Qualified charitable distributions (“QCDs”) are an exciting tax planning opportunity, particularly for the FI community. Below I describe what a qualified charitable distribution is and how members of the FI community should think about them when tax planning.
Of course, this post is educational in nature. Nothing in this blog post is tax advice for any particular taxpayer. Please consult your own tax advisor regarding your unique circumstances.
Qualified Charitable Distributions
QCDs are transfers from a traditional IRA directly to a charity. Up to $100K annually, they are (a) not included in the taxpayer’s taxable income, (b) not deductible as charitable contributions, and (c) qualify as “required minimum distributions” (“RMDs”) (to the lesser of the taxpayer’s required minimum distribution or the actual distribution to the charity). Here is an example:
Example 1: Jack and Jill are 75 years old and file their tax return married filing joint. Jack has a RMD from his traditional IRA of $40,000 in 2021. Jack directs his traditional IRA institution to transfer $40,000 during 2021 to a section 501(c)(3) charity. Jack and Jill recognize no taxable income on the transfer, and Jack does not have to take his 2021 RMD (the $40K QCD having covered it). Further, Jack and Jill receive no charitable contribution deduction for the transfer.
Considering that Jack & Jill (both age 75) enjoy a standard deduction of $27,800 in 2021, they get both the standard deduction and a $40K deduction for the charitable contribution from the traditional IRA (since they do not have to include the $40K in their taxable income). This is the best of both worlds. Further, excluding the $40K from “adjusted gross income” (“AGI”) is actually better than taking the $40K as an itemized deduction, since many tests for tax benefits are keyed off of AGI instead of taxable income.
Important QCD Considerations
Take QCDs Early
Generally speaking, it is best that QCDs come out of the traditional IRA early in the year. Why? Because under the tax rules, RMDs come out of a traditional IRA first. So it is usually optimal to take the QCD early in the year so it can fulfill all or part of the required minimum distribution for the year. Then you can do Roth conversion planning (if desired), so long as the full RMD has already been withdrawn (either or both through a QCD and a regular distribution) from the traditional IRA first.
No Trinkets
I don’t care how much you love your PBS tote bag: do not accept any gift or token of appreciation from the charity. The receipt of anything (other than satisfaction) from the charity blows the QCD treatment. So be sure not to accept anything from the charity in exchange for your QCD.
QCDs Available Only from Traditional IRAs
In order to take advantage of QCD treatment, the account must be a traditional IRA. 401(k)s and other workplace plans do not qualify for QCDs. Further, SIMPLE IRAs and SEP IRAs do not qualify for QCD treatment.
As a practical matter, this is not much of an issue. If you want to do a QCD out of a 401(k) or other tax advantaged account, generally all you need to do is rollover the account to a traditional IRA.
QCD Age Requirement
In order to take advantage of the QCD opportunity, the traditional IRA owner must be aged 70 ½ or older.
Inherited IRAs
QCDs are available to the beneficiary of an inherited IRA so long as the beneficiary is age 70 ½ or older.
QCDs For Those Age 70 ½ and Older
If you are aged 70 ½ or older and charitably inclined, the QCD often is the go-to technique for charitable giving. In most cases, it makes sense to make your charitable contributions directly from your traditional IRA, up to $100,000 per year. QCDs help shield RMDs from taxation and help keep AGI low.
QCDs and the Pro-Rata Rule
If you have made previous non-deductible contributions to your traditional IRA, distributions are generally subject to the pro-rata rule (i.e., the old contributions are recovered ratably as distributions come out of the traditional IRA).
However, QCDs are not subject to the pro-rata rule! This has a positive effect on future taxable distributions from the traditional IRA. Here is an example of how this works:
Example 2: Mike is age 75. On January 1, 2021, he had a traditional IRA worth $500,000 to which he previously made $50,000 of nondeductible contributions. If Mike makes a $10,000 QCD to his favorite charity, his traditional IRA goes down in value to $490,000. However, his QCD does not take out any of his $50,000 of basis from nondeductible contributions. This has the nice effect of reducing the tax on future taxable distributions to Mike from the traditional IRA, since the QCD reduces denominator (by $10K) for determining how much basis is recovered, while the numerator ($50K) is unaffected.
QCDs for Those Under Age 70 ½
Those in the FI community considering early retirement need to strongly consider Roth conversions. The general idea is that if you can retire early with sufficient wealth to support your lifestyle, you can have several years before age 70 during which your taxable income is artificially low. During those years, you can convert old traditional retirement accounts Roth accounts while you are taxed at very low federal income tax brackets.
For the charitably inclined, the planning should account for the QCD opportunity. There is no reason to convert almost every dime to Roth accounts if you plan on giving significant sums to charity during your retirement. Why pay any federal or state income tax on amounts that you ultimately will give to charity?
If you are under the age of 70 ½ and are charitably inclined, QCDs should be part of your long term financial independence gameplan. You should leave enough in your traditional retirement accounts to support your charitable giving at age 70 ½ and beyond (up to $100K annually). These amounts can come out as tax-free QCDs at that point, so why pay any tax on these amounts in your 50s or 60s? Generally speaking, a Roth conversion strategy should account for QCDs for the charitably inclined.
Conclusion
For the charitably inclined, QCDs can be a great way to manage taxable income and qualify for tax benefits in retirement. QCDs also reduce the pressure on Roth conversion planning prior to age 72, since it provides a way to keep money in traditional accounts without having to pay tax on that money.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial advisor! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
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.
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.
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.
