Catherine Posted October 3, 2017 Report Posted October 3, 2017 I have a client who retired to North Carolina. She just started taking her Massachusetts Teacher's Retirement pension - and I can't find if this is taxable in NC or not. It was income excluded from federal taxation but *included* for MA taxation when earned and is therefore tax-exempt in Massachusetts when paid out. There's a bunch of NC info on the "Bailey settlement" that seems to be the same but only refers specifically to NC-earned pensions. I can't find any provision for reciprocity (which only means I can't find it - because neither can I find anything stating yes, this IS subject to tax in NC). Can anyone point to where I can look this up? Or does anyone know off the top of their head? Thanks! Quote
Abby Normal Posted October 3, 2017 Report Posted October 3, 2017 Why is it excluded from federal taxation? Quote
Catherine Posted October 3, 2017 Author Report Posted October 3, 2017 44 minutes ago, Abby Normal said: Why is it excluded from federal taxation? When it was earned it was funds excluded from federal taxation - just like a 401k contribution. But at that same time, upon earning, it WAS taxed in Massachusetts. So when it is received after retirement, it is taxable for the feds but NOT taxable by Massachusetts. Except now she lives in NC. Which seemingly has the same deal for in-state pensions, but I can find no information on the treatment of pensions from OTHER states. Quote
Catherine Posted October 3, 2017 Author Report Posted October 3, 2017 I found it. NC Bailey Decision info 1 Quote
Abby Normal Posted October 3, 2017 Report Posted October 3, 2017 Ah, ok. Your original post stated just the opposite. Quote
Abby Normal Posted October 3, 2017 Report Posted October 3, 2017 Bummer that they paid to tax to MA and now have to pay again to NC, but I understand states taxing retirement contributions when earned. 1 Quote
Catherine Posted October 3, 2017 Author Report Posted October 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Abby Normal said: Ah, ok. Your original post stated just the opposite. Re-read the second sentence. Past tense "was" and it was excluded from federal tax when earned like 401k contributions. But taxed as income in Mass in the year earned. If they stayed in Mass, there would be no state tax on that pension but there would be federal. Since she moved to NC, she gets to pay federal tax *and* state tax to NC. Ah, well. With the lower cost of living, she's still better off down there. Quote
JohnH Posted October 3, 2017 Report Posted October 3, 2017 Sorry, Catherine, I just now saw your post. But I see you found the answer. The Bailey decision more--or-less settled the issue. Eventually, even retired NC state employees will also pay state income tax on their pensions after all the "grandfathered" employees retire and then die off. Right now we are in the midst of a long changeover process. But you are correct. Your client will probably have a lower cost of living. Her state income tax may be less than the savings on her property taxes alone. Plus, there's tangible value derived simply by living in the "Variety Vacationland." 1 Quote
Abby Normal Posted October 4, 2017 Report Posted October 4, 2017 Clarity. I thought you were saying it was excluded when paid out, not when earned. I was in tax return mode. 1 Quote
Catherine Posted October 4, 2017 Author Report Posted October 4, 2017 5 minutes ago, Abby Normal said: Clarity. I thought you were saying it was excluded when paid out, not when earned. I was in tax return mode. Both! Depending on which one is being looked at (fed or state). Which makes it way more confusing especially on a quick read while we're all trying to finish of the last stragglers. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.