Filing requirements for 2010
Howard Kaikow
to file a return unless one's gross income was at least $10750.
Are the corresponding numbers available for 2010, and later years?
Which pub has this information?
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< 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. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
Alan
> For 2009, if one is older than 65, and single, then it is not required
> to file a return unless one's gross income was at least $10750.
>
> Are the corresponding numbers available for 2010, and later years?
> Which pub has this information?
>
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-09-50.pdf
removep...@yahoo.com
> For 2009, if one is older than 65, and single, then it is not required
> to file a return unless one's gross income was at least $10750.
>
> Are the corresponding numbers available for 2010, and later years?
> Which pub has this information?
I don't think the numbers are out yet. They are adjusted each year
for inflation, and we need to live through 2009 first.
The answer is always around page 8 of the instructions, although lots
of websites will publish it too.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf
For 2009, there is also a penalty for filing your tax return late.
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch01.html
Return over 60 days late. If you file your return more than 60 days
after the due date or extended due date, the minimum penalty is the
smaller of $135 or 100% of the unpaid tax.
So if you had income of 10850 (so your taxable income is $100 at 10%),
$200 withheld in tax, and you file a tax return to get $190 back, but
you file more than 60 days late, you actually will get only $180 back
as there is a penalty is min(10,135)=$10.
Bob Sandler
>
>http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch01.html
>Return over 60 days late. If you file your return more than 60 days
>after the due date or extended due date, the minimum penalty is the
>smaller of $135 or 100% of the unpaid tax.
There is nothing new about that. The same statement has been
in Pub. 17 since at least 2000. (And probably well before
then, but I didn't look back any further than that.)
>So if you had income of 10850 (so your taxable income is $100 at 10%),
>$200 withheld in tax, and you file a tax return to get $190 back, but
>you file more than 60 days late, you actually will get only $180 back
>as there is a penalty is min(10,135)=$10.
You will get the full $190 back. The penalty is
min(0,135)=$0. There is no unpaid tax. You OVERpaid. That's
why you're getting a refund. Unpaid tax means a balance due
on your return that you didn't pay by April 15. If you get a
refund, there is no penalty.
Bob Sandler
Howard Kaikow
> On 12/15/09 7:36 PM, Howard Kaikow wrote:
>> For 2009, if one is older than 65, and single, then it is not required
>> to file a return unless one's gross income was at least $10750.
>>
>> Are the corresponding numbers available for 2010, and later years?
>> Which pub has this information?
>>
> No pub.. a Revenue Procedure.
> http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-09-50.pdf
Thanx.
I just searched thru the document for all occurrences of "gross income"
and found no mention of the limit that is usually stated around page 8
in the instructions for form 1040.
Did I miss it?
Alan
> On 12/15/2009 23:22, Alan wrote:
>> On 12/15/09 7:36 PM, Howard Kaikow wrote:
>>> For 2009, if one is older than 65, and single, then it is not required
>>> to file a return unless one's gross income was at least $10750.
>>>
>>> Are the corresponding numbers available for 2010, and later years?
>>> Which pub has this information?
>>>
>> No pub.. a Revenue Procedure.
>> http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-09-50.pdf
>
> Thanx.
>
> I just searched thru the document for all occurrences of "gross income"
> and found no mention of the limit that is usually stated around page 8
> in the instructions for form 1040.
>
> Did I miss it?
>
2009 derives from the sum of the personal exemption plus the std
deduction plus the kicker for being at least age 65:
3650+5700+1400=10750. Just use the same numbers from the RP for 2010.
Rich Carreiro
> On Dec 15, 6:36 pm, Howard Kaikow <kai...@standards.com> wrote:
>
>> For 2009, if one is older than 65, and single, then it is not required
>> to file a return unless one's gross income was at least $10750.
>>
>> Are the corresponding numbers available for 2010, and later years?
>> Which pub has this information?
>
> I don't think the numbers are out yet. They are adjusted each year
> for inflation, and we need to live through 2009 first.
The 2010 numbers *are* out. The CPI-U calculation used for all the
various indexations is Sep-to-Sep (i.e. the US govt fiscal year). The
2010 numbers were announced back in September.
Since CPI-U from Sept 2008 to Sept 2009 did not increase, all the
various numbers (personal exemption, standard deduction, bracket
cutoffs, etc) have the same values for 2010 as they did in 2009.