Recently, the FIRE movement has come in for some criticism. Here is one prominent example. While I don’t want to speak for the critics, some of the arguments boil down to a version of the following: FI or FIRE (I prefer FI, but let’s not argue over terminology) overemphasizes personal responsibility and individualism, as most financial outcomes are the result of luck and the work of others. For example, if you invest $250,000 in real estate and local property values skyrocket such that your investment is now worth $600,000, most of the value of your investment is not attributable to anything you did.
While I appreciate the perspective provided by these commentators, I respectfully disagree with the criticisms.
My Journey with FI
Before I address the criticisms, I thought it would be helpful to share a bit of my perspective on FI. My journey with personal finance mostly starts in college, when I began to become interested in some of the tactics of personal finance. Things like the Roth IRA and passive investing.
For me, the tactics were like the quartz countertops, cabinets, and ceiling beams on a home construction site: shiny objects drawing attention, but by themselves not all that impactful. As applied to personal finance, when you add in the FI framework, you transform shiny objects into a house. Having the FI framework and goals ultimately drives better choices and better luck.
Getting introduced to FI in 2017 flipped a switch for me. It gave meaning to the personal finance tactics. More important, it encouraged me to make better choices. For me, it’s not about a FI number or a retirement deadline.* And it has never been about anyone who retired at a particularly early age. Rather, to me FI is all about making better choices that give me and my family more options and better financial luck.
This is why I don’t believe “financial literacy” is an adequate substitute for FIRE. You can teach people about 401(k)s and HSAs until you’re blue in the face. Without something akin to the FI framework, financial knowledge by itself does not often materially improve choices and outcomes. Financial literacy without a framework and goals is sort of like teaching algebra in high school. There’s nothing wrong with it, but how much did algebra affect your adult life?
Having shared a bit of my own FI journey, here are my thoughts on the recent criticisms of the FIRE movement.
* Note: For some, FI is about hitting a FI number and/or retiring by a certain date. That’s great–to each their own.
The Role of Luck
Michael Jordan won six NBA Championships. Wouldn’t we all say that he was a great basketball player?
But wait a minute. Wasn’t almost all of his success attributable to luck? First, Dr. James Naismith invented the sport of basketball. Then players, promoters, and team owners spread the sport throughout the United States such that professional leagues could become a way to earn an income. Then the founders, players, coaches, owners, television executives, and fans of the National Basketball Association had to build it and sustain it through some very challenging times. Without the work and support of countless people, Michael Jordan would not have been able to make a living playing basketball, much less win six championships playing basketball.
And what about Jordan’s height, good health, parents, coaches, and teammates? Talk about lucky . . .
Most of us, when confronted with all the luck Michael Jordan had in his basketball career, would simply acknowledge that luck played a role, but that in no way diminishes all the hard work he put into his craft and the fact that he was a great basketball player.
In all situations, luck plays an important role. There is little anyone can do to avoid being subject to a significant degree of luck. All you can do is make choices based on judgment and what experience and history teach. Often, you will enjoy more good luck as you make better choices.
Luck and choices are not entirely unrelated. The better financial choices you make, the more likely it is you will have good financial outcomes and enjoy better luck along the way. For example, you can’t get lucky with an investmentif you don’t make the investment!
Investment growth could** be thought of as luck. But without an individual financial choice (the decision to invest), you get absolutely none of that luck! The FIRE movement simply says “we have hundreds of years of economic data: we know diversified baskets of productive investments generally tend to grow over long periods of time, so start investing!”
FI provides a framework for capturing financial luck. Why shouldn’t there be a “movement” (if you want to call it that) of people who are intentional about making better choices that increase the odds that they and others will experience financial luck and success?
** Note: I do not believe investment growth is luck. I simply acknowledge that some might think of investment growth as luck.
Credit versus Choices
The FIRE movement is not about claiming credit for financial outcomes. It’s about encouraging good financial choices.
To my mind, arguing that the FIRE movement is lacking because most of the credit belongs to others misses the point. The point of the Financial Independence movement is not to “deserve” financial success. Rather, the point is to make choices that increase the odds of financial success and having more financial options.
If I wear a seatbelt, I’m making a choice that increases my odds of staying safe.
I (hopefully) don’t demand credit for being safe. Rather, I simply make an informed choice that makes my life incrementally better.
That is what the FIRE movement is all about: make good choices in your financial life, and, generally speaking, your financial life tends to have good outcomes. If someone wants to give you credit for the resulting outcomes, that’s fine, but that credit is not what the FIRE movement is all about.
None of this makes financial independence easy, and financial independence as an end goal will be more difficult for some than for others.
But practically everyone has financial choices to make. Thus, the FIRE movement can speak to everyone. The FIRE movement offers a framework and encouragement to make good choices. Regardless of the luck you have had up to now, it is better to be intentional about your financial choices and seek to improve your future financial choices.
Room for Improvement
Is everything perfect in the FIRE movement? Surely not. For example, extreme examples of FIRE tend to get overemphasized in the media and within the movement (in my opinion).
Overemphasizing certain stories causes a distorted view of financial independence. But podcasts, YouTube, blogs, and other forums help all sorts of FI stories to get out there. The FIRE movement is constantly developing and different FIRE voices appeal to different listeners (and hopefully to a growing number of listeners).
My hope is that the movement and the media reduce the emphasis on some of the more extreme FIRE examples (while still acknowledging their validity) and choose to promote a diverse array of FIRE perspectives. No one has all the answers, but everyone can make a contribution.
