Page 18 THE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2021 If you have any questions about this week’s report, e-mail us at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com or call us at (617) 720-1562. THE HOUSE AND SENATE: There were no roll calls in the House and Senate last week. This week, Beacon Hill Roll Call reports on the number of times each representative sided with Gov. Charlie Baker on his 15 vetoes of mostly state budget items. A two-thirds vote is required to override a gubernatorial veto. In a full 160-member House, the governor needs the support of 54 representatives to sustain a veto when all 160 representatives vote—and fewer votes when some members are absent, or a seat is vacant. Baker fell short of that goal as 35 votes was the most support he received on any veto. The House easily overrode all 15 vetoes, including one that was overridden unanimously. It was mostly the 30 GOP members who voted with the Republican governor to sustain the vetoes but no Republican representatives voted with Baker 100 percent of the time. The three GOP members who voted with Baker the most times are Reps. Shawn Dooley (R-Norfolk), 14 times (93.3 percent); Norman Orrall (R-Lakeville), 13 times (86.6 percent); and Brad Jones (R-North Reading) and Donald Berthiaume (R-Spencer) who both voted with Baker 11 times (73.3 percent) The three GOP members who supported Baker the least number of times were Reps. Jim Kelcourse (R-Amesbury), Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica) and David Vieira (R-Falmouth). All three voted with Baker only six times (40 percent). The vetoes had little support among the 129 Democrats in the House. One hundred and twenty-fi ve (96.9 percent) did not support the governor even once. The other four (3.1 percent) voted with Baker to sustain only one veto (6.6 percent). They are Reps. Nika Elugardo (DJamaica Plain); Chris Markey (DDartmouth); Joan Meschino (DHull); and David Robertson (DTewksbury). NUMBER OF TIMES REPRESENTATIVES SUPPORTED BAKER’S VETOES Here is how your representative fared in his or her support of Baker on the vetoes in 2021 through September 10, 2021. The percentage next to the representative’s name represents the percentage of times the representative supported Baker. The number in parenthe• No Utilities • No Pets • • Call 617-240-0767 Everett - 2 Bedroom APT. FOR RENT ~ 400 square feet ~ Off Street Parking ~ No Utilities ~ $500 Per Month Call 617-240-0767 FOR RENT ses represents the actual number of times the representative supported Baker. Some representatives voted on all 15 roll call votes. Others missed one or more roll calls. The percentage for each representative is calculated based on the number of roll calls on which he or she voted and does not count the roll calls for which he or she was absent. Rep. Jessica Giannino 0 percent (0) HOW LONG WAS LAST WEEK’S SESSION? Beacon Hill Roll Call tracks the length of time that the House and Senate were in session each week. Many legislators say that legislative sessions are only one aspect of the Legislature’s job and that a lot of important work is done outside of the House and Senate chambers. They note that their jobs also involve committee work, research, constituent work and other matters that are important to their districts. Critics say that the Legislature does not meet regularly or long enough to debate and vote in public view on the thousands of pieces of legislation that have been fi led. They note that the infrequency and brief length of sessions are misguided and lead to irresponsible late-night sessions and a mad rush to act on dozens of bills in the days immediately preceding the end of an annual session. During the week of September 6-10, the House met for a total of ten minutes while the Senate met for a total of one hour and fi ve minutes. Mon. Sept. 6 No House session No Senate session Tues. Sept. 7 House 11:01 a.m. to 11:06 a.m. Senate 11:09 a.m. to 11:14 a.m. Wed. Sept. 8 No House session No Senate session Thurs. Sept. 9 House 11:00 a.m. to 11:05 a.m. Senate 11:42 a.m. to 12:42 p.m. Fri. Sept. 19 No House session No Senate session Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com Joseph D. Cataldo is an Estate Planning/Elder Law Attorney, Certifi ed Public Accountant, Certifi ed Financial Planner, AICPA Personal Financial Specialist and holds a Master’s Degree in Taxation. THE NEW 10 YEAR RULE ON RETIRMENT PLAN DISTRIBUTIONS T he SECURE Act was passed on December 20, 2019. One of the biggest changes to retirement accounts included in that legislation was the new provision relating to retirement plan distributions for most non-spouse benefi ciaries of such accounts. Prior to the passage of the SECURE Act, all designated benefi ciaries (living individuals and qualifying Trusts) were allowed to use the “stretch” strategy in order to spread out the distributions from the inherited retirement account over the individual’s life expectancy as well as the life expectancy of the benefi ciaries of the qualifying Trust. This was a big win for the benefi ciary as the inherited retirement account could continue to be invested for the long-term without major tax bites taken out each year due to a much smaller required minimum distribution (RMD). This was also a loss for the federal and state governments as the tax revenue would be received over a much longer period of time. The SECURE Act broke up the designated benefi ciaries into two groups: 1. Eligible beneficiaries and 2. Non-Eligible beneficiaries. The eligible beneficiaries are able to stretch the required minimum distributions over their life expectancies. Who’s in this group? Surviving spouses, disabled benefi ciaries, chronically ill benefi ciaries, minor children of the decedent account holder (as well as qualifying Trusts established for their benefi t), and beneficiaries not more than ten years younger than the decedent account holder. All other benefi ciaries will be part of the non-eligible group and will not be able to stretch out the RMD’s over their lifetime. Now, the IRS wins and this group of benefi ciaries loses. They have to withdraw the account in its entirety within a ten-year period. A 35 year old benefi ciary of his father’s IRA account who dies will have to include $50,000 in his or her taxable income over a 10year period. This income will be added to this child’s other income each year. He or she could lose $13,500 in each of those years to federal and state income taxes assuming the federal marginal tax bracket is 22% and the Massachusetts rate is 5%. That’s $135,000 out the window over a tenyear period for a middle class American. The RMD can be taken ratably over the ten- year period or the benefi ciary can wait until the tenth year to take it all out. If the RMD is not taken out, a 50% penalty on the shortfall would be assessed by the IRS. Under the old rule, the 35 year old beneficiary would have been able to withdraw the inherited retirement account over a period of 48.5 years. The new 10-year rule has a dramatic aff ect on the net “after tax” value of an inherited retirement account.
19 Publizr Home