--
Rich Carreiro rlc-...@rlcarr.com
Howard Kaikow
> The filing requirement is a derived number. E.g, Single, age 65, 2009
> derives from the sum of the personal exemption plus the std deduction
> plus the kicker for being at least age 65: 3650+5700+1400=10750. Just
> use the same numbers from the RP for 2010.
Adding the personal exemption + std deduction + the kicker for 65, I get:
3500 + 5450 + 1350 = 10300 for 2008, which is correct
3650+ 5700+ 1400= 10750 for 2009, which is correct
3650+ 5700+ 1400= 10750 for 2010, so there appears to be no change from
2009, is that correct?
Alan
> On 12/16/2009 13:25, Alan wrote:
>> The filing requirement is a derived number. E.g, Single, age 65, 2009
>> derives from the sum of the personal exemption plus the std deduction
>> plus the kicker for being at least age 65: 3650+5700+1400=10750. Just
>> use the same numbers from the RP for 2010.
>
> Adding the personal exemption + std deduction + the kicker for 65, I get:
>
> 3500 + 5450 + 1350 = 10300 for 2008, which is correct
> 3650+ 5700+ 1400= 10750 for 2009, which is correct
> 3650+ 5700+ 1400= 10750 for 2010, so there appears to be no change from
> 2009, is that correct?
>
Bill Brown
> "removeps-gro...@yahoo.com" <removeps-gro...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Dec 15, 6:36 pm, Howard Kaikow <kai...@standards.com> wrote:
>
> >> For 2009, if one is older than 65, and single, then it is not required
> >> to file a return unless one's gross income was at least $10750.
>
> >> Are the corresponding numbers available for 2010, and later years?
> >> Which pub has this information?
>
> > I don't think the numbers are out yet. �They are adjusted each year
> > for inflation, and we need to live through 2009 first.
>
> The 2010 numbers *are* out. �The CPI-U calculation used for all the
> various indexations is Sep-to-Sep (i.e. the US govt fiscal year). �The
> 2010 numbers were announced back in September.
>
> Since CPI-U from Sept 2008 to Sept 2009 did not increase, all the
> various numbers (personal exemption, standard deduction, bracket
> cutoffs, etc) have the same values for 2010 as they did in 2009.
Actually, the standard deduction for head of household filing status
increased from $8,350 (in 2009) to $8,400 (in 2010). Also, several
break points between marginal rates on the Tax Rate Schedules have
moved upward slightly. See Rev Proc 2009-50 at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-09-50.pdf
Howard Kaikow
> On 12/16/09 3:30 PM, Howard Kaikow wrote:
>> On 12/16/2009 13:25, Alan wrote:
>>> The filing requirement is a derived number. E.g, Single, age 65, 2009
>>> derives from the sum of the personal exemption plus the std deduction
>>> plus the kicker for being at least age 65: 3650+5700+1400=10750. Just
>>> use the same numbers from the RP for 2010.
>>
>> Adding the personal exemption + std deduction + the kicker for 65, I get:
>>
>> 3500 + 5450 + 1350 = 10300 for 2008, which is correct
>> 3650+ 5700+ 1400= 10750 for 2009, which is correct
>> 3650+ 5700+ 1400= 10750 for 2010, so there appears to be no change from
>> 2009, is that correct?
>>
> Yes.
Could I actually convert 13749, as I could also deduct a $3000 capital
gain loss from a carry forward?
In this case, would I have to file a tax return, as the gross income
would still be 10749?
Phil Marti
> >> 3650+ 5700+ 1400= 10750 for 2009, which is correct
> >> 3650+ 5700+ 1400= 10750 for 2010, so there appears to be no change from
> >> 2009, is that correct?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Could I actually convert 13749, as I could also deduct a $3000 capital
> gain loss from a carry forward?
>
> In this case, would I have to file a tax return, as the gross income
> would still be 10749?
I'm reminded of the old Certs commercials. We seem to have two
questions in one.
1. Could you convert (I assume this is a fully taxable Roth
conversion) $13,749 and pay not tax?
Academic exercise answer: yes
Practical question: What do you live on? Unless you have a huge
capital loss carryover and are getting your living expenses from sales
of assets I have trouble seeing how you live on zero gross income.
2. Do you have to file a return under the given scenario.
Academic answer: Beats me. I know there have been prior discussions
here about the effect of capital losses on the filing requirement, but
I haven't paid attention.
Practical answer: File. Otherwise the IRS, which won't be aware of
the loss carryover without a return, will bother you.