FI/FIRE will survive out of economic necessity. What else are people to do? Tie their entire economic future to one job that can be gone in an instant? The economic downturn occurring due to Coronavirus demonstrates that you need multiple sources of economic support. Part of FI (or FIRE) is that you ultimately build up so many sources of support (essentially, a well-diversified portfolio) that your job becomes an unnecessary source of support.
I stand by that. Some argue that FIRE is unrealistic. I’d argue that tying your financial future to a single job (or, more broadly, to your ability to always earn an income from your labor) is unrealistic.
The FIRE movement provides a framework for improving your financial condition through better choices. That is a movement worth staying in.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial advisor! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
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.
Really enjoyed this year-end tax planning conversation with Doc G on the Earn & Invest podcast. Stay tuned to the end for some candid behind the scenes podcast recording.
This post (and this podcast episode) 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.
The Roth IRA is 25 years old as of 2023 (its birthday was January 1st). Yet there is still confusion about the rules applicable whenever someone withdraws money from a Roth IRA prior to turning 59 ½. This blog post attempts to correct some misconceptions on the taxation of nonqualified Roth IRA withdrawals.
Watch me discuss Roth IRA withdrawals.
Roth IRAs: The Basics
A Roth IRA is a tax-advantaged account that generally offers tax-free growth for invested amounts. Taxpayers receive no upfront tax deduction for putting money into a Roth IRA. If properly executed, taxpayers can withdraw money from a Roth IRA entirely tax and penalty free, and can enjoy years of tax-free growth on the amounts invested in a Roth IRA.
I have previously blogged about why I believe the Roth IRA is a great tax-advantaged account in my An Ode to the Roth IRA.
Roth IRA Funding
How does one move money into a Roth IRA? There are three ways.
Annual Contributions
Generally speaking, if your income is below certain limits, you can contribute up to the lesser of $6,500 or your earned income (2023 limits) to a Roth IRA. If you are aged 50 or older, the limits are the lesser of $7,500 or earned income (2023 limits).
I discussed Roth IRA annual contributions, including the income limits on the ability to make Roth IRA contributions, in this post.
Conversions
Amounts can be converted from traditional retirement accounts into a Roth IRA. Any taxpayer can convert amounts from a traditional retirement account to a Roth IRA. There are no restrictions based on level of income and/or having had earned income.
Conversions are taxable in the year of the conversion.
There are several reasons you might want to do a Roth IRA conversion. One might be the anticipation of paying tax at a higher rate in the future. The planning concept is to “lock in” the lower tax rate in the year of the conversion rather than tomorrow’s (anticipated) higher tax rate, and to get all of the earnings on the contribution out of income taxation.
Unlimited Roth IRA conversions form the backbone of the Backdoor Roth IRA planning concept.
Note that inherited traditional IRAs cannot be converted to Roth IRAs.
Transfers from Workplace Retirement Accounts
A third way to get money into a Roth IRA is by using workplace retirement accounts. Amounts in Roth 401(k)s and other workplace Roth accounts can be transferred into a Roth IRA. Generally, it is best to use direct “trustee-to-trustee” transfers to accomplish this.
Further, after-tax contributions in workplace retirement plans can be directly transferred to Roth IRAs, as discussed in Notice 2014-54. The ability to transfer after-tax contributions into a Roth IRA has facilitated the use of the Mega Backdoor Roth IRA planning technique.
Roth IRA Withdrawals: The Confusion
You may have heard that you cannot take money out of a Roth IRA if the account is not 5 years old without paying tax and a penalty. Not true!
There are not one, but two, five (5) year rules applicable to Roth IRAs. But neither one of them prohibit you from taking money out of a Roth IRA you have previously contributed through annual contributions. First, I will illustrate the default Roth IRA withdrawal rules, and then I will discuss the two 5 year rules.
Quick Thought: Most of this blog post addresses situations where the taxpayer does not qualify for a qualified distribution. Generally, a taxpayer fails to qualify for a qualified distribution if he or she has not attained the age of 59 ½, and/or if he or she has not owned a Roth IRA for 5 years. The advantage of a qualified distribution is that it is automatically tax and penalty free.
Roth IRA Withdrawals: The Layers
Here is the default order of distributions that come out of a Roth IRA. These are the rules that apply in cases where the taxpayer does not qualify for a qualified distribution. All Roth IRAs (other than inherited Roth IRAs) the taxpayer owns are aggregated for purposes of determining his or her Roth IRA layers.
First Layer: Tax-free return of Roth IRA contributions
Second Layer: Roth IRA conversions (first-in, first-out)
Third Layer: Roth IRA earnings
Each layer must come out entirely before the subsequent layer is accessed.
Here’s a brief example:
Example 1: Samantha opened her only Roth IRA in 2018. Samantha has made three prior $5,000 contributions to her Roth IRA (one for each of 2018, 2019, and 2020). She also made a $5,000 conversion from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in 2018. In 2021, at a time when her Roth IRA is worth $30,000 and Samantha is 50 years old, she takes a $10,000 withdrawal from her Roth IRA. All $10,000 will be a recovery of her previous contributions (leaving her with $5,000 remaining of previous contributions). Thus, the entire $10,000 distribution from the Roth IRA will be tax and penalty free.
The Roth IRA contributions come out tax and penalty free at any time for any reason! The 5 year rules have nothing to do with whether a taxpayer can recover their previous Roth IRA contributions tax and penalty free!
