How Do I Fix Excess Contribution Withdrawl
"You didn't have a situation of ""excess contribution"". If you have proof that someone in Fidelity actually told you what you said, you might try to recover some of your losses through a lawsuit. However, their first (and main) defense would be that they're not in the business of providing tax advice, and it is your problem that you asked random person a tax question, and then acted on an incorrect answer. By the way, that only goes to say that anything you might read here you should, as well, take with a grain of salt. The only one who can give you a tax advice is a licensed tax professional. I explained it in details in my blog post, but in short - it is either an EA (Enrolled Agent, with the IRS credentials), or a CPA (Certified Public Accountant) or Attorney licensed in your State. Back to your question - ""Excess Contribution"" to a IRA is when you contribute in excess to the limits imposed. For Traditional IRA in 2012 the limit was $5000. You contributed $4000 - this means that you were not in excess. There's nothing they can ""correct"", the 1099-R you got seems to be correct and in order. What you did have was a case of non-deductible contribution. Non-deductible contribution to your IRA should have been reported to the IRS on form 8606. Non-deductible contribution creates basis in your IRA. Withdrawals from your IRA are prorated to the relation of your basis to your total value, and the taxable amount is determined based on that rate. It is, also, calculated using form 8606. So in short - you should have filed a form 8606 with your 2012 tax return declaring non-deductible IRA and creating $4000 basis, and then form 8606 with your 2013 tax return calculating which portion of the $4000 you withdrew is non-taxable. If your total IRA (in all accounts) was that $4000 - then nothing would be taxable. Talk to a tax adviser, you might need to amend your 2012 return (or send the 2012 form separately, if possible), and then do some math on your 2013 return. If 60 days haven't passed, you might want to consider depositing the $4000 in a Roth IRA and perform what is called ""Conversion""." "I think there are several issues here. First, there's the contribution. As littleadv said, there is no excess contribution. Excess contribution is only if you exceed the contribution limit. The contribution limit for Traditional IRAs does not depend on how high your income goes or whether you have a 401(k). It's the deduction limit that may depend on those things. Not deducting it is perfectly legitimate, and is completely different than an ""excess contribution"", which has a penalty. Second, the withdrawal. You are allowed to withdraw contributions made during a year, plus any earnings from those contributions, before the tax filing deadline for the taxes of that year (which is April 15 of the following year, or even up to October 15 of the following year), and it will be treated as if the contribution never happened. No penalties. The earnings will be taxed as regular income (as if you put it in a bank account). That sounds like what you did. So the withdrawal was not an ""early withdrawal"", and the 1099-R should reflect that (what distribution code did they put?). Third, even if (and it does not sound like the case, but if) it doesn't qualify as a return of contributions before the tax due date as described above (maybe you withdrew it after October 15 of the following year), as littleadv mentioned, your contribution was a non-deductible contribution, and when withdrawing it, only the earnings portion (which after such a short time should only be a very small part of the distribution) would be subject to tax and penalty."
"I recommend a Roth IRA. At your age you could turn 25K into a million and never pay taxes on these earnings. Of course there are yearly limits (5.5k) on the amount your can contribute to a Roth IRA account. If you haven't filed your taxes this year yet ... you can contribute 5.5K for last year and 5.5K for this year.  Open two accounts at a discount brokerage firm. Trades should be about $10 or less per. Account one ... Roth IRA. Account two a brokerage account  for the excess funds that can't be placed in the Roth IRA. Each year it will be easy transfer money into the Roth from this account. Be aware that you can't transfer stocks from brokerage acct to Roth IRA ... only cash. You can sell some stocks in brokerage and turn that into cash to transfer. This means settling up with the IRS on any gains/losses on that sale. Given your situation you'd likely have new cash to bring to table for the Roth IRA anyway. Invest in stocks and hold them for the long term. Do a google search for ""motley fool stock advisor"" and join. This is a premium service that picks two stocks to invest in each month. Invest small amounts (say $750) in each stock that they say you should buy. They will also tell you when to sell. They also give insights into why they selected the stock and why they are selling (aka learning experience).  