Sentences with phrase «never paid taxes on the money»

Deductible traditional IRA funds means he has never paid taxes on the money and in fact received a «tax deduction» when he originally made the contribution; let's just say in 2005.

I understand we never paid taxes on the money and should pay them on the conversion.

You never pay tax on the money inside your TFSA, so you can invest in interest - bearing options like bond funds and GICs, or aim for growth in the form of investments like stocks.

Not exact matches

I have had things like people who never paid their taxes, people who lied on the show, people who didn't think that if they spent money on their personal credit cards it should be considered an expense.

As long as he follows the rules of Roth IRA investing, he will never pay a single penny in taxes on the money he makes in the account.

Martins, a former state senator, says he'd get rid of the county guarantee that makes Nassau pay tax refunds to school districts and other municipalities on money it collected but never kept.

You don't get an upfront tax deduction on the money you put into a Roth, but in exchange, you'll never have to pay tax on that money if you meet certain legal requirements.

I'm not aware of any Canadian mechanism which would allow a dividend to be considered paid / taxable without: (1) you receiving cash; (2) you receiving additional shares [which particularly in Canada is just a foolish way to accelerate tax, essentially, and basically never happens]; or (3) your funds received by a broker being automatically reinvested on your behalf [this is really the same as «you receiving cash», but you never see the money before it's used to rebuy new shares].

However, the money grows tax - free, so you never pay taxes on your earnings.

The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out.

So if I am to pay sales tax on the gross income of each machine, as I believe I am required to in my state, and I also pay tax on the net gains of the business and income tax on the money the LLC pays to me, I may never actually turn a profit.

Note that the shifting tax bracket business is never relevant: you always pay the same tax on the same amount of money, even if you make more - you pay more tax on that higher amount of money, but it doesn't shift your amount under that any.

A key benefit of using RDSPs is they allow money to grow tax - sheltered, meaning the individual for whom the account is set up (the beneficiary) never pays tax on earnings until funds are withdrawn.

As opposed to any other savings account, stocks, mutual funds, etc., you never have to worry about paying capital gains tax on the money you have put into retirement.

With the Roth, you won't save any money in taxes now, but you'll be able to grow that money for decades and never pay taxes on any of it.

There is no rule that says once you sell an investment and pay taxes on the gain, you will never again pay any taxes on any other investments you then buy with that money.

If you don't, the person giving you the loan may find himself paying income taxes on interest he never received and gift taxes on money he never gave away.

A few years ago I transferred my TFSA from Tangerine t CIBC as a result I got fine a large penalty I talked to Tangerine and they said it was not their mistake then I Talked to my Bank The CIBC and they said it was not their mistake Then I talk to my accountant and he said I was not the only one it happened to a lots of his clients, I withdrew all the money out of that TFSA and paid the penalty wich was large enough that 10 years of interest would not have made up for it So I will never put money in a TFSA again I prefer paying income tax on what I make rather then getting shafed by the Government for some obscure rules

These are the actual returns from inception (1 January 1999) showing the returns as if you initially bought all of the investment vehicles in the exact amounts, on the first trading day, the trades all magically settled the same day, all distributions were reinvested, you never made another trade other than the monthly rebalancing and investment switches that occurred in the master model (and all of these trades settled on the same day), never put new money in, never paid taxes on it, and never redeemed shares.

These are the actual returns from inception (January 1999) showing the returns as if you initially bought all of the investment vehicles in the exact amounts, on the first trading day, the trades all magically settled the same day, all distributions were reinvested, they never made another trade other than the quarterly rebalancing and investment switches that occurred in the master model (and all of these trades settled on the same day), never put new money in, never paid taxes on it, and never redeemed shares.

The only way an investor would own an exact investing model is if they initially bought all of the investment vehicles in the exact amounts, on the first trading day, the trades all settled the same day, all distributions were reinvested, they never made another trade other than the quarterly rebalancing and investment switches that occurred in the master model (and all of these trades settled on the same day), never put new money in, never paid taxes on it, and never redeemed shares.

What legal avenues could I explore to recover the money I seemingly paid in taxes on income I never actually received?

«Homeowners shouldn't be forced to pay a tax on money they've already lost with cash they never received.»

But what the hell, the OREcrats don't care; the dues money - ball just keeps on getting bigger and bigger, and the associations feeding off of the here - today - gone - tomorrow tax - payers continue to reap the rewards of their peons» failures; the peons never last long enough to get sick of paying their dues.