Amended I Prior Year Distribution I: Fill & Download for Free

Consult a qualified tax professional for advice. This is general information, which may not apply to your specific situation.The answer depends on the details, and how fast you correct the mistake.If you contributed more than you were eligible for in the prior year, and you reverse the contribution before the filing deadline, you will owe ordinary taxes on the earnings plus a 10% penalty on the same.The 10% penalty is not a big deal; it is only applied to the earnings, which over the course of a few months is most likely not going to be a lot. The returned contribution is, of course, tax-free like any return of contribution from a Roth.Here’s what to do:Withdraw the amount of the excess, together with the associated earnings. Your broker should be able to do this.Report the earnings as income on Form 1040, Taxable IRA distributions (Line 4b in 2019)Report the earnings on Form 5329, Part I. This is where the 10% penalty comes in.Complete any other IRA-related filings as though you had not contributed the returned amount.If you contributed more than you were eligible for in the prior year, and it is after the filing deadline, you will owe a 6% on the over-contribution amount, every year you let it sit there.Six percent may sound like a lot, but look at it this way: depending on your investments, you might have made more than 6% anyway, and now the earnings will stay there and compound tax-free.Here’s what to do:Either: take a distribution for the over-contributed amount; or don’t make a new contribution in that amount for which you are eligible. (You do not need to withdraw the earnings in either case).If you haven’t already, amend your prior-year returns to include Form 5329, Part IV. Send it to the IRS with your additional tax. (It’s a penalty, but in IRS lingo, it’s an “additional tax”) You’ll also get a bill for penalties (Late payment and underreporting) and interest.For your current-year taxes, If you took a distribution, report it on Form 8606, Part III. You should not owe any tax or penalty, since it is taken from your contribution basis.For your current-year taxes, file Form 5329, Part IV, to show that everything is reconciled. Or not. If you didn’t take care of it, then you pay the penalty again, and take care of it next year.Hope that helps!

Like all good legal answers:The most basic legal answer here is no.The First Amendment applies specifically to government action to restrict speech.Generally speaking, preventing a person from speaking or publishing is what we call a prior restraint. The idea of a prior restraint is the idea of proactively prohibiting speech, rather than reactively punishing improper speech.Throughout history, government censorship of speech and the press has been a sticking point. When the printing press was invented, various governments instituted licenses to own or use one; if the King’s men didn’t like what you had to say, you weren’t going to get to say it. That freedom of expression was a big part of the founding of the colonies that would become the United States.Enshrining protections against that idea of prior restraint by the government censors was the primary purpose of the First Amendment.Freedom of speech and press means that the government cannot prevent you from opening up your own newspaper, or shouting your opinion off your lawn (for the most part).But the newspapers and book publishers, and later journalistic outlets through radio, television, and now the internet, have no First Amendment obligation to provide you, or anyone else, a megaphone. They are curators of the information they wish to present. If you find yourself at odds with a publisher of information, you can always take your editorial or article somewhere else, or start your own publishing company or newspaper or radio station or television station.Facebook and Twitter are completely within their rights to create community standards that explicitly say, “We are a liberal site and opinions to the contrary are not welcomed here. Click here to use the site if you agree.” They have no legal obligation to provide you a soapbox. They are merely the modern day equivalent of a publisher.If you don’t like that, you are free to not use Twitter and Facebook (or Quora, for that matter), and to use a different platform instead. Or create your own. Nothing prevents you from doing that whatsoever.So, if Alex Jones wanted to, he could buy a bunch of servers and set up his own ISP and host his own website all by himself and make a social media platform all he wants. He’s got liberty and freedom all the day long for that.But Facebook and Twitter and Quora don’t owe him any obligations, legally speaking.Now, there is a counterargument that some people have been making lately, which is that Facebook and Twitter have become a sort of modern day “town square,” and have opened up their property for the public.The Supreme Court has issued a line of cases that state that where a property owner essentially acts like a municipality, it’s subject to conditions like the First and Fourteenth Amendments.This idea started with Marsh v. Alabama in 1946, when the Court held that a person distributing religious literature in a company town was validly exercising his First Amendment rights and could not be forced to leave or prosecuted