Jughead

Could this be why Huggy finally retired...? Plan to “optionally man” the U-2 EDIT: fix link

Yeah--ever since that duet he sang with his buddy, Lynyrd Skynyrd, both of those guys've been trying to clear that up....

BLUF: Has anyone done this and managed to keep the tax-exempt portion separated from the taxable portion? How? Suggestions and/or pitfalls of doing so? Long-winded version: I'm a retiree, looking at options for my TSP. About 20% of my balance is tax-exampt. Ideally, I'd like to get that amount into my Roth IRA, and the rest of it into my 401(k) [goal is to get the tax-exempt portion into a Roth, to grow tax-exempt; keep the tax-deferred portion in a tax-deferred retirement account; and not have any current-year tax liability due to the rollover]. I see contradictory info on the TSP website: several places state that any withdrawal (and they appear to include rollovers--"transfers," as they call them--as a withdrawal) is made proportionally from taxable and tax-exempt balances; while other places state that transfers to qualified retirement accounts are made from taxable amount "first," followed by tax-exempt money "if required" to meet the withdrawal amount requested, with the caveat that if the plan cannot accept tax-exempt amounts that those funds are paid directly to the owner. The TSP withdrawal can only be made in whole-number percentages, and only one account can be named for any given withdrawal. Options I'm considering: Make two different withdrawals. Make a rollover withdrawal in a percentage that most closely matches the actual taxable portion (roughly 80%) of my account into my traditional IRA. Once the dust settles, make a 100% rollover withdrawal into my Roth IRA. Rollover the traditional IRA balance into my 401(k) (in order to preserve future tax-free "back door" Roth contributions). Assumes that the "taxable portion moves first" is accurate. Pros: mostly gets what I want, I never have to touch the money directly [tax issues], and is pretty straightforward. Cons: impossible to exactly match my taxable / tax-exempt proportion to a whole-number percent, so I'll have to either move some tax-exempt to the traditional (foregoing future tax-free gains on that amount) or put some taxable amount into my Roth (thus oweing taxes in the year of conversion). This is basically what my broker is suggesting. Put the whole amount into a traditional IRA in a plan that cannot accept tax-exempt funds, thus getting a check direct to me for the tax-exempt portion. Rollover the IRA balance into my 401(k), as in #1. Make a self-directed rollover of the tax-exempt amount in my Roth IRA. Pros: keeps all taxable & tax-exempt amounts separate; no current-year tax liability. Cons: don't know if it'll work (!!!)--can the tax-exempt amount be rolled-over in this manner? My research seems to indicate that I'd have a 60-day window to get it done. Biggest "con" is, if I screw this up, I'd have an enormous tax liability and/or end up losing any future tax-exempt growth potential of the tax-exempt balance. Put the whole amount into a traditional IRA in a plan that can accept tax-exempt funds. Let the dust settle, then rollover the whole amount into my 401(k), under the assumption that my 401(k) plan cannot accept tax-exempt funds--with the result that the taxable amount moves over to the 401(k), as in #1, and the tax-exempt portion remains behind in the IRA. Convert the traditional IRA balance (all tax-exempt at this point) to the Roth IRA account, as with the annual "back door" method. Pros: gets the job done, gets the taxable & tax-exempt amounts separated, no current-year taxes. Cons: I suspect that my 401(k) plan can accept tax-exempt, rendering this option moot. Leave it in the TSP until beginning retirement withdrawals. Pros: don't need to do a thing; low TSP fees. Cons: gains on tax-exempt portion are taxable; limited investment options. My brain hurts.... This is, admittedly & without a doubt, a "good problem" to have--but, if anyone's skinned this cat already, I'd appreciate any words of wisdom. Internet beer all around....

Well, therein lies the problem--I'm an ORF with no access (let alone any give-a-shit) to AFPC's myriad sites. I withdraw. Things have evidently changed. Apologies to anyone misled by my comments.

