Revenooer Rants: Liberals target your retirement account (opinion)
Here she comes again — that maven of retirement planning, Teresa Ghilarducci, who wants Obama and his minions to take over your retirement accounts.
Recall this college professor (need to know anything more?) popped up a few years back, suggesting that you’re not smart enough to manage your retirement investments, and just shouldn’t be subjected to the vagaries of the investment markets, all of which suggest the government should be the recipient of your retirement contributions, in return for which they will “safeguard” your dough and pay you a (minimal) guaranteed retirement stipend.
USA Today reported this week that Ghilarducci’s “brush with notoriety seems to have galvanized her,” given that in the recent several years her ideas have caught on with large states with pension problems (e.g. — Illinois and California) and with major unions, such as UAW.
“Every candidate will talk to a pension geek,” says Ghilarducci, “and that’s me.” USA Today goes on to opine that she’s even amongst a group of economists advising Hillary!
Now there’s an ominous thought.
Not to mention that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded that your hubby’s loosey-goosey attitude in paying his taxes just might result in you getting booted out of your house.
Indeed the Court affirmed a lower court ruling, which held that IRS could enforce its tax lien and sell the primary residence owned by the taxpayer and her scofflaw hubby.
The Court rejected the argument of the taxpayer, who did not owe any unpaid taxes, that the district court should have allowed IRS to sell only her hubby’s interest in the property.
Seems Ronald Davis didn’t see to it that his wholly owned corporation pay about $1 million of Federal employment taxes (and interest and penalties) over a three year span.
So, the Revenooers sought to enforce their tax liens through the sale of the Davis’ primary residence. Though the Mrs. Did not owe any unpaid taxes, IRS named her as a defendant in the action because she had an interest in the property.
Mrs. Davis argued that a forced sale of the residence would leave her undercompensated because it would assume that she and her hubby had equal interests in the property, even though she believed she had a greater interest due to her longer life expectancy as a woman and the fact that she was in good health while her husband had heart disease and was diabetic — novel arguments, we must say.
Nevertheless, the Court found that even if she did have a longer life expectancy, she couldn’t establish that such fact translates into a greater interest in the property.
Nice try, anyway.
CONSULT YOUR TAX ADVISER — This article contains general information about various tax matters. You should consult your CPA regarding the implications to your own particular situation. Jeff Quinn is a CPA, recently retired from Ashley Quinn, CPAs and Consultants, Ltd., with offices in Incline Village and Reno. He welcomes comments at email@example.com.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User