Hi Jock Ewing, Being a furriner - I have no useful advice to offer regarding your Incentive funds, tax refund, etc. ... sorry about that. However - I'm with dadoes ... wouldn't it be a good idea for you to plan to reduce your tax refund to close to $0.00? Over the years that I've worked as a personal financial advisor, one of my major suggestions to clients and others was that they reduce their income tax refund to $0.00. Even at low rates of interest ... money in your bank account does develop a small amount of interest, during the year and a quarter to a half or so that some of it would be there. I'd like to suggest that, during the year while your extra large withholding is being held back and sent to the IRS as an interest-free loan, you check with your bank as to the amount of interest that the extra amount withheld would have earned. Then when you receive your tax refund, suppose you take an equal amount and, in the presence of your family, throw it into the street. Do you figure that they would, on the strength of that act, judge you to be a wise manager of money? Not only are you losing the small amount of interest (let's call it a "pittance") that that amount of money would earn if you'd taken it and put it into a separate and inviolable bank account ... it would have been available in case of need to deal with a major emergency expense. The IRS wouldn't have been too sympathetic had you, facing such a need, asked them to pay you a portion of that potential refund during that year. Which relates to another major suggestion that I made to my clients ... that they try to have at least 3 months' income available in easily accessible asset in case of an emergency. With six months', nine months' or a year's amount being built up in case of substantial unexpected need - including, in recent years, a possible extended period of unemployment. I shared with a number of them the information that I often did not have that on hand myself during my years of recent employment, as I held a "credit" (really "debt") card with, usually, zero or almost zero owing, with full amount paid off monthly prior to due date, plus a line of credit at the bank, usually sitting unused (with no set-up or maintenance fee if unused) which I could draw on to pay off the credit card balance due after use to cover an emergency. Actually, I recently signed up for another card, with 1.9% interest rate for 9 mos. on transferred balances, to use to purchase stock, should I so choose, as I would have to pay 5.00% currently on my line of credit but can buy the stock using the first card, then transfer the balance. But - the first card will charge interest at regular rate (about 18%) from the date that I draw on it till the date that it moves to the second card. By the way - I'm 80 and live on less than the income from my three pensions (one governmental with residence requirement, so housewives qualify, a second contributory related to my former income, and a third private contributory one) plus a small annual required amount of withdrawal from a tax-deferred retirement account. That income is much more secure that most employment income, as all that I need do to qualify is ... ... stay topside the grass! Which makes my pension income almost a guaranteed income (as long as the private carrier and the government stay solvent - and ours is a lot closer to that than yours). Do yourself a favour, Jock, please - set up a bank acocunt that you promise to leave alone except in case of extreme emergency ... and deposit the amount of withholding overcharge from every paycheque. With a name such as yours - you may have a drop or two of Scottish blood in your veins ... and you know their reputation for being careful with the use of money. Good wishes for what's left of winter, the spring - and the rest of the year. ole joyful

I have to take a Minimum Required Distribution every year from my retirement account since I turned 69-1/2. However, every year Congress allows an up to $100,000 non-taxable distribution from such retirement accounts to whichever IRS-sanctioned charity or charities you specify. Since we don't even approach using an itemized deduction on our income tax to take advantage of a non-taxable charitable contribution there, but rather have to use a standard deduction, this is a neat way to take advantage of the US tax laws & a win for the the charity I would annually select anyway.

time for this to drop down

Recently a number of (mainly seniors) have been using a certain type of investment (unit trusts) that paid quite a high rate of return, some of it tax advantaged in the recipient's hands, plus some of it return of part of one's originally invested money. Such companies that structured themselves to pay out most of their earnings to shareholders were allowed to escape paying corporate tax. Some people who owned a somewhat different type of investment, stocks of Canadian companies, paying a much lower rate of return felt that they were being unfairly treated, and quite a few were leaving the type of investment that they'd been using to buy the other type. So the government changed the rules of calculating tax on the second type of income relative to 2006, with a view to encouraging a number of taxpayers to stay put. Until 2005, a single "taxpayer" who'd earned somewhere around $27,000 - 30,000. of solely that kind of income had a couple of types of credits work to allow them to have their tax liability reduced to zero. The differing method of calculation in 2006 allowed the level of the single "taxpayer's" income from solely that type of income to increase to $46,345. before becoming liable to pay one cent of income tax ... except the $600. Ontario Health Levy in this province. Would that my Member of Parliament's office were to notify every constituent annually of all the changes to the tax code, especially ways that some fortunate people could avoid paying tax at all up to over $45,000. ... ... but I'm not holding my breath, waiting for such a day! The person who told me of it was a C.A. who'd been an accountant (I think controller) of a substantial local company, prior to his retirement (with no pension) a couple of years ago. We've attended a monthly study group learning about investments for over 7 years (sometimes travel together to the meeting) ... I've learned a lot in that group. The government recently changed the tax rules relative to the first type of investment ... not allowing the corporations to avoid income tax, even if they agree to pay out most of their income. The value of that market lost billions overnight ... I can send any of you interested some delicious cartoons related to that! Recovered a substantial portion of it, later. In the light of that ... they may change the rules again next year relative to the second type of income, to increase the rate of income tax on it to more or less previous levels. Good wishes for learning more about the effective use of your income and assets. ole joyful