I still have this issue unresolved in my mind.(from my 04-16-07 post 'Help with IRA')
Regarding traditional IRA where TP took out $$ and replaced it within 60 days.
This is the part that has my brain short circuited. I can't reconcile the prohibition against 'taking loans' (or rather 'loans to disqualified persons') with the ability to withdraw $$ NT if it's paid back in 60 days and this type of transaction occurs not more than one time in a 12 mo period.
Pub (p.47) says "Borrowing money from it" . Sec 4975 (c)(1)(B) says "lending of money or other extension of credit between a plan and a disqualified person".
Either way, seems to me the fact of taking out the $$ and putting back made it a borrowing/loan.
I've currently pulled SS4975 to see if I can't dig out the definition of a 'disqualified person'. So far, I can't seem to find where he actually 'did' a prohibited transaction (not falling under 'disqualified person' as far as my first three passes through the section draw me to conclude) but I want to make sure.
In any case, seems to me I'm missing something. The brokerage statement detail shows the repayment as a 'rollover'. But I've come to not entirely trust what they say - at least not without independent confirmation.
Can anyone help me resolve this in my mind?
Thank you in advance.
Regarding traditional IRA where TP took out $$ and replaced it within 60 days.
This is the part that has my brain short circuited. I can't reconcile the prohibition against 'taking loans' (or rather 'loans to disqualified persons') with the ability to withdraw $$ NT if it's paid back in 60 days and this type of transaction occurs not more than one time in a 12 mo period.
Pub (p.47) says "Borrowing money from it" . Sec 4975 (c)(1)(B) says "lending of money or other extension of credit between a plan and a disqualified person".
Either way, seems to me the fact of taking out the $$ and putting back made it a borrowing/loan.
I've currently pulled SS4975 to see if I can't dig out the definition of a 'disqualified person'. So far, I can't seem to find where he actually 'did' a prohibited transaction (not falling under 'disqualified person' as far as my first three passes through the section draw me to conclude) but I want to make sure.
In any case, seems to me I'm missing something. The brokerage statement detail shows the repayment as a 'rollover'. But I've come to not entirely trust what they say - at least not without independent confirmation.
Can anyone help me resolve this in my mind?
Thank you in advance.
Comment