For those wanting to dig deeper into the tax law, please refer to this technical slide deck discussing why the Roth IRA contributions are distributed tax and penalty free regardless of the 5 year rules.
Note that aggregation rules always apply. In making an analysis like the one provided in Example 1, one must account for all their Roth IRAs and treat all of their Roth IRAs as a single Roth IRA to determine their own Roth IRA layers. Roth 401(k)s and inherited Roth IRAs are not included in the analysis.
5 Year Rule for Roth IRA Earnings
The first five-year rule for Roth IRAs applies only to a withdrawal of earnings from a Roth IRA. If the account owner has not owned a Roth IRA for at least 5 years, the earnings withdrawn from the account are subject to ordinary income tax (and possibly a penalty).
Example 2: Joe is 62 years old in 2024. He has owned a Roth IRA since 2021. In 2024, after having made $14,000 in prior annual contributions to his Roth IRA, he withdrew $17,000 from the Roth IRA. Because Joe has not owned a Roth IRA for 5 years, the withdrawal is not a qualified distribution. Joe recovers his first $14,000 tax free as a return of contributions. The next $3,000 of earnings is taxable to Joe as ordinary income (because of the first five-year rule). Because Joe is over age 59 ½, he does not owe the ten percent penalty on the distribution. If Joe had not attained the age of 59 ½, he would owe the 10 percent penalty on the $3,000 of earnings he received.
5 Year Rule for Roth IRA Conversions
There is a five-year rule applicable to taxable money converted from a traditional retirement account to a Roth IRA (what I will colloquially refer to as the “second five-year rule”). The idea behind the second five-year rule is to protect the 10% early withdrawal penalty applicable when someone has a traditional retirement account. Here is an illustrative example.
Example 3: Milton has $100,000 in a traditional IRA, no basis in any IRA, and is age 50. If he were to withdraw $1,000 from his traditional IRA (assuming no penalty exception applies), he would owe (in addition to ordinary income tax) a $100 penalty (ten percent) on the withdrawal.
Okay, but what if Milton first converts that money from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA (assume Milton has no other balance in a Roth IRA)? Would that get him out of the 10 percent penalty? No, it won’t, because of the second five-year rule.
Example 4: Milton has $100,000 in a traditional IRA, no basis in any IRA, has no Roth IRAs, and is age 50. In September 2024, he converts $1,000 to a Roth IRA. In October 2024, he withdraws $1,000 from that Roth IRA. Because of the five-year rule applicable to Roth IRA conversions, Milton will still owe the $100 penalty on the withdrawal from the Roth IRA.
Had Milton waited until 2029 or later, he would not have owed the penalty on the withdrawal of that $1,000.
The 5 Year Rule for Roth IRA Conversions and the Backdoor Roth IRA
The Backdoor Roth IRA is subject to the second five-year rule, but the penalty effect turns out to be very minor (or non-existent) if the Backdoor Roth IRA has been properly executed.
Conversions, the second layer of the Roth IRA stack, come out first-in, first out. Further, the taxable amount (potentially subject to the 10 percent penalty upon withdrawal) of any one particular Roth IRA conversion comes out first within the conversion amount. Thus, the second layer (the conversion layer) can be composed of several mini-layers.
Here is a quick example:
Example 5: Denzel made $6,000 nondeductible traditional IRA contributions on January 1, 2019 and January 1, 2020. On February 2, 2019 and February 2, 2020, Denzel converted the entire balance of the traditional IRA ($6,010 each time) to a Roth IRA. As of December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2020, Denzel had $0 balances in all traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs.
In 2021, at a time when Denzel is 35 years old and has made no other contributions or conversions to a Roth IRA, he withdraws $3,000 from his Roth IRA. The first $10 of the withdrawal will be from the taxable amount of his 2019 Roth conversion, and thus, will be subject to the 10 percent penalty as it violates the second five-year rule (Denzel will owe $1 in penalties). The next $2,990 is attributable to the non-taxable portion of his 2019 Roth conversion, and as such, will not be subject to the 10 percent penalty. None of the $3,000 will be subject to ordinary income tax.
Penalty Exceptions
From time to time you will hear things such as “you can withdraw only $10,000 from a Roth IRA for a first-time home purchase.” Does that mean everything else discussed above does not apply?
Fortunately, the answer is no!
So what is the $10,000 rule getting at? It is getting at amounts withdrawn from a Roth IRA that would otherwise be subject to the penalty (and possibly income taxes — see The Super Exceptions below).
There are several penalty exceptions applicable to taxable converted amounts and earnings that are withdrawn from a Roth IRA in a nonqualified distribution. But the penalty exception rules generally apply on top of the usual layering rules, not instead of the usual Roth IRA layering rules.
In a discussion on social media, I used a version of the following example.
Example 6: Jane Taxpayer, age 30, has had a Roth IRA since 2017. In 2020, she withdraws $30,000 from her Roth IRA to acquire her first home, and has never used traditional IRA and/or Roth IRA money for such a purchase. She has previously made $20,000 in annual contributions to the Roth IRA. The first $20,000 of the withdrawal is a tax-free return of those contributions (see the layers above). The next $10,000 is out of earnings (see the layers above). This $10,000 is taxable to her as ordinary income. But, because of the $10,000 “qualified first-time homebuyer distribution” exception, she does not owe the 10 percent penalty on the withdrawal of those earnings.
In this case, withdrawals used to fund certain home purchases can qualify for a penalty exception (the first-time homebuyer exception is subject to a $10,000 cap). Please visit this website for a list of the possible penalty exceptions applicable to withdrawals from a traditional IRA and a Roth IRA.
