John Hancock 2021 Tax Planning Guide

john hancock 2021 tax planning guide

If you’re interested in the details of your current retirement plan, consider getting a John Hancock 2021 tax planning guide. The guide is available to all members of a Roth IRA, which is a great way to learn about your options and start planning for the future. Listed below are some of the main details of the guide. Read on to learn more about it. We recommend that you speak with your local John Hancock service team to get more information. The contacts are listed in the “Plan overview” section. Please note that all information is subject to change, and that we do not provide tax or investment advice. As always, we recommend that you seek independent advice when deciding whether to invest in a Roth IRA or a traditional IRA.

John Hancock is not an ERISA fiduciary

The court found that John Hancock is not an ERISA-covered fiduciary because it breached its fiduciary duty by improperly dealing with plan assets. This was based on the fact that Hancock received and used plan assets for its own benefit in transactions that violated ERISA’s fiduciary duty. However, it noted that the DOL does not regulate insurance companies on fiduciary status.

Although the court found that disclosure violations were not the cause of the damage, plaintiffs claim that the decision does not support their argument that John Hancock was a breaching fiduciary. However, the Court found that the alleged misconduct did not require John Hancock to disclose the fees. Instead, the trustee retained ultimate authority. In other words, John Hancock did not breach its fiduciary duty in a fiduciary capacity.

Despite these challenges, the court’s decision confirms that John Hancock is not an ERISA-bound fiduciary. The decision reversed a lower court’s ruling that Hancock is not an ERISA-bound fiduciary. Furthermore, this case highlights the importance of ERISA fiduciary status for pension plans. The Department of Labor’s interpretive bulletin did not address the scope of prohibited transactions under the Act and also found that the guaranteed benefit policy exemption was narrowly drafted.

While John Hancock is not an ERISA-bound fiduciary, it does offer investment options. Moreover, it offers recordkeeping services. It has also partnered with AMP and TAG Resources. However, it is still evaluating whether it can expand its fiduciary partnership. It has recently been recognized with the Financial Communications Society Portfolio Award as one of the nation’s best fiduciary partnerships.

Plaintiffs’ claim is based on the fact that John Hancock wrongfully retained FTCs without authorization, as a result of which the plans did not meet the Class definition. Moreover, John Hancock has witnesses who agree that the records show that the plans were invested in International Investment Options during the class period. As a result, the plaintiffs have successfully argued that the company’s failure to provide adequate disclosures of the investment options is not sufficient to support a breach-of-fiduciary duty claim.

It complied with U.S. tax law

The plaintiffs’ expert, Mukamal, argues that John Hancock failed to comply with U.S. tax law when it sold the tax planning guide. She argues that the fund manager was required to report only “grossed-up” foreign income and received a dollar-for-dollar reduction in taxes for increasing its reserves. Plaintiffs believe that Mukamal’s assessment is not supported by the facts, and that LaRue cannot offer an underlying rebuttal.

The plaintiffs argued that Gissiner’s opinion was a misrepresentation of industry custom and was not based on the relevant U.S. tax law. However, Gissiner argues that the recordkeeping agreement did limit John Hancock’s discretion and was not inconsistent with industry custom. Further, Gissiner notes that John Hancock’s 2021 tax planning guide was not based on a deposition or available evidence, but instead was derived from an expert’s analysis of the applicable tax law.

The plaintiffs argued that John Hancock failed to comply with the prohibited transaction provisions under ERISA and failed to disclose relevant information to the Plaintiffs. The plaintiffs assert that a failure to disclose the relevant information could lead to the levying of a lawsuit. Consequently, Defendant argues that it is inappropriate to dismiss these claims, arguing that Plaintiffs’ disclosure of the relevant information violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

In this case, plaintiffs allege that John Hancock’s use of the FTCs did not comply with U.S. tax law. They claim that the levy and Pingree opinions “are unqualified because they rely on an incorrect assumption about the discretionary authority of John Hancock,” ECF No. 268-2 at 108:7 and 109:10

Lastly, the plaintiffs’ demands for equitable restitution and disgorgement failed to meet their statutory requirements. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to exclude Levy’s testimony. But Levy is not permitted to testify about whether John Hancock acted as a fiduciary, whether it received compensation for its services, or whether it acted dishonestly.

It calculated tax expense for foreign tax credits

A foreign tax credit is a way to offset your U.S. tax liability. These credits reduce your tax bill dollar-for-dollar. If you paid $350 in foreign taxes, you will have to pay only $250 in taxes this year. However, it is not as simple as it sounds. Form 1116 must be filled out to claim foreign tax credits. The process can be complicated, but it is well worth the effort.

In case you’re wondering if you can claim your foreign tax credits as a deduction, consult IRS Publication 514. This guide explains how foreign tax credits work. You’ll be able to save money in the long run if you plan ahead. However, you’ll need to remember that foreign tax credits are handled differently than domestic tax credits. When filing your tax return, consider which method is most sensible.

It did not breach its fiduciary duty

Plaintiffs argue that John Hancock failed to comply with its fiduciary duty by failing to defray the costs of administering the plans. However, the court notes that John Hancock could have used other deductions and credits. In addition, he or she might have benefited from FTCs. However, Plaintiffs did not present any evidence that suggests that John Hancock failed to disclose this fact.

The plaintiffs’ arguments rely on a hypothetical administrative fiduciary, Pingree. The judge’s opinion focuses on two issues: whether the FTCs are compensation or do not have any value. In addition, the court notes that John Hancock may have violated ERISA’s prohibitions against prohibited transactions. As a result, the plaintiffs argue that John Hancock breached its fiduciary duty by engaging in prohibited transactions, and based that on these findings, it failed to comply with its legal obligations.

Gissiner’s opinion also fails to address the core issues. While the court recognizes that Gissiner’s opinions are not directly relevant to the claims made in the case, his conclusions are largely irrelevant to the merits of the claim. Plaintiffs assert that Gissiner’s opinions on these issues are based on a wrong assumption regarding the discretionary authority of John Hancock.

In addition to denying Plaintiffs’ motion to strike LaRue’s opinions, the court also struck certain paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony, which LaRue argues do not qualify as ERISA opinions. The court further held that Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses cannot offer a rebuttal of these arguments. Hence, the court rejected Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion.

As a result, John Hancock’s argument that Pingree is a qualified expert fails to withstand scrutiny is not persuasive. Its initial report rejects this argument and continues to reject it in the case at hand. Its rebuttal addresses the issue of whether the recordkeeping agreement limits the advisor’s discretion. Moreover, it notes that Pingree’s report and Levy’s best practice opinion were excluded from the recordkeeping agreement because they were based on an underlying legal opinion.

In addition to this argument, the court notes that Mukamal’s opinions were based on inaccurate factual assumptions and rely on incorrect statements of law. According to Defendant, Mukamal’s calculations were flawed because they ignored John Hancock’s overall tax position. Further, Mukamal’s opinions also fail to consider John Hancock’s position on foreign tax credits.