Author Archives: fitaxguy

A Critical Look at the 529

Thanks to the SECURE 2.0 bill, it’s time for the FI community to reexamine 529 plans. This post shares my two cents on 529s in general, and specifically as applied to the FI community. The next post, dropping February 15, 2023, addresses in detail the new 529-to-Roth IRA rollover enacted in SECURE 2.0.

Financial Independence

Before we talk about 529s, we have to talk about the primary goal of financial independence. For young parents, the primary goal is to secure Mom & Dad’s financial independence. 

Achieving the parents’ primary goal has an incredible secondary effect. Mom and Dad buy Junior an incredible gift by securing their own financial independence. That gift is that Junior will never have to worry about Mom and Dad’s financial security as an adult. The greatest financial gift parents can ever give their children is the parents’ own financial stability. 

Second, where possible, money and financial assets should be able to support multiple financial goals. We should be at least somewhat hesitant before locking up money such that it can only support one highly specific goal without incurring a penalty. 

529s

529s are tax-advantaged savings accounts generally run by states to facilitate college savings. 529s are best understood as a Roth IRA for college education with far greater contribution limits. Sure, that is an overstatement of how they work, but that gives us a good conceptual framework from which to start the analysis. 

A quick note on terminology: The IRS often refers to 529 plans as “Qualified Tuition Programs” or “QTPs.” I will use the more commonly used colloquialisms, 529 and 529s. 

Contributions to a 529 are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes. At least initially, there’s no federal income tax benefit to making a 529 contribution. However, money inside a 529 grows federal and state tax-free and can be withdrawn tax-free for qualified education expenses (such as college tuition). 

Contributions are generally not limited by federal tax law, though contributions above the annual exclusion gift tax limit ($17,000 per donor per beneficiary per year in 2023) generally trigger Form 709 reporting requirements (though in 99.99% of cases there should not be a gift tax liability). States generally have lifetime contribution limits per beneficiary. Usually these limits are far in excess of what one would normally need for undergraduate college tuition. 

Very generally speaking, qualified education expenses can be directly paid from the 529 to the educational institution or such expenses can be reimbursed from a 529 in the year the expenses are incurred. Payments for qualified educational expenses are generally tax and penalty free. 529s do not enjoy the rather unlimited reimbursement deadline that HSAs enjoy. 

529s get similar tax treatment to the federal income tax treatment in most states. However, there can be an additional benefit: an annual state tax deduction or credit for some 529 contributions to the state’s own 529 plan (note 8 states allow a 529 tax deduction or credit for contributions to other states’ 529 plans). However, for many readers this will either be irrelevant or only of minor importance. Of the four most populous states (CA, TX, FL, NY), only residents of New York can obtain an up-to $5,000 per person per year state tax deduction for contributions to a home-state 529. California has no 529 tax deduction and Texas and Florida do not have an income tax.  

Okay, sounds great! Clearly there are tax benefits for 529 money used for qualified education expenses. But what about distributions that are used for anything other than qualified education expenses? Well, they are going to be subject to an income tax and likely a 10 percent penalty, in the following manner. A non-qualified distribution is deemed to come ratably out of the contributions to the 529 (tax and penalty free) and earnings of the 529 (subject to income tax and the 10 percent penalty, some penalty exceptions may apply). 

Here’s an example illustrating the application of the nonqualified distribution rules:

Hal, the owner of a 529 account, takes $1,000 out of the 529 to help pay for vacation expenses. Previously, he had made $60,000 of contributions to the 529, and it had grown to $100,000 ($40,000 of earnings) prior to making the $1,000 non qualified distribution. Sixty percent of the distribution ($600) is a nontaxable return of contributions and 40 percent ($400) is subject to both income tax and a 10 percent penalty.

The taxation of non-qualified distributions is a significant drawback of using 529s. 

529s and the FI Community

Let’s remember what is going on with a 529. It is a gift to the next generation. It comes with very modest tax benefits. 

My thesis on the 529 is this: for most parents, including most of those in the FI community, the tax benefits offered by 529s are not sufficient to compensate for the use restrictions on 529s. Thus, my view is that 529s should generally be deployed once Mom and Dad are financially independent (or close to it), not when they are on the path to financial independence. 

The idea behind the 529 is to provide tax-free growth for college savings. It solves for something that, frankly, isn’t much of a problem. Taxes are not why college is unaffordable for many Americans. College tends to be unaffordable not because investment taxes are high, but because tuition and fees are out of control. 

One thing in parents’ favor when thinking about funding college educations is that income taxes on investments are relatively modest over a child’s childhood due to low long term capital gains rates and qualified dividend income rates. Hopefully, by age 22 or 23, the child’s undergraduate education is completed, providing a relatively modest investment time horizon (i.e., a modest tax exposure horizon), even if the parents start saving for college at birth. 

Contrast that to the retirement time horizon of a 20-, 30- or 40-something parent saving for his or her own retirement. The money invested for retirement at age 25 might be accessed at age 60, 70, 80, or 90. Compared to educational savings, retirement savings (which are usually far greater than educational savings) are much more vulnerable to income taxes for a much longer time frame. Even at long term capital gains and qualified dividend income rates, exposing retirement savings to decades of taxation could be very expensive. Retirement savings are also exposed to tax law change risk for a much longer period of time. For example, there’s no guarantee that there will be favored long term capital gains and qualified dividend tax rates 30 years from now.

The tax risk profiles on educational savings and retirement savings are much different. Based on those risk profiles, for most I believe aggressive retirement tax planning makes sense. But I don’t see educational tax planning making as much sense, for the reasons discussed below. 

Of course, tax-advantaged retirement savings can come with a juicy up-front federal income tax deduction. 529s do not offer the possibility of a federal income tax deduction, making them less impactful than tax-advantaged retirement savings regardless of the time frame involved. 

Young Parents and 529s

Let’s consider young parents. Say Junior is born when Mom & Dad are age 30 and have saved 10 times their annual expenses in financial assets. Many, myself included, would say Mom and Dad are doing well with their finances. Here’s where I diverge from some others in the personal finance space: I would not recommend Mom & Dad save in a 529 shortly after Junior’s birth.

Notice I’m not saying Mom & Dad should not pay for Junior’s college. What I’m saying is Mom and Dad should stay flexible for their own financial future. 

What’s so horrible about Mom & Dad starting to save for Junior’s college in a taxable brokerage account under their own names? At birth, they have no idea if Junior will get a scholarship, go to trade school, how Mom & Dad’s finances will be when Junior is ready to go to college, etc. By saving in financial assets that are in their own names–perhaps mentally segregated as potentially being for Junior’s college–Mom & Dad maintain great flexibility without sacrificing too much tax benefit. 

If Junior gets a scholarship, great, the financial assets stay with Mom & Dad. If Mom & Dad are not financially successful when Junior goes to college, great, the financial assets can support Mom & Dad and Junior can figure out other ways to pay for college. 

The Value of the 529’s Tax Benefits

How bad is the tax hit on holding investments for a child’s college education? Imagine owning a 60 / 40 equity to bond portfolio of $100,000 for a child’s college education. If held in the parents’ taxable brokerage account, how much taxable income might that generate annually? Very roughly, if dividend yields are 2 percent, the $60,000 in equities would produce $1,200 of dividend income, most of which is likely to qualify for qualified dividend income tax rates. The $40,000 of bonds would produce $1,800 of ordinary income at a 4.5 percent yield. 

Is it desirable to add $3,000 of income to Mom and Dad’s tax return? Surely not. Cataclysmic? Also surely not. 

Consider what a small amount of additional taxable income buys. If the money is held in the parents’ names, it can be used for anything without penalty. Perhaps Mom and Dad have not been financially successful. That $100,000 could help the parents achieve their own financial goals and retirement. What if the child gets a scholarship and does not need much in the way of tuition assistance from his or her parents? What if the child doesn’t go to college? 

In exchange for paying tax on $3,000 of income annually (some of it at tax-favored QDI rates), and some long term capital gains when used to pay tuition, Mom and Dad have incredible flexibility with the $100,000. Maybe $50,000 goes for Junior’s college tuition, and $50,000 goes for Mom and Dad’s retirement. Further, for many it won’t be $3,000 of income annually. It will take most parents years before they could accumulate the sort of balance that would generate $3,000 of taxable income from educational savings. Thus, the tax hit for not using the 529 is likely to be that much less in the years well before the child is close to college age. 

Outside of the handcuffs of the 529, assets can support multiple financial goals. Even better, as one financial goal is met, the money can be shifted to support another financial goal. Perhaps Mom and Dad are behind in their own savings when Junior is age 10. But things go well, and when Junior turns 16 Mom and Dad have wealth in excess of their FI number. In that case, money that might have been needed for the parents’ retirement now can be used for college tuition.

Use Restrictions

We need to consider the use restrictions on 529s. If not used for qualified education expenses, the growth is subject to both ordinary income tax and usually the 10 percent penalty.

Compare the tight use restrictions on 529s to the use restrictions on the other most prevalent tax baskets: taxable accounts, traditional retirement accounts, Roth accounts, and health savings accounts. Generally speaking, all of them (even HSAs) are not use-restricted or only partially use-restricted. All four of those tax baskets have a significant advantage over 529s in terms of use restrictions.

In many cases, I believe that the 529’s significant use restrictions are not adequately compensated by its tax advantages. 

The 529 has rather onerous time restrictions, as distributions of earnings are generally subject to tax and the 10 percent penalty in those years there are no qualified education expenses.

Feeding the Beast

As much as we might want to, we can’t turn a blind eye towards hyperinflation in college tuition. With that in mind, shouldn’t we ask: Isn’t a hyperfocus on college savings feeding the beast? 

It’s time to scrutinize American higher education. It’s not good for the country to have students graduating with mountains of debt. This is happening for many reasons, including significant administrative bloat in higher education. Clearly, American higher education is failing too many of its students. Is now the time to set aside money to pay American colleges and universities?

I get it: no one reader funding a 529 is the cause of the problems of American higher education. 

But, if I’m a university used to collecting soaring tuition and fees, I’m all for 529s. 529s subsidize what has become bad behavior by university administrators. Less focus on 529s helps move the needle towards universities needing to act responsibly in order to attract students. 

Camilla Jeffs raises an interesting point on her LinkedIn page: Part of the reason college is so expensive is because in many cases the customer (the student) does not bear the cost. 529s feed into that problem. Camilla’s recent podcast episode on 529s is also full of good food for thought. 

529 Use Cases

The above limitations of the 529 noted, I do believe there are good use cases for the 529. These cases assume that the parents have decided to pay for their child’s college education.

Financially Independent Parents

Joe and Sally are married and 45 years old. They have saved 30 times their annual expenses in retirement accounts and taxable brokerage accounts. They have a 10 year old daughter they are reasonably sure will go to college, and they would like to pay for her college education.

This is a great use case for the 529. Mom and Dad’s financial future largely secured (generally speaking), it’s time to focus on (i) college savings, since they want to pay for college, and (ii) tax planning. Joe and Sally, already holding substantial taxable brokerage accounts, benefit from saving through the 529 so they avoid adding more dividend, interest, and capital gains income to their annual tax return. 

Capturing State Tax Benefits

Aaron and Amanda are married and are 50 years old. They have saved 20 times their annual expenses in retirement accounts and taxable brokerage accounts. They have stable jobs. They have a 16 year old son who is very likely to go to college. Aaron and Amanda want to pay for their son’s college education. Since they live in New York State, if they contribute $10,000 annually to the New York 529 for his benefit ($5K each), they get an annual $10,000 state tax deduction on their New York state income tax return.

Aaron and Amanda are not financially independent by many metrics, but they are doing pretty well, and are likely (though not guaranteed) to be financially successful. In their case, paying for college is not financially ruinous. If Aaron and Amanda are going to pay for college, they might as well utilize the 529 annually to scoop up state tax deductions, particularly in a higher income tax state like New York. Further, beginning the 529 much closer to the start of college decreases the odds that the 529 will become over funded.  

