 2009 - 03:37 AM