The Super Exceptions
If the taxpayer is relying on the disability, age 59 ½, death, or qualified first-time home purchase penalty exceptions, the earnings also come out income tax free so long as the taxpayer has owned a Roth IRA for five years. See slide 5 of the above referenced technical slide deck.
As applied to Jane Taxpayer in Example 6 above, if she had owned a Roth IRA since any time in 2015 or earlier, the distribution of $10,000 of earnings would not only have been penalty free, it would have also been income tax free.
60 Day Rollovers
A taxpayer might take money out of a Roth IRA and then reconsider. Perhaps he or she wants the money to grow tax-free. Or perhaps the taxpayer dipped into earnings and the distribution is not a qualified distribution, meaning that it will likely be subject to both ordinary income and a ten percent penalty.
He or she might be able to roll the money back into the Roth IRA. However, the tax rules allow only one 60 day rollover every 12 months. The IRS has a website here discussing some of the issues.
Because of the one-rollover-per-year rule, I generally advise against doing 60 day rollovers unless you need to. Generally, it is best to avoid them, and then have the option available as a life raft if money somehow comes out of a Roth IRA (or other IRA) when it should not have.
Required Minimum Distributions
There are no required minimum distributions from a Roth IRA! Every other non-HSA tax-advantaged retirement account, including the Roth 401(k), has required minimum distributions.
Note that required minimum distributions are generally required once the Roth IRA becomes an inherited Roth IRA (in the hands of anyone but certain surviving spouses).
Tax Planning
Okay, so taxpayers always have tax and penalty free access to old Roth IRA annual contributions. So what of it? As a practical matter, maybe nothing.
In most cases, it makes sense to simply keep the money in the Roth IRA and let it grow tax free!
That said, there can be instances where, as part of a well crafted financial plan, it can make sense to withdraw previous Roth IRA contributions prior to age 59 ½. Further, it is good to know that, in an emergency situation, those old Roth IRA contributions are accessible.
Of course, prior to taking an early withdrawal from a Roth IRA, it is usually best to consult with your own financial advisor and/or tax advisor.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
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.
How do you pass your family’s house to your children? It’s a pressing question and involves significant tax, legal, and emotional considerations. Unfortunately, it is a topic about which there is much confusion.
This blog post discusses some of the important considerations. But as a blog post, it can only scratch the surface. Anyone looking to efficiently pass on their home is well advised to consult with their own lawyer, tax professional, and in some cases, their banker as well.
Minor Children
To my mind, the primary planning objective of married couples with minor children vis-a-vis their home is to account for what happens if both spouses die. Such couples would want their children taken care of in the most flexible manner possible.
Generally speaking, in such situations, it is often best to work with a lawyer to transfer the primary residence to a revocable living trust (explained below). In the event of both spouses’ deaths, the house would be held by the trust and managed by the trustee of the trust. It could be sold or rented for the benefit of the children, or kept so the children and their guardian(s) could live in the house.
This resolution is generally preferable to leaving a house directly to minor children.
Revocable Living Trusts
What is a revocable living trust? It is generally a written trust (drafted by a lawyer) that owns property the grantor(s) or settlor(s) transfers to the trust. For this sort of planning, usually spouses (the grantors) transfer their home to the trust and designate themselves as the primary beneficiaries of the trust. The trust provides that the grantors’ minor children are the successor beneficiaries. Upon both spouses’ deaths, the trust becomes irrevocable, and a trustee holds the assets and manages them on behalf of the beneficiaries (the minor children).
The best thing about a revocable living trust: as long as the grantor(s) is/are alive, the trust is fully revocable! So mistakes can be easily fixed (working with a lawyer).
Revocable living trusts also generally avoid probate.
Tax Effect
One nice thing about a revocable living trust is that it doesn’t change the grantor’s tax situation. All the income of the trust assets remain the taxable income of the grantor. Generally speaking, the grantor’s tax return does not change at all. Further, favorable tax rules, such as the $250K per person exclusion for capital gains on qualified primary residences, apply unchanged.
Parents placing their primary residence in their own revocable living trust does not necessitate the filing of a federal gift tax return (Form 709).
Upon inheriting a house as the beneficiary of a revocable living trust, the child takes a fair market value tax basis in the house (the so-called “step-up in basis”). This makes using a revocable living trust a tax-efficient way of passing a house to the next generation.
Adult Children
Okay, but what about adult children? It’s readily apparent that five-year olds should not own real estate outright. But what about grown children? If a primary goal is simply avoiding probate, why not use a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship instead of a revocable living trust?
Putting an adult child’s name on the title of the parent(s) primary residence (and thus, creating a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship) can lead to a host of issues, but perhaps not the issues that initially come to mind.
Capital Gains Tax
What about the adult child’s capital gain upon the sale of the house after the parent’s death? Is that a reason to use a revocable living trust to house the house (pun intended)?
Well, it turns out the answer is generally No. Assuming the adult child did not contribute to the acquisition of the house, the adult child can take a full fair market value basis in a house acquired from a joint tenancy. Here is an example very loosely based on the example on page 10 of IRS Publication 551:
Example: Joan and Jane owned, as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, Joan’s home. Joan paid $300K for it, Jane paid nothing for it. Upon Joan’s death, the home has a fair market value of $600K. Jane inherits (as the surviving joint tenant) the house from Joan with a $600K basis (a fully stepped-up basis).
