Re: Date manipulation

docdwarf_at_panix.com
Date: 12/28/03 

Date: 27 Dec 2003 21:53:49 -0500

In article <jp5ruvs0f8vosrqoi3310nek89np1fss6h@4ax.com>,
Ian Dalziel <iandalziel@lineone.net> wrote:
>On 27 Dec 2003 09:21:13 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>>In article <g34ruvktos452r31ej95sgp5c0dfbda8uu@4ax.com>,
>>Ian Dalziel <iandalziel@lineone.net> wrote:
>>>On 27 Dec 2003 08:33:14 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <hvoquv0ri8tnhagbufe40r5bfl0pec3rmv@4ax.com>,
>>>>Ian Dalziel <iandalziel@lineone.net> wrote:
>>>>>On 26 Dec 2003 18:21:53 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <5ndpuvs9apbu2h66u3s9d0ammq4ho7fhje@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>Ian Dalziel <iandalziel@lineone.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>On 26 Dec 2003 14:23:56 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>... and my point is that this is one way of doing it. Another way is to
>>>>>>>>say 'here we have a quantity to be applied against the paycheck; is this
>>>>>>>>quantity taxable or not? if it is taxable then apply the quantity in a
>>>>>>>>fashion which shows taxation, if not then not.'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're not listening, are you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm trying to... and respond, as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Think about it - is it good to apply
>>>>>>>the quantity in a way which shows taxation, or is it not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If the status is untaxed then it should be applied as such, either
>>>>>>positively or negatively.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><sigh> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure, but an "untaxed" deduction in that sense effectively comes out
>>>>>of TAXED income - if it is paid with no reference to tax, it reduces
>>>>>the net payment by its full amount.
>>>>
>>>>And as I stated earlier that is one way to consider a deduction. Another
>>>>way to consider it is that a deduction is a portion of income which is
>>>>subject to tax calculations, just as certain kinds of income (dividends,
>>>>say, or 1099-paid income) are not subject to tax calculations. If the
>>>>portion of income which is not subject to tax calculations is to be
>>>>subtracted (a deduction) and this portion is a negative amount then the
>>>>result is a net addition.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Absolutely - no argument about that at all. Now let's go back and look
>>>at what we were talking about :
>>>
>>>"... and it turned out that the President of the bought-out hospital
>>>was the beneficiary of some rather... creative accounting; it seems
>>>that he'd had a pre-tax deduction applied to his payroll profile, one
>>>which would, every week, automatically take out one hundred pre-tax
>>>dollars...
>>>
>>>... and then somehow - *must* have been an accident because *everyone*
>>>denied knowing *anything* about this - the VSAM file containing the
>>>employee profiles got changed... and the sign-nibble on the COMP-3
>>>field for this deduction went from negative to positive, giving the
>>>man a 'negative deduction'...
>>>
>>>... so every time his paycheck was calculated the programs would
>>>subtract negative one hundred pre-tax dollars, in effect giving him an
>>>additional one hundred tax-free dollars."
>>>
>>>OK? Now what I am saying is A PRE-TAX ADDITION IS NOT TAX-FREE!
>>>It would have to be post-tax to be tax-free - if it is pre-tax the
>>>tax calculation will deduct tax from it.
>>
>>Ahhhhhhh, I see! My error and apologies for the sloppiness of my
>>terminology; my intention in using the term 'pre-tax' (which you are
>>entirely correct in interpreting as 'applied before taxes') was to
>>indicate that the deduction was 'untaxed'.
>>
>
><phew!>
>You would be right with a deduction - that's what I tried to say
>(obviously not very clearly). To be "untaxed" a deduction has to be
>pre-tax, but an addition has to be post-tax.
>

Well... glad we got that one straightened out.

DD

Relevant Pages

  • Retro SSDI Payments & Taxes, Medicare B Questions, Etc.
    ... Assuming they're tax deductible, can I deduct the retroactive premiums on my 2008 taxes, or will I have to do something more complicated? ... I assume that simply comes out of my pocket and there's no deduction to mitigate this cost. ... When I completed my 2004 and 2005 taxes, I felt that I did not qualify as totally and permanently disabled, so I did not check the "disabled" box, even though my employer had put me on LTD retroactive to 09/01/2004. ... it seems to me that I really *did* qualify as totally and permanently disabled and thus should amend my 2004 and 2005 taxes accordingly. ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Re: Gas or golf
    ... "I've also been told I don't need to pay my taxes. ... you get 51% of the total deduction. ... This policy on logging mileage is essentially what ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Additional Thoughts on Qualifying Child
    ... state or local income taxes. ... Remember Section 56 applies in lieu of Section 111 for AMTI. ... Since AMTI is calculated every year, when is the deduction ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Re: Calculations for Alternative Minimum Tax
    ... for any taxes described in paragraph,, ... No deduction shall be allowed-- ... computing adjusted gross income. ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Re: Calculations for Alternative Minimum Tax
    ... for any taxes described in paragraph,, ... computing the regular tax): ... No deduction shall be allowed-- ... computing adjusted gross income. ...
    (misc.taxes)