The rule of law is so 20th century. America has been fundamentally transformed.
This totalitarian government rules by its whims. Promises and laws it has created in the past mean nothing to it, if it goes against what they want now. They do what they want, often in direct conflict with existing law, and they dare you to sue - in a court that they’ve now packed with rabid activists.
So, all you people out there with these tax-saving IRAs, 401Ks, Roth IRAs - don’t count on anything this government says. They will not keep their promise; their need to redistribute that wealth to the entitlement leeches far outweighs your silly need to plan for your own future.
Rule of Kings....
Didn’t we have a revolution over this subject?
Oh’ never mind...Honey Boo Boo is on....
If you don’t like you’re IRA you can change your IRA. (Not)
You have to round up the herd before the slaughter.
There was a time where you could only own 1 IRA account. This what? Affects how many people here? This is an accounting method change, probably targeting people abusing the system or leveraging the rules in their favor.
I don’t care. My IRA is long gone, my 401k as well. I repeat I don’t care.
What I do care about is how Lois Lerner and family earn enough to live in a 2 million dollar estate while working for the IRS. I’m sure, like the husband of Pelosi, the Husband of Feinstein and the countless other millionaires working for the government and running our lives.
Don’t worry. Soon Uncle Sugar will take those nasty grubby IRAs and give you some nice shiny government bonds! With pretty pictures on them and everything!
Already on the IRS website
http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/IRA-One-Rollover-Per-Year-Rule
Maybe this had something to do with it
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/readysavegrow/start_saving/retirementaccountfactsheetenglish.pdf
How does this provide money to the government?
It appears to me that it is a restriction on the use of the funds bound up in an individuals IRA’s but they remain intact and shielded from the tax.
If you read the case linked in the story, the guy that lost was an attorney specializing in tax law. It looks like the original dispute was over transferring money back in to the accounts in the 60 day time frame. The court came back and said by the way you only get 1 rollover per 12 month period when taking the cash directly..
Since IRAs have been around quite awhile I find it hard to believe this is the first guy that’s done this.
Has anyone else out there done this and NOT get questioned about it?
I never have but I wonder if the “per IRA” is actually in the context of individual people, not individual accounts, i.e., husband and wife IRAs are distinct, but husbands T.RowePrice and Vanguard IRAs count as one.
I don’t know. Just askin’.
Here, read up on this article and tell me what has fundamentally changed .....
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/chi-ym-cruz-1007oct07,0,4813127.story
“Doing a 60-day rollover is like playing Russian roulette with your retirement savings,” Slott said. You can avoid this risk by doing a so-called direct trustee-to-trustee IRA transfer without you ever getting your hands on any of the money.
And I’m sure a direct trustee-to-trustee IRA rollover is still an option. It’s only when the owner of the IRA ‘touches’ [emphasis mine] the disbursement.
How about the people who closed their IRA’s so that they could pay their medical expenses only to find themselves broke and now owing the Government taxes and penalties on it. Has that been fixed yet?
A question, if I may. Who would really expect a government headed by an individual with no integrity to have any integrity?