If interested, I’ve prepared a technical analysis as to why the surviving non-contributing non-spouse joint tenant receives a full step-up in basis here.
Note that the above full stepped-up basis does not obtain if the gift of a portion of the house was through a tenancy-in-common (instead of through a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship). However, there is little reason to use a tenancy-in-common to transfer a house, because the original owner’s remaining share simply remains in his/her name, and absent other arrangements, passes through probate.
Other Problems with Joint Tenancies
If the capital gains tax upon the original owner’s death isn’t an issue, why not use a joint tenancy to transfer your house to your adult children? Here are some of the considerations.
Capital Gains Tax
Wait, what? I thought you said capital gains taxes were not an issue. They generally aren’t an issue after the original owner’s death. But they can be an issue before his or her death.
What if, during the owner’s lifetime, the house is sold? What if there’s a pressing need to sell the house, perhaps to help pay for long-term care?
The owner/occupant is at least somewhat protected by the $250K per person primary residence gain exclusion. But the adult child is not protected by that exclusion if the home is not their primary residence. The adult child could have to pay capital gains tax (based on their share of the proceeds less their share of the owner’s historic tax basis) on the transaction if the house is sold prior to the owner/occupant’s death.
Loss of Control
Simply put, transferring an interest in your home to another person relinquishes some of your control over the property. You never know if you will need that control in the future. Proceed with significant caution, and consult a trusted lawyer, prior to putting anyone else on the title of your home.
Gift Tax
While not a horrible problem, adding an adult child to the title of a house as a gift requires the filing of a Form 709 gift tax return. Due to the high estate and gift tax exemptions, in most cases it is highly unlikely the transfer would trigger actual gift tax.
Disputes Among Adult Children
Adding multiple adult children to the title as joint tenants with rights of survivorship can create issues after the parent’s death. If siblings cannot agree amongst themselves how to handle and/or dispose of the house, the disagreement can be difficult to resolve. Using a revocable living trust (which becomes irrevocable upon the parent’s death) gives the parent the opportunity to work with their lawyer to put in place a trustee and ground rules for how the house is to be managed and/or disposed of after death.
Children’s Issues
Adult children are people. And people have problems. Divorces, liabilities, bankruptcies, etc. Putting an adult child on the title of a home could subject the home to the adult child’s creditors in a problematic manner.
Summary
The above are just some of the considerations to weigh before adding adult children to the title of a home as a joint tenant with rights of survivorship.
Revocable living trusts keep control with the original owner. Further, they facilitate transferring real estate to the next generation in a tax-efficient manner. Based on these advantages and the issues that exist with joint tenancies, I generally prefer revocable living trusts over joint tenancies for primary residences. Using a will can also be effective from a tax perspective, but should be discussed with a lawyer considering state and local real estate laws. Some states have transfer-on-death type real estate deeds, which also should be considered with a lawyer (if that sort of deed is available).
Outright Gift
You might be saying, well, I have only one child I want to give my house to. Further, I don’t need to own my house. Why not simply give the house outright to that child during my life and avoid any legal events/issues occurring at my death?
Besides some of the issues discussed above and the full loss of control (which are troublesome enough), an outright gift creates a significant capital gains tax issue for the adult child. This capital gains tax issue exists both before and after the original owner’s death.
William lives in a house he purchased in 1970 for $50,000. In 2019 the house is worth $950,000. If William gifts the house to his son Alan in 2019, Alan’s basis in the house is $50,000. However, if William leaves the house to Alan at William’s death, Alan’s basis in the house will be the fair market value of the house at William’s death.
Giving William’s house to Alan during William’s lifetime could increase the capital gains taxable to Alan by $900K! Ouch!
So, whatever you do (a) consult with your lawyer before determining how to pass your house to your children and (b) be very, very hesitant to outright give your house to your child.
Conclusion
There are various ways in which you can transfer your home to your children. In many cases, I believe revocable living trusts are a great way to leave a house to children. You are always well advised to consult with your lawyer before making any decisions on how you want to title your house and how you want to transfer your house. If you do inherit a house from your parents, you should consult with a lawyer regarding titling issues and with your tax professional regarding the tax implications of selling the inherited home.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
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.
Roth 401(k)s are gaining prominence as a tax-advantaged workplace retirement account. This post provides introductory information regarding Roth 401(k)s and their potential benefits as a retirement savings account.
Two important introductory notes. First, not all 401(k) plans offer a Roth option, so for some employees, a Roth 401(k) contribution is not an option. Second, this post is for educational purposes only and is not advice for any particular taxpayer.
Traditional 401(k) versus Roth 401(k)
In an ideal world, contributions by an employee to a traditional 401(k) result in a tax deduction when contributed, and taxable income when withdrawn.
Example 1: Tony makes $100,000 from his employer in W-2 wages in 2021. Tony contributes $15,000 during the course of 2021 to his employer’s traditional 401(k). Tony will receive a W-2 from his employer reporting $85,000 of taxable W-2 wages for 2021.
In an ideal world, contributions by an employee to a Roth 401(k) result in no tax deduction when contributed, and no taxable income when withdrawn.
Example 2: Rudy makes $100,000 from his employer in W-2 wages in 2021. Rudy contributes $15,000 during the course of 2021 to his employer’s Roth 401(k). Rudy will receive a W-2 from his employer reporting $100,000 of taxable W-2 wages for 2021.
Roth 401(k) Contributions
Employees can contribute the lesser of their earned income or $19,500 (2021 limit) to a Roth 401(k) in “employee deferrals.” For those 50 years old or older, the 2021 limit is the lesser of earned income or $26,000.
