Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The end of the year is the deadline for most individuals with qualified retirement plans and IRAs to take their required minimum distributions (RMDs) if they have attained age 70' or inherited their benefits (Code Sec. 408(a)(9)). RMDs for 2015 are based on the account's value at the end of 2014. The failure to take RMDs can result in a 50% penalty (Code Sec. 4974). As part of its Tax Preparedness Series, the IRS reminded affected individuals to remember to take their RMDs by Dec. 31 (IR-2015-122, Oct. 29, 2015). Here are some key issues that can impact RMDs.
Those Who Turned 70'
Individuals who were born July 1, 1944, to June 30, 1945, attained age 70' in 2015. This means that they have attained their required beginning date for purposes of RMDs and must take their first one by Dec. 31, 2015. However, they can opt to postpone the first RMD until April 1, 2016. Doing so means taking two RMDs in 2016 (one by April 1 and one by Dec. 31).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?