Contrast Aaron and Amanda to parents of newborns. Newborns’ parents are closer to the beginning of their financial journey. In most such cases, state tax benefits would not, in my opinion, be valuable enough to justify the use restrictions on 529 contributions. 

Conclusion

My view is that the detriments of the use restrictions on 529s are not adequately compensated by the federal and state tax advantages offered by 529s in most cases. That’s certainly not to say there are not good use cases for the 529, but my view is that most parents should prioritize saving in their own names (even in taxable accounts) before making contributions to 529 accounts. 

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

Health Savings Accounts and Las Vegas

Want to make a bad financial decision? I’ve got an account that can help you do that tax and penalty free!

Of course, I do not recommend making bad financial decisions. However, at times it is useful to look at extremes to help us better understand and analyze financial planning alternatives. 

Health Savings Accounts

If you’ve spent any time on my blog or YouTube channel, you’re probably aware that I’m fond of HSAs. Contributions are tax deductible (or excludable if made through payroll withholding). Amounts inside the HSA grow tax free. Withdrawals for qualified medical expenses, or reimbursements of qualified medical expenses, are tax and penalty free. 

As long as the HSA owner is alive, he or she can reimburse themselves from the HSA for qualified medical expenses incurred after they first owned an HSA. Generally speaking, there’s no time limit on HSA reimbursements, other than the owner must be alive to receive the tax and penalty free reimbursement. See “Distributions from an HSA” on page 9 of IRS Publication 969 and Notice 2004-50 Q&A 39. 

HSAs are great because they combine the best feature of a traditional retirement account (deduction or exclusion on the way in) with the best feature of a Roth retirement account (tax free treatment on the way out). Further, the lack of a time limit on reimbursements from an HSA provides the owner with tremendous flexibility in terms of deciding when to take tax and penalty free distributions. 

Health Savings Accounts PUQME

Previously Unreimbursed Qualified Medical Expenses (PUQME, pronounced “Puck Me”). HSA owners can reimburse themselves tax and penalty free from their HSA up to their amount of their PUQME. PUQME includes qualified medical expenses of the owner, their spouse, and their dependents incurred after the HSA was first established. Qualified medical expenses deducted as an itemized deduction on a tax return (quite rare) do not qualify to be reimbursed from an HSA and thus are not PUQME. PUQME is a technical term I made up. 😉

Restricted Accounts

When we think about taxable brokerage accounts, traditional retirement accounts, Roth retirement accounts, HSAs, and other available options, we should consider the restrictions in place on the use of the funds. The more restrictions in place, the worse the account.

Time Restrictions

Taxable accounts, traditional retirement accounts, and Roth retirement accounts face various time restrictions on withdrawals. For example, taxable accounts qualify for favored long-term capital gains rates if held for a year. Of course, that restriction is academic if there’s a loss or no gain in the account.

Traditional retirement accounts suffer the most stringent time restrictions. Withdrawals occurring prior to the owner turning age 59 ½ are usually subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. Roth IRAs are not all that time restricted, as amounts withdrawn prior to age 59 ½ are deemed to first be nontaxable withdrawals of prior contributions. Roth 401(k)s can be somewhat time restricted, as amounts withdrawn prior to age 59 ½ are partially deemed to be withdrawals of taxable earnings (usually subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty). 

HSAs are somewhat time restricted, though like Roth IRAs, they are not severely so. Once one has PUQME after having opened an HSA, he or she can withdraw money (up to their PUQME amount) from the HSA tax and penalty free. 

Use Restrictions

Taxable accounts, traditional retirement accounts, and Roth retirement accounts are great in that they have absolutely no use restrictions. The government does not care what you spend the money on. The tax result is, at least generally speaking, unaffected by use. 

There are some exceptions, such as the exceptions to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty such that early withdrawals from retirement accounts can qualify to avoid the 10 percent penalty. Further, one might say that because of qualified charitable distributions, using traditional IRAs for charitable purposes is use-favored. The above exceptions noted, as a general rule, use does not significantly change the taxation of withdrawals from taxable accounts, traditional retirement accounts, and Roth retirement accounts. 

HSA Use Restrictions

HSA distributions that are not used for qualified medical expenses are subject to both income tax and a 20% penalty if the owner is under age 65. 

However, recall that there is no time limit on the ability to reimburse oneself tax and penalty free for previously incurred qualified medical expenses. As a practical matter, the lack of time limit results in relatively modest use restrictions on an HSA. Below I’ll illustrate that with an extreme example. 

HSAs and Las Vegas

Perhaps you’re yearning for the hot sand, broken dreams, and $5 lobster of Las Vegas. Could an HSA help? Let’s explore that possibility.

Peter, age 70, wants a weekend getaway in Las Vegas. Between a hotel suite, comedy club tickets, airfare, steak dinners, some Texas Hold’em poker, and the breakfast buffet, he estimates it will cost him $10,000. 

Peter was covered by a high deductible health plan from age 55 through age 65. He maxed out his HSA annually during that time, and he has never taken a distribution from his HSA. The HSA is now worth $50,000, and between age 55 and today Peter has $30,000 of PUQME.

Could Peter use his HSA to pay for the weekend? Absolutely! 

Wait a minute, Sean. Vegas isn’t a qualified medical expense! Sure, it isn’t. But Peter has $30,000 of previously unreimbursed qualified medical expenses. He can take out $10,000 from his HSA tax and penalty free and use it to buy poker chips in Las Vegas. Once an HSA owner has previously unreimbursed qualified medical expenses, they generally do not have an HSA use restriction up to the level of that PUQME. 

As a practical matter, even the healthiest Americans are eventually going to have qualified medical expenses. As a result, most HSA owners will have runway, particularly in retirement, to reimburse themselves for previously incurred qualified medical expenses. That reimbursement money is in no way use restricted–it can go for a weekend trip to Vegas if the HSA owner desires. 

HSA Planning Risk

But Sean, there’s no way Congress won’t close the loophole! Surely, at some point in the future, Congress will time-limit tax and penalty free reimbursements from HSAs.

I don’t think so, for three reasons. 

First, the HSA loophole is not that great. Consider the relatively modest HSA contribution limits. Sure, the government loses tax revenue due to HSAs, but it isn’t that much, particularly compared to vehicles such as Roth IRAs. Further, HSAs are, at most, a loophole during the owner’s lifetime and the lifetime of their surviving spouse. That’s it! 

Left to a non-spouse, non-charity beneficiary, the entire HSA is immediately taxable income (typically at the beneficiary’s highest tax rate) in the year of the owner’s death. Death not only ends the loophole, it gives the government a significant revenue raiser by taxing the entire amount at ordinary rates on top of the inheriting beneficiary’s other taxable income. 

Second, I suspect Congress wants taxpayers to bailout HSA money tax and penalty free prior to death. The immediate full taxation of HSA balances in the year of death is going to come as a nasty surprise to many beneficiaries. 

Imagine significant taxes and perhaps dealing with the paperwork and hassle of reversing what becomes an excess contribution to a Roth IRA because of a surprise income hit due to the death of a loved one. Here’s what that could look like.

Mark and Laura are married and both turn age 47 in 2023. They anticipate about $200,000 of MAGI in 2023, in line with their 2022 income. Expecting their 2023 income to fall well within the Roth IRA modified adjusted gross income limits, each contributes $6,500 to a Roth IRA for 2023 on January 2, 2023. In September, Laura’s father passes away and leaves her an HSA worth $50,000. The HSA inheritance increases their 2023 MAGI to $250,000. The federal income tax hit on inheriting the HSA will be over $10,000. 

As a result of their increased income, Mark and Laura are now ineligible to have made the 2023 Roth IRA contributions. The most likely remedial path involves Mark and Laura working with the financial institution to take a corrective distribution of the contributions and the earnings attributable to the contributions. The earnings will be included in Mark and Laura’s MAGI for 2023 as one last insult to inheriting a fully taxable HSA. 

This is a lurking issue. If Congress puts 2 and 2 together, they will hope that HSA balances are small at death so as to avoid their constituents suffering a large, unexpected tax bill related to a loved one’s death. Time-limiting tax and penalty free HSA reimbursements would keep more money inside HSAs during an owner’s lifetime (and thus, at their death). At death, this would set up more beneficiaries to have nasty surprises when inheriting an HSA, a fate Congress most likely wants to avoid. 

Third, time-limiting HSA reimbursements will go counter to the reason HSAs exist in the first place: to encourage the use of high deductible health plans. Time-limiting HSA reimbursements could trap amounts inside HSAs because taxpayers would lose amounts they could withdraw from the HSA without incurring tax (and a 20 percent penalty if under age 65). If taxpayers believe HSA money could become trapped, fewer will opt for a high deductible health plan. This will lead to increased medical costs as more and more Americans have lower deductibles and become sensitive to medical pricing. 

Surviving Spouse’s HSA PUQME

I prepared a short 1-page technical write up providing my views on how previously unreimbursed qualified medical expenses are computed when a spouse inherits a health savings account.

HSA Resource

Kelley C. Long recently authored an excellent article on HSAs in the Journal of Accountancy.

Conclusion

Here’s hoping that you don’t take away the conclusion that HSA owners should spend their HSA money in Las Vegas!

Rather, my primary conclusion is that investments and tax baskets should be assessed considering their time and use restrictions. The fewer the time and use restrictions, the better. Of course, time and use restrictions are not the only factors to consider, but they are significant factors.

Secondary conclusions include (i) the HSA tends to be very flexible and (ii) the tax breaks available to HSA owners are not likely to be repealed or limited by Congress anytime soon.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

Emergency Access to Retirement Accounts

The newly passed SECURE Act 2.0 has put a renewed focus on the use of retirement funds to cover pre-retirement emergencies. This post discusses the options available with respect to using tax-advantaged retirement accounts to fund emergency expenses.

To my mind, there are five primary ways to use retirement funds to pay for emergencies. Considering the complexities of our tax system, I don’t claim this covers every possible situation, but it does highlight the most readily available ways of using retirement funds for pre-retirement emergencies. For purposes of this post, a “pre-retirement emergency” is an emergency that occurs prior to turning age 59 ½. 

ONE: Direct Distribution from a Non-Roth IRA Retirement Account

In theory, one can pay for emergencies from their non-Roth IRA retirement accounts. To my mind, this tends to be the worst way to use a retirement account to pay for a pre-retirement emergency. At least initially, the withdrawal will be subject to both the income tax and the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. California residents can add an additional 2.5 percent early withdrawal penalty. 

There are exceptions to the penalty, and the IRS maintains a website detailing them. 

One practical consideration: 401(k)s and other qualified workplace retirement plans tend to limit or restrict in-service withdrawals, so the money may not be readily available if needed in an emergency. Traditional IRAs tend to be rather readily available, so long as the money is invested in relatively liquid assets and/or easily sold financial assets. 

From traditional retirement accounts, the withdrawal is taxable and then the question becomes does one of the penalty exceptions apply. However, there is a way to avoid taxation and the penalty: putting the money back into a retirement account within 60 days. First off, one facing an emergency may not have the liquidity to return the money in 60 days even if they want to. Second, 60 day rollovers between IRA accounts are limited to once every 12 months. As a general rule, I recommend avoiding 60 day rollovers to keep that option open if money ever came out of an IRA for whatever reason. 

If liquidity is not an issue within the 60 day rollover period, one way to avoid the once-per-year rule on a distribution from a traditional IRA is to rollover to a Roth IRA (essentially, a Roth conversion). This might make sense when one takes an emergency withdrawal from a traditional IRA within 12 months of a previous 60 day IRA-to-IRA rollover. In such a case, if the person cannot roll the money into a workplace retirement plan, the only options are (i) keep the money and pay income tax and likely the 10 percent penalty or (ii) convert over to a Roth IRA, get tax free growth in the future, and only pay the income tax. Roth conversions always avoid the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. 

3 Year Pay Back

SECURE 2.0 has changed the landscape in terms of refunding pre-retirement emergency withdrawals. In some limited situations, there may be a 3 year pay back window, not a 60 day pay back window.

