The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Financial Planning / Tax Strategies

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/bob78164-date-71499-219-pm-number-17308-are-11048168.aspx

Subject:  Re: The Pennsylvania two-step Date:  7/14/1999  3:09 PM
Author:  WilliamLipp Number:  17311 of 121061

Bob78164 Date: 7/14/99 2:19 PM Number: 17308
Are you sure that sham transaction rules apply in this setting? Let's take a look at a similar issue in a different setting. Suppose I want to transfer money from a former employer's 401(k) plan to a Roth IRA.

I'm not a tax professional, so I'm never sure about any tax question. The insurmountable difference between these two examples, in my opinion, is the issue of whether be really gave the money to his neices. If he did, then they were free to do anything they wanted with it. I think it stinks of sham that what they wanted to do with it was to give it away, especially since they chose to give it in a way that benefitted him. In your example, there isn't any point in the chain where someone seems to be acting against their own interests, so I don't smell sham there.
Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us