The employee deferral limit factors in both traditional 401(k) employee contributions and Roth 401(k) employee contributions. Here’s an illustrative example.
Example 3: Sarah, age 35, earns $100,000 in W-2 income in 2021 at Acme Industries, Inc. Sarah contributes the maximum to her 401(k) plan. Assuming Acme offers both a traditional 401(k) and a Roth 401(k), that maximum $19,500 contribution can be split up however Sarah chooses ($13,000 to the traditional 401(k) and $6,500 to the Roth 401(k), $5,000 to the traditional 401(k) and $14,500 to the Roth 401(k), etc.).
Any combination (including all in the traditional or all in the Roth) is permissible as long as the total does not exceed $19,500 (using 2021’s limits).
Roth 401(k) Contributions: Income Limits
There’s good news here. Unlike their Roth IRA cousins, Roth 401(k) contributions have no income limits. In theory, one could make $1 billion annually in W-2 income and still contribute $19,500 to a Roth 401(k).
Matching Contributions
Employer matching contributions are one of the best benefits of 401(k) plans.
Example 4: Elaine, age 35, works at Perry Publishing. She earns a salary of $50,000. Perry matches 50% of the first 6% of salary that Elaine contributes to her 401(k). Elaine decides to contribute $3,000 (6 percent) of her salary to the 401(k) as a Roth contribution. Perry contributes $1,500 as a matching contribution. The $1,500 employer match goes into the 401(k) as a traditional contribution. The $3,000 and its growth are treated as a Roth 401(k), and the $1,500 and its growth are treated as a traditional 401(k).
Matching contributions may be subject to vesting requirements, as described in this post. Employee contributions to a 401(k) (whether traditional or Roth) are always 100% vested.
Roth 401(k) Withdrawals
The greatest benefits of a Roth 401(k) are tax-free growth and tax-free withdrawals. Tax-free withdrawals are generally the goal, but they are not automatic. Recently, I wrote a post on Roth 401(k) withdrawals.
One important consideration regarding Roth 401(k) withdrawals: Roth 401(k)s are subject to the required minimum distribution rules starting at age 72. Thus, you must start withdrawing money from a Roth 401(k) at age 72. As a result, you will have less wealth growing tax-free. For this reason, many consider rolling Roth 401(k)s to Roth IRAs prior to age 72.
Conclusion
Roth 401(k)s provide a great opportunity to save and invest for retirement. Taxpayers should consider their own circumstances, and often consult with tax professionals, in deciding their own investment program.
Further Reading
For more information about 401(k) plans, please read this post.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
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.
We live in a Roth IRA world (or, at least I wish we did). We also live in a world where increasing numbers of people invest through a Roth 401(k).
The Roth 401(k) is still a relatively new account. Taxpayers and practitioners alike are still learning its contours. Things get even more complicated when you roll money from a workplace Roth 401(k) to a Roth IRA.
To get our feet wet, first I will illustrate the ordering rules for withdrawals from a Roth IRA. Then we will explore withdrawals from a Roth 401(k).
Note that much of this post discusses withdrawals before age 59 ½. In most cases, it is not wise to take a withdrawal from a retirement account before age 59 ½ unless (a) there is an emergency or (b) it is part of a well crafted financial plan.
Watch me discuss Roth 401(k) withdrawals.
Default Rule for Roth IRA Withdrawals: The Layers
Unless the distribution qualifies as a “qualified distribution” (see below), amounts come out of Roth IRAs in layers. Only after one layer has been exhausted can the next layer come out.
Here is the order of distributions that come out of a Roth IRA:
Second Layer: Roth IRA conversions (first-in, first-out)
Third Layer: Roth IRA earnings
Here’s a brief example:
Example 1: Steve has made five $5,000 contributions to his Roth IRA in previous years. He also made a $10,000 conversion from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in 2014. In 2021, at a time when his Roth IRA is worth $60,000 and Steve is 45 years old, he takes a $10,000 withdrawal from his Roth IRA. All $10,000 will be a recovery of his previous contributions (leaving him with $15,000 remaining of previous contributions). Thus, the entire distribution from the Roth IRA will be tax and penalty free.
The Roth IRA contributions come out tax and penalty free at any time for any reason!
A qualified distribution from a Roth IRA is usually one where the account holder both (i) has owned a Roth IRA for at least 5 years and (ii) is at least 59 ½ years old. If either condition is not satisfied, the default layering rules described above apply. Qualified distributions from a Roth IRA are tax and penalty free regardless of the layers inside the Roth IRA.
See page 31 of IRS Publication 590-B for more information about qualified distributions from Roth IRAs.
Roth 401(k) Withdrawals
First, a practical note: employers may restrict in-service Roth 401(k) withdrawals before age 59 1/2. Consider that before thinking about how the tax rules apply to withdrawals.
Default Rule: Cream-in-the-Coffee
Generally speaking, Roth 401(k)s have (1) investment in the contract (“IITC”), which is generally previous contributions and conversions and (2) earnings.
Unlike the sequenced layering of Roth IRA withdrawals, Roth 401(k) withdrawals generally default to what Ed Slott refers to as the “cream-in-the-coffee” rule (see Choate — discussed below, page 140).