There are now, by my count, six provisions allowing taxpayers to pay back money distributed out of a retirement account within 3 years of the withdrawal. Please note that I and others are still digesting SECURE 2.0, so the below is intended only as an initial, introductory primer. 

Qualification for the 3 year pay back is good because it generally means (i) no 10 percent penalty on the initial withdrawal and (ii) the money can be refunded to the retirement account within 3 years, resulting in (a) a refund of the income tax paid on the distribution and (ii) keeping the money growing tax-deferred (or tax-free for Roths) for retirement. 

Please note that each of these is quite narrow. Despite the limited availability, in cases where a taxpayer has taken out a significant amount of money from a retirement account in an emergency, these rules should be reviewed to see if the taxpayer could qualify to avoid the 10 percent penalty and later get the money back into the retirement account and obtain a significant tax refund. 

Jamie Hopkins detailed some of the new SECURE 2.0 provisions in a recent Forbes article. I’ve prepared the below chart to lay out the basics (as I understand them now) of the new 3 year pay back rules. 

ProvisionEffective DateSourceLimitsQualification
Minor Emergency Withdrawals2024SECURE 2.0 Sec. 115$1,000 per year, 1 distribution per yearExpenses incurred for an emergency
Domestic Abuse Victims2024SECURE 2.0 Sec. 314Lesser of $10K or 50% of account balance per yearMust be a victim of domestic abuse within the year preceding the distribution
Federally Declared Disaster AreaJanuary 26, 2021SECURE 2.0 Sec. 331$22,000 limit per disasterMust live in a federally declared disaster area and suffered an economic loss due to the disaster
Terminally Ill IndividualEnactment of SECURE 2.0SECURE 2.0 Sec. 326UnlimitedMust be terminally ill (generally, medicially expected to die within 7 years).
Qualified Birth or Adoption Distribution2020SECURE Sec. 113$5,000 per parent per birthDistribution must be within 1 year after birth or adoption of child
Coronavirus Related Distributions can no longer be made, but previously made CRDs can be paid back within 3 years of the distribution.

As all of the 3 year pay back provisions are new (several less than a month old as of this writing!), practitioners (myself included) are still learning about them. That learning will change when the IRS and Treasury issue regulations and/or other guidance on these new rules. 

Future 3 Year Pay Back Regulations

I hope the regulations contain a waiver of excess contribution penalties when taxpayers pay back money into a retirement account and the IRS subsequently determines that the taxpayer did not qualify for 3 year pay back treatment. These provisions are complex and subjective, and it is not fair to assess an excess contribution penalty when a taxpayer’s interpretation of a complex and/or subjective provision is not the same as the IRS’s interpretation. 

Further, any regulations should clarify that individual taxpayers over age 59 ½ qualify for the 3 year pay back provisions, even though they are exempt from the 72(t) penalty regardless of the application of a 3 year pay back provision.

Prior to the issuance of regulations or other guidance from the IRS and Treasury, taxpayers should proceed with caution and consult their tax advisors when applying the 3 year pay back provisions. 

TWO: Plan Loans

Not available from IRAs and Roth IRAs, some employer plans allow for loans from the plan. If you read my book, you know I am generally not fond of 401(k) loans.

That said, in an emergency, if the plan allows it, a loan can be a tax-free way to access retirement account funds and later replenish them. Loans are generally limited to the lesser of half the account balance or $50,000 and require the payment of interest to the 401(k). One advantage of plan loans is that they can be spent on anything without restrictions. 

I do not like relying on plan loans for several reasons. First, 401(k)s plans do not have to offer loans. Second, if the employee leaves the employer, the loan becomes due, and failure to repay it results in the entire outstanding balance becoming taxable income and is likely subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. Ouch! Third, the interest paid to the 401(k) is double taxed, as there’s generally no tax deduction for the payment of interest to the 401(k), and later in life the interest will be taxed to the 401(k) account owner when withdrawn or Roth converted. 

THREE: SECURE 2.0 Minor Emergency Withdrawals

As mentioned in the chart above, Section 115 of SECURE 2.0 allows, beginning in 2024, one annual up-to $1,000 penalty free distribution from retirement accounts for an emergency. I refer to these as minor emergency withdrawals.

The distribution will be taxable if from a traditional retirement account. Further, the $1,000 withdrawn can be refunded into the retirement account up to 3 years from the original distribution. Refunding the distribution will allow the taxpayer to amend any tax return reporting the distribution as taxable income and obtain a refund. 

As a practical matter, I suspect that most minor emergency withdrawals will come from traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs, as accessing money from them tends to be far easier than accessing money from workplace retirement accounts such as 401(k)s while someone is still working at the employer.

I previously Tweeted about this provision. Obviously, this provision is very limited as it is capped at one distribution per year and $1,000 per distribution. Here’s hoping everyone only faces emergencies costing $1,000 or less!

In theory, there’s a risk when taking a minor emergency withdrawal. What if the IRS disagrees with your view that you had an emergency? The IRS could (i) assess the 10 percent penalty on the distribution, (ii) deny any claimed tax refunds for repayments of the minor emergency withdrawal, and/or (iii) assess a 6 percent (per year) excess contribution penalty for repayments of the withdrawal back into the retirement account. 

The IRS and Treasury will have to issue regulations defining emergency for this purpose. My hope is that they will define emergency quite broadly, which it appears Congress intended based on the wording of Section 115. Hopefully, the IRS and Treasury decide they want to limit fights with taxpayers over $1,000 distributions. The regulations should take the approach that anything that could plausibly be viewed as an emergency will count as an emergency for this purpose. Further, it would be very useful if the regulations contained safe-harbors and waive excess contribution penalties in cases where taxpayers wrongly believed they qualified as having an emergency. 

FOUR: SECURE 2.0 401(k) Emergency Savings Accounts

Section 127 of SECURE 2.0 establishes a relatively limited emergency savings account as part of a 401(k) or other workplace retirement plan. It is the employer’s option to add this to their retirement plan, and this cannot be added until 2024 (see page 2199 of the Omnibus Bill text). These are not available from traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs. 

For the reasons discussed below, I suspect very few plans will add this feature, and very few employees will want to use this account.

The account must be a Roth 401(k) (or other Roth employer account) and generally can only invest in cash and cash-type assets in order to preserve purchasing power. Employees’ unwithdrawn contributions cannot exceed $2,500, and highly compensated employees (those employees who made more than $150,000 in wages in the previous year) cannot contribute to the account. 

From the employee’s perspective, these accounts are generally undesirable. The tax shelter is minimal: Roth treatment on cash accounts of no more than $2,500 of contributions. Sure, withdrawals are fully tax-free, but all that’s been saved is the tax on the interest income. In theory, one would want to contribute to one of these accounts to have more contributions that can get employer matches into their 401(k), but many participants have both the smarts and the liquidity to capture the entire employer match without contributing to this account. 

More importantly, in an emergency situation, (i) $2,500 only goes so far and (ii) you probably do not want the hassle of dealing with your workplace 401(k) plan administrator. “In-service withdrawals” from 401(k)s are notoriously cumbersome. From a user-experience perspective, I strongly suspect emergency access to cash in a checking account or online savings account the owner controls will usually be much better than using money inside an employer’s 401(k) plan. 

One advantage of these accounts is that there is no “emergency” requirement for withdrawals. The employee can withdraw the money for any reason. Another advantage is that, in theory, this creates head room for getting $2,500 more (plus interest) into Roth accounts. If not used, the balance can be rolled into the regular Roth 401(k) when the employee leaves employment. See page 2130 of the Omnibus bill text.  

As undesirable as these accounts are for employees, they are much more so from the employer perspective. Why would a retirement plan administrator want to sign up to field calls from employees for emergency distributions? If I’m a plan administrator and I want my employees to have flexibility and resources in an emergency, I don’t amend my plan document and encourage them to come to my plan when easier to use alternatives already exist (checking accounts and savings accounts). Employers adopting these accounts are signing up to become emergency distributors, which fundamentally is not what a retirement plan is. Further, the amounts involved (maximum contributions of just $2,500) and the fact that many employees, including decision makers, generally can’t be covered because of the prohibition on offering emergency accounts to highly compensated employees discourage employer plans from incurring the hassle and administrative costs to add these accounts. 

Note that the emergency account feature is not available for Solo 401(k)s, because anyone owning more than 5% of a business is, by definition, a highly compensated employee, regardless of their earnings. 

FIVE: Roth IRA Basis

If one wants to access retirement accounts in an emergency, my favored technique of the five discussed in this post is to use Roth IRA basis. Generally speaking, Roth IRA basis is the sum of previous annual contributions plus all previous Roth conversions, less any previous Roth IRA withdrawals. 

Recall that previous annual contributions to Roth IRAs and Roth conversions that are at least 5 years old can be accessed at any time for any reason tax and penalty free. Further, withdrawals from Roth IRAs occurring prior to turning age 59 ½ access prior contributions first (until exhausted), then old conversions (first in, first out, and until exhausted), and last access Roth earnings.

As a result of this pecking order, most non qualified Roth IRA withdrawals will simply be nontaxable returns of old contributions. This makes the Roth IRA the best retirement account to use in the event of an emergency. Taking advantage of Roth basis results in no tax and no penalty, and simply requires the filing of a Part III of the Form 8606 when filing one’s tax return. 

The downside of accessing Roth IRA basis is that outside of a 60 day rollover, a $1,000 refund of a minor emergency withdrawal, and/or a possible 3 year pay back, tapping Roth basis reduces the amount inside the Roth IRA growing tax free for the taxpayer’s retirement. Further, do not forget the once-every-12 months limit on IRA to IRA 60 day rollovers (including Roth IRAs) and the fact that Roth IRAs cannot be transferred to workplace retirement Roth accounts. 

Roth IRA Basis and the Minor Emergency Withdrawal Rule

Starting in 2024, perhaps the best approach for those taxpayers experiencing emergencies is to combine using Roth IRA basis with the minor emergency withdrawal rule.  Taxpayers making emergency withdrawals from a Roth IRA should consider refunding up to $1,000 to the Roth IRA within 3 years. From a risk perspective, this tactic is relatively low risk. Withdrawals of Roth IRA basis are tax and penalty free. The only tax risk is the 6% excess contribution penalty on putting the money back into the Roth IRA. For a non-qualifying $1,000 refund back into the Roth IRA, that penalty is only $60 annually. One would hope the IRS will not be overly strict in assessing taxpayers’ contentions that the withdrawals were in fact for an emergency. 

Roth IRA Basis and Other 3 Year Pay Back Rules

In limited circumstances, one or more of the 3 year pay back rules may be available to get the money back into the Roth IRA. This keeps the money available for retirement in a tax-free account. One advantage of combining a withdrawal of Roth IRA basis with a 3 year pay back is that the IRS should not require the filing of an amended return, since no items of income, deduction, or tax should change. In theory, the IRS could require the filing of an amended Form 8606, since that form can be filed as a standalone tax return. In regulations or other guidance, the IRS and Treasury should make clear their position on what amended tax return filings are needed, if any. 

Taxable Accounts

Here’s the thing. One should not look to use retirement accounts for emergency expenses. I understand that sometimes it is necessary to do so. But generally speaking, if one has adequate financial resources, they should set up a savings account to have funds available to handle emergencies. One tax benefit of doing so is that in today’s low-yield environment, a savings account can protect against emergencies without generating much in the way of taxable income. 

Conclusion

The hope is tax-advantaged savings never need to be accessed in an emergency. Of course, life does not always go to hope or to plan, so there are times when retirement accounts are accessed in an emergency. Taxpayers and practitioners should research options when taking pre-retirement emergency withdrawals from tax-advantaged retirement accounts. The IRS and Treasury will (hopefully soon) issue regulations and/or other guidance on the many new SECURE 2.0 emergency withdrawal rules and pay back rules. 

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

SECURE 2.0 and the FI Community

Congress just passed a very long retirement tax bill, colloquially referred to as SECURE 2.0 or the SECURE Act 2.0. The FI community is interested in anything affecting tax-advantaged retirement accounts. This post dives in on the impact of SECURE 2.0 on the FI community. 