for trespassing.In Almalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 et al. v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., (1968), the Court extended this to dissolving an injunction against union picketers outside of a supermarket, because it was a shopping center freely accessible and open to the public at large. They held that the state could not use trespass laws to evict the picketers. But, the Court reserved itself somewhat and noted that it was fair to regulate protests that did not have to do with the company’s operations and on private property that was not open to the public.Four years later, in 1972’s Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner et al., the Court found that a shopping mall could prohibit a Vietnam protest because it was not related to the business operations of the shopping mall.In 1976, the Court essentially overruled Logan Valley and held that even where picketers were protesting what they believed to be invalid practices on the part of a shopping mall, they could be prohibited from actually entering the mall and would have to remain outside.In 1980, the Supreme Court swung back the other direction in Robins v. Pruneyard. A group of high school students had set up a booth in the courtyard of a shopping center to distribute literature and solicit signatures for a petition opposing a U.N. resolution. They were told to leave or be forced out as trespassers. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the California Supreme Court’s decision that the California state constitution provided for freedom of expression in this manner.And that’s basically kind of where we are today.There’s arguments to be made that platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are essentially modern day shopping malls, private property that is open to the public, but which may prohibit speech they do not like under the Federal constitution.And there’s arguments to be made that these platforms, under the same theory, may not prohibit speech if state constitutional provisions would protect it. Facebook, being based out of California, is arguably then property in California, and subject to the Pruneyard rules here.But, the internet is also amorphous and servers could be literally anywhere. The internet itself is not a place, per se, so much as a concept.This particular issue has not been resolved by the Court, and many have been pushing for the Supreme Court to take up a case to answer it.So, under existing law, it is very likely not a violation of the First Amendment to “de-platform” anyone for any reason.But, there is a small chance that could change.Mostly Standard Addendum and Disclaimer: read this before you comment.I welcome rational, reasoned debate on the merits with reliable, credible sources.But coming on here and calling me names, pissing and moaning about how biased I am, et cetera and so forth, will result in a swift one-way frogmarch out the airlock. Doing the same to others will result in the same treatment.Essentially, act like an adult and don’t be a dick about it.Getting cute with me about my commenting rules and how my answer doesn’t follow my rules and blah, blah, whine, blah is getting old. I’m ornery enough today to not put up with it. Stay on topic or you’ll get to watch the debate from the outside.If you want to argue and you’re not sure how to not be a dick about it, just post a picture of a cute baby animal instead, all right? Your displeasure and disagreement will be duly noted. Pinkie swear.If this starts getting out of control, I’m just going to shut the comments off. I don’t have much patience for it today.If you have to consider whether or not you’re over the line, the answer is most likely yes. I’ll just delete your comment and probably block you, and frankly, I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.Debate responsibly.

I think I disagree with the premise of the original question. I feel like it should be phrased how has gun control impacted gangs in the U.S. thus far. You see the question itself assumes that there aren’t already any or enough gun laws in place. The reality is that there are actually 1,000’s of gun laws already. Which begs the question why haven’t they worked so far?A gun ban in America isn’t as simple as it is in Australia or whatever other country, because we have the bill of rights, and no I am not talking about just the second amendment. I am talking about the 4th as well.Lets talk about what would need to happen in order for a gun ban to take place, because obviously gun laws have yet to be successful thus far.You need to get supermajorities in Congress, two-thirds in both the House and the Senate. And that's an enormous hurdle, especially in the Senate. But even if you get it through Congress, you still need to get your amendment ratified by three-fourths of the states. That's at least 38 states.What Would It Take To Repeal The 2nd Amendment?So assuming that happened -and good luck with that- You then need to get over the hurtle of buying back 270 - 360 million guns. On the cheap side guns are about $400 whereas others can range in the thousands of dollars if they include optics. So 270 million times 400 = one hundred eight billion dollars of tax payer money. This doesn’t include the destruction of the guns. Is that something you want to pay for?I