SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (62157)11/4/1999 1:18:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive  Respond to of 108807
 
If the pension fund would go after her and get a judgement, she could file an amended return (assuming she paid taxes, and there is no further fraud involved) and the IRS would have to refund the tax portion of the 96K. Of course that would only go back 3 years, but it's better than nothing.

bp



To: Ilaine who wrote (62157)11/4/1999 1:45:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 108807
 
In all fairness, that 40% is the marginal rate. After exemptions, deductions (assuming a median CA mortgage that's good for $30k annually) and progressive taxation her total tax burden would be 40%; that includes state and payroll taxes. So more like a $160K comparable.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News