SECURE 2.0 Big Picture

SECURE 2.0 tinkers. It contains dozens of new rules. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds of the new rules, but I don’t recommend it. Many new rules have very little impact on financial planning for those in the FI community.

Here’s one example: SECURE 2.0 eliminates (effective 2024) required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) from Roth 401(k)s during the owner’s lifetime. Since Roth IRAs never had RMDs during the owner’s lifetime, and Roth 401(k)s are easily transferable to Roth IRAs at or after retirement, this is a rule change without much practical impact for most from a planning perspective.

However, there are two main takeaways those in the FI community should focus on when it comes to SECURE 2.0. First, SECURE 2.0 makes traditional, deductible retirement account contributions even more attractive. Second, SECURE 2.0 sets what I refer to as the Rothification Trap. Don’t fall into the Rothification Trap!

Traditional Retirement Account Contributions Are Even More Attractive

In the classic traditional versus Roth debate, SECURE 2.0 moves the needle towards traditional deductible retirement account contributions. Why?

SECURE 2.0 delays the required beginning date for RMDs! Starting in 2023, RMDs must begin at age 73, buying those born from 1951 through 1959 one more year to do tax-efficient Roth conversions prior to being required to take RMDs. But for most of the readers of this blog, the news is much better. Those born in 1960 or later now must take RMDs starting at age 75.

This is a big win for the FI community! Why? Many in the FI community will have artificially low taxable income in retirement prior to having to take RMDs at age 75. That increases the window for Roth conversions while a retiree otherwise has low taxable income. 

Delaying RMDs makes traditional FI tax planning even more attractive, particularly for those born after 1959. Retirees will have through the year of their 74th birthday to make Roth conversions to (i) get tax rate arbitrage on traditional retirement accounts and (ii) lower RMDs when they are ultimately required.

The planning runway to do Roth conversions prior to taking RMDs just got three years longer. This gives both early retirees and conventional retirees that much more of an opportunity to do Roth conversions at low income tax rates prior to being required to take RMDs. There are three additional years of progressive tax brackets to absorb efficient Roth conversions and reduce future RMDs. 

Rothification Trap

Be aware of the Rothification Trap!

SECURE 2.0 promotes even more in the way of Roth contributions. It allows employees to elect to have their employer 401(k) and other workplace plan contributions be Roth contributions, effective immediately. See Section 604 of SECURE 2.0. Plans will have to affirmatively add this feature (if they so choose), so it won’t be immediately effective in most cases. I predict that at least some plans will offer this option. I suspect some plans will not offer this option, since Roth employer contributions must be immediately vested. Some employers will be hesitant to eliminate vesting requirements for employer contributions, though it must be remembered that some employers immediately vest all employer contributions.

In addition, effective starting in 2023, SEP IRAs and SIMPLE IRAs can be Roth SEP IRAs and Roth SIMPLE IRAs. See Section 601 of SECURE 2.0. 

Here’s the thing: for those planning an early retirement, Rothification is a trap! The name of the game for those thinking about early retirement is to max out deductions while working and later do Roth conversions in early retirement. This maximizes deductions while one is subject to their highest marginal tax rate (their working years) and moves income to one’s lower taxable income years (the early retirement years). The combination of these opportunities creates tax rate arbitrage. 

I’m worried some in the FI community will say “I really love Roth, so I’ll make all my contributions–IRA, employee 401(k), and employer 401(k))–Roth now!” I believe that path is likely to be a mistake for many in the FI community, for two reasons. First, this foregoes the great tax planning opportunity presented by deducting retirement contributions at one’s highest lifetime marginal tax rates while working and then converting to Roths at low early retirement tax rates. 

Second, it sets one up to have difficulty qualifying for Affordable Care Act Premium Tax Credits. In order to qualify for Premium Tax Credits, which could be worth thousands of dollars in early retirement, one must have income above their state’s applicable Medicaid threshold. For example, in 2023 a family of four in California with a modified adjusted gross income (“MAGI”) of less than $39,750 would qualify for MediCal (California’s Medicaid) and thus get $0 Premium Tax Credits if they choose to use an Affordable Care Act insurance plan. Most early retirees will want to be on an ACA plan instead of their state’s Medicaid insurance for a variety of reasons. 

In a low-yield world, an early retiree with only taxable accounts and Roth accounts may find it difficult to generate sufficient MAGI, even with tax gain harvesting, to avoid Medicaid and qualify for a Premium Tax Credit. The earlier the retirement, the more likely having only taxable accounts and Roth accounts will eventually lead to an inability to generate sufficient MAGI to qualify for Premium Tax Credits. 

Rothification Trap Antidote

How might one qualify for the Premium Tax Credit in early retirement? By doing Roth conversions of traditional retirement accounts! If there’s no money in traditional retirement accounts, there’s nothing to Roth convert. 

I discussed the issue of early retirees not having enough income to qualify for Premium Tax Credits, and the Roth conversion fix, with Brad Barrett on a recent episode of the ChooseFI podcast (recorded before SECURE 2.0 passed). 

Previously, I’ve stated that for many in the FI movement, the “dynamic duo” of tax-advantaged retirement account savings is to max out a traditional deductible 401(k) at work and max out a Roth IRA contribution (regular or Backdoor) at home. Now that SECURE 2.0 has passed, I believe this is still very much the case. 

At the very least, those shooting for an early retirement should strongly consider leaving employer contributions to 401(k)s and other workplace retirement plans as traditional, deductible contributions. This would give them at least some runway to increase MAGI in early retirement sufficient to create enough taxable income to qualify for a Premium Tax Credit. 

401(k), 403(b), and 457 Max Contributions Age 50 and Older

The two most significant takeaways from SECURE 2.0 out of the way, we now get to several other changes members of the FI community should consider. 

First, for those age 50 and older, determining one’s maximum workplace retirement account contributions is about to get complicated. By 2025, there will be up to three questions to ask to determine what one’s maximum retirement contribution, and how it can be allocated (traditional and/or Roth), will look like:

  1. What’s my age?
  2. What was my prior-year wage income from this employer?
  3. Does my employer offer a Roth version of the retirement plan?

Specifically, the changes to 401(k) and other workplace employee contributions are as follows:

Increased Catch-Up Contributions Ages 60, 61, 62, and 63

SECURE 2.0 Section 109 (see page 2087) increases workplace retirement plan catch-up contributions for those aged 60 through 63 to 150% of the regular catch-up contribution limit, starting in 2025.

Catch-Up Contributions Must be Roth if Prior-Year Income Too High

Starting in 2024, 401(k) and other workplace retirement plan catch-up contributions (starting at age 50) must be Roth contributions if the worker made more than $145,000 (indexed for inflation) in wages from the employer during the prior year. Interestingly enough, if the employer plan does not offer a Roth component, then the worker is not able to make a catch-up contribution regardless of whether they made more than $145,000 from the employer during the previous year. Hat tip to Josh Scandlen and Jeffrey Levine for making this latter point, which the flow-chart I featured in the originally published version of this post missed. Sorry for the error as we are all learning about the many intricate contours of SECURE 2.0, myself included!

I do anticipate that many 401(k) plans that do not currently offer a Roth component will start to offer one to allow age 50 and older workers to qualify for catch-up contributions (even if they now must be Roth contributions for those at higher incomes).

From a planning perspective, I still believe that catch-up contributions will make sense for many required to make them as Roth contributions. In such a case, the option is either (i) make the Roth catch-up contribution or (ii) invest the money in a taxable brokerage account. Generally speaking, I believe that it is advantageous to put the money in a Roth account. However, one can easily imagine a situation where someone is thinking about an early retirement and does not have much in taxable accounts such that it might be better to simply invest the money in a taxable account.

Note that the prior-year wage restriction on deducting catch-up contributions does not appear to apply to the Solo 401(k) of a Schedule C solopreneur, but it does appear to apply to the Solo 401(k) of a solopreneur operating out of an S corporation.

No Changes to Backdoor Roths

In another win for the FI community, the Backdoor Roth IRA and the Mega Backdoor Roth are not changed or curtailed by SECURE 2.0.

Rolling 529 Plans to Roth IRAs

SECURE 2.0 has a notable provision allowing up to $35,000 of a 529 plan to be rolled over to the Roth IRA of the beneficiary. I agree with Sarah Brenner that this rule is not one to get too excited about. Why I feel that way is another story for another day. That day is February 15, 2023, when my post on the 529-to-Roth IRA rollover drops on the blog. 

SECURE 2.0 and the FIRE Movement on YouTube

Resources

Sarah Brenner’s helpful summary: https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/happy-holidays-congress-gifts-secure-20

The Groom Law Group goes through SECURE 2.0 section by section: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/secure-2-0-hitches-a-ride-just-in-the-9280743/

Final Omnibus (which contained SECURE 2.0) text: https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/JRQ121922.PDF

Jeffrey Levine’s detailed blog post on SECURE 2.0: https://www.kitces.com/blog/secure-act-2-omnibus-2022-hr-2954-rmd-75-529-roth-rollover-increase-qcd-student-loan-match/

Jeffrey Levine’s detailed Twitter thread on SECURE 2.0: https://twitter.com/CPAPlanner/status/1605609788183924738

My video about the two biggest problems with SECURE 2.0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsy1SQXogAg

My December 2022 SECURE 2.0 Resources post: https://fitaxguy.com/secure-2-0-resources/

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

SECURE 2.0 Resources

Here is the bill text for SECURE 2.0.

SECURE 2.0 Big Picture

SECURE 2.0 tinkers, almost in an unprecedented fashion. Instead of repealing obviously bad retirement tax rules, it adds to them! I suspect that for many Americans, SECURE 2.0 will have only a marginal impact on their retirement savings and financial planning. This version of SECURE 2.0 has some aspects of what the House passed much earlier in 2022, but there are many significant additions and changes.

I discuss what I believe to be the two biggest problems with SECURE 2.0

Some Highlights (or Lowlights)

  • Increased catch-up contributions for those aged 60-63, effective starting in 2025
  • Denial of catch-up contribution deduction for those with prior-year income over $145,000, effective starting in 2024
  • Delay RMDs to age 73 for a decade, then delayed to age 75. This change is effective starting in 2023.
  • Increased auto-enrollment for workplace retirement plans
  • Roth options for (i) SIMPLE IRAs, (ii) SEP IRAs, (iii) employer contributions to employer plans such as 401(k)s
  • Minor emergency withdrawals from retirement accounts. Limited to one distribution per year of no more than $1,000, effective starting in 2024
  • $2,500 of contributions to emergency side accounts for workplace retirement plans, effective starting in 2024
  • Elimination of RMDs from Roth 401(k)s during the owner’s lifetime
  • Allowing Schedule C self-employed individuals to adopt a Solo 401(k) after year-end and make employee contributions (first year only), effective starting with the 2023 plan year
  • Indexing for inflation of the $1,000 annual catch-up contribution to traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs
  • Reform to penalties for missed RMDs
  • No change to the Backdoor Roth IRA rules and no change to the Mega Backdoor Roth IRA rules
  • Expansion of the exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty

Resources

Bill text

Jeffrey Levine’s excellent Twitter thread on the particulars of SECURE 2.0: https://twitter.com/CPAPlanner/status/1605609788183924738

Jeffrey Levine’s breakdown of SECURE 2.0 on Kitces.com: https://www.kitces.com/blog/secure-act-2-omnibus-2022-hr-2954-rmd-75-529-roth-rollover-increase-qcd-student-loan-match/

My breakdown of SECURE 2.0 and the FI Community: https://fitaxguy.com/secure-2-0-and-the-fi-community/

My mini Twitter thread on minor emergency withdrawals: https://twitter.com/SeanMoneyandTax/status/1605117417721434113

My mini Twitter thread on new employer plan emergency accounts: https://twitter.com/SeanMoneyandTax/status/1605119482803863552

My Plan

I have a retirement tax reform plan that I believe is better and simpler than SECURE 2.0.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

2023 RMDs and Roth Conversions

As I write this, we’re nearing the beginning of 2023. The stock and bond markets are down over the past year. For 2023, that means two things:

  1. 2023 required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) will, in many cases, be lower than they were in 2022, as 2023 RMDs are based on traditional retirement account values on December 31, 2022. 
  2. Roth conversions are now “cheaper” in a sense. 10,000 shares of XYZ mutual fund might have been worth $100,000 on December 31, 2021, but going into 2023 perhaps they are now worth only $90,000. Thus, the tax cost of converting 10,000 shares from a traditional retirement account to a Roth account is lower today than it was a year ago. 

