NOW:53208:USA01012
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA01012
30°
H 36° L 18°
Clear | 16MPH

Legislative Update on IRAs, Fairness for Victims Act

Sullivan, Tort, Fairness for Victims Act, Senate Judiciary, Intentional Harm, IRA, Roth IRA

IRA Testimony

I recently testified before the Senate Committee on Veterans and Military Affairs, Biotechnology, and Financial Institutions on a bill I authored that is designed to bring Wisconsin in line with most other states in the nation regarding IRA withdrawals and conversions. Below is my testimony:

Regarding Senate Bill 439: Adoption of provisions related to IRAs and the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008

January 20, 2010

Good morning and thank you for hearing testimony regarding this very important and timely issue regarding individual retirement accounts.  Wisconsin’s individual income tax statutes have not been amended to recognize the elimination of the $100,000 income limit in the Internal Revenue Code, beginning in tax year 2010.  Many citizens will be affected if this important provision is not amended to comply with federal regulations. 

Senate Bill 439 makes several changes to state income and franchise tax laws to conform with changes made at the federal level to the Internal Revenue Code. It allows taxpayers who have adjusted gross incomes over $100,000 to convert amounts from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA without incurring penalties.

The bill also adopts federal changes that were made as part of the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008, including making permanent the provision that allows Guard members and U.S. military reserves to make withdrawals from an IRA without penalty if they are called to active duty for more than 179 days.  In addition, SB 439 allows military death benefits to be added to a Roth IRA notwithstanding the annual contribution limit that would otherwise apply, and allows reservists called to active duty to withdraw funds from their health flexible spending account without incurring penalties.  This bill excludes from gross income any state or local bonus payment made to military families if their payment is related to their service in a combat zone.

In the past couple months, I have heard from constituents, financial planners, CPAs, and tax attorneys regarding the urgency of adopting these provisions.  I am very pleased to tell you that this legislation has support from the Wisconsin Bankers Association, Community Bankers of Wisconsin, JP Morgan Chase, the State Bar of Wisconsin and Thrivent Financial for Lutherans.  I urge you to support this legislation.

********************************************************************

Fairness for Victims Act Update

The Fairness for Victims Act, Senate Bill 182, is one step closer to becoming law. The Fairness for Victims Act passed in the Assembly on January 19, and in the Senate in October 2009.

Right now, if you are injured as a result of another person’s negligence, you have three years to file a lawsuit. But if someone hurts you in an intentional act, you only have two years to take action. That means if you slip on your neighbor’s walk, you have a three-year window to file suit. But if your neighbor punches you in the face, you have only two years.

I authored the Fairness for Victims Act because it seems counterintuitive to essentially cut a break to a wrongdoer in the case of intentional harm. This bill will level the playing field by giving victims of intentional and unintentional acts three years to file suit. 

Welcome to our new commenting system.
  • You can register through your Facebook account, sign on with your Facebook password and use the same photo and screen name. If you don’t want your account tied to Facebook, you can keep your registration through our site.
  • You can now personalize your Journal Sentinel account with a photo even if the account is not tied to Facebook.
  • You can now reply to comments. Replies will be threaded to make conversations easier to follow.
  • You can continue to sort comments according to oldest first, newest first, and most thumbs up.
  • Your comments are archived on your own page.
  • Please notify us if you see personal insults or other irresponsible comments. We reserve the right to eliminate any comments and block any commenter who is not civil and respectful of others.

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Limit of 2000 characters, 2000 characters remaining

Sort by
  1. "Fairness to victims"?

    What about fairness to perps?

    I was just out a bit after 2:30 am driving in the ditch, minding my own business, when all of a sudden a couple red lights are all over me.

    Next thing I know they got me cuffed and in the paddy wagon on the way down town. They didn't even begin driving in the direction of the hospital after I told them my blood sugar went low, and all I had on hand was a quart of Jim Beam.

    Where's the fairness in that, I ask? I tell ya, nobody respects a veteran anymore.

    Peace!
  2. Regarding SB 182: If you're going to make a change, why not make them both 2 years instead of 3? The details of the case will be clearer especially if witness testimony is involved, and it will be one less year for LAWYERS to charge fees. More time always meand more cost. This is yet another proposal that benefits the lawyers. I'm still hurting from my raised car insurance from the last round of pro-lawyer legislation.
  3. Why do I have the feeling that SB439 is just like photo-ID? Senator Sullivan gives testimony urging that SB439 should be enacted, but in the back of his mind, he knows that the (D) Legislature will kill it. If it happens to pass, then there's always the safety net of (D) Doyle's veto. Now, Senator Sullivan can rightfully say that he gave testimony on SB439, but the OTHERS in the Legislature or Governor's office failed to enact it. He IS in a campaign race, after all. It's perfect. In reality, I think this 'mistake' has generated enough outrage that SB439 will probably pass with ease.

    Senator Sullivan said that "MOST OTHER STATES IN THE NATION" had already changed their tax codes to allow penalty-free Roth conversions but Wisconsin has not. Is it even remotely possible that (D) Doyle or the Democratic Legislature wanted to try to 'stick it to the rich people' by NOT allowing penalty-free conversions? If that's not the case, then why didn't Wisconsin change our tax code at the same time "MOST OTHER STATES IN THE UNION" did? There's got to be a reason.

    Senator Sullivan, what is the name of the individual responsible for not updating our tax code as "MOST STATES" had done with respect to SB439? Was this person TOLD not to update it by (D) somebody else? Was it simply incompetence? Was it intentional? There's always more to the story than meets the eye. So many questions, so few answers.
  4. Thank you Sully for your attention to detail in managing to align yourself with two issues both of which are totally irrelevant to today's circumstances.

    More time wasted on legislation like this almost guarantees that Wisconsin will soon be a relevant place for Native Americans alone.

    Try squeezing votes out of those dudes.

    Peace!
Back to top

Page Tools

  • Share

advertisement

Latest Posts