I’m excited to share a professional milestone.

I’ve earned the Retirement Income Certified Professional® (RICP®) designation through The American College of Financial Services. This advanced education strengthens my ability to help clients transition from accumulating wealth to creating sustainable retirement income—often the most complex and important phase of financial planning.

As a result, our services have expanded to include:

• Comprehensive retirement income planning
• Tax-efficient withdrawal and distribution strategies
• Social Security and Medicare planning
• Longevity, risk, and cash-flow planning
• Coordinating taxes, investments, and retirement decisions into one cohesive strategy

This planning is paired with a disciplined, evidence-based investment approach that emphasizes diversification, long-term strategy, and emotional discipline—especially during volatile markets.

Retirement planning isn’t just about returns. It’s about turning savings into reliable income while managing taxes and risk over decades.

I’m grateful for the trust our clients place in us and look forward to serving them with an even broader and more comprehensive approach to retirement planning.

If you have questions about how retirement income planning fits into your overall financial picture, I’m happy to discuss it with you. Start the conversation about your retirement income planning today.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) still rely heavily on static scoring—a model that assumes changes to tax laws don’t influence economic behavior or affect GDP growth. It’s a method that may feel safer on paper but overlooks how real people and businesses respond to financial incentives. When it comes to shaping national policy, numbers carry the most weight. But in the federal budgeting world, especially on tax matters, the numbers we use don’t always tell the whole story. 

Limits of Static Scoring

Static scoring cuts tax rates. Then revenue is projected to fall by a proportional amount. It doesn’t factor in how individuals might work more or invest differently when their after-tax returns increase. While it may seem conservative, this model doesn’t hold up under real-world scrutiny.

Economists overwhelmingly agree. The incentives matter. Lowering taxes on income, investment, or business profits tends to spark more activity in those areas. People work more. Businesses hire and expand. Investment increases. This ripple effect can grow the economy and, ironically, even boost tax receipts over time.

This isn't just a theory; we've seen this play out across several pivotal moments in U.S. tax history.

Case 1: Kennedy’s Tax Cuts (1964)

In the early ’60s, top income tax rates hovered around a staggering 91%. President John F. Kennedy proposed a bold reduction, bringing the top rate down to 70%, on the belief that cutting taxes would energize the economy.

As Kennedy famously put it, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

And it did. From 1961 to 1968, GDP averaged 5.2% growth annually. Unemployment dropped from 6.7% to 3.4%. Despite lower rates, tax revenues rose thanks to the booming economy.

Case 2: Reagan’s Tax Reforms (1981 & 1986)

President Ronald Reagan championed two rounds of sweeping tax changes. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 lowered top income tax rates from 70% to 50%, and the 1986 Tax Reform Act took them down again to 28%, while simplifying the tax code and broadening the base.

The results were substantial. Between 1982 and 1989, real GDP grew at a 3.5% annual rate. About 20 million new jobs were created. Federal tax revenue nearly doubled, rising from $517 billion in 1980 to $991 billion in 1990.

Yes, deficits climbed during this time, but much of that was tied to spending and defense costs, not a collapse in tax revenue as static models had forecasted.

Case 3: Trump’s Tax Cuts (2017 - TCJA)

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), signed by President Trump in 2017, slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, adjusted individual brackets, boosted the standard deduction, and expanded the child tax credit.

In the two years before COVID hit, GDP grew by 2.9% in 2018 and 2.3% in 2019. Wage growth picked up, especially for lower-income workers. Companies repatriated over $800 billion in overseas earnings in 2018 alone. Federal revenues, despite rate cuts, rose from $3.3 trillion in 2017 to $3.5 trillion in 2019.

The CBO had projected a $1.5 trillion shortfall from the tax changes. But real-world dynamics—like job growth, investment, and rising incomes—helped offset that hit. Static scoring missed these vital shifts.

Static vs. Dynamic: A Skewed Policy Lens

What’s common across these tax reform periods? Static scoring consistently underestimated the economic rebound triggered by smarter, growth-focused tax changes.

While the CBO sometimes provides dynamic analysis in supplemental material, it doesn’t fold that insight into the official budget numbers. As a result, Congress is often working off an incomplete picture—one that ignores critical factors like:

• Growing labor participation
• Rising private investment
• Consumption driven by higher disposable incomes
• An expanding tax base

This kind of blind spot discourages reforms that could enhance U.S. competitiveness and productivity.

