I realise that you gotta draw the line somewhere, but ...
Why are people born on January 1st, 1945, (and who were not 65 at any time in 2009) allowed to get the extra exemption. Why the extra day? Why isn't the cutoff December 31st?
I hope by now you understand that logic isn't always related to tax law? But in this case, someone born January 1 1945 will have lived 65 complete years by Dec 31 2009.
65 *complete* years? Only if they were born right at midnight, at the precise start of 1945. Any time later on Jan. 1 and they would have only lived 64 and a fraction years.
David
Given that someone who lived even one day during the year, even one hour during the year, even one minute, even one second during the year is deemed to have lived the entire year, what's 364 plus a fraction days between friends?
It has been a long time (25+ years) since those age 65 and over were allowed an extra personal exemption. Folks in that age group now get an amount added to their standard deduction. in 2009, unmarried people of that age (who are not surviving spouses) get an extra $1,400 while married people (and surviving spouses) get an extra $1,100 for their standard deduction.
It is a common-law rule dating to a court decision in England in 1663. The IRS applies it when it favors the taxpayer. The following explanation is quoted from a Pennsylvania court decision, Commonwealth v. Iafrate, 527 Pa. 497, 594 A.2d 293 (1991).
---------- The genesis of the rule that a person reaches a given age on the day preceding the anniversary of his birth can be traced to seventeenth century England. See Nichols v. Ramsel, 86 Eng. Rep. 1072 (K.B. 1677); Herbert v. Turball, 83 Eng. Rep.
1129 (K.B. 1663). See also 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *463 ("So that full age in male or female is twenty one years, which age is completed on the day preceding the anniversary of a person's birth . . .")----------
IANAL
Bob Sandler
Well that's discouraging. I turn 65 this year and was anticipating the extra exemption next year. I never realized that the law had changed.
Even if I did take the standard deduction, the $1100 additional deduction amounts to a paultry tax savings. Since I shall itemize next year, it makes my beneift a less-than-paulty ZERO.
Add to that the fact that my Social Security will be taxable, I feel doubly cheated (SS benefits were tax free when I started working 49 years ago).
Would you like to exchange your current life expectancy for that from 49 years ago as well? ;-)
-Mark Bole
The change took effect for 1987 returns.
Bob Sandler
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.