Is my 99 year old Dad working again?

[NYEXPAT]

My Father will be 99 this year and has a history of “secretly working”. He sold his “1 man company” back when he was 65 in order to get SS, which was denied as they thought he was still working, He moved out of state and reapplied two years later and started receiving benefits. Several years later in his 70's my Mom confronted him and he admitted he was working again. We children did not find out until he was 84 and my oldest sister got him to stop for liability reasons. My mom passed away 8 years ago and he has been on his own since then. I remember a few years ago in a telephone call he complained to me that he paid $65k in income taxes that year. I thought it was just capital gains tax or something and did not give it another thought. Then two years ago, he said that he did not think he would live much longer and wanted to make as much money as he could before passing. I thought it was odd as he never spends money on himself and donates lots to charities and the republican party. But, again I never said anything. Last week he said that for 2016 he reported $140,000 on his tax return and had no capital gains. I know he tapped out his IRA (only non-taxable account) at least 2 years ago. All his assets are in a trust that is controlled by a non family member. He has a checking account and a few credit cards and need to ask the trust manager to put money in his account. So, I suspect he is working again!

[Just_Steve]

So what if he is? If it makes him happy, god bless him.

[audreyh1]

I think he's too old to be penalized for working while on SS, so does it matter?

[Ronstar]

He's 99 - he's old enough to do what he wants.

[Ready]

Good for him! We should all be so fortunate to have the ability to work at 99.

[Fedup]

Doing what is my real question.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYEXPAT My Father will be 99 this year and has a history of “secretly working”. He sold his “1 man company” back when he was 65 in order to get SS, which was denied as they thought he was still working,

I don't understand this. There is no penalty for working while on SS, once you have reached full retirement age. If he is 99 this year, his full retirement age would have been 65, the age you gave.

Also, even if one is below full retirement age he does not "get denied", but there is a partial penalty for income earned while drawing benefits.

This may have been different long ago, don't know.

Ha

[NYEXPAT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedup Doing what is my real question.

He is a securities analyst and I know he is no longer registered with the SEC. He may still be a member of the International Society although he no longer attends meetings.

The major problem is personal liability (as it was last time). Luckily, My sister forced him to cut loose his clients a few years before the financial crisis. Based on his income he could be running upwards of $70 million. Back in 2004 it was close to $140 Million.

I believe he can stay ahead of the SEC if all his clients are in state, although I have not kept current on regulations for several decades. But, if we experience another 2008-2009, he could be on the hook for millions in lawsuits and possibly securities violations as well.

[NYEXPAT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha I don't understand this. There is no penalty for working while on SS, once you have reached full retirement age. If he is 99 this year, his full retirement age would have been 65, the age you gave. Also, even if one is below full retirement age he does not "get denied", but there is a partial penalty for income earned while drawing benefits. This may have been different long ago, don't know. Ha

In theory you are entirely correct. But social security can deny anyone, anytime and you need to get an advocate and appeal it. When he moved out of NYC and applied in another state, The office said he would have gotten it right away had he applied their the first time.

It has to do with being self employed and the Gov't thinking that the sale of the biz is a scam.

I have a friend that lives here in Peru and is a independent geophysicist in the oil industry. He has a 1 man company registered offshore and has not had work in two years due to the lack of exploration. He applied for social security and was denied as his offshore corp is still in existence, which means he intends to find work in the future. He could have appealed it, but instead told them to shove it and will wait until he is 70.

[growing_older]

Quote:

He applied for social security and was denied ...

How is this possible? Social Security is not contingent on being retired.

[Just_Steve]

Denied SSI sure but SS, doubtful.

[CardsFan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by growing_older How is this possible? Social Security is not contingent on being retired.

+!.

There are plenty of folks that I know that collected, but still worked part time. Some stayed under the limit, some exceeded it and paid the penalty.

But is there an exception if you are self employed? The ones I know had W-2 or 1099 income.

[Fedup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYEXPAT He is a securities analyst and I know he is no longer registered with the SEC. He may still be a member of the International Society although he no longer attends meetings. The major problem is personal liability (as it was last time). Luckily, My sister forced him to cut loose his clients a few years before the financial crisis. Based on his income he could be running upwards of $70 million. Back in 2004 it was close to $140 Million. I believe he can stay ahead of the SEC if all his clients are in state, although I have not kept current on regulations for several decades. But, if we experience another 2008-2009, he could be on the hook for millions in lawsuits and possibly securities violations as well.

Do you think he will live as long as that French woman, 120 years old. If not he will be dead in a few years. As long as the rest of his money is in a trust, I assume it's not affected by lawsuits. I think it's great that people still pay him to work. At least it keeps him off nursing home.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardsFan +!. There are plenty of folks that I know that collected, but still worked part time. Some stayed under the limit, some exceeded it and paid the penalty. But is there an exception if you are self employed? The ones I know had W-2 or 1099 income.

As long as you have reached FRA, there is no penalty for working or limit to how much you can earn while drawing SS.

[aja8888]

99 and working? Go easy on him. Most employers won't hire anybody over 100 these days.

[brucethebroker]

Louis Rukeyser would have loved your dad!

[joeea]

Quote:

He sold his “1 man company” back when he was 65 in order to get SS, which was denied as they thought he was still working

I don't think that makes sense.
You don't get "denied" if you start to claim SS while working.

[donheff]

Better not be denied for working. DW gets a modest amount of self employed "income" until she is 75. She will be taking SS at 66 (FRA). Taxed yes, denied no.

[ivinsfan]

Am I the only one confused here, "He sold a company making him millions of dollars at 65 just so he could collect a paltry SS check"

[Out of Steam]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha I don't understand this. There is no penalty for working while on SS, once you have reached full retirement age. If he is 99 this year, his full retirement age would have been 65, the age you gave. Also, even if one is below full retirement age he does not "get denied", but there is a partial penalty for income earned while drawing benefits. This may have been different long ago, don't know.

It was different until 2000.

How Social Security Has Changed Over 80 Years | Retirement | US News