Some retirees may think that they will have lower taxable income in 2023 (due to reduced RMDs). It might occur to them to wake up on New Year’s Day and do a Roth conversion. Is that wise?

Tax Rules: RMDs Come Out First and Cannot be Converted

There are two important tax rules those 73* and older should consider when thinking about 2023 RMDs and Roth conversions. The first rule is that the RMD is the first distribution that comes out of a traditional retirement account during the year. See Choate, referenced below, page 185. All distributions are RMDs until the total RMD has been satisfied. See Choate, page 320.  Further, all of a person’s traditional IRAs are treated as a single IRA for this purpose, so there’s no cherry picking that can solve this issue with respect to IRAs. 

The second rule is that an RMD cannot be converted to a Roth account. See Choate, referenced below, page 320. Anyone doing a Roth conversion prior to taking an RMD generally creates an excess contribution to a Roth IRA, subject to an annual 6% penalty unless properly withdrawn. 

*Note that effective January 1, 2023, SECURE 2.0 changed the age one must begin taking RMDs from age 72 to age 73.

Properly Roth Converting After Taking the RMDs

How does one avoid this fate? By properly taking their total RMD for the year prior to doing any Roth conversions. Sorry, no New Year’s Day Roth conversions.

The RMD can be taken through an actual distribution (or distributions) or through a qualified charitable distribution. 

Income Risk, Reversibility, and Market Risk

In most cases, I prefer taxable Roth conversions to occur in the fourth quarter of the year. There are several reasons for this. By October or November, there is more understanding of the year’s income and deductions. By the fourth quarter there will be fewer surprises in terms of income, bonuses, unexpected gains, etc. that can occur before year-end. The later in the year the Roth conversion occurs, the less likely the risk that there’s an income spike during the year unaccounted for in the planning process prior to executing the Roth conversion. 

Further, Roth conversions are irreversible. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminated the ability to reverse a Roth conversion. I don’t like the idea of locking into Roth conversions early in the year. If you win the lottery in July, you might not like that January Roth conversion 😉

Of course, there are trade-offs when it comes to delaying Roth conversions to the fourth quarter. There’s always the risk that the stock market and/or the bond market could grow between the early part of the year and later part of the year. While there is a risk the market can go down later in the year (which is favorable from a Roth conversion perspective), in theory over time one expects invested assets to grow (why else invest in them?). Thus, at least theoretically, delaying Roth conversions reduces the amount of shares that can be converted at a specified amount of Roth conversion income. 

Inherited Retirement Accounts

First, one facing an RMD with respect to an inherited retirement account need not worry about taking the inherited account RMD first prior to doing Roth conversions out of their own traditional retirement accounts. Inherited retirement accounts are hermetically sealed off from one’s own retirement accounts when considering the tax ramifications of distributions and conversions from one’s own retirement accounts.

Second, generally speaking, inherited traditional retirement accounts cannot be converted to Roth accounts. There is no opportunity to convert inherited traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs.

There is one major exception to the no conversion of inherited retirement accounts rule: the ability to convert inherited traditional qualified plans (such as 401(k)s) to a Roth IRA. See Choate, referenced below, page 271. Once the inherited 401(k) money is in an inherited traditional IRA, the Roth conversion opportunity is gone. But, the beneficiary can elect to have the 401(k) or other qualified plan transfer the money to an inherited Roth IRA, essentially converting it in a taxable transaction from traditional to Roth. 

Further Reading

Natalie B. Choate’s treatise Life and Death Benefits for Retirement Planning (8th Ed. 2019), frequently referenced above, is an absolutely invaluable resource regarding retirement account withdrawals.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, investment, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

2023 Solo 401(k) Update

There are some new developments in the world of the Solo 401(k). Here are the highlights:

SECURE 2.0 First Year Establishment Deadline for Schedule C Solopreneurs

Section 317 of SECURE 2.0 provides that for the 2023 year and later, a solopreneur reporting their business income and deductions on Schedule C can open a Solo 401(k) after year-end and make employee contributions as long as the Solo 401(k) is established and funded before the tax return filing deadline for the year. See page 2262 of the Omnibus bill.

SECURE 317’s deadline extension does not factor in any extensions.

Thus, for 2023, the deadline to establish and make employee contributions for the first year of a Solo 401(k) is April 15, 2024. However, the deadline to establish and make employer contributions for the first year of a Solo 401(k) is October 15, 2024.

UPDATE December 14, 2023: I Tweeted a thread about the provision that allows Schedule C solopreneurs to establish and fund a new Solo 401(k) with an employee deferral contribution after year-end. There is at least some concern that if one is diligent enough to establish a new Solo 401(k) prior to year-end they might not get the benefit of Section 401(b)(2)‘s funding deadline extension. If that is true (and to my mind this is an ambiguous issue), then the solopreneur establishing the new Solo 401(k) prior to year-end would need to either fund the employee contribution prior to year-end or elect to make an employee deferral contribution prior to year-end.

Note that Section 317 of SECURE 2.0 does not apply for 2022 and does not apply to years beyond the first year of a Solo 401(k).

Based on the wording of SECURE 2.0 Section 317, it is not initially clear if spouses who work in the Schedule C business qualify for the new deadline. I believe the IRS and Treasury may issue regulations clarifying this point.

New Solo 401(k) Employee Contributions Limit for 2023

The IRS announced that for 2023, the employee deferral limit for all 401(k)s, including Solo 401(k)s, will be $22,500. 

New Solo 401(k) Catch-Up Contributions Limit for 2023

The IRS also announced that for 2023, the employee deferrals catch-up contribution limit increased from $6,500 (2022) to $7,500. As a result, those age 50 or older can contribute, in employee contributions, a maximum of the lesser of $30,000 ($22,500 plus $7,500) or earned income. 

New Solo 401(k) All Additions Limit

The new all-additions limit for Solo 401(k)s is $66,000 (or earned income, whichever is less). For those aged 50 or older during 2023, the $66,000 number is $73,500 ($66,000 plus $7,500). 

2023 Update to Solo 401(k): The Solopreneur’s Retirement Account

On sale now, Solo 401(k): The Solopreneur’s Retirement Account explores the nooks and crannies of Solo 401(k)s. On page 16 of the paperback edition, I provide an example of the Solo 401(k) limits for 2022 if a solopreneur makes $100,000 of Schedule C income. Here is a revised version (in italics) of the example (with the footnote omitted) applying the new 2023 employee contribution limit:

Lionel, age 35, is self-employed. His self-employment income (as reported on the Schedule C he files with his tax return) is $100,000. Lionel works with a financial institution to establish his own Solo 401(k) plan and choose investments for the plan. Lionel can contribute $22,500 to his Solo 401(k) as an employee deferral (2023 limit) and can choose to contribute, as an employer contribution, anywhere from 0-20% of his self-employment income.

Lionel’s maximum potential tax-advantaged Solo 401(k) contribution for 2023 is $41,087! That is a $22,500 employee contribution and a $18,587 employer contribution. Note there’s no change in the computation of the employer contribution for 2023 in this example. 

On page 18 I provide an example of the Solo 401(k) contribution limits factoring in catch-up contributions. Here’s the example revised for 2023:

If Lionel turned 50 during the year, his limits are as follows:

  • Employee contribution: lesser of self-employment income ($92,935) or $30,000: $30,000
  • Employer contribution: 20% of net self-employment income (20% X $92,935): $18,587
  • Overall contribution limit: lesser of net self-employment income ($92,935) or $73,500: $73,500

Amazon Reviews

If you have read Solo 401(k): The Solopreneur’s Retirement Account, you can help more solopreneurs find the book! How? By writing an honest, objective review of the book on Amazon.com. Reviews help other readers find the book!

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, investment, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

2023 Retirement Tax Reform

An Open Letter to the Members of the 118th Congress

Dear Senators and Congressmen,

Congratulations on your victories in the Senate and House elections. I write with respect to one aspect of your legislative endeavors in the 118th Congress: reforming our tax-advantaged retirement savings system. As you will see, much of it is antiquated and in need of reform.

Before I discuss the problems, allow me to briefly recite my qualifications to write you this letter. My primary qualifications are that I am an American citizen and taxpayer. My secondary qualifications include:

  • I am a financial planner and advise clients on retirement planning and saving.
  • I am the author of a book on one of the tax-advantaged retirement savings accounts, Solo 401(k): The Solopreneur’s Retirement Account.
  • I am a CPA (licensed in California and Virginia) and I have a Juris Doctor degree and a LLM in Taxation degree. My background is on my LinkedIn page.
  • I write a four year-old blog (fitaxguy.com) focused on tax planning for individuals, particularly the use of retirement accounts. 

The views expressed in this open letter are mine only. I have not been compensated for writing this letter and my views are not necessarily the views of any of the clients of my financial planning firm. 

Problems with the Current Retirement Savings System

Limits Are Unequal and Unfair

There’s a myth that Congress and IRS inflation adjustments determine the retirement plan contribution limits every year. If one looks at the Internal Revenue Code and the IRS website, they’d walk away with that belief.

But is that really true? It turns out that one’s employer often defines just how much an employee can get into tax-advantaged retirement accounts every year. In practice, the current system disproportionately benefits a privileged few.

Here are two examples (using 2023 limits) that prove my point in a stark fashion. Josh is a 50 year-old employee of a large Fortune 500 company with a $300,000 salary. Josh maxes out contributions to his traditional 401(k) at work and maxes out his Backdoor Roth IRA and Mega Backdoor Roth (available through his employer’s 401(k)). Further, Josh receives a 3% match in his employer 401(k). Here are what his annual retirement savings contributions look like:

401(k) Employee Deferral: $30,000

401(k) Employer Match: $9,000

401(k) Mega Backdoor Roth: $34,500

Backdoor Roth IRA: $7,500

Total traditional deductible contributions: $39,000. Total Roth contributions: $42,000. Total contributions: $81,000.

Sarah, single, is a 50 year-old non-profit executive director with a $150,000 annual salary and no workplace retirement plan. Under today’s rules, Sarah can only contribute a maximum of $7,500 to a deductible traditional IRA. That’s it! She may be able to make a partial Roth IRA contribution or a Backdoor Roth IRA contribution, but if she does, it reduces her maximum allowed deductible traditional IRA contribution. Thus, her total contributions are, at a maximum, just $7,500 for the year.

Sadly, there are many more workers in the latter situation than in the former situation. 

Because of their choice in employers, Josh gets to put more than 10 times the amount Sarah can into tax-advantaged retirement accounts.

Yes, that is today’s reality. It makes absolutely no sense. Long term, a system that disproportionately rewards workers at some employers and barely covers workers at other employers is not sustainable. 

Where you work should not increase your tax-advantaged retirement account contributions by more than 10 times!

Many retirement provisions benefit a very select few. Most of the time, those select few are among the people who need the least amount of help in achieving a successful retirement. Retirement tax advantages should have broad applicability and should not disproportionately reward any particular subgroup, particularly very small subgroups. 

Other Retirement Account Problems

  • Complexity and confusion (Ever fill out a Form 8606?)
  • Penalties and penalty exceptions that are outdated and not entirely rational
  • Remedies for problems with retirement accounts are neither taxpayer nor IRS friendly

Goals for Retirement Account Reform

Here are the goals I believe the 118th Congress should have in enacting retirement account reform.