also didn’t mention that small 90 million discrepancy (360 minus 270) because we are actually not sure how many guns there are in America. Also what about all of the people that don’t willingly want to trade in their guns. Are you going to get 100 million plus warrants for everyone that you think might have a gun after the gun buy back?Even if 100% of the law abiding Americans decided to give in their guns (that they have spent thousands of dollars on) I can guarantee you that the gangs and criminals will not. Do you think that when the police (even when they have a warrant) will be able to walk on contensted into the homes of suspected gang members and the gang members will just hand over their weapons as the cops rummage through their belongings? NO! The gangs will shot the police officers, we know this because they already are doing this even without the threat of their weapons being taken away. You essentially create a street war between the cops and the gangs.So lets say you over come all of these ridiculous hurtles. The bill of rights has been changed, several Americans have had their homes invaded by police even though they actually didn’t have any guns, and several Americans -both officers of the law and criminals alike- have lost their lives, now you have the issue of preventing gangs from obtaining additional firearms.You could always create more laws. Maybe strict gun laws would prevent people from shooting up schools. Lets take a second to think about a really serious punishment for a crime. How about capital punishment?People being put on death row for using a gun to kill a bunch of people is already in place, how good of a deterrent has that been? Should we torture people in public who improperly use guns before we kill them?Lets analyze how well making something -that is in high demand- illegal in America from other things in the past and present. Perhaps the best comparisons would be Prohibition, the war on drugs, and pirated movies . Prohibition didn’t work and nor did the $250,000 fine from FBI at the beginning of the movies.Drugs are currently being manufactured in Mexico and being brought illegally across the boarder. Not just a few pounds of drugs a year but 700 tons of it in just Arizona alone. In one year 18 tunnels from Mexico to Arizona were found.Illegal drugs flow over and under U.S. borderEngland and Australia don’t have drug cartels tunneling under the ocean to get contraband into their country like America does do they?Okay so lets forget all that. Just ignore those issues outright. Lets say a gun ban happens and it goes great. Its everything gun control advocates ever wanted. Would America actually be better off than it was before the gun ban?Depending on which side of the fence you are on, defensive gun uses per year range from 64,000 to 200 million. Can the current police force handle the additional crime? I seriously doubt it. Look at the size difference between America and the U.K.Even Australia which is more comparable in size has a vastly different population distribution than America does.The emergency response times in London on a Saturday evening in 2017 looked like this.https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HZm-jKrXZIkJ:https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/CeConvert2PDF.aspx%3FMID%3D3656%26F%3DAppendix%2520C2%2520RTF.rtf%26A%3D0%26R%3D0+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us14 minutes isn’t great nor is the horrendous criminal capture rate by the police in England and wales.Revealed: How likely is it that the police will manage to catch the person who burgles your house?Now remember the size discrepancy of the UK and America. Currently the average american police response time is 18 minutes, now add 200 million more 911 calls a year. I don’t feel like America is prepared for that volume of additional crime. Oh by the way 70% of mass shootings end within five minutes.https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS752US753&ei=Jp1kW8jLJcOH0gKvurHgAg&q=response+time+for+active+shooters&oq=response+time+for+active+shooters&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l2.10997.17229.0.17300.43.38.2.0.0.0.170.3676.20j15.35.0..2..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..6.37.3675...0j0i227i273k1j0i131k1j0i67k1j0i131i227i67k1j0i227i67k1j0i131i67k1j33i160k1j33i22i29i30k1.0.oXn07kClZYQBut wait! I hear you saying, many of those 200 million crimes that are being prevented by defensive uses of guns by citizens would have never occurred because criminals wouldn’t have guns in their hands if guns were banned. Bebatable, I reply.Don’t be fooled by statements like “Germany, England, Australia, and Japan have nearly eliminated gun related deaths!” That’s a really silly argument when you think about it. Have those countries prevented all crime and government tyranny too? No! In fact its actually the opposite. Japan for example has a stupendous conviction rate of 99% but only because the police torture people into confessing to crimes they didn’t commit. Not exactly the great utopia you thought it was is it? What are we trying to measure here the total amount of gun homicides in a nation or which country is better to live in. I submit it is the later.And then there is England, the holy grail example that has very few gun related homicides. Is it really better off than America?United Kingdom vs United States: Crime Facts and StatsMaybe on some accounts like gun related deaths but it is far from a paradise. Even right now while there are “no guns” in the UK 65% of gun related homicides in the UK come from gangs, while still being less than Americas gun related homicides, it is at least an interesting statistic on the discussion of about how gangs are impacted by gun banning.Gangs in the United Kingdom - WikipediaBrief side tangent for a second (okay maybe a long side tangent) as I explain why America actually doesn’t have a ‘gun problem’ so much as a distribution of wealth problem and a racial tensions issue that is unique to our country.You see gun related death's is not the same thing as gun related murders. 