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD
Howard Kaikow
> On Dec 20, 3:51 am, Howard Kaikow wrote:
>
>>>> 3650+ 5700+ 1400= 10750 for 2009, which is correct
>>>> 3650+ 5700+ 1400= 10750 for 2010, so there appears to be no change from
>>>> 2009, is that correct?
>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Could I actually convert 13749, as I could also deduct a $3000 capital
>> gain loss from a carry forward?
>>
>> In this case, would I have to file a tax return, as the gross income
>> would still be 10749?
>
> I'm reminded of the old Certs commercials. We seem to have two
> questions in one.
>
> 1. Could you convert (I assume this is a fully taxable Roth
> conversion) $13,749 and pay not tax?
>
> Academic exercise answer: yes
>
> Practical question: What do you live on? Unless you have a huge
> capital loss carryover and are getting your living expenses from sales
> of assets I have trouble seeing how you live on zero gross income.
>
> 2. Do you have to file a return under the given scenario.
>
> Academic answer: Beats me. I know there have been prior discussions
> here about the effect of capital losses on the filing requirement, but
> I haven't paid attention.
>
> Practical answer: File. Otherwise the IRS, which won't be aware of
> the loss carryover without a return, will bother you.
Yes, I would file if only for the capital loss carry forward.
I am able to live, thus far, on only my Social Security income.
Another trigger for this was that I unexpectedly received 3 checks on
Thursday from the Invesco Fair Fund as compensation for their alleged
market timing naughtiness.
Several thousand bucks was for my old IRA account. But the check was
made out to AIMInvesco for me to redeposit in the IRA. Of course, this
would not be takaxable if I roll it over. I have to have the check
re-issued so I can roll it over to my IRA at Fido.
However, there were also 2 other checks for smallish amounts. Although
the Invesco Fair Fund folkes told me that these were not taxable, and
the amounts are not even reported to the IRS, the document at the
Invesco Fair Fund web site seems to indicate that some of the payment
may be taxable as capital gains and some as interest.
Of course, the capital gains would be eliminated by the losses I can
carry forward, and the interest is so small, I do not think that there
would be any tax.
All of this triggered me to think that I could apply a $3000 capital
gain loss and convert yet another $3000 from the IRA to the Roth.
I've been unusually ill since June 2008 and have not had an opportunity
to earn income. In 2008, I spent about $2682 more than my social
security income, which I covered from my bank account. In 2009, I expect
to spend less than my social security income.
I can do this because I have no mortgage and live as tho I was still in
grad school.
I am working on a software project. If I ever get healthy enough to
finish, it will likely generate large income.
Of course, once I hit 70.5, I'll have additional income from the MRD
from my IRA.
D. Stussy
news:hgke60$f40$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 12/16/2009 18:17, Alan wrote:
> > On 12/16/09 3:30 PM, Howard Kaikow wrote:
> >> On 12/16/2009 13:25, Alan wrote:
> >>> The filing requirement is a derived number. E.g, Single, age 65, 2009
> >>> derives from the sum of the personal exemption plus the std deduction
> >>> plus the kicker for being at least age 65: 3650+5700+1400=10750. Just
> >>> use the same numbers from the RP for 2010.
> >>
> >> Adding the personal exemption + std deduction + the kicker for 65, I
get:
> >>
> >> 3500 + 5450 + 1350 = 10300 for 2008, which is correct
> >> 3650+ 5700+ 1400= 10750 for 2009, which is correct
> >> 3650+ 5700+ 1400= 10750 for 2010, so there appears to be no change
from
> >> 2009, is that correct?
> >>
> > Yes.
>
> Could I actually convert 13749, as I could also deduct a $3000 capital
> gain loss from a carry forward?
>
> In this case, would I have to file a tax return, as the gross income
> would still be 10749?
Yes, because your capital loss is NOT part of gross income. Your gross
income would be $13,749.00.
Only capital gains (IRC Section 61(a)(3)) are part of gross income. Losses
aren't accounted for until AGI (Section 62(a)(3)).
Note that Form 1040, Line 22 doesn't call itself "gross income" but "total
income." That's because it isn't gross income as defined in the IRC.
Howard Kaikow
conversion on line 15, so the "total income" would still be 10749.
To this, I have to add less than $10 of interest income from the Invesco
Fair Fund checks. The capital gains from the Invesco Fair Fund would be
reported on Schedule D but would be eliminated by my loss carry forward.
Also, I Just remembered that I received a check dated 24 June 2009 for
$10.01 from BankOfAmerica Fair Fund on behalf of Janus that has to be
reported as capital gains.