Let me preface this by saying that I intentionally sought out an area for discussion. If I'm posting to the wrong place, please just kindly redirect me- there's no need to be penile in your response.
I'm NOT an attorney, nor an accountant with no education, formal training or industry affiliation in either field.
________________________
I've been researching 529's and found this clause in one state plan administrators T&Cs: Tax Benefits Not Intended for Abuse. Section 529 QualifiedTuition Programs are intended to be used only to save for Qualified Education Expenses. These Programs are not intended to be used, nor should they be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of evading federal or state taxes or tax penalties. Taxpayers may wish to seek tax advice from an independent tax advisor based on their own particular circumstances."
Now it seems to me that they're confusing evasion with avoidance and frankly it offends me. It has always been my understanding that Americans have a legal right to perform any action they need to in order to take full advantage of the tax code without question of the motives; literally the right to do stuff simple for tax purposes. As an example, if I'm fine with paying the various taxes and penalty fees associated with unqualified withdrawals, shouldn't it be perfectly legal for me to open a pre-tax 401k with absolutely not intent whatsoever of holding it till retirement ? If that's the case then shouldn't attempting to redefine it be treated with a bit of contempt ? Perhaps even treated as somewhat subversive ?
What would Hand say ? What do you think ?
Cheers,
-BDD.
I'm NOT an attorney, nor an accountant with no education, formal training or industry affiliation in either field.
________________________
I've been researching 529's and found this clause in one state plan administrators T&Cs: Tax Benefits Not Intended for Abuse. Section 529 QualifiedTuition Programs are intended to be used only to save for Qualified Education Expenses. These Programs are not intended to be used, nor should they be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of evading federal or state taxes or tax penalties. Taxpayers may wish to seek tax advice from an independent tax advisor based on their own particular circumstances."
Now it seems to me that they're confusing evasion with avoidance and frankly it offends me. It has always been my understanding that Americans have a legal right to perform any action they need to in order to take full advantage of the tax code without question of the motives; literally the right to do stuff simple for tax purposes. As an example, if I'm fine with paying the various taxes and penalty fees associated with unqualified withdrawals, shouldn't it be perfectly legal for me to open a pre-tax 401k with absolutely not intent whatsoever of holding it till retirement ? If that's the case then shouldn't attempting to redefine it be treated with a bit of contempt ? Perhaps even treated as somewhat subversive ?
What would Hand say ? What do you think ?
Cheers,
-BDD.
[Taxes / Discussion] I Find This Term to Be Questionable - Thoughts
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire