by Structured Settlement Watchdog
Annuity.org is registered to Ronnie Zelek of Orlando's Launch That, which shills leads for CBC Settlement Funding of Conshohocken PA, a member of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers and subsidiary of Asta Funding, of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. On its website Asta Funding states, "while competitors focus on expensive broadcast advertising to identify clients, Asta’s CBC Settlement Funding LLC delivers returns by pinpointing the most promising customers with an exquisite ability to analyze data and strong industry relationship". Clearly Annuity.Org is one of the pinpoints.
They just don't give a crap because of the profit funnel
It seems that neither Ritchie, Annuity.org ownership , nor CBC Settlement Funding, the ultimate beneficiary of leads generated, nor Asta Funding the money behind CBC Settlement Funding, give a crap about the swill Annuity.org dish out to consumers. It seems to be only the matter of how deep it fills the sewer. Annuity.org's Alanna Ritchie has proven to be an absolute failure when it comes to writing accurate information about structured settlements. Her written work on the subject, which has been the subject of one or two other posts in the last year, is really incompetent, in my professional opinion. This is not a new problem, but a lingering , festering ongoing problem.
Why doesn't Annuity.org want to accurately inform consumers?
There comes a point when an ongoing effluent of "content diarrhea" stinks up the joint and that point is now. Annuity.org employs the least credible writers, and to what end? What does Annuity.org stand to gain from Alanna Ritchie's abominable structured settlement research? The information is easily accessible.
Annuity.Org's "Prize Winning Entry" Earning the Label Structured Settlement Social Media Road Kill.
On Structured Settlement Taxation...
A. Ritchie states, Ronnie Zelek registered Annuity.org publishes
"The IRS is barred from taxing structured settlement income – whether it’s paid all at once or in installments – under the federal Periodic Payment Settlement Act, which was passed in 1982.This was to ensure structured settlements continued to provide financial security to those who received them".
Why What Ritchie says is bogus
- The IRS not "barred", the income is exempt from taxation because of the type of damages being paid.
- Punitive damages can be structured as well and such damages are expressly carved out of the exclusion under IRC Section 104.
B. Ritchie states, Ronnie Zelek registered Annuity.org publishes
Someone who wants to buy a replacement contract for their structured settlement annuity can do so tax-free under Section 1035 of the IRC. The code also says rollovers or direct transfers from one insurance company to another can be done tax-free.
For example, if you find an annuity contract with a higher interest rate, lower fees or want a contract issued by a more stable company, you’ll be able to exchange your current annuity contract without incurring any additional tax burdens.
Why what Ritchie says is bogus
RC 1035 has nothing to do with structured settlements.
C. Ritchie says, Ronnie Zelek registered Annuity.org publishes
Section 104 (a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code mandates that damages from on-the-job physical injuries or illnesses cannot be considered income, so they are not subject to taxation.
Why what Ritchie Says is bogus
IRC 104(a)(2) has absolutely nothing to do with workers compensation.
D. Ritchie Demonstrates a Lack of Understanding and Cannot Articulate Her Own Business When She States and Ronnie Zelek registered Annuity.org publsihes
For example, you could take $100,000 in a lump sum from a $300,000 structured settlement. Although the lump sum payment will be subject to taxation, the rest of the money can be left in the annuity account to grow tax-free.
Why what Ritchie Says is bogus
- An annuity is not an account, it's contract
- If one assumes that "take $100,000 in a lump sum" is a structured settlement transfer and the transaction involves the transfer of structured settlement payment rights that comply with IRC 5891 [e.g. damages excluded under IRC 104(a)(2)] then the " lump sum payment" (i.e. net transfer proceeds) are income tax free.
It doesn't take much to write accurate information.