New IRS rules offer relief for Madoff victims

[ARyan]

http://www.boston.com/business/artic...adoff_victims/


What a joke...

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by ARyan

http://www.boston.com/business/artic...adoff_victims/


What a joke...

Why is that a joke? They paid taxes on profits that weren't real and monies that never existed.

[Danzig]

i suppose that since 401k's are untaxed while invested, you can't claim any losses?

[ARyan]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Why is that a joke? They paid taxes on profits that weren't real and monies that never existed.

Seriously, you do not get why this is completely ridiculous?

[gales0678]

let's say i gave madoff 100k and he simply passed on the 100k to bob in yr 1

bob takes my 100 k pays takes on 35% so he gets 65K - the govt has to give him back the 35 k , because it is now found out that it was not income., it's a simple as that

don't forget , the clawback rule may require bob to give back 100k to the trustee because the 100k is someone else $$ , so he really may not be getting a refund

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by ARyan

Seriously, you do not get why this is completely ridiculous?

Honestly...and maybe I'm missing something, but I don't. I'm not even sure you think it's "ridiculous" because it doesn't go far enough to help the victims or because you think they should have no tax relief at all, even though a similar rule has always been on the books.

[declansharbor]

Originally Posted by ARyan

Seriously, you do not get why this is completely ridiculous?

I'm not sure that I do either. Do you think they should treat it as 'ordinary investment losses'?

Some of the investors are at fault for stretching themselves thin in this one particular investment, rather than spreading their monies around.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by declansharbor

Some of the investors are at fault for stretching themselves thin in this one particular investment, rather than spreading their monies around.

At fault for stretching themselves thin? WTF?

If you're dumb enough to believe that the guy isn't a fraud because of his dazzling record over 30 years .. you'd have to be a complete idiot to have any investment anywhere else.

[Cannon Shell]

The IRS showing compassion is a positive step regardless of who it is aimed at.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

At fault for stretching themselves thin? WTF?

If you're dumb enough to believe that the guy isn't a fraud because of his dazzling record over 30 years .. you'd have to be a complete idiot to have any investment anywhere else.

Some of the charities... it is a sad thing.
The private investors that hardly ever saw a lose
probably thought he was doing some sort of
insider trading and could have been very greedy.
They had to think something was amiss.

Or... yes.
I guess they could have been plain stupid.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by ARyan

http://www.boston.com/business/artic...adoff_victims/


What a joke...

how is this a joke?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Anyone who invested with Bernie should get pies thrown on them on top of none of the money they lost back.

The guy showed something like just two monthly losses in 30 years. Just an impossible silly record. Even Sumitas could have probably concluding the guy was a fraud if he examined his past record close enough. Who needs proof of wrongdoing when commen sense says that no one can do that on the legit?

There's an old saying around here ... "what's the difference between the Big 10 and the SEC?" ... "one group still has teeth and doesn't routinely take forays into there siblings genitals ... and the other is in the South East."

The Securites and Exchange Commish might not be guilty of the crime of weak non-conference scheduling - but it's pretty obvious they take forays into the genitals of Wall Street elite and are disgustingly pro big business - pro fat cat. Why do they even exist again?