65% of the gun deaths are from suicides. Don’t let people catch you on this technicality.70% of the suicides are from middle-aged white males most of which were working class without a college degree. This includes veterans, farmers, construction workers, etc. They feel that they are no longer able to adequately provide for themselves and with more and more labor jobs being outsourced or taken over by advances in technology they see no way to retire and have no light at the end of the tunnel. Guns so happen to be the preferred method of suicide for males. Women interestingly enough prefer poisoning. Again this highlights the true issue at hand, which is disparataty of wealth not guns.Its difficult to say how many of these intentional suicides would have been avoided if guns were not easily accessible, but its fair to assume most of them or at least not all of these unfortunate individuals lives would have been spared. Which then leaves us with the remaining 35%3% percent of the 35 is from accidental discharges, 15% are committed by police officers justifiably in the line of duty, and the remaining 17% is gangs, illegal activity and drugs.For those of you paying attention 65%+15% is 80% of the gun related deaths in America or in other words… not school shootings. This is enlightening to many because 5 minutes of watching a liberal leaning media station you begin to feel like there is a school shooting at every high school in America. I haven’t shared any figures yet except for percentages but I will now. The original 30,000 deaths from guns in America has now decreased to 5,100 after omitting suicides (quick figure here: that equates to 0.00157% of the American population i.e. one tenth of one percent of Americans dying from gun related homicides) or if you prefer all of this in graphical format.It kind of puts things in perspective doesn’t it?Lets take an even deeper dive into the ‘gun problem.’ We have the data to show where the gun related homicides are actually happening. 25% of gun crime is happening in just 4 cities in America. Detroit, Chicago, Washington D.C. and Baltimore or 1276 out of 5100. What is the one common denominator with these four cities? They all have strict gun control laws and also where the vast majority of the gangs are located. (P.S. another 1,169 came from the state of California, i.e. the strictest gun control laws in the nation)So anyway back to this false idea that Great Britain is a magical place free of crime and violence and how that relates to gun control and gangs. The go to defense from gun control advocates about why Great Britain has more violent crimes than America despite having gun bans is this. Great Britain equates a violent crime differently than America does. The Office for National Statistics (O.N.S. or the U.K.’s independent producer of statistics) might consider a yelling match for example as a violent crime, whereas a America would not, thus equating for the significantly more violent crimes in the U.K. than in America.However this same argument is incredibly self defeating to anyone willing to investigate. After equating for this apples-to-oranges false comparison it has been estimated that the U.K.’s actual violent crimes per 100,000 is some where between 271 and 776 vs Americas 466, or in other words. No one actually know for sure if the U.K.s violent crime rate is better or worse than Americas, however it is in the same ballpark… or is it?????By the Numbers: Is the UK really 5 times more violent than the US?Certainly the perception is that America seems more scary at night, but is it actually?Well that tricky O.N.S. forgot to mention that in their initial report of the statistics they excluded Northern Ireland and Scotland… Brief geography lesson, the U.K., Great Britain and the British isles are not all the same thing.Certainly its no surprise that much like America, the U.K. has the majority of their gun violence in a few cities as well, but they didn’t omit the more violent parts of England and Wales they omitted all of Northern Ireland and Scotland. Can you guess which two parts of the U.K. are the most violent. Thats right…. Northern Ireland and Scotland. If gun bans work so well why didn’t they have the same impact on Ireland and Scotland? And why weren’t they included in the statistics for the “United Kingdom”? Tough questions to answer.Republic of Ireland is deadliest place to live in Irish and British Isles - new figures - Independent.ieBut wait there is yet another dagger to this myth that the U.K. is safer than America and that there gun ban is ‘working’. The