Minimizing tax consequences...
I think there was a general discussion a while back but I can't seem to find it, so....
For those folks getting significant signing bonuses, how have you dealt with the tax consequences of being pushed into a higher tax bracket for the year you get the signing bonus? What about Alternative Mimimum Tax (AMT)? What other issues have you run into?
Same sorts of questions for royalty payments.
The reason I'm asking is that this gets into some specialized stuff and at least one accountant I spoke with was blowing smoke and clearly didn't have a clue about O&G income (signing bonus, royalty treatment, etc).
Mike
Views: 22601
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mike h on
-
While I may like Pappy Van Winkle 23 year old reserve bourbon, I don't think your reply is particularly good.
The only reason I can think of someone in the wealth management business to say that landowners shouldn't discuss various approaches is self interest on the part of someone such as yourself.
Personally I wish that those peddling solutions stay out of the conversation unless you have something meaningful to contribute.
Do I think that all of the approaches suggested are well conceived? Absolutely not. On the other hand, I view this as part of the learning curve for many landowners.
From what I have seen (for example, ads in the Free Press Standard), many of the "financial experts" seem more interested in peddling their wares (such as annuities) rather than truly looking to assist landowners in dealing with their new found wealth.
BTW, the Wall Street Journal had an interesting article this weekend on people managing new found wealth. It was pretty basic but interesting.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike h on
-
Sorry Finnbear,
I read it in the paper edition. I tried googling but it doesn't show up in the search results.
It basically gives a few examples and then some really basic advice. Things like be skeptical of the people coming out of the woodwork to offer you investment ideas or that want to borrow money from you (specifically family).
Mike
-
Permalink Reply by 0bcf9pzz1iuak on
-
Great choice of boubon. We cant give advice on a board. I said earlier "taste and see" We are meeting with landowners and saving up to 80% on bonus money and alot on royalties. You pick your own investments if you know what your doing. We can talk to your cpa/attorney. Worth a call 866-366-1110.
-
Permalink Reply by Chartist on
-
folks here are looking for ways to keep more of their royalties and bonuses for themselves....There are obvious ways to decrease the tax bite that either defers the use of some money (IRA) or gifting money. We all know about these.
Years ago, one of my partners was given the off shore investment story....I think the government is after these tax schemes today.....
As I've said, I've been getting two royalty streams for over 20 years and my CPAs have not been successful in a tax savings idea other than gifting and IRAs....The only one that came close was opening a small business (legitamate), hiring your spouse, then putting all of the spouses income in a Keogh account.....I've looked into depletion allowance, or accelerated depreciation of my property...but those went to the company leasing my realestate, not me.....
-
-
Taste and see. we have landowners getting bonus checks now and are lower taxes buy up to 80%. In addition, substantial savings on ongoing royalties. We can even talk to your cpa. We dont give advice on boards, but a call would be worth it. 866-366-1110
-
Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on
-
I'm with ya, Jim. But at this point I am really outraged by the way this matter has been handled here. I take note all of Beth's posts have been deleted, and I disagree with that strongly. It is very bad for this forum that not all voices are allowed to be heard.
Look, I have as much "street cred" on this issue as anyone here. I was very, very critical of Beth's company, Ameriprise, which I belittled. I preached caution and proclaimed a failure to pass the smell test.
But under no circumstances do I support a decision to muzzle Beth, and I am infuriated it has been done. I also do not support any jackass here who is going to tattle on this new Van Winkle fellow. I say: Allow these people to be heard. Just because I disagree with somebody does not mean I want to shut them up. All I ask is opportunity to respond and express my opinion. Then it is up to each reader here to make up his or her own mind. And you can't make up your own mind when some idiot rips down the other side of a story. You must hear both sides! The taking down of Beth's posts is big brotherism on steroids. It is disgraceful and it is un-American.
Pissed? Yeah, I am. This forum isn't worth sh** when somebody like Beth is not allowed to post. And the fact I am at odds with her product is completely irrelevant to this truism.
Let me tell you people something: When Beth is not permitted to say her piece how do you know you will not be next!! I believe wholeheartedly in free speech. I want Beth to be allowed to tout her Ameriprise offerings, and I want all the rest of us to be allowed to criticize them. Same with Van Winkle. This is how we all learn. You can't learn when somebody like Beth is shut down and shut out. Instead, we learn when there is full, open, and unfettered discussion and disagreement. Apparently some pantywaisted know-it-all went to the moderator on this, some big-brother type who cannot tolerate differences of opinion. I detest "groupthink". It reminds me of Red China, and it makes me sick.
