Jump to content

Justice Is Looking Out For You

Recommended Posts

Sort of warms the cockles of your heart:

"The IRA owner argued that it did not make sense that he could take a distribution from his law firm's plan without owing the 10% additional tax, but would have to pay the extra 10% tax if he took a distribution from an IRA after having rolled his law firm's plan benefits to the IRA. The appellate court responded that the Code says that the difference here matters and that many of the provisions in the Code are compromises and are arbitrary."

The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most practitioners already are aware of the arbitrary nature of things that come out of DC. Still, it's nice that the court said so.

I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...