  • Reduce complexity and confusion. Simplify the mechanisms of retirement savings. “Backdoors” should be eliminated because retirement savings should occur through direct, simple transactions. 
  • Increase retirement savings, particularly among Americans who have struggled economically over the past three years.
  • Effective yet modest changes. While it is tempting to throw out all the rules, a complete rewrite of the rules would create tremendous confusion and likely reduce, rather than increase, tax-advantaged retirement savings. 
  • Democratize retirement account contributions while acknowledging the role employers can play in offering retirement savings for employees. That said, there should be at least some shift of dollars away from contributions to employer plans towards contributions to individual retirement accounts.
  • Reform cannot simply be a massive tax cut. The federal budget cannot afford a massive tax cut. 
  • Special advantages available to very limited groups should be reduced and eliminated.
  • Remove punitive rules and traps for the unwary. 
  • There are too many penalties in the retirement account system that are too high, too punitive, and too confusing. My proposal attempts to reduce the number of penalties, give the IRS and taxpayers more common sense tools to mitigate them, and make the rules simpler and fairer. 
  • Reduce the competition between funding expenses attendant to having a child and funding retirement savings. 
  • Avoid slogans. Our tax rules are now far too complicated to say “everyone gets a tax cut” or “no one below X income will have a tax increase.” Besides, slogans belong to the politics of the 80s and 90s. 

While my primary audience is the members of the 118th Congress, please allow me to direct a quick word to my fellow American taxpayers who might lose out on an opportunity described below and thus might oppose these proposals. I ask potential opponents of this proposal this question: how sustainable is a retirement system that gives a select few Americans 10 times the tax-advantaged savings capacity as other Americans? 

Why fight to preserve your special tax break when the myriad special tax breaks make the entire system less and less sustainable? Does my proposal make everything entirely fair? Surely not, but, as you will see below, it makes the system much fairer and simpler. I believe that will make the system more sustainable over the long run, which is good for everyone. 

Lastly, retirement savings are far from the only component of the U.S. tax system needing legislative change. But, as you can see from my secondary qualifications above, retirement savings are of particular interest to me, so I’ll mostly limit my commentary here to tax law changes on retirement savings. 

Retirement Tax Reform Proposals

Expanded Universal Roth IRAs and Closing Backdoors

1. Eliminate the MAGI Limitation on annual Roth IRA contributions. Why is there an income limit on contributing to a Roth IRA, which does not produce a tax deduction? Further, removing the income limitation will align the United States Roth account rules with Canadian tax-free savings account rules. Canada does not have an income limit on the ability to contribute. Why should the United States? This proposal also ends the Backdoor Roth IRA. 

2. Increase annual IRA contribution limit (traditional and Roth) to $10,000, then index annually. It is time to shift retirement savings towards individuals. This will help expand individual and spousal contributions to retirement accounts, particularly Roth IRAs, and give individuals more control over their own retirement savings. This proposal makes individuals less reliant on their employer to offer a good retirement savings plan. 

In the 10 year budget window, proposals 1 and 2 will cost some money, but I suspect not a whole lot. In fact, this expansion of Roth IRAs might make Roths more attractive and cause some taxpayers to direct what would have been traditional, deductible 401(k) contributions to their Roth IRA, increasing tax revenue in the early years. 

3. Eliminate nondeductible contributions to IRAs and qualified plans, effective January 1, 2024. This ends Mega Backdoor Roth IRAs as of January 1, 2024. The Mega Backdoor Roth benefits only those few whose employers offer it and can afford to make after-tax contributions. The Mega Backdoor Roth, which only came to prominence starting in 2014, turbocharges the unfair advantages the retirement account system currently confers on a select few Americans (such as Josh in the example above).

As a result of eliminating the Mega Backdoor Roth, most of these contributions will be diverted to taxable accounts, which is not a horrible outcome for those currently taking advantage of the Mega Backdoor Roth. Further, those losing the Mega Backdoor Roth under this proposal gain expanded access to Roth IRAs under proposals 1, 2, and 4. 

4. Increase age 50 or older IRA (traditional and Roth) annual catch-up contribution from $1,000 to $2,000, index for inflation annually. The current $1,000 annual catch-up contribution limit is not enough move the needle in terms of likelihood of financial success in retirement. 

Eliminate Traditional Retirement Account Basis

5. Eliminate IRA Basis / after-tax 401(k) basis, effective January 1, 2027. The Pro-Rata Rule is an unnecessarily complicated rule for retirement account withdrawals. It has even created litigation. Basis record keeping is challenging and creates confusion. Enough already! 

This proposal eliminates retirement account basis recovery as of January 1, 2027. To be fair to those with retirement account basis, this proposal allows elective withdrawal of basis amounts from traditional retirement accounts (including inherited traditional retirement accounts) to taxable accounts during the 2024, 2025, and 2026 tax years. Any elective withdrawals of basis for the year would not count towards RMDs and could not be converted to Roth accounts. Regular withdrawals, RMDs, and Roth conversions in the year of an elective withdrawal of basis could not access existing basis. 

Eliminating basis eliminates page 1 of the Form 8606. This simplifies traditional retirement account withdrawals, inheriting traditional retirement accounts, and Roth conversions. In turn, this makes the retirement account provisions easier for the IRS to administer and easier for taxpayers to understand. 

Simplify and Rationalize Retirement Account Rules

6. Unify Roth account nonqualified withdrawal treatment such that the current Roth IRA nonqualified distribution rules apply to nonqualified Roth 401(k) distributions. The rules for Roth 401(k) nonqualified distributions are confusing, and can be avoided by rolling into a Roth IRA. Why not make them consistent?

7. Change the age for HSA catch-up contributions to age 50. Catch-up contributions to all accounts should kick-in at one, and only one, age. Make it age 50 for all accounts by changing the HSA catch-up contribution kick-in age from 55 to 50. Unifying the HSA/IRA/401(k) catch-up contribution age at age 50 makes the rules simpler. 

8. Unify rules for taking RMDs from traditional retirement accounts. Under this proposal, so long as the total required is taken during the year, it doesn’t matter which account (401(k), 403(b), IRA) or accounts the distributions come from. 

9. Eliminate NUA tax treatment. Net Unrealized Appreciation allows for employer stock in a 401(k) to get preferential tax treatment. As workers are already heavily economically tied to their employer (because of their salary and benefits), NUA treatment encourages something that probably should be discouraged (investing significantly in the stock of one’s own employer). Further, the NUA rules are complex. Removing them simplifies the tax code. 

10. Simplify treatment when spouses inherit a retirement account. Currently, there are three options and planning choices to be made when a spouse inherits a retirement account. The death of a spouse is challenging enough without having to make a complicated tax planning decision. New rule to simplify this: all retirement accounts inherited by spouses are deemed to be the inheriting spouse’s own retirement account as of the first spouse’s death. To prevent any early withdrawal penalties to surviving spouses under age 59 ½ due to this change, add a new 10% early withdrawal penalty exception: being widowed prior to age 59 ½. This new penalty exception applies to all widows and widowers for all pre-age 59 ½ retirement account distributions regardless of whether the widow/widower inherited a retirement account.  

11. Clarify the SECURE Act to provide that if the 10 year rule applies to an inherited account, RMDs do not apply to the account, other than in the final year of the 10 year window. The IRS came out with overly complicated proposed regulations requiring RMDs for many inherited accounts even though the 10 year rule applies to them. This clarification repeals the needlessly complicated proposed regulations, and the government’s interests are already adequately protected by the 10 year rule. 

12. Adopt a supercharged version of SECURE 2.0 Section 321. Allow the self-employed (generally those reporting self-employment income on Schedule C or through partnerships) to both establish a Solo 401(k) after year-end and make employee contributions to their Solo 401(k) before the tax return deadline for the taxable year. This eliminates the election required under Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.401(k)-1(a)(6)(iii). There’s no reason for a self-employed individual to have to make an election with themselves to make a retirement account contribution. This change would make the contribution deadline rules for self-employed employee contributions the exact same as the contribution deadline rules for self-employed employer contributions for every year (not just for the first year as Section 321 proposed to do). 

Combat Mega Retirement Accounts and Limit Benefits for the Very Rich

13. Eliminate (as of enactment) new tax-advantaged retirement account investments in private equity, venture capital, and companies 10% or more owned (by vote or value) by the account owner. These investments have allowed a very select few to accumulate hundreds of millions of dollars in IRAs. IRAs and qualified plans are best when they provide growth and capital preservation from diversified assets to fund retirement. They were never intended to create 9 figure-plus hoards of wealth sheltered from taxation. 

14. Required Accumulation Distribution (RAD) of 20 percent of the amount over $5M anytime all traditional accounts (IRAs and qualified plans) exceed $5M (indexed for inflation) at year-end for the following year prior to age 72. RAD of 20 percent of the amount over $5M anytime all Roth accounts (IRAs and qualified plans) exceed $5M (indexed for inflation) at year-end for the following year. Under this proposal, there would be no penalty on any RAD. RADs from Roths are treated as qualified distributions. This is much simpler than the Build Back Better proposals on mega retirement accounts. RADs from traditional accounts cannot be converted to Roth accounts. 

The hope is that after a while, there will be few, if any RADs. In a world without private equity and venture capital type investments in retirement accounts it will be quite difficult to accumulate in excess of $5M (adjusted for inflation) in either type of retirement account. The RAD rules do not need to apply to traditional retirement accounts at 72 and beyond, since the owner is already subject to the RMD rules. Inherited retirement accounts would be exempt from the RAD rules.  

Examples: Joe, age 65 in 2024, has $4.9 million in all traditional retirement accounts (401(k)s, IRAs, etc.) on December 31, 2023. He also has $4.9 million in all Roth retirement accounts (401(k)s, IRAs, etc.) on December 31, 2023. His 2024 RAD from traditional retirement accounts is $0, and his 2024 RAD from Roth retirement accounts is $0.

Sally, age 65 in 2024, has $7 million in all traditional retirement accounts (401(k)s, IRAs, etc.) on December 31, 2023. She also has $4 million in all Roth retirement accounts (401(k)s, IRAs, etc.) on December 31, 2023. Her 2024 RAD from traditional retirement accounts is $400,000 ($7M minus $5M times 20%), and her 2024 RAD from Roth retirement accounts is $0.

John, age 75 in 2024, has $7 million in all traditional retirement accounts (401(k)s, IRAs, etc.) on December 31, 2023. He also has $7 million in all Roth retirement accounts (401(k)s, IRAs, etc.) on December 31, 2023. His 2024 RAD from traditional retirement accounts is $0 (since he is 72 or older), and his 2024 RAD from Roth retirement accounts is $400,000. Under the existing rules (unchanged by this proposal), John is subject to RMDs in 2024 totalling $284,553 ($7M divided by 24.6) from his traditional retirement accounts (though see proposal 8 giving John more flexibility in terms of which account(s) he can take the RMDs from).

15. Cap at $25,000 the maximum annual amount that can be deferred by those with salaries (W-2, self-employment income) of $400K or more per year (indexed for inflation) under a Section 409A nonqualified deferred compensation plan. This rule change is logical considering (i) the tax law’s benefits for retirement saving have been too skewed towards helping a very affluent few who need the least amount of saving help, (ii) most of the beneficiaries of nonqualified deferred compensation plans are the ones doing best economically, and (iii) the need to provide more benefits of tax-advantaged retirement savings to a larger swath of Americans. Further, those losing a tax benefit because of this rule gain a significant benefit in the removal of income limits on Roth IRA contributions and the increased contribution limits. 

For administrative convenience, the new rule would not apply to any amount deferred at any time during one year and paid out at any time during the immediately following tax year.

Proposals 13, 14, and 15 raise revenue to expand the amounts that every worker can save in Roth IRAs, and some Americans will get increased deductible traditional IRA contributions because of proposals 2 and 4. 

Penalty Reform

16. New 20% penalty on all missed RADs and reduce the missed RMD penalty to 20%. The current 50% penalty on missed RMDs is unnecessarily punitive. 

17. Unify the exceptions to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty so there is no difference between qualified plans and IRAs. It makes no sense that under current law there are some penalty exceptions only applicable to IRAs and some penalty exceptions applicable only to qualified plans. After this change, the only “plan only” exception would be the exception applicable to nonqualified 457(b) plans.

