Ch. 19 Answers

Ch. 19 Answers - Cami? gamma: Aft-335?. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Cami? gamma: Aft-335?. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. -' 1 Resewe Mata 1?: Libra“! Use or“? ’1 Hour 1 can EC’f Deferred Compensation 19-11 a. The limitation is the smaller of $185,000 in 2008 (indexed each year) or 100% of the average of the three highest annual salaries. $80 000 + g9 000 i 108 000 = $92,333 maximum allowable benefit p. 19.14 b. Smaller of $185,000 in 2008 (indexed each year) or 100% times highest three years El. average. or $196,200. Thus, $185,000 is Heather’s maximum allowable benefit. p. 194 14 $123,300 in 2008. The maximum annual benefit payable to Frank from a defined benefit plan is the smaller of $185,000 in 2008 (indexed each year) or 100% of his average compensation for his highest three years of employment $123,300. p. 19—14 $102,600 in 2008. The defined benefit plan must reduce Ellen’s maximum annual benefit payable [e.g., $185,000 in 2008 (indexed each year)] by one-tenth for each year of participation under 10 years (e.g., $185,000 x 9110 = $166,500). Thus, the $102,600 average compensation amount is below the $166,500 ceiling. p. l9~14 The limitation on Magenta Corporation is $1 1,325 (25% of $45,300). b. The contribution carryover to 2009 and subsequent years is $1,875 ($13,200 $11,325). p. 19—15 a. The maximum amount for which Amber can elect § 401(k) plan salary deferral for C. 2008 is $15,500. Her tax liability for 2008 would be reduced by $5,115 ($15,500 x 33%) as a result of the salary deferral election. $15,500 maximum amount. The election ofthe maximum amount reduces Amber’s tax liability and also max1mizes her contribution to her retirement fund. p. 19-15 The deduction limitation for 3 SIMPLE § 401(k) plan in 2008 is $10,500. Sally contributes $5,550 ($111,000 X 5%). Thus, her salary included in her gross income is $105,450 ($111.000— $5,550). p. 19-17 An owner-employee owns the entire interest in an unincorporated business. § 401(c)(3)(A) a. $46,000, which is less than $48,000 (20% >< $240,000). pp. 19-19, 19-20, and Example 1'? Contributions in excess of the allowable amount under § 415 are not deductible, and may be subject to a 10% excise tax- p. 19-19 No, Susan may not begin receiving payments unti] age 59.5 without incurring a 10% penalty. §?2(m)(5). p. 19-26 19-12 2009 Individual Volume/Solutions Manual 3?. Adam can contribute $24,000 to his profit sharing plan, which can be calculated as 20% of $120,000, or 25% ($120,000 — $24,000) in 2008. pp. 19-19 and 19-20 38. a. 39. a. 40. a. Only $2,500 can be deducted due to the phaseout provision for active participants in other retirement plans. Molly’s excess AG] is $5,000 ($58,000 — $53,000).Therefore, her IRA deduction phaseout of $2,500 is calculated as follows: $5,000 $10,000 Although Molly can deduct only $2.500 ($5,000 — $2,500), she still can contribute $5,000 to her traditional IRA. Example 19 and Table 19-3 Molly has elected to contribute $2,320 to her SIMPLE IRA account (4% x $58,000). Her employer will contribute $1,740 (3% >< $58,000). Both amounts will vest immediately. pp. 19-17 and 19-18 X $5,000 = $2,500 phaseout Govind may contribute a total of $10000 to his IRA and a spousal IRA, with a maximum of $5,000 to either account. The $10,000 is deductible on theirjoint return. p. 19-25 and Examples 28 and 29 Danos may contribute $1,860 of elective deferrals (6% X $31,000) and his employer will contribute $930 (3% X $31,000). The amounts will vest immediately- p. 19-17 $10,000. A homemaker may take a full $5,000 deduction to a traditional IRA. Juan and Agnes may each contribute $5,000. 1;}. 19-25 $10,000. Their combined earned income exceeds $10,000. Thus, each may contribute $5,000. p. 19-25 Leo is allowed a deduction for an amount that is equal to the smaller of $5,000 or 100% of his compensation for the year, regardless of employer contributions to the SEP, became his A61 is less than $53,000. Thus, Leo may contribute $5,000 to a traditional IRA. p. 19-20 and Table 19-3 4!. $193,200. Assuming that Stuart met the AGI limitations at the time of his contributions, all of the funds may be withdrawn tax-free. He satisfies the five-year holding period requirement for a Roth IRA and is over age 59 U2 at the time of the distribution. pp. 19-22 and 19-23 42. The entire amount of $224,300 is included in Dana’s gross income in 2008. Dana’s adjusted basis of her traditional deductible IRA is zero, because she has deducted the $160,400 ofcontributions. p. 19-28 and Concept Summary 19—3 43. a. b. Karli and Jacob can each contribute $5,000 to their traditional IRA. Neither Karli nor Jacob can deduct their contributioris to a traditional IRA because their AGI exceeds the phascout ceiling of $95,000. Karli and Jacob may each contribute $1,500 to a Roth IRA, calculated as follows: $166,000 AGI F $159,000 threshold = $2,000 excess AGl %% X $1000 : $3,500 phaseout $5,000 ceiling + $3,500 phaseout = $1,500 contribution ceiling Deferred Compensation 19—13 d. No deduction is available for a contribution to a Roth IRA. e. They can contribute $2,000 for each child or a total of $4,000. p. 19-24 44. The vested amount is calculated as follows: Heather’s contribution ($52,000 X 9%) $4,680 Employer’s contribution ($52,000 X 3%) 1,5 60 Total contributions $6,240 pp. 19-17 and 19-18 45. a. Since the entire $4,000 is used by Joyce to pay for qualified education expenses, $0 is included in Joyce’s gross income b. Since Only $2,500 of the $4,000 is used by Joyce to pay for qualified education expenses, only 62.5% ($2,500r’$4,000) of the earnings received in the $4,000 distribution is excludible from Joyce‘s gross income. The $4,000 distribution is allocated between contributions and earnings as follows: $7,000 ContrIbutions: $10,000 x $4,000 = $2,800 Earnings: %% >< $4,000 = $1,200 The $2,800 is excluded from Joyce’s gross income because it represents a return of her contributions. Of the $1,200 representing earnings, $250 ($1,200 X 62.5%) is excluded from Joyce’s gross income and $450 ($1,200 X 37.5%) is included in Joyce‘s gross income. pp. 19-23 and 19-24 46- a. and b. Both Gene and Beth may each contribute $5,000 for a total of $10,000. Gene will use the spousal IRA prevision to enable a $5,000 contribution rather than a $1,500 contribution. pp. 19-20 and 19-25 4?. a. Samuel is treated as having received a $25,000 distribution (i.e., the $20,000 received and the $5,000 withheld). The $25,000 is included in his gross income. Therefore, his tax liability on the distribution is $7,000 ($25,000 X 28%). b. Investing the $20,000 in a traditional lRA within 60 days of the distribution will result in partial rollover treatment. Therefore, only the $5,000 not reinvested is included in Samuel’s gr055 income. The related tax liability is $1,400 ($5,000 X 28%). 0. Investing the $20,000 in a Roth IRA within 60 days of the distribution also will result in partial rollover treatment. However, in this case, the entire $25,000 is included in Samuel’s gross income. His basis for his Roth IRA is $25,000. The related tax 1iability 19—14 2009 Individual Volume/Solutions Manual is $7,000 ($25,000 >< 28%). If he satisfies the five-year rule, all of the subsequent distributions from the Roth IRA can be excluded from Samuel’s gross income. d. Samuel could have received better tax consequences in two different ways. First, if he had contributed $25,000 (rather than only $20,000) to the traditional IRA, the transaction would be a complete rollover. Therefore, the amount included in his gross income would have been $0. Second, he could have used the direct rollover approach rather than the indirect rollover approach. Then, there would have been no withholdings, and he would not have had to fund the $5,000 (until he files his tax return and receives a refund of the $5,000 tax prepayment) as he did in the first option above. pp. l9-27 to 19—29 48. a. Since the $70,000 was paid within 2 1X2 months after the end of 2008, only $400,000 is deferred compensation. b. The entire $420,000 may be deducted by the company only in the year ending December 31, 2009, when the employee receives the cash and recognizes the income. p. 19-31 and Example 36 49. a. Elba needs to ascertain if the $680,000 is subject to the golden parachute rules as defined in § 280G. The payment is associated with a change of ownership of the company through a stock or asset acquisition. However, the $680,000 payment does not equal or exceed $690,000; that is, three times her base amount of $230,000. Therefore, the entire $680,000 payment to Elba is deductible by the company (assuming the amount is reasonable). Elba includes the $680,000 in her gross income. Since the payment is not classified as a golden parachute payment, Elba is not liable for a 20% excise tax. b. [n this case, the $420,000 payment is treated as a golden parachute payment because the amount received by Elba equals or exceeds $390,000; that is, three times her base amount of $130,000. Thus, $290,000 of the payment ($420,000 —$l30,000) is not deductible by the employer, and Elba will incur a nondeductible excise tax of $58,000 ($290,000 X 20%). In addition, Elba must include the $420,000 in her gross income. p. 19-32 and Example 37 50. a. Because a § 83(b) election has not been made, there is no gross income for 2008, as the resell feature qualifies as a SRF. pp. 19-34 and 19-35 b. 100 shares X ($40 — $10) = $3,000 [ordinary income). pp. 19-34, l9-35, and Example 38 0. Same as b., $3,000. p. 19-36 and Example 41 d. Tim should no! make the § 83(b) special election in 2008 unless (I) the bargain element is small, (2) substantial appreciation is expected in the future, and (3) there 15 high probability that the restrictions will be met. 100 shares x ($20 — $10) = $1,000 (ordinary income). pp. 19-34, 19-35, and Examples 39 and 40 c. $0. p. 19-36 and Examples 41 and 42 1". $6,500 — $2,000 (basis) = $4,500 LTCG. pp. 19-34, 19-35, and Examples 39 and 40 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/03/2008 for the course ACG 352 taught by Professor B during the Fall '08 term at Bryant.

Page1 / 4

Ch. 19 Answers - Cami? gamma: Aft-335?. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online