They pick quality companies. So if the economy is down you will still own a quality company that will make it through the storm. Avoid the temptation to load up on one stock. Follow the small amount rule mentioned above per stock. Good luck, and get in the market." TL; DR version:  What you propose to do might not save you taxes, and may well be illegal. Since you mention your wife, I assume that the Inherited IRA has been inherited from someone other than your spouse; your mother, maybe, who passed away in Fall 2015 as mentioned in your other question (cf. the comment by Ben Miller above)? If so, you must take (at least) the Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) from the Inherited IRA each year and pay  taxes on the distribution. What the RMD is depends on how old the Owner of the IRA was when the Owner passed away, but in most cases, it works out to be the RMD for you, the Beneficiary, considered  to be a Single Person (see Publication 590b, available on the IRS web site for details). So, Have you taken the (at least) the RMD amount for 2016 from this Inherited IRA? If not, you will owe a 50% penalty of the difference   between the amount withdrawn and the RMD amount. No, it is not a typo;   the penalty (it is called an excise tax) is indeed 50%. Assuming that the total amount that you have taken as  a Distribution from the Inherited IRA during 2016 is the  RMD for 2016 plus possibly some extra amount $X, then that amount is included in your taxable income for that year.  You cannot rollover any part of the total amount distributed into  your own IRA and thereby avoid taxation on the money. Note that it does not matter whether you will be rolling over the money into an existing IRA in your name or will be establishing a new rollover IRA account in your name with the money: the prohibition applies to both ways of handling the matter. If you wish, you can roll over up to $X (the amount over and above the RMD) into a new Inherited IRA account titled exactly the same as the existing Inherited IRA account with a different custodian. If you choose to do so, then the amount that you roll over into the new Inherited IRA account will not included in your taxable income for 2016. To my mind, there is no point to doing such a rollover unless you are unhappy with the current custodian of your Inherited IRA, but the option is included for completeness. Note that the RMD amount cannot be rolled over in this fashion; only the excess over the RMD. If you don't really need to spend the money distributed from your Inherited IRA for your household expenses (your opening statement that your income for 2016 is low might make this unlikely), and (i) you and/or your spouse received compensation (earned income such as wages, salary, self-employment income, commissions for sales, nontaxable combat pay for US Military Personnel, etc) in 2016, and (ii) you were not 70.5 years of age by December 2016,  then you and your wife can make  contributions to existing IRAs in your names  or establish new IRAs in your names.  The amount that can be contributed for each IRA is limited to the smaller of $5500 ($6500 for people over 50) and that person's compensation for 2016, but if a joint tax return is filed for 2016, then both can make contributions to their IRAs as long as the sum of the amounts contributed to the IRAs does not exceed  the total compensation reported on the joint return.  The deadline for making such IRA contributions is the due date for your 2016 Federal income tax return. Since your income for 2016 is less than $98K, you can deduct the entire IRA contribution even if you or your wife are covered by an employer plan such as a 401(k) plan.  Thus, your taxable income will be reduced by the IRA contributions (up to a maximum of $11K (or $12 K or $13K depending on ages)) and this can offset the increase in taxable income due to the  distribution from the Inherited IRA.      Since money is fungible, isn't this last bullet point achieving the same result as rolling over the entire $9.6K (including the RMD) into an IRA in your name, the very thing that the first bullet point above says cannot be done? The answer is that it really isn't the same result and differs from what you wanted to do in several different ways. First, the $9.6K is being put into IRAs for two different people  (you and your wife) and not just you alone. Should there, God forbid, be an end to the marriage, that part of your inheritance is gone. Second, you might not even be entitled to make contributions to IRAs (no compensation, or over 70.5 years old in 2016) which would make the whole thing moot. Third, the amount that can be contributed to an IRA is limited to $5500/$6500 for each person. While this does not affect the present case, if the distribution had been $15K instead of $9.6K,  not all of that money could be contributed to IRAs for you and your wife. Finally, the contribution to a Traditional IRA might be non-deductible for income tax purposes because the Adjusted Gross Income is too high;  once again, not an issue for you for 2016 but something to keep in mind for future years. In contrast, rollovers from one IRA into another IRA (both titled the same) can be in any amount, and they can be done at any time regardless of whether there is compensation for that year or not or what the Adjusted Gross Income is or whether there is coverage by a 401(k) plan. There are no  tax consequences to rollovers unless the rollover is from a Traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in which case, the distribution is included in taxable  income for that year.  