18. Change the Rule of 55 “separation from service” qualified plan penalty exception to be a broader, fairer age 55 need-based exception. Currently a 56 year-old CEO can leave their job and qualify for the penalty exception from their 401(k) but a 57 year-old teacher cannot qualify for the exception from an IRA. How does that make sense? 

New exception: Starting in the year one turns age 55, if AGI other than the taxpayer’s and/or their spouse’s potential Rule of 55 distribution(s) is less than $70K single, $110K MFJ (indexed for inflation), then the distribution (a “Rule of 55 distribution”) from the qualified plan or IRA is penalty free. Each person would have a $70K annual maximum (indexed for inflation) that could be accessed penalty free under this new, more rational Rule of 55 exception. In between $70K and $90K ($110K to $145K MFJ) of AGI (other than the potential Rule of 55 distributions), the $70K limitation per person is ratably reduced. 

The new Rule of 55 exception would be a Rule of 50 exception for public safety employees subject to the AGI limits described immediately above.

Eliminate Loopholes Benefitting Very Few

19. Age 15 requirement for IRA (traditional and Roth) contributions. Today a very few advantaged families can fund a retirement account for young children. Sometimes this takes the form of paying an infant a salary, which is at best questionable. Even with the elimination of this loophole, the family’s total annual Roth IRA contributions may be greater under this proposal. Instead of $6,500 per person ($19,500 total for family of 3), each parent can contribute $10,000 into a Roth IRA ($20,000 total). Of note, Canada requires being at least age 18 to make contributions to a tax-free savings account.

20. Eliminate the “super HSA” by deeming all persons covered by a HDHP other than the policyholder and their spouse to be a dependent of the policyholder for purposes of determining HSA contribution limits. The super HSA allows young adults covered by their parents’ high deductible health plans to put more into an HSA than most single HSA owners can. That’s not fair and illogical, and the super HSA is a loophole created not by Congressional intent but rather by the drafting technicalities used to create HSAs in IRC Section 223. 

Reform, Expand, and Simplify Qualified Birth Distributions

21. Reform, expand, and simplify SECURE Act Qualified Birth Distributions. Repeal as written in the SECURE Act. Capped at only $5,000 and confusing in their details, the current qualified birth distribution rules are not effective for parents. The new qualified birth distribution and recontributions rules would be as follows: 

For those under age 59 ½, up to $30,000 of distributions from qualified plans, SEP IRAs, SIMPLE IRAs, traditional IRAs, and Roth IRAs per parent distributed within 18 months (9 months before and 9 months after) surrounding a birth and/or an adoption are presumed to be a qualified birth distribution (QBD) and as such (i) are not treated as distributions in the year of the distribution (and not subject to tax withholding) and (ii) can be rolled back into the account by the end of the third year following the distribution. Amounts not repaid to the account are treated as distributions from the account at the end of that third year (including for estimated tax purposes), and are excused from the 10% early withdrawal penalty (if the penalty would otherwise apply to the deemed distribution). No mandatory reporting requirements for the parents (other than for any deemed distribution at the end of the third year), but the IRS is authorized to provide a voluntary reporting form reporting qualified birth distributions and qualified birth recontributions. The new law would authorize financial institutions and plan providers to rely on taxpayer representations for both distributions and recontributions in issuing Forms 1099-R and 5498 and accepting recontributions. 

This is a good idea for several reasons. It means saving for retirement is not a hindrance to financial security when adults are considering whether to have children. Our country is facing a decline in births. This proposal helps parents use retirement accounts to help during pregnancy and after childbirth while not handicapping their retirement. People can invest in Roth IRAs, for example, knowing that the money can be available for both the initial expenses of childbirth and their future retirement. 

Unfortunately, saving for birth and saving for retirement can compete. New, more robust and parent-friendly qualified birth distributions can reduce this competition and allow retirement savings to help during pregnancy and the first nine months after birth. 

Here is an example of how it could work: Robert, age 30, is the father of Mark, born February 2, 2024. On December 1, 2023, Robert withdrew $30,000 from his Roth IRA. At the time of the distribution, Robert had previously made $23,000 of annual contributions to his Roth IRA. Robert’s recontribution deadline is December 31, 2026. On April 2, 2026, Robert recontributes $20,000 to the Roth IRA, and makes no other qualified birth recontributions. On December 31, 2026, the $10,000 Robert did not recontribute to the Roth IRA is deemed to be a distribution from the Roth IRA to Robert. Robert took no other distributions from his Roth IRA prior to December 31, 2026. Since Robert had $23,000 of previous Roth IRA contributions to his Roth IRA as of the end of 2023 and may have made further annual contributions to his Roth IRA after 2023, the deemed distribution of $10,000 is deemed to be return of old annual contributions (under the nonqualified distribution rules) on December 31, 2026 and thus not taxable to Robert. The deemed distribution reduces Robert’s previous annual Roth IRA contributions by $10,000 for purposes of the nonqualified distribution rules as applied to any future nonqualified distributions. 

As a practical matter, the combination of this proposal and proposals 1 and 2 are likely to result in most QBDs coming from Roth IRAs. Thus, most QBDs not recontributed to the Roth IRA will simply be nontaxable deemed distributions of previous Roth IRA annual contributions. 

The new QBD rules would include rules providing that retirement account direct trustee-to-trustee transfers, rollovers, and Roth conversions occurring during the QBD 18 month window are not considered QBDs so as to preserve each parent’s $30K limitation. For simplicity’s sake, each birth and adoption will be treated as a distinct event for QBD purposes. Under this simplicity convention, parents of twins can each take up to $60K of QBDs. In addition, the QBD rules will have no adverse effect on the adoption tax credit. Funds sourced from a QBD for qualified adoption expenses will remain fully eligible for adoption tax credits based on the existing adoption tax credit rules. Lastly, a birth for QBD purposes will include the birth of a baby the parents give up for adoption. 

Expand and Rationalize Remedial Measures for Retirement Accounts

22. Adopt a supercharged version of SECURE 2.0 Section 308. Enact section 308 (expanding the IRS Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System) and add a self-correction safe-harbor (available both before an IRS exam and during IRS examination activity) whereby all individual traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs, and SEP IRAs, SIMPLE IRAs, 401(k)s, and qualified plans involving 10 or fewer individuals/employees (including Solo 401(k)s) automatically qualify for self-correction and forgiveness of all penalties so long as (i) the account owner/plan sponsor implements reasonable corrections (such as refunding excess contributions and attributable earnings penalty free, subject to ordinary taxable income inclusion — in the year of the corrective distribution — for earnings and any returned contributions actually deducted on a tax return or previously excluded from taxable income), and (ii) the total amount in the plan or IRA has never exceeded $500,000 as of any year-end. For this purpose, accounts would only be aggregated for a person or plan sponsor at the same financial institution. The new rules would provide that financial institutions can rely on taxpayer representations in issuing Forms 1099-R to report corrective distributions. Financial institutions will continue to compute attributable earnings as they do under current regulations.

This proposal reduces penalties (such as excess contribution penalties) and helps ensure plans and IRAs remain qualified. Self-correction is much better for taxpayers and the IRS, particularly when accounts are relatively modest in size. Currently, the IRS offers the Voluntary Compliance Program for qualified plans. Since VCP covers very large employer plans, it is a very odd fit for Solo 401(k)s and would be an odd fit for traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs. It is much better to encourage the use of self-correction. This encourages compliance, makes correcting mistakes easier, reduces penalties, and makes the IRS’s oversight of modest sized retirement accounts easier and more effective. 

23. Repeal and reform section 403 of the SECURE Act as applied to Form 5500-EZ filings. The SECURE Act increased penalties for late filed Form 5500 Series filings by tenfold. While this may make sense for large employer plans, the increase in penalties drastically overshot the mark when it comes to small businesses filing the Form 5500-EZ. Under the new law, a self-employed Solo 401(k) owner could (theoretically) be liable for a $150,000 penalty for failing to file a two page informational tax return (the Form 5500-EZ). Such a penalty is excessive and obscene. While relief procedures are available, it is ridiculous that the penalty could be, at least in theory, so onerous. Replace the current $250 per day penalty with a flat $500 per late Form 5500-EZ penalty (capped at $2,000 per plan sponsor) that can be excused for either reasonable cause or a first time abatement distinct to the Form 5500-EZ return. Cap the IRS period to assess the penalty at four years from the original filing deadline. Further, make the new rules effective to all missed Form 5500-EZ filings regardless of when they occurred. In addition, increase the asset threshold whereby a Form 5500-EZ is required from $250,000 to $500,000 to account for the passage of time and inflation. The Form 5500-EZ would still be required at the closing of the plan under this proposal, regardless of account size. 

Repeal Traps for the Unwary

24. Eliminate the once-a-year IRA to IRA 60-day rollover limit. It’s a trap for the unwary and by eliminating it, the rules would be synchronized for all rollovers. The once-a-year limit makes no sense (as the 60-day time limit is sufficient to police money coming out of retirement accounts) and is punitive and unnecessary. 

25. Repeal the SIMPLE IRA 25% penalty for early distributions within the first two years of establishing the SIMPLE IRA. Under this rule, the 25% penalty even applies to rollovers to traditional IRAs within the first two years. It’s a trap for the unwary and should be fully repealed. 

Miscellaneous

26. Do not pass (or repeal if passed) the rest of SECURE 2.0, the EARN Act, and other related proposals, other than as discussed above. My opinion is that SECURE 2.0/EARN Act introduced changes that were at best marginally beneficial for Americans saving for retirement. Unfortunately, SECURE 2.0 has counterproductive provisions (such as eliminating the tax deduction for 401(k) catch-up contributions) and increases the complexity of the retirement account system. 

Revenue Raisers (If Needed)

My hope is that my proposals would reduce federal revenue over the 10 year budget window by only a fairly modest amount, as there are provisions that would cost the government money and proposals that would increase revenue. If this nets out to costing too much money in Congress’s judgment, I recommend the following tax increase: an increase (starting in 2024) of the top capital gain/qualified dividend income rate (currently 20%) by the amount needed to close the gap. Considering that the highest earners have done the best in recent years, and do receive benefits under the overall proposal (see proposals 1, 2, and 4), this tax increase is fair and helps many Americans save for retirement by funding expansion of Roth IRAs and reduction of penalties.

If any other tax increases are deemed necessary, I recommend that Congress consider an increase to the rate of the corporate book minimum tax and/or a tax on investment income of college endowments comprised of $1 billion or more of assets. These two proposals shift the tax burden to those who have benefited the most from the American economy in recent years. 

Landscape After Retirement Account Reform

Let’s return to Josh and Sarah. What might their tax-advantaged retirement account contributions look like after my proposed reform. Here’s Josh’s contributions:

401(k) Employee Deferral: $30,000

401(k) Employer Match: $9,000

Roth IRA: $12,000

Total traditional deductible contributions: $39,000, total Roth contributions: $12,000, total contributions: $51,000. Yes, Josh lost his Mega Backdoor Roth IRA. But, now instead of a gimmicky $7,500 Backdoor Roth IRA, he gets to simply make a $12,000 annual contribution to a Roth IRA. Further, Josh did not lose any tax deductions under my proposal. Josh can invest the difference between $81,000 (his old tax-advantaged contribution total) and $51,000 (his new tax-advantaged contribution total), $30,000, in a taxable account.

Sarah has significantly increased the amount of her contributions. She goes from a $7,500 annual contribution to a traditional deductible IRA or Roth IRA to a $12,000 traditional deductible or Roth IRA contribution. 

Perfect? No. But instead of a 10.8 to 1 ratio we have moved the needle significantly such that the ratio is now 4.25 to 1. Further, many of the retirement account rules are simpler and fairer. If Josh, Sarah, or other Americans run into problems with their retirement accounts, their remedial paths are likely to be easier to navigate and they are more likely to avoid onerous and unfair penalties. 

