Extra exemption for over-65
NadCixelsyd
Why are people born on January 1st, 1945, (and who were not 65 at any
time in 2009) allowed to get the extra exemption. Why the extra day?
Why isn't the cutoff December 31st?
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
Arthur Kamlet
NadCixelsyd <nadci...@aol.com> wrote:
>I realise that you gotta draw the line somewhere, but ...
>
>Why are people born on January 1st, 1945, (and who were not 65 at any
>time in 2009) allowed to get the extra exemption. Why the extra day?
>Why isn't the cutoff December 31st?
I hope by now you understand that logic isn't always related
to tax law? But in this case, someone born January 1 1945 will
have lived 65 complete years by Dec 31 2009.
--
ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH
Sharx35
"Arthur Kamlet" <kam...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hhnvq5$r7g$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> In article
> <4f10a4d8-fc16-4094...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> NadCixelsyd <nadci...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I realise that you gotta draw the line somewhere, but ...
>>
>>Why are people born on January 1st, 1945, (and who were not 65 at any
>>time in 2009) allowed to get the extra exemption. Why the extra day?
>>Why isn't the cutoff December 31st?
>
>
> I hope by now you understand that logic isn't always related
> to tax law? But in this case, someone born January 1 1945 will
> have lived 65 complete years by Dec 31 2009.
65 *complete* years? Only if they were born right at midnight, at the
precise start of 1945. Any time later on Jan. 1 and they would have only
lived 64 and a fraction years.
David
Arthur Kamlet
Sharx35 <sha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Arthur Kamlet" <kam...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:hhnvq5$r7g$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>> In article
>> <4f10a4d8-fc16-4094...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>> NadCixelsyd <nadci...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>I realise that you gotta draw the line somewhere, but ...
>>>
>>>Why are people born on January 1st, 1945, (and who were not 65 at any
>>>time in 2009) allowed to get the extra exemption. Why the extra day?
>>>Why isn't the cutoff December 31st?
>>
>>
>> I hope by now you understand that logic isn't always related
>> to tax law? But in this case, someone born January 1 1945 will
>> have lived 65 complete years by Dec 31 2009.
>
>65 *complete* years? Only if they were born right at midnight, at the
>precise start of 1945. Any time later on Jan. 1 and they would have only
>lived 64 and a fraction years.
Given that someone who lived even one day during the year, even
one hour during the year, even one minute, even one second during
the year is deemed to have lived the entire year, what's 364 plus
a fraction days between friends?
Bill Brown
> I realise that you gotta draw the line somewhere, but ...
>
> Why are people born on January 1st, 1945, (and who were not 65 at any
> time in 2009) allowed to get the extra exemption. �Why the extra day?
It has been a long time (25+ years) since those age 65 and over were
allowed an extra personal exemption. Folks in that age group now get
an amount added to their standard deduction. in 2009, unmarried people
of that age (who are not surviving spouses) get an extra $1,400 while
married people (and surviving spouses) get an extra $1,100 for their
standard deduction.
Bob Sandler
>time in 2009) allowed to get the extra exemption. Why the extra day?
>Why isn't the cutoff December 31st?
It is a common-law rule dating to a court decision in
England in 1663. The IRS applies it when it favors the
taxpayer. The following explanation is quoted from a
Pennsylvania court decision, Commonwealth v. Iafrate, 527
Pa. 497, 594 A.2d 293 (1991).
----------
The genesis of the rule that a person reaches a given age on
the day preceding the anniversary of his birth can be traced
to seventeenth century England. See Nichols v. Ramsel, 86
Eng. Rep. 1072 (K.B. 1677); Herbert v. Turball, 83 Eng. Rep.
1129 (K.B. 1663). See also 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries
*463 ("So that full age in male or female is twenty one
years, which age is completed on the day preceding the
anniversary of a person's birth . . .")
----------
IANAL
Bob Sandler
NadCixelsyd
> It has been a long time (25+ years) since those age 65 and over were
> allowed an extra personal exemption. Folks in that age group now get
> an amount added to their standard deduction. in 2009, unmarried people
> of that age (who are not surviving spouses) get an extra $1,400 while
> married people (and surviving spouses) get an extra $1,100 for their
> standard deduction.
>
the extra exemption next year. I never realized that the law had
changed.
Even if I did take the standard deduction, the $1100 additional
deduction amounts to a paultry tax savings. Since I shall itemize
next year, it makes my beneift a less-than-paulty ZERO.
Add to that the fact that my Social Security will be taxable, I feel
doubly cheated (SS benefits were tax free when I started working 49
years ago).
Mark Bole
>> It has been a long time (25+ years) since those age 65 and over were
>> allowed an extra personal exemption.
> Add to that the fact that my Social Security will be taxable, I feel
> doubly cheated (SS benefits were tax free when I started working 49
> years ago).
Would you like to exchange your current life expectancy for that from 49
years ago as well? ;-)
-Mark Bole
Bob Sandler
>allowed an extra personal exemption. Folks in that age group now get
>an amount added to their standard deduction.
The change took effect for 1987 returns.
Bob Sandler