What is prohibited is taking the entire amount of the $9.6K distribution from an Inherited IRA and rolling it over  into your existing IRA (or establishing a Rollover IRA in your name with that $9.6K); ditto for some money going into your IRA and some into your wife's IRA. I expect that any IRA custodian will  likely refuse to allow you to carry out such a rollover transaction but will be glad to accept 2016 contributions (in amounts of up to $5500/$6500) from you into existing IRAs or open a new IRA for you. The custodian will not ask whether you have compensation for 2016 or not (but will check your age!); it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not contribute more than the compensation etc. Incidentally, subject to the $5500/6500 maximum limit, you can (if you choose to do so) contribute the entire amount of your compensation to an IRA, not just the take-home pay amount (which will be smaller than your compensation because of withholding for Social Security and Medicare tax, State and Federal income tax, etc). The amount of money you have should be enough for you to live a safe but somewhat restricted life if you never worked again - but it could set you up for just about any sort of financial goal (short of island buying) if you do just about any amount of work. The basic math for some financial rules of thumb to keep in mind: If your money is invested in very low-risk ways, such as a money market fund, you might earn, say, 3% in interest every year. That's $36k. But, if you withdraw that $36k every year, then every year you have the same principal amount invested. And a dollar tomorrow can't buy as much as a dollar today, because of inflation. If we assume for simplicity that inflation is 1% every year, then you need to contribute an additional $12k to your principal balance every year, just so that it has the same buying power next year. This leaves you with a net $24k of interest income that you can freely spend every year, for the rest of your life, without ever touching your principal balance. If your money is invested more broadly, including equity investments [stocks], you might earn, say, 7% every year. Some years you might lose money on your investments, and would need to draw down your principal balance to pay your bills. Some years you might do quite well - but would need to remain conservative and not withdraw your 'excess' earnings every year, because you will need that 'excess' to make up for the bad years. This would leave you with about $74k of income every year before inflation, and about $62k after inflation. But, you would be taking on more risk by doing this. If you work enough to pay your daily bills, and leave your investments alone to earn 7% on average annually, then in just 10 years your money would have doubled to ~ $2.4 Million dollars. This assumes that you never save another penny, and spend everything you make. It's a level of financial security that means you could retire at a drop of the hat. And if don't start working for 20 years [which you might need to do if you spend in excess of your means and your money dries up], then the same will not be true - starting work at 45 with no savings would put you at a much greater disadvantage for financial security. Every year that you work enough to pay your bills before 'retirement' could increase your nest egg by 7% [though again, there is risk here], but only if you do it now, while you have a nest egg to invest. Now in terms of what you should do with that money, you need to ask yourself: what are your financial goals? You should think about this long and hard (and renew that discussion with yourself periodically, as your goals will change over time). You say university isn't an option - but what other ways might you want to 'invest in yourself'? Would you want to go on 'sabbatical'-type learning trips? Take a trade or learn a skill? Start a business? Do you want to live in the same place for 30 years [and thus maybe you should lock-down your housing costs by buying a house] or do you want to travel around the world, never staying in the same place twice [in which case you will need to figure out how to live cheaply and flexibly, without signing unnecessary leases]. If you want to live in the middle of nowhere eating ramen noodles and watching tv, you could do that without lifting a finger ever again. But every other financial goal you might have should be factored into your budget and work plan. And because you do have such a large degree of financial security, you have a lot of options that could be very appealing - every low paying but