I believe that our retirement system would be significantly better if Congress passes and the President signs the 26 proposals I outlined above in 2023. If any of you have questions about the above, I would be happy to communicate with you and/or your staff about these proposals.

To my fellow Americans reading this letter, I’d be honored to read your comments in the comments section below. I’m sure there are other ideas that could simplify and improve retirement accounts. 

Sincerely,

Sean Mullaney

This post does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, investment, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

2022 Year-End Tax Planning

Below are the main tax planning items for the year 2022 as I see them. Of course, this is educational information for the reader, and not tax advice directed toward any particular individual. 

The first two tax loss harvesting items are particularly unique to 2022 vis-a-vis recent years. 

Tax Loss Harvesting

2022 has given us plenty of lemons. For some Americans, it’s time to make some lemonade through tax loss harvesting. The deadline to do this and obtain a benefit on one’s 2022 tax return is December 31, 2022. 

Tax Loss Harvesting and Bonds

There is a tax loss harvesting opportunity in 2022 that has not existed in recent years to the scope and scale it exists today: tax loss harvesting with bonds and bond funds. In a recent post I went into that opportunity in detail and how it might create both a great tax loss harvesting opportunity and a great tax basketing opportunity. 

Tax Loss Harvesting Crypto

Many cryptocurrencies have declined in value. This can create a tax loss harvesting opportunity, regardless of whether the taxpayer wants to remain invested in crypto. To harvest the loss if one wants to get out of crypto, it’s easy: just sell the asset. For those wanting to stay in crypto, it’s not that much harder: sell the crypto (by December 31, 2022 if wanting the loss on their 2022 tax return) and they rebuy the crypto shortly thereafter. Crypto is not a “security” for wash sale purposes, and thus, repurchases of crypto are not subject to the wash sale rule, regardless of when they occur. 

Solo 401(k) Establishment

Quick Update 12/23/2022: My initial reading of SECURE 2.0 is that it does not change any 2022 Solo 401(k) deadlines. The one deadline it appears to change is effective starting for plan years beginning in 2023.

For Schedule C solopreneurs looking to make a 2022 employee contribution to a Solo 401(k), the Solo 401(k) must be established by December 31, 2022. This is NOT the sort of thing you want to try to do on December 30th. Almost certainly those trying to establish a Solo 401(k) will want to act well before the end of December, as it takes time to get the Solo 401(k) established prior to year-end. 

The deadline to establish a Solo 401(k) for an employer contribution is the tax return filing deadline. For individuals, this is April 18, 2023, but can be extended to October 15, 2023. For S corporations, this is March 15, 2023, but can be extended to September 15, 2023. 

Solo 401(k) Funding for Schedule C Solopreneurs

Employee elective deferral contributions (traditional and/or Roth) must meet one of two standards. Either (i) they must be made by December 31st or (ii) they are elected by December 31st and made by the tax return filing deadline, including any filed extensions. 

Employer contributions must be made by the tax return filing deadline, including any filed extensions. 

Roth Conversions 

Taxpayers with lower income (relative to the rest of their lives) may want to consider taxable conversions of traditional retirement accounts to Roth accounts. The deadline to get the Roth conversion on one’s 2022 tax return is December 31st, though it is not wise to wait until the last minute.

For the self-employed, there may be a unique opportunity to use Roth conversions to optimize the qualified business income deduction. 

Tax Gain Harvesting

For those finding themselves in the 12% or lower federal marginal income tax bracket and with an asset in a taxable account with a built-in gain, tax gain harvesting prior to December 31, 2022 may be a good tax tactic to increase basis without incurring additional federal income tax. Remember, though, the gain itself increases one’s taxable income, making it harder to stay within the 12% or lower marginal income tax bracket. 

HSA Funding Deadline

The deadline to fund an HSA for 2022 is April 18, 2023. Those who have not maximized their HSA through payroll deductions during the year may want to look into establishing payroll withholding for their HSA so as to take advantage of the payroll tax break available when HSAs are funded through payroll. 

The deadline for those age 55 and older to fund a Baby HSA for 2022 is April 18, 2023. 

Roth IRA Contribution Deadline

The deadline for funding a Roth IRA for 2022 is April 18, 2023. 

Backdoor Roth IRA

There’s no law saying “the deadline for the Backdoor Roth IRA is DATE X.” However, the deadline to make a nondeductible traditional IRA contribution for the 2022 tax year is April 18, 2023. Those doing the Backdoor Roth IRA for 2022 and doing the Roth conversion step in 2023 may want to consider the unique tax filing when that happens (what I refer to as a “Split-Year Backdoor Roth IRA”). 

Anyone who has already completed a Backdoor Roth IRA for 2022 should consider New Year’s Eve. December 31st is the deadline to be “clean” for 2022. Anyone who has done the Roth conversion step of a Backdoor Roth IRA during 2022 will want to consider (to the extent possible and desirable)  “cleaning up” all traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs as of December 31, 2022. 

Charitable Contributions

The deadline to make charitable contributions that can potentially be deducted on one’s 2022 tax return is December 31, 2022. Planning in this regard could include contributions to donor advised funds. If one is considering establishing a donor advised fund to get a deduction in 2022, I recommend moving well before December 31st, since it takes time for financial institutions to process donations and establish donor advised funds. 

RMDs from Your Own Retirement Account

The deadline to take any required minimum distributions from one’s own retirement account is December 31, 2022. Remember, the rules can get a bit confusing. Generally, IRAs can be aggregated for RMD purposes, but 401(k)s cannot. 

RMDs from Inherited Accounts

The deadline to take any RMDs from inherited retirement accounts is December 31st. For some beneficiaries of retirement accounts inherited during 2020 and 2021, the IRS has waived 2022 RMDs. That said, all beneficiaries of inherited retirement accounts may want to consider affirmatively taking distributions (in addition to RMDs, if any) before the end of 2022 to put the income into a lower tax year, if 2022 happens to be a lower taxable income year vis-a-vis future tax years. 

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, investment, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

The MAGI Limitation on Roth IRA Contributions

During a recent Econome Encore presentation, a questioner asked a question that caused me to do a double take: Do Roth conversions create MAGI (modified adjusted gross income) for purposes of determining whether someone exceeds the MAGI thresholds to make an annual contribution to a Roth IRA?

I did a double take for several reasons. First, the presentation was early on a Sunday morning 😉 . Second, in practice, the issue rarely comes up, for reasons we will discuss later. Third, why wouldn’t income created by a Roth conversion count as MAGI for this purpose? It is taxable income, after all. Fourth, I was pretty sure the rule states that no, Roth conversions do not create MAGI for this purpose. 

I quickly stated that I thought the rule does not consider Roth conversions to be included in MAGI, but I looked it up to be sure. My initial take was correct. Roth conversions are not included in MAGI for purposes of determining whether one can make an annual contribution to a Roth IRA. See IRC Section 408A(c)(3)(B)(i). 

The Creation of the Roth IRA in 1997

It’s a bit of an odd rule, though. Why carve out Roth conversion income from the Roth IRA MAGI test? It’s especially odd considering that actual taxable withdrawals from a traditional IRA or 401(k) create MAGI for this purpose. Why carve out income from Roth conversions of traditional IRAs and 401(k)s? 

It has to do with how Roth IRAs were created. In 1997, Congress created the Roth IRA to be effective starting in 1998. Roths were new. There was likely a concern along the lines of “a vehicle with tax-free growth could be abused.” Thus, there were two features of the Roth IRA subject to a MAGI limitation. Both the ability to make a direct annual contribution to a Roth IRA and the ability to convert amounts from a traditional retirement account to a Roth IRA were subject to a MAGI limitation. See page 40 of the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act text. 

The MAGI limitations begged the question: how to define MAGI for this purpose? The bill drafters started with a common technique: they found another relevant definition of MAGI already existing in the Internal Revenue Code. Why reinvent the wheel? They started with the MAGI definition used to determine the ability to make a deductible traditional IRA contribution. 

By itself, however, this definition would create a circular definition problem with respect to Roth conversions, as the IRA deduction MAGI definition used starts with AGI and then kicks out certain items. Roth conversions are included in AGI, so to avoid a circular calculation, the bill drafters had to kick Roth conversion income out of the Roth MAGI definition. 

If Roth conversion income was included in the MAGI definition, then the taxpayer would have to test Roth conversions against themselves to determine if Roth conversions were allowed! For example, if AGI was $90K prior to a $40K Roth conversion, the $40K Roth conversion would disqualify itself, as the MAGI limitation on the ability to convert was $100K of MAGI. 

Further, the bill drafters decided to create one MAGI definition for the two different limitations. They could have created two different MAGI definitions, but this would have made a new Code section even more lengthy and complicated. Remember, none of this existed as of 1997 when the bill was written. So, the final bill only had one MAGI definition for both limits. That one definition kicked out Roth conversion income, which it had to do to avoid the circular definition problem with respect to Roth conversions. 

Changes to Roth IRAs

In 2006, Congress repealed the MAGI limitation on the ability to do Roth conversions, effective 2010. See pages 21 and 22 of this PDF of the Tax Increase Protection and Reconciliation Act of 2005. This is what opened the door to the Backdoor Roth IRA starting in 2010.

Interestingly enough, had there never been a MAGI limitation on the ability to do a Roth conversion, the kick out of Roth conversion income from the MAGI limitation on the ability to make an annual contribution to a Roth IRA might not exist. First, there would have been no circular definition problem to solve. Second, it would have been neater to simply reference the deductible traditional IRA contribution MAGI definition and leave it at that. 

But, that’s not how the history of the Roth IRA transpired. We will never know if there would not have been a kick out of Roth conversion income in defining MAGI for annual Roth contribution purposes had today’s rules been the original Roth IRA rules. 

Roth Conversions and Annual Roth IRA Contributions

For *many* taxpayers, particularly those in the FI community, the time to do Roth conversions is not while one is working. When one is working, he or she is likely to (a) qualify for annual Roth contributions and (b) to be in their highest lifetime marginal tax brackets. Usually, the best time to do a Roth conversion is during early retirement rather than during one’s highest earning years. 

As a practical matter, at the time many Americans qualify to make a Roth contribution, they are not likely to be in an optimal Roth conversion posture. Of course, your circumstances could vary. For example, consider someone taking a 12 month sabbatical from the workforce (starting March 1st) who has 2 months of earned income during the year. Perhaps he or she should (a) make a Roth IRA contribution based on their 2 months of earnings and also (b) do Roth conversions based on having a relatively low income for the year. 

Click here for the IRS website detailing the 2023 MAGI limitations on the ability to contribute to a Roth IRA.

While We’re On the Subject of the Annual MAGI Limit on Roth IRA Contributions . . .

My belief is that one of the next changes Congress should make to Roth IRAs is to remove the MAGI limit on contributions. 

Let’s think about this. A 50+ year old billionaire can contribute up to $30,000 to a workplace traditional or Roth 401(k) regardless of their income level. If this is possible, why is there a MAGI limitation on the ability to contribute $6,500 or $7,500 (age 50 or older, 2023 numbers) to a Roth IRA? It makes absolutely no sense, especially considering that some people, though not all people, can get around the MAGI limitation through the Backdoor Roth IRA.

Further, our neighbors to the north have no income limitation on the ability to contribute to a Tax-Free Savings Account, Canada’s equivalent of the Roth IRA. It’s time for Congress to repeal the MAGI limitation on the ability to make an annual Roth IRA contribution.

Watch me discuss the real answer to the Backdoor Roth IRA gimmick, which is the repeal of the MAGI limitation on the ability to make an annual Roth IRA contribution. 

Conclusion

There’s a bit of an odd rule when it comes to determining MAGI for purposes of determining whether a taxpayer can make a contribution to a Roth IRA. It stems from the creation of the Roth IRA in 1997 and the fact that back then, there was also a MAGI limitation on the ability to convert amounts to a Roth IRA. Today, the kick out of Roth conversion income is a taxpayer favorable rule that is rarely significant in practice. More broadly speaking, I hope Congress repeals the MAGI limitation on the ability to make an annual Roth IRA contribution. 

FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.