Why Dynamic Scoring Matters

Dynamic scoring accounts for how people and markets react to policy changes. It’s not about rosy predictions it’s about realism. By modeling effects on GDP, jobs, wages, investment, and eventually tax receipts, dynamic scoring offers a fuller, more grounded forecast.

Critics argue it’s too uncertain or politically influenced. But rather than avoiding it, we should demand transparency and scenario-based projections not cling to a model that ignores actual behavior.

Conclusion: Time to Modernize the Scoreboard

CBO’s continued use of static scoring doesn’t just misrepresent fiscal impacts it actively warps the debate around tax policy. It paints a false picture, discouraging reforms that could strengthen the economy over the long haul.  CBO was established in 1974, to provide Congress information on analysis related to fiscal matters.  

To build a smarter, more growth-oriented budget process, Congress should:

• Mandate dynamic scoring for all significant tax proposals
• Publish outcome ranges based on varying economic responses
• Incorporate lessons from past reforms into fiscal planning

Only then can policymakers craft legislation that reflects how economies truly work and set the stage for a future built on innovation, investment, and broad-based prosperity.

As part of the House GOP’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” lawmakers have introduced a children's savings account called Money Account for Growth and Advancement (MAGA Account). This allows American children to start building financial stability, early. Let’s discuss how the accounts are designed to work, the upsides, and an example in order to illustrate their value. 

What Is A MAGA Account?
Under the bill, each child born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028, are to receive a $1,000 federal deposit. These accounts, held by FDIC-insured institutions and overseen by the Treasury, can be opened by a parent or guardian. If not opened by the time of the child’s first tax return, the Treasury will step in to create one automatically. 

Contribution Rules & Growth Potential 

• Families and friends can contribute up to $5,000 annually per child, with limits adjusted for inflation.  

• Charities and foundations face no cap, provided their donations are distributed equally to all children in a group.  

• Investments are limited to diversified mutual funds, and earnings grow tax-free.  

• Over 18 years, assuming a steady 7% return and maxed-out contributions, an account could grow from $91,000 in deposits to around $170,000—highlighting the long-term power of compounding. 

Withdrawals & Eligible Uses
Withdrawals are phased to encourage discipline: 

• Under 18: No withdrawals 

• Ages 18–25: Up to 50% allowed for college, vocational training, buying a first home, or launching a business (taxed at long-term capital gains rates) 

• Ages 26–30: Full balance available for those same purposes (same tax treatment) 

• After 30: Funds may be used for any purpose, but non-qualified uses face ordinary income tax and a 10% penalty on gains 

This structure aims to balance flexibility with long-term savings incentives. 

Example in Action
Take Hannah, born on March 1, 2025. She gets the $1,000 federal deposit, and her grandparents contribute $3,000 a year through age 17 which totals $51,000. Assuming a 6% annual return, her account could grow to around $75,000 by age 18. At 20, she uses half for college (taxed at the long-term capital gains rate). The rest stays invested, available for graduate school or a home purchase when she turns 26. 

Key Benefits & Policy Goals
MAGA Accounts offer every child a financial starting point, regardless of family income. Contributions can come from multiple sources, including nonprofits. The accounts grow tax-free, promoting early financial literacy and long-term wealth-building. Withdrawals are aligned with life milestones—education, homeownership, and business creation—that are often key to economic mobility.  

 

Looking Ahead
The bill has cleared the House Budget Committee and awaits broader congressional review. Treasury will set investment guidelines and interface standards, while state tax treatment may differ from federal rules. If enacted, MAGA Accounts could represent a bipartisan step toward embedding savings and investment into American family planning—supporting education, entrepreneurship, and homeownership for future generations. 

 

A Charitable Remainder Unitrust (CRUT) is an irrevocable trust that allows donors to contribute assets, receive income for life (or for a specified term), and donate the remaining assets to a charity at the end of the trust term. CRUTs offer tax benefits, including income tax deductions, deferral of capital gains tax, and possible reductions in estate taxes.

How a CRUT Works

1. Funding the CRUT: A donor contributes assets (cash, stocks, real estate, or other property) to the CRUT.

2. Income Payments: The CRUT pays a fixed percentage (at least 5%) of its value, revalued annually, to the donor or beneficiaries.

3. Charity as the Remainder Beneficiary: After the term ends (either upon the donor’s death or after a set number of years, up to 20), the remaining assets go to the designated charity.

