The new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “Act”) brings a new savings opportunity for those who desire to put away funds for a child, grandchild or other family members future education expenses. The Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2018, expands the use of 529 Savings Plans (“529 Plan”). A 529 Plan is legally known as “qualified tuition plans,” are sponsored by states or educational institutions and are authorized under Section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code. 529 Plans were designed to encourage saving for future college costs and provide for qualified higher education expenses (tuition, fees, books, supplies, computers and related equipment). 529 plans also have no income, age or annual contribution limits. Although contributions to a 529 Plan are not federal tax deductible, the contributed funds will grow federal income tax-free and will not be taxed when taken out to pay for qualified higher education expenses. The Act…
Read more detail on Recent Tax Law posts –
Related news:
- Ryerson law school plan would let students skip articling
- A school district employee's good faith in reporting allegations of child abuse in an educational setting triggers Education Law §1128(4) immunity from liability
- Leadership Education in Law School: You’re Already Providing It
- Fuel the flame sparked by your law school education with a legal certificate program
- I140 Priority Date Retention (EB3) Approval for Filipina Elementary School Teacher Beneficiary and Public School Petitioner in New Mexico
- School district resident alleges members of the board of education and school officials and staff of "incompetent, unethical, inappropriate and illegal behaviors."
- Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal … as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm
- Suffolk Law School Leading Transformation of Legal Education: AI, Analytics and the 21st Century Law School
- H-1B Visa Petition Approval (Extension) for Elementary School and Filipina Elementary School Teacher in New Mexico
- Jumpstart Outline: Ideas to Help You Make a Plan to Teach “Public Citizen” Lawyering in Any Law School Class