My "source" is my own experience meeting multiple boards. Unless its changed since my O-5 board (2007)--always possible--the PRDA records show ALL your records; you have to request your records (either a review prior to the board, or an "as met" after the board) to see what is actually going / went before the board. I'd suggest checking with the promotions folks at AFPC rather than my (or Herk Driver's) understanding of how it works if it's important to you. Doesn't the OPSB list all the reports going to the board? I think that's what made me wonder "where's my TR?" and investigate for myself.... Sounds like you're saying the OPSB is on PRDA now, which is itself a change from my day (Christ, I hate saying that!).... EDIT: Apparently outdated info. The report isn't "gone" or invalidated--it's still a legit, official source document (for PRFs or whatever). It just doesn't meet the board (in my experience and subject to the caveats above).

TRs for short courses (i.e., those that do not replace an OPR; I don't recall the cutoff course length) don't meet the board. Your UPT TR is part of your board package; in-res IDE and/or SDE (PCS / year-long courses) are as well. Your SOS TR is not. EDIT: Apparently outdated info.

"Not Da Best"

To save you from yourself for looking like a douche...? I keed, I keed...!!

Take this line of thought to its logical conclusion, and you will have answered your own question. For better or worse, the AF believes its PME is a critical piece of crafting it's senior officers (enlisted, too, but we're talking about SOS). You can argue for or against that all day, and possibly even have a case against it, but that's clearly the state of affairs as it exists today. Another "clearly the state of affairs" is that every officer is to be groomed as a potential general. Put those two together, and the "primary duty" you cite becomes being an officer, and a PME DG (to the institutional eyes of the AF) is therefore more important than DG from an FTU. A better question altogether is why DG (from any source) is assumed to be such an indisputable indicator of quality. It's a snapshot--no more, no less. I don't have an answer to the problem. As an ORF, I also don't sweat it any longer.... ETA: Herk Driver beat me to the "snapshot" comment....

That describes my experience exactly. Are you currently flying? For reasons I don't fully understand or agree with, the airlines place an enormous premium on currency. The guys I've seen hired directly off active duty are those who get their apps in in time to interview while still actively flying. In my case, I waited and did not get the call from the Legacy carrier I'd targeted, or any of the other "destination" airlines I'd applied to. I did get offered a job at two Regionals; fortunately, I also got offered a job at a Major (non-Legacy) in time to wave off my Regional class date. I kept my app updated--and, within two weeks of updating with ~100 hours of 121 time, my phone rang for the interview I'd wanted all along. No guarantees, and YMMV--but, if you get to the end of your military career and are not flying, I know (and know of) several guys in the same boat as me, where a little 121 time (in addition, of course, to a solid mil resume) went a long way. Good luck.

Am I alone...?

U.S. Air Force Home Page Improved by gizoogle.net; suggest using it for your next point paper, and think how much better OPRs could be!

You'll need the BQZip's Mom version for that....

When it started is spelled out in Note 1 (1 Oct 99, with some caveats re commissioning dates)--so, yes, FY00. I still say that this policy (no add'l ADSC) is tied up with the change to the 10-year commitment, and (going from memory) the original release of the change to the reg corresponded to implementing the 10-year commitment. Why one year prior to taking effect being the cutoff date? Dunno, but I suspect it's got something to do with the FY in which the change was released, and they had to apply a cutoff somewhere--the start of the (then current) FYI seems logical enough....

I believe that's when the 10-year UPT commitment kicked in (as a direct result of the longer ADSC--a trade-off of sorts).

In other news, rain is wet....

I had a problem with the link--I couldn't find the order form....

In that case, your job just got easier. Show the total cost of 2x 1-way car plus local car < full round-trip car. The difference in taxi fare is gravy. (Still include everything; point is, the more direct a comparison you can make, the less hassle IME.)

B. Go the "constructed cost" route--show everything that you "could have" claimed via a taxi (fare + tip at a minimum); ideally have something formal to show that taxi fare, such as an advertised flat rate or Finance's own list of typical fares. Then demonstrate that your method and total claimed amount was "advantageous to the government" (i.e., got you there on time, with no additional duty time lost, for less money). Put it in a formal-looking MFR to accompany your voucher. You may have an uphill climb if there's an approved solution that costs less. You can't be the first guy to have to get to the airport--is there a shuttle, say, that you could've ridden...? How is everyone else doing it?

...and, for those arguing otherwise (and unless I missed something): Are you in the same crowd who refer to that little dust-up in the 1860s as the "War of Northern Aggression"...?? I mean, Holy Non-Starter, Batman!!, you must be arguing to hear the sound of your own voice!

