Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hi Roy,

I noticed that you were posting recently and have a few open questions from earlier posts and thought I would consolidate them.

1) Thanks for the response [26258] to my ramblings on W-4 allowances. As you pointed out, I had asked one of the questions at the end of the post twice. Problem is/was I wrote it arount 2AM (as is the case with this current post). I just wanted to go back to the question of how to deal with allowances when one (or one's spouse) is expecting. If I understould your response, you do not feel it is appropriate to adjust one's allowances until the birth/dependent is certain and not while it is merely a contingency. I understand your point, but think I would feel pretty comfortable taking the position that an adjustment was reasonable if it was based on a contingency that was fairly likely to occur. I noticed that pmarti [in 25533] suggested people getting married late in the year should adjust their allowances to make sure they don't underwithhold. This was based on a situation in which both parties were working. Since he mentioned the scenario, I wonder if he would agree that it would be reasonable for the one working party of a pair getting married in the year to avoid overwithholding by adjusting allowances upwards before the wedding. Any thoughts?

2) [In 26105,] I asked whether you thought the substance of a gift to a child to make an Education IRA contribution was much different form the substance of the transaction discussed in that thread [person who maxed out on their annual gift-tax-free donations to one party gives money to sibling who gives money to intended donee]. I understand the practical differences in the IRS's incentves to attack the two transactions, but was curious if there was a more substantive difference between the two.

3) As long as I'm bugging you about these older posts, I guess I'll reask my question [from 26672] about limitations to the benefit of the deduction for mark-to-market losses on PFIC stock, either to one's regular or AMT tax liability.

Hope you're having a great weekend and I wont pester you with these questions again.

Keep up the good work,

Print the post  


In accordance with IRS Circular 230, you cannot use the contents of any post on The Motley Fool's message boards to avoid tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.