IMHO: Unbelieve Able

As my wife and I drove to pick up our eldest for the Thanksgiving break, I saw something I never thought I would see again.

$1.95/gallon gasoline (even more incredible, that was while I was still in the borders of Connecticut, which imposes some of the highest gasoline taxes in the nation).

Indeed, what with the election, the introductions of the new Administration’s team, the bailout/rescue of the week, and the continued jitters of the world markets, the reality that gasoline costs about half what it did in July has gone almost unreported. Still, I heard a report last week that suggests the net impact of that drop in price has put about $500 billion back in American pockets—now THAT’S a “stimulus package’ we can believe in!

Still, what I find interesting about that dramatic turnaround in oil prices is that it happened so rapidly that the explanations of why it ran up so quickly are still ringing in my ears. I remember all too well the pundits laying the price hikes off on the growth in the emerging industrial economies of China and India, the impact of hurricanes on production in the gulf, concern about turmoil in the Middle East, the perceived vulnerability of the shipping lanes….Others, of course, cited the fact that we hadn’t built a new refinery in more than a decade, and that we refuse to consider drilling in areas that wouldn’t seem to pose a threat to man nor beast. But what I remember most vividly was how consistently the so-called experts denied that “mere’ speculation could account for these kinds of increases.

Yeah, right.

IMHO, one of the most frustrating things about the current economic crisis is that nobody seems to know what is causing it and, thus, no one can offer a credible idea of how long it will last or what can (or should) be done to hasten its end, much less what the “rest of us’ are supposed to do in the “interim.’

While financial pundits are, these days, prone to trace cyclical “corrections’ to the bursting of “bubbles’—housing, tech—the resulting declines are generally not that sudden, nor are they, generally speaking, wholly unanticipated. Rather, they are the result of pressures on our financial system like the geological pressures that often result in earthquakes or the eruption of volcanoes. And, like those geophysical manifestations, there are often precursors to the actual “big event,’ as well as significant after effects (nor do you have to be a financial genius to see them—how many times did you look at the soaring prices of homes in your neighborhood and think “this can’t go on?’). The problems at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that ostensibly triggered the most recent crisis were so blatantly obvious that even Congress felt compelled to hold hearings on the subject (and back in 2006, no less!).

At the outset of the current crisis, I was encouraged to see the federal government step forward to help and facilitate some—but not every—institution that appeared to be struggling. In hindsight, that may not have been as well-reasoned as one might want to believe, but at least there was the appearance of selective and intelligent, if not appropriate, involvement.

We want to believe that the so-called experts know what they’re doing. But with every passing day, it seems more and more obvious that they don’t. Little wonder, then, that the American electorate is increasingly disinclined to simply hand over a blank check. Little wonder also that some of the market’s “natural’ remedies have apparently been staved off by people waiting to see how much the government would do—knowing full well that an outgoing Administration desperate for its legacy, and an incoming Administration anxious to prove itself would be more than somewhat inclined to do more than might otherwise be the case.

Retirement plan investors are consistently and, IMHO, prudently told to “stay the course’ in times of turmoil; reminded that, even when change seems appropriate, even essential, to be careful about overreacting. It’s an approach that advisers, in large part, applaud and support.

Maybe it’s time the folks in Washington took a bit of THAT advice to heart.

IRS Issues Final 409A Relief Procedures

Almost one year to the day after Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials first proposed a series of procedures for correcting income inclusion issues with additional taxes under Section 409A, the IRS on Friday released the final version of the correction programs.

Notice 2008-113 replaces Notice 2007-100 issued December 3, 2007 (see “Feds Unveil Potential 409A Compliance Relief” and “Correction Appended“), and provides procedures for taxpayers to follow for correcting “certain operational failures during the service provider’s taxable year in which the failure occurs.” The procedures also apply for certain service providers during the following taxable year.

According to the IRS notice, the new procedures include:

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

  • Methods for correcting certain operational failures during the service provider’s taxable year in which the failure occurs and, for certain service providers also during the subsequent taxable year, to avoid income inclusion under § 409A(a).
  • Relief limiting the amount includible in income under § 409A(a) for certain operational failures during a service provider’s taxable year that involve only limited amounts.
  • Relief limiting the amount includible in income under § 409A(a) for certain operational failures regardless of whether the failure involves only limited amounts, but subject to further required actions to correct the failure.
  • Special transition relief for certain operational failures occurring before January 1, 2008.

Being Eligible for Relief

In explaining the eligibility requirements, the IRS said a taxpayer is not eligible for certain relief measures unless all of the applicable requirements are met, as well as the requirements of the particular section providing the applicable relief and the notice and the reporting requirements.

In each instance, the taxpayer claiming the relief has the burden of demonstrating that the taxpayer was eligible for the relief and that the requirements of this notice have been met, the tax agency said.

The relief measures are not available unless, in addition to meeting the applicable requirements of the relevant section, the service recipient takes commercially reasonable steps to avoid a recurrence of the operational failure.

According to the new release, if the same or a substantially similar operational failure has occurred previously, the relief is not available for any taxable year of the service provider beginning after December 31, 2009, unless the service recipient or service provider demonstrates that the service recipient had established practices and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that such an operational failure would not recur and had taken commercially reasonable steps to avoid a recurrence of the operational failure, and that the operational failure occurred despite the service recipient’s diligent efforts.

The new revised relief procedures are available here.

«