New legislation

[Gretel]

Just run into this and started to read. Might be a good beginning.

http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2010/May/20102731.htm

[Uncle Sam]

New Legislation

Gretel - thanks millions.
I usually mail my clients monthly newsletters.
I am delayed this month due to the height of tax season.

Your link to the Journal of Accountancy Article came at a PERFECT TIME.

I'm photocopying (with all the Journal's credit info) - and will be including it with my newsletter.

It does a great job of summarizing the major provisions - especially now that Schedule A medical will now be subject to 10%, not 7.5%.

[jimmcg]

Just run into this and started to read. Might be a good beginning.

http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/...y/20102731.htm

Excellent summary.........Thank you!

[ChEAr$]

Haven't read the link, but have another explanation from CCH at the office.

I would hold off sending out information to clients, esp since most of the tax aspects
don't take effect until some time in the future. And I'm just betting that there are
going to be changes to changes to come, esp after November. Just a hunch.
Thus I won't be alarming my clients relative to the projected increase in IRS agents
with sunglasses and guns trying to enforce certain aspects of it. (grin)


At one time I purposely didn't bother to read proposed law until after a presidential signature on the bill.

[taxea]

"now that Schedule A medical will now be subject to 10%, not 7.5%."

and I thought this bill was supposed to help the elderly and low income. I wonder how much of their prescription drugs are going to be affected by this little gem!

I kept hoping they would eliminate the 7.5% for low income and seniors. That seemed to me an easy way to give them a break on their health care costs. But, noooo, instead they strip more money away. This is just sick.

[Uncle Sam]

New Legislation

I guess we can now call President Obama "The Candy Man":

[dyne]

I just received an email from a friend which quotes Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/connelly.asp

which was written by a retired Constitutional lawyer who said that he
has read the entire Health Care Bills and they present major problems,
as I interpret what he wrote. ONE thing that I found most distressing
is that the new law uses the word TAX imposed upon those who do
not have health insurance rather than call it a fine or fee, or penalty, etc.
This is done for legal reasons. I do NOT begin to understand this new law
and have not read it. Read it for yourself. Of course, it will probably
be changed.

[JohnH]

I'm sure it will be changed.
The "TAX" part will keep going up.

[Gretel]

"now that Schedule A medical will now be subject to 10%, not 7.5%."

and I thought this bill was supposed to help the elderly and low income. I wonder how much of their prescription drugs are going to be affected by this little gem!

I kept hoping they would eliminate the 7.5% for low income and seniors. That seemed to me an easy way to give them a break on their health care costs. But, noooo, instead they strip more money away. This is just sick.

Even though I don't understand the provision yet, it has a provision in there to keep 7.5% if someone turn 65 in these years.

[dyne]

Yes the medical deduction will be allowable if the medical expenses exceed 10% of AGI but if over age 65 the old 7.5% threshold still applies. What if the husband is 70 and the wife is 60? Surely they will not require us to separate and apply both rules and allocate between the husband and wife.