Did it do either? I would think this story would have a different slant if it had.... Case of a drunk asshole, or an asshole who happened to be drunk? 17D_guy, you seem to know some details...?

Not at all true. That's not how it works. I exceeded the elective deferral limit every single year in which I had any CZTE entitlement since inception; one year, I managed to make the limit. Bonus had nothing to do with it. You cannot "choose" to make an elective deferral ("normal") contribution with tax-exempt money; any such income will go in as tax-exempt and is NOT part of the $17.5K limit. If you contribute more than the difference ($34.5K, i.e., $52K - $17.5K), then your ability to make elective deferral contributions will be reduced, dollar-for-dollar, by the same amount--a VERY bad thing, since you'll have a higher current-year taxable income for the exact same amount put in the TSP. This only matters if you're able to contribute enough to approach these amounts. Another, possibly easier(?) way to look at it: the $52K limit is an overall limit--the most that can be put in from any source. The $17.5K limit is a subset of that $52K. Any money put toward the $17.5K limit--i.e., elective deferral/"normal" contributions--counts as part of the $52K. Any contributions from any other source (CZTE-generated tax-exempt, in the case of military) does NOT count toward the $17.5K, but could effectively limit or eliminate the elective deferrals if the total will exceed $52K.

But the tax-exempt entitlement IS applied month-to-month. Pick the month that the bonus payment is made. If that month is a CZTE month, then the officer's total (of ordinarily taxable) military income is exempt up to the monthly limit; the rest is taxable. In the case of the major in your example, about $600 bucks (i.e., the difference between the limit & his non-bonus income) of the bonus lump sum would be exempt*, and the balance is taxable--doesn't matter if the month was CZTE for 5 minutes in the airspace or the middle of a continuous 12-month deployment. Your taxable income will include all income from any CZTE month(s) in excess of the officer limit for each month; the taxable income from each month is totaled and reported on your W-2. The bonus (nor any other income) is not "averaged" or otherwise spread across the whole year for determining taxable status wrt CZTE. Length of deployment, in terms of how many months are CZTE, certainly DOES matter from the point of view of reducing overall taxable income (each month adds to the total exempted), but the lump-sum payment, by definition, happens in a single month. *You're obviously correct about how total taxable income works on an annual basis. Strictly speaking, "an additional ~$600 of tax exemption would be realized" is a more accurate way of phrasing this; but the question was about "exempting the bonus," so I figured that'd be the clearest way of addressing it....

It depends. Me, I'm a fan of getting every penny I can into tax-advantaged retirement accounts, and I did exactly that every single month I deployed from the day they opened up the TSP to the uniformed services--personally, I agree with you. However, everybody's situation is different. It's important to realize that tax-exempt contributions don't get you any additional current-year tax advantage (it's already tax-exempt), so there may be other investing or savings or even spending strategies that make more sense. It boils down to whether you believe the tax-deferred growth of putting it in the TSP will yield the best long-term results (as I do, and evidently you, too), or if you believe you're better off putting it to work elsewhere. The lack of a (further) current-year reduction in taxable income makes it far less of an imperative. FIFY. For taxable wages on the W-2, it's all income in the current year (as you said); for CZTE treatment, it's the month (within that year) in which you get paid that matters. A CZTE month can be generated by as little as one day, so length of deployment is irrelevant. Due to the limit on an officer's CZTE, very little (possibly zero) of a lump-sum bonus payment would be exempted. ETA: Generally true (IRS rules, not USAF). One exception that I've ops checked twice: if you deploy late enough in the month that that month's contribution doesn't get made properly (due to CZTE status not being applied in time), you can "write a check" to pay in the missing contribution. In IRS-speak, that option is allowed when a contribution is not made via the normal payroll deduction due to employer error, which is how the delay in getting CZTE started is treated for this purpose.

NO! Subtract tax-exempt contributions (NOT necessarily the same as total deployed contributions for officers due to CZTE limits mentioned above) from $52K. You can make elective deferral contributions up to that amount, not to exceed $17.5K. In the case of an officer affected by the CZTE limit, the portion of contributions made from non-exempt income is an ordinary elective deferral and is part of that "not to exceed" amount.