John A Posted April 29, 2003 Posted April 29, 2003 For what state should the taxes be paid upon distribution to a participant in a qualified plan: a) to the state the participant lived in when the money was deferred b) the state the participant lives in now when the funds are distributed c) the state the sponsor is headquartered in, d) other?
Appleby Posted April 29, 2003 Posted April 29, 2003 Effective tax years beginning 1996, states cannot tax former residents on their retirement plan distributions. Public Law 104-95(ban on source taxes). Any applicable state tax will be based on the individual’s state of domicile (permanent residence). Life and Death Planning for Retirement Benefits by Natalie B. Choatehttps://www.ataxplan.com/life-and-death-planning-for-retirement-benefits/ www.DeniseAppleby.com
Guest b2kates Posted April 29, 2003 Posted April 29, 2003 I agree with Appleby, b) is correct answer, state where participant is living when funds are disbursed. Not all states tax pension distributions, i.e. Pennsylvania which has an income tax exempts pensions from taxation.
mbozek Posted April 29, 2003 Posted April 29, 2003 The lack of an income tax is why retirees prefer FLA and Nevada. mjb
Mary Kay Foss Posted May 1, 2003 Posted May 1, 2003 California has a unique way of taxing nonresdients and part-year residents. You calculate a tax on your entire income and pay CA the ratio of the CA adjusted gross income to the total adjusted gross income. Technically, you're not paying tax on your distribution, but it helps put you in a higher tax bracket. I don't know if other states use a similar method, but we need the money here in CA. Mary Kay Foss CPA
Guest b2kates Posted May 1, 2003 Posted May 1, 2003 The california approach seems to violate 104-95. including the pension distribution in determining taxable income even just to push taxpayer into higher bracket is the same as using tax exempt income to push into higher bracket. My understanding of 104-95 do not even count for non-resident state.
mbozek Posted May 2, 2003 Posted May 2, 2003 The CA method is called Global taxation and applies to corporations as well as individuals. NY also uses global taxation in computing the NY tax on non residents. I am not sure tht this is a violation of fed law since the amount of the tax is a based on the % that CA income bears to global income (eg. fed income) thus retirement benefits are not included in the numerator (CA income). Check the income tax return to see if there is a line to remove the non CA pension amount from the global income on the CA return. mjb
Guest b2kates Posted May 2, 2003 Posted May 2, 2003 mbozek, what I was attempting to illustrate; but much more eloquently stated by you.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now