4. Tax Benefits:

• Immediate charitable income tax deduction based on the present value of the remainder interest.
• No capital gains tax on appreciated assets sold within the trust.
• Possible estate tax benefits.

 

Example of a CRUT in Action

Scenario:
John, 65, donated $1 million in highly appreciated stock to a CRUT. The trust will pay him 6% of its annually revalued assets for life. Upon his death, the remaining assets will go to his favorite charity.

Year 1

• Trust assets: $1,000,000
• John receives $60,000 (6% of $1M)
• No immediate capital gains tax on the sale of stock.
• John claims an income tax deduction based on the remainder value going to charity (calculated using IRS formulas).

 

Year 2 (Assume a 5% market growth)

• Trust assets: $1,050,000
• John receives $63,000 (6% of $1.05M)

This continues until John’s passing. At that point, the remaining assets (say $1.5 million) are distributed to the designated charity.

 

Key Benefits

• Tax efficiency: It avoids capital gains tax and provides income tax deductions.
• Flexible income: The unitrust payout percentage ensures that payments adjust with the trust value.
• Charitable impact: A meaningful donation to charity after the donor’s passing.

 

The SECURE Act 2.0, signed into law in December 2022, introduced several new tax credits to encourage small businesses to establish retirement plans and help employees save for retirement. These incentives make it easier and more affordable for business owners to offer retirement benefits. Below, we summarize the key tax credits available under SECURE Act 2.0.

1. Startup Plan Tax Credit

One of the key provisions of SECURE Act 2.0 is the expanded tax credit for small businesses setting up new retirement plans.

• Who Qualifies? Small businesses with up to 50 employees.
• Credit Amount: Covers 100% of qualified plan startup costs (previously capped at 50%), up to $5,000 per year for the first three years.
• Eligible Plans: 401(k), SIMPLE IRA, or other qualified plans.
• Benefits: Helps reduce the financial burden of setting up a retirement plan.

 

2. Employer Contribution Tax Credit

To further encourage employers, SECURE Act 2.0 introduced a tax credit for contributions to new retirement plans.

• Who Qualifies? Employers with up to 100 employees.
• Credit Amount: Covers up to $1,000 per employee for employer contributions.
  • 100% of the contribution in year one.
  • Gradual phase-out over five years for businesses with 51–100 employees.
• Benefits: Encourages employers to contribute to employee retirement savings.

 

3. Automatic Enrollment Credit

SECURE Act 2.0 introduces an additional tax credit for implementing automatic enrollment features in retirement plans.

• Who Qualifies? Employers who add automatic enrollment to their retirement plans.
• Credit Amount: $500 per year for three years.
• Benefits: Encourages higher participation rates in employer-sponsored plans.

 

4. Military Spouse Retirement Plan Credit

This provision incentivizes businesses to provide retirement benefits to military spouses.

• Who Qualifies? Small employers who provide retirement plan access to military spouses.
• Credit Amount: Up to $500 per year for three years.
• Benefits: Helps military families save for retirement despite frequent relocations.

 

Maximizing These Credits

Employers looking to take advantage of these tax credits should:

• Work with a tax advisor to ensure eligibility and maximize benefits.
• Consider setting up a 401(k) or SIMPLE IRA plan before year-end to qualify.
• Encourage employee participation to increase overall retirement savings.

Conclusion

SECURE Act 2.0 significantly enhances the financial incentives for small businesses to establish and contribute to retirement plans. By taking advantage of these tax credits, employers can provide valuable benefits to their employees while reducing their tax liabilities. If you are a business owner, now is the time to explore how these credits can benefit you and your employees.

 

By Maureen Leddy

On December 3, a Texas federal district court preliminarily barred enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act nationwide - the broad decision came weeks before the January 1, 2025, deadline for 32.6 million business entities to report their beneficial ownership information. (Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., v. Garland,  2024 WL 4953814 (E.D. Tex. 12/03/2024)

Some welcomed the decision in light of what they see as unclear or unconstitutional requirements. However, at least one attorney is advising her clients to still make the filings by year-end.

Background

Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act in 2021 with the intention of combating money-laundering, financing of terrorist activities, and tax evasion. It requires that specified business entities file reports detailing their owners, officers, and other control persons with Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). A September 2022  final rule implementing the act set the reporting deadline for most entities at January 1, 2025.