desirable/hard-to-get job is open to you. You can pursue your interests, even if they barely pay minimum wage, and doing so may help you ease into your new life easier than simply retiring at such a young age [when most of your peers will be heavy into their careers]. So, that is my strongest piece of advice - work now, while you're young and have motivation, so that you can dial back later. This will be much easier than the other way around. As for where you should invest your money in, look on this site for investing questions, and ultimately with that amount of money - I suggest you hire a paid advisor, who works based on an hourly consultation fee, rather than a % management fee. They can give you much more directed advice than the internet (though you should learn it yourself as well, because that will give you the best piece of mind that you aren't being taken advantage of). I think the issue would be that Wachovia/Wells Fargo who converted the Traditional IRA to a Roth IRA has told the IRS that you did the conversion, and so the IRS will want taxes on  the money that came out of the Traditional IRA. You need to get Wells Fargo to issue a corrected 1099-R saying that it was a Roth to Roth roll-over, and possibly get a corrected 5498 for 2011 showing that the Wachovia Roth was converted to a Wells Fargo Roth. Else, the IRS might want an excise tax for a premature withdrawal from your Wachovia Roth, and assess penalties for excess contributions to a Traditional IRA in 2011 when the erroneous conversion was made, because to them it might look like you withdrew money from a Roth IRA, and made an excessive contribution to a Traditional IRA. You're contributing 98.2% of your contributed amount (deducting 1.8%) each month and at the end of the year, deducting a flat 15 pounds.  The easiest way to do this is to use a spreadsheet. But you're missing some key information. What is your expected growth rate and what is your expected inflation rate? Is this a taxable account where you deduct (for example, 35%) of the growth annually for taxes or is this a non-taxable account? You may withdraw penalty-free from a 401(k) if you separate from service at 55 or later. This may make the rolling to any IRA not a good idea. You can withdraw penalty free if you are disabled. You can withdraw penalty free if you take the withdrawal using a process called Section 72t which basically means a steady withdrawal for either 5 years or until age 59-1/2 whichever is second.  Aside from these exceptions, the concept is to be allowed to take withdrawals after 59-1/2, but you must start to take withdrawals starting at 70-1/2. These are called RMDs (required minimum distributions) and represent a small fraction of the account, 1/27.4 at 70, 1/18.7 at 80, 1/11.4 at 90.  Each year, you take a minimum of this fraction of the account value and pay the tax. If you had a million dollars, your first withdrawal would be $36,496, you'd be in the 15% marginal rate with this income.  In general, it's always a good idea to be aware of your marginal tax rate. For example, a married filing joint couple would be in the 15% bracket up to a taxable $74,900 in 2015. At withdrawal time, and as the year moves along, if they are on track to have a taxable $64,900 (for example), it would be wise to take the extra $10,000, either as a withdrawal to put aside for the next year, or as a Roth conversion. This way, as the RMDs increase, they have a reduced chance to push the couple to the next tax bracket. "In the USA there are two ways this situation can be treated. First, if your short position was held less than 45 days. You have to (when preparing the taxes) add the amount of dividend back to the purchase price of the stock. That's called adjusting the basis. Example: short at $10, covered at $8, but during this time stock paid a $1 dividend. It is beneficial for you to add that $1 back to $8 so your stock purchase basis is $9 and your profit is also $1. Inside software (depending what you use) there are options to click on ""adjust the basis"" or if not, than do it manually specifically for those shares and add a note for tax reviewer. Second option is to have that ""dividednd payment in lieu paid"" deducted as investment expence. But that option is only available if you hold the shorts for more than 45 days and itemize your deductions. Hope that helps!" How do I account for this in the bookkeeping? Here is an example below:  This is how you would accurately depict contributions made by an owner for a business. If you would want to remove money from your company, or pay yourself back, this would be called withdrawals. It would be the inverse of the first journal entry with cash on the credit side and withdrawals on the debited side (as it is an expense).  You and your business are not the same thing. You are two different entities. This is why you are taxed as two different entities. When you (the owner) make contributions, it is considered to be the cash of the business. From here you will make these expenses against the business and not yourself.  Good luck,