U.K. doesn’t account for murders the same way that America does. …..Drum roll please….. The U.K. only accounts for murders if someone is charged. This means that only 1/2 to 3/4 of all murders are counted :0 This apples-to-oranges defense is absolutely debunked, but let me take it yet another step further.As I stated earlier Americas gun problem actually isn’t a gun problem it is a wealth distribution problem AND a racial problem unique to America. How do I know? let me show you.In the U.S. 1/7 of the population is black and 15% Latino vs the U.K. which only has ~3%. So lets correct for this difference in race between the two countries and see how it compares white murder rate vs white murder rate.U.S. vs U.K. - Crime/MurderInterestingly enough with this sub-group the U.S. looks better than the U.K. Now before you start branding me a member of the KKK or whatever, note that I am not trying to say white people are better than black people, I am trying to say that gangs are the problem. Not every black person is a gang member, besides that being obvious, it is also supported by statistics. Black immigrants don’t have the same murder rate as black Americans and poor rural blacks have less of a homicide rate that inner city poor Blacks. In short its a problem with the inner cities gangs.Gangs and Guns | International Perspective | Gun FactsHopefully at this point you start to see why I say America doesn’t have a gun problem they have a gang and wealth distribution problem. America is astonishingly good at having guns and maintaining a relatively low crime and murder rate. It should be fairly obvious that the amount of guns accessible to one person actually does not impact deaths by homicides on a world level.Quite clearly other factors are at play here besides total number of guns in a country. I am not just comparing America to civil war torn countries. I am putting a heavy focus on comparing countries that gun control advocates prefer to compare America to. Ignoring the fact that on a world scale their is no correlation with having more gun laws and less gun violence nor more guns and more violence, lets talk more about how successful gun bans have been thus far in America, the United Kingdom and Australia.If gun laws worked, I feel that it would be a safe assumption that we care about more than just how many people died from guns, we actually care about how guns influence crime in the country in general and it doesn’t look good for the U.K. again we have already established that violent crime and murder are measured different from country-to-country but you will notice that all murder, violence, rape, and robbery go up when their are more gun laws.This is all in sharp contrast to America that as it has more guns, it has less violence and crime and homicides.Now there isn’t just one centuries worth of data on this topic, there are several. The invention of guns actually correlates quite well with reduction in homicides in all of Europe which includes the U.K. and Germany.http://economics.wm.edu/wp/cwm_wp158.pdfEven England themselves doesn’t think that a gun ban is what truly correlates with violence in their country. Its actually the amount of police offers on duty that helps improve the countries safety.Massive spike in knife and gun crime across England and WalesAlright so lets pretend for a second that guns ceased to exist. How would this impact gangs, criminal and the general public? Would it change the hearts of individuals simply because guns were gone. The answer is no. We see this from both Australia and the U.K.Little fact of the day. After the gun buy back in Australia the mass shooting rate decreased but the mass murder rate actually went up. No I am not kidding!The way people decided to commit mass murders just changed. Instead of using a gun, they used fire and vehicles. The ten years prior to the gun buy back it there were 136 deaths by mass shooting and 102 the ten years post.List of massacres in Australia - WikipediaThe hearts of the criminals don’t change, just the way that they commit crime.So what have we learned…England still currently has violent crime including gun crime after a banThe majority of the crime comes from specific inner city areas in both the U.K. and America, but America has more of a gang problem.Americas citizens are already using guns to help prevent crime. Yet the police response time is slower in America than it is in the U.K.Removing guns doesn’t change the hearts of criminals.Countries without guns could potentially allow for the government to oppress people and make them confess to crimes they didn’t commit.America hasn’t had a lot of success banning things because people get alcohol and drugs through the manufacturer or smuggling of the contraband illegally.Although America, Germany, the U.K. Japan, Australia all share the fact that they are first world countries, they are all culturally different, and comparing apple-to-oranges by saying one has less gun violence doesn’t mean they are safer countries to live in.What can we concludeWe would be taking the guns from the hands of the good people and putting them into the hands of the bad people (aka the gangs). Police would be overworked and unable to prevent the additional crime that was otherwise prevented by good people with guns and America is worse off with a gun ban.