The Corporate Transparency Act has faced push-back both in the courts and from lawmakers. Some contend that FinCEN has not adequately publicized the requirements or clarified reporting procedures. Others have raised constitutional concerns - including that the reporting requirements violate the First Amendment, constitute an illegal search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and exceed Congress' powers.

Two federal district courts have upheld the reporting requirements, while one has enjoined enforcement as to the named plaintiffs and their members only. The government has  appealed that decision to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, several other lawsuits are still in the preliminary stages.

Texas Court Decision

On Tuesday, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled in favor of a group of six plaintiffs - including five entities and one individual -granting a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the reporting requirements. The memorandum opinion, authored by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, indicates that the Corporate Transparency Act "is likely unconstitutional as outside of Congress's power."

Harm to Plaintiffs

Judge Mazzant concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm - a prerequisite for preliminary relief - because of the "resources" and "time and effort" they would need to expend satisfying the filing requirement. He rejected the government's characterization of the "pecuniary injury" as "de minimis." Even FinCEN, he said, "acknowledges that companies  will incur compliance costs."

Judge Mazzant also sided with the plaintiffs on their constitutional argument, finding that the "threat" of "revealing protected information on pain of criminal punishment" could cause irreparable harm. "Absent injunctive relief, come January 2, 2025, Plaintiffs would have disclosed the information they seek to keep private under the First and Fourth Amendments and surrendered to a law that they contend exceeds Congress's powers," Mazzant concluded.

Commerce Clause Analysis

As far as whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits - the second step in determining whether preliminary relief is appropriate - Judge Mazzant focused on the argument that Congress lacked the power to enact the Corporate Transparency Act. He disagreed with the government's contention that the law falls within commerce clause powers. The text of the Corporate Transparency Act, he said, doesn't indicate that regulated entities are engaged in commerce - rather just that they have filed a formation document or registered to do business.

And companies "are not a 'channel' or 'instrumentality' of commerce," Judge Mazzant concluded. "If they were, then Congress could regulate any company, in any way, all the time."

And as for whether the Corporate Transparency Act regulates an activity that "substantially impacts" interstate commerce, Judge Mazzant concluded that "the natural, idle state that any entity formed by registering with a secretary of state" is not such an activity. Although it may be "rational" for Congress to conclude that these entities "substantially impact commerce," he said, "in light of our dual system of government, Congress's commerce power cannot reach this far."

Scope

As to the scope of the injunction, Judge Mazzant said it would apply "nationwide." Noting that plaintiff NFIB's membership is nationwide and the "extent of the constitutional violation Plaintiffs have shown," Judge Mazzant called a nationwide injunction "appropriate."

Reactions

American Institute of CPAs's (AICPA) Melanie Lauridsen told Checkpoint her organization "understands the confusion and anxiety that business owners have struggled with regarding the reporting requirement."

AICPA has pushed for a one-year delay in the deadline amid concerns about the details, including what they've called an "unnecessarily tight 30-day timeline" to submit beneficial ownership information updates after initial reports are filed. That timeline "makes monitoring client information incredibly complex for tax professionals," reads AICPA's  letter to lawmakers.

"While we are still awaiting formal guidance from FinCEN, if this injunction is applicable as we believe, many small businesses would receive the much-needed BOI reporting relief," Lauridsen added.

FACT Coalition's Ian Gary, however, called the decision "a Christmas gift to criminals who use anonymous shell companies to traffic fentanyl, exploit people, and hide dirty money." Other federal courts "have reached the opposite conclusion and denied injunctions in similar cases," Gary said. "[W]e expect the government to move to stay this outlier order promptly."

What's Next

Melissa Wiley, a partner at Lowenstein Sandler, told Checkpoint "the court's decision to issue a nationwide injunction needs to be put into perspective." The decision was the fourth to address the law's constitutionality, resulting in a 2-2 split between courts in four different circuits, she explained.

"While national injunctions are on the uptick, they are still somewhat controversial," said Wiley. "I think that's particularly so in this case where we have three active appeals - to the 4th, 9th, and 11th Circuits - and can reasonably expect the government to appeal this decision as well."

Wiley said she's advising her clients to "go ahead and make the filings required under the law, especially if they are in the process of collecting the necessary information."

But with several million reports yet to be filed by the deadline, Wiley acknowledged that many people may - in light of the Texas court's decision - conclude that filing a report by year-end isn't a priority. "I think this ruling gives them the leeway to push off complying until there's further clarity, at least for as long as the preliminary injunction is still in place," she said.