Even better question about executor's fees -
11/16/09
at 4:02 PM
Another question that this raises is whether or not the executor's fees can support an IRA contribution, if the fees are *not* SE income. Nobody's answered this one in a year or two. Well, nobody's asked it....
RE: Even better question about executor's fees -
11/18/09
at 4:53 PM
I've looked at the 1040 instructions for IRA contributions and I can't even find the phrase "qualifying earned income". Which instructions are you talking about, Mark?
RE: you have to do something -
11/19/09
at 1:38 PM
>>But otherwise [other than the religion thing and the divorce thing] it still has to be from employment or self-employment.<<
Where are you getting that?
I thought the law/regulation said something like "...or other compensation for services rendered" and that the only real question we've got left is whether or not an executor's fee is "compensation" for "services"?
That would be something of which regular readers are NOT well aware. A review of my posts will show I usually cite my sources. A review of the very post you questioned will likewise show I cited my source. Now perhaps you would like to cite YOUR source.
To the contrary. In the post that you're talking about, you cited a source, but then you wrote "But otherwise..." by which I am sure you meant that at that point you were *no longer* citing Pub 590. And that left the important part of your observation - the part I asked about - unsupported.
I'll offer up the source of my support as Reg Sec 1.219-1.
Is the only question we've got left now whether or not an executor's fee is "compensation" for "services rendered"? See the definition at Reg Sec 1.219-1.
I rest my case. The definition you refer to requires a trade or business for self employment income. Oh, I suppose you could argue that "not limited to" means any income whatsoever, or at least anything you want. Good luck, man.
I read the definition of "compensation" in the tax code, and also in the regulation you've pointed to, and I've got to say, it's not much of a deffinition. Pretty much all it says is what's included and what's not included in "compensation." It's like saying that cats are animals, fig newtons are not animals, and saying that's a definition of "animals". Pretty cheesy, IMHO.
This is apparently the kind of thing that even intelligent people could argue about for a long time and never get to the bottom of. I think Congress's definition (in the tax code) was lame, and whoever wrote the regulation deffinition at 1.219.1 simply extended that lameness into the regulation!
Printer-friendly format
= Quickfinder Team Member