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson Roe on
-
On this we definitely do agree Frank. Even though I had met with Mr. Hannan on Saturday, I felt that I was still learning a good deal from the discussions on this thread. Even though there were differing viewpoints, overall everything was staying civil. I did not see where it was solicitation, to me it seemed like discussion. & people attempting to get educated. One can not get educated without good back & forth discussion & that is exactly what we had going on here! Now... if anyone else comes through later trying to decipher what all was said here, they are going to be pretty confused, as much of the conversation does not make sense without Beth's posts in there! This was just a form of censorship taken a bit too far! I don't know that anyone here was actually pushing any particular product, just trying to allow people to get educated. It both saddens and angers me as well that one opinion (or perhaps a few) can silence a conversation that could have benefitted many!!! Mr. Moderator (Mauk)... Please re-insert these postings for the benefit of the majority.
-
Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on
-
Absolutely right on the civility! Beth was professional at all times. She never attacked me personally. She never attacked anyone else here personally. Her behavior was top notch and first class.
For my part, I went after her company, Ameriprise, really hard. I went after her questionable tax-saving scheme. But never once did I criticize Beth personally . . and neither did anyone else. We were disagreeing on the ideas she was presenting. It was not personal on either side. And readers here deserve an airing of Beth's ideas and offerings. They are very germane to the lives of prospective royalty owners. It was outrageous and high-handed to take down her posts. Her posts were important . . very, very important . . to readers here.
I continue to be angry about this. There always seems to be one imbecile who thinks he knows better than everyone else, and knows what is best for everyone else. I say, allow people to hear everything, to hear all sides, and then decide for themselves. And I don't think this could be much more obvious!!!!! I hope this Van Winkle poster is offered opportunity to speak. But at this point who knows where a line is going to be drawn. Setting aside the obvious stuff like vulgarity and inappropriate personal attacks, there should not be limits placed on speech here.
-
-
A financial advisor is limited on what can be said on a board because it is considered giving advice, what may be appropriate for Nelson may not be appropriate for Frank. The only reason that I am posting is because a landowner who attended our workshop shared it with me. When I created the account, I started to put my website in description, after reading the terms, I revised profile and had it removed.
I have never seen anything like what is going on eastern Ohio. There are alot of people that are confused and really need help with how to deal with this windfall. Statistically, lottery winners and professional athletes have the greatest probability of losing their networth because of such a large influx of cash in a short period of time and poor management.
The first question I ask a prospective client is how much of this nestegg do you want to lose? There are safemoney alternatives that offer principal protection, upside of market and no management fees. We are the anti wallstreet firm. An Independent firm while still offering the best names. No quotas or product menus only the solutions that truly fits the client not cookie cutter same size fits all.
-
Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on
-
Here's the thing, Van:
It's possible some might shout "solicitation" when confronted with Beth's posts and your own. But what of it! Who cares! Read the title of this thread. What people care about is saving on taxes. To do so they might have to do business with Beth, with you, or with some other outfit offering the service they need. Most people start out completely unaware such service providers even exist. That is precisely what the OP here was inquiring about, for goodness sake.
I think it's far better for providers of questionable tax schemes to come forward here, where rebuttal is possible, than to deal with (prospective) clients in a controlled environment, where only one side of the story might be heard.
If Beth, for example, can obtain business from Lessors who have read all the negative information I've posted about her company, more power to her. God bless her. I've no problem with that, but I do prefer for people to go in cautiously and well informed with eyes wide open.
People should not rely on the fox to scope out the henhouse. But when the fox posts here there is opportunity for third parties to express their critical opinions about his (or her) activities.
Senselessly shooting and killing the fox helps nobody.
-
Permalink Reply by grayhairedgrandpa on
-
In defense of the publisher (moderator) Mr. Mauck, there is nothing wrong with this beneficial discussion...it just needs to be held in a different place. The current solicitation policy states that Beth's postings do not belong on the GMS homepage. As a long-time member of this forum, I can tell you that without certain rules, solicitations sometimes got out of hand. I think a fair compromise might be to ask (email) Mr. Mauck to move this thread to an appropriate Ohio county group or to the Landowners XChange (business) section with Beth's comments intact. Also, if you feel that the solicitation policy needs updating, he is very open to suggestions to improve the website.Link to GMS Solicitation Policy (excerpt below)...click here
"There is zero tolerance for unauthorized solicitations and spamming in the homepage forum and the Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia Landowner's groups. Personal emails, websites or phone numbers will be assumed to be solicitations in these areas.
Permitted sites to post include news, licensed non-profits & government agencies. Additionally, utilization of one's profile photo and/or name to promote a biz is prohibited."
"Where you CAN promote: Promotion of one's land/land group/services can be made in the "County" groups. IE, the groups that have "county" in its title."
The goal has always been to provide the most useful website and this slight change will allow the site to maximize its usefulness.
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