As a result, withdrawals default to carrying out both some IITC and some earnings. Here’s an example:
Example 2: Lilly has made five $6,000 contributions to her Roth 401(k) in previous years. She also made a $10,000 conversion from a traditional 401(k) to her Roth 401(k) in 2014. In 2021, at a time when her Roth 401(k) is worth $60,000 and Lilly is 45 years old, she takes a $10,000 withdrawal from her Roth 401(k). Two-thirds ($6,667, computed as the fraction $40,000 divided by $60,000 times the withdrawal) of the $10,000 will be a recovery of her IITC (entirely tax and penalty free), and one-third ($3,333, computed as the fraction $20,000 divided by $60,000 times the withdrawal) of the $10,000 will be earnings, which are subject to both ordinary income taxation and a 10 percent penalty.
Quick Thought: Had Lilly’s Roth conversion occurred in 2017 or later, the portion attributable to the conversion ($1,667) would be subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty (but not to ordinary income taxation).See Section 402A(c)(4)(D) and Section 408A(d)(3)(F). Note an earlier version had “2018 or earlier” where the bolded words are in error. I regret the error.
Quick Thought: The cream-in-the-coffee rule does not factor in amounts in traditional 401(k) accounts, even if they are within the same 401(k) plan.
Solving the Cream-in-the-Coffee Issue
We see that the cream-in-the-coffee rule has bad effects. It does not allow exclusive access to tax-favored amounts when there are non-tax favored amounts in an account. So what to do? There are three primary exceptions to the cream-in-the-coffee rule.
Exception 1: Wait for a Qualified Distribution
The cream-in-the-coffee rule can be waited out.
A qualified distribution from a Roth 401(k) is a withdrawal that occurs when the owner is age 59 ½ (see Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.402A-1 Q&A 2(b)(2)) and has had that particular Roth 401(k) account for five years (see Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.402A-1 Q&A 2(b)(1) and Q&A 4). Other qualified distributions can occur upon death or disability (if the 5 year test is satisfied), but for our purposes, we will assume for the rest of the article that any qualified distributions are qualified distributions occurring at or after age 59 ½ and after five years of ownership.
The owner of a Roth 401(k) who qualifies for a qualified distribution does not need to roll the Roth 401(k) to a Roth IRA to take a tax free withdrawal. Once the owner qualifies for a qualified distribution he or she can simply withdraw amounts from the Roth 401(k) tax-free.
However, as a practical matter, it is often the case that Roth 401(k)s are rolled into Roth IRAs (for several reasons). If the rollover from the Roth 401(k) to the Roth IRA would qualify as a qualified distribution if taken directly, then the entire amount in the Roth 401(k) (IITC and earnings) goes into the Roth IRA as a contribution. Ian Berger discussed this issue in an August 11, 2022 response to a question. His answer applies the rule in Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-10 Q&A 3 (the sentence beginning with “Thus,”).
Up to the amount rolled into the Roth IRA can be distributed tax and penalty free. So long as the taxpayer has met the 5 year rule with respect to any Roth IRA, any future earnings beyond the amount rolled in can be withdrawn tax free at any time.
Quick Thought: I would be remiss if I didn’t insert the standard tax planner advice that rollovers from Roth 401(k)s to Roth IRAs are best accomplished through a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer.
There is one five year rule nuance to consider. If the taxpayer has never had a Roth IRA, he or she must wait 5 years (regardless of their age) to access later earnings generated by rollover contribution tax free. Here’s a quick example:
Example 3: John is 60 years old. He has never had a Roth IRA. He has had a Roth 401(k) with his employer for over five years. He has made $100,000 of contributions to the Roth 401(k) which has grown to $200,000. He does not need to roll his Roth 401(k) into a Roth IRA to take out money entirely tax and penalty free.
If John chooses to roll all $200,000 in his Roth 401(k) into a Roth IRA, all $200,000 goes into the Roth IRA as a contribution. If John withdraws more than $200,000 from the new Roth IRA before the Roth IRA turns 5 years old, those withdrawals of new earnings would be subject to income tax (though, of course, penalty free since John is over 59 ½ years old).
As a practical matter, as long as the taxpayer does not plan on withdrawing more than the rolled over amount in the first five years, this nuance is not likely to be a gating issue in determining whether the Roth 401(k) should be rolled over to a Roth IRA.
Exception 2: Roth 401(k) Rollover then Withdraw
The second strategy to overcome the cream-in-the-coffee rule is to rollover the Roth 401(k) to a Roth IRA without waiting.
If either the taxpayer is less than 59 ½ years old and/or has not held that particular Roth 401(k) for at least five years, the nonqualified distribution rules apply to the rollover. The Roth 401(k) goes into the Roth IRA as “contributions” to the extent of the IITC in the Roth 401(k), and as “earnings” to the extent of growth in the Roth 401(k).
Recall the example of Lilly above. Here is how it changes if she rolls the Roth 401(k) into a Roth IRA and then takes the withdrawal.
Example 4: Lilly has made five $6,000 contributions to her Roth 401(k) in previous years. She also made a $10,000 conversion from a traditional 401(k) to her Roth 401(k) in 2014. In 2021, at a time when her Roth 401(k) is worth $60,000 and Lilly is 45 years old, she rolls her Roth 401(k) over to a Roth IRA (her first ever). A month later, Lilly takes a $10,000 withdrawal from her Roth IRA. All $10,000 will be a recovery of her previous contributions (leaving her with $30,000 remaining of previous contributions). Thus, the entire withdrawal will be tax and penalty free.
While rollovers of nonqualified distributions do not eliminate Roth 401(k) earnings, they do eliminate the cream-in-the-coffee rule. As a result, Roth 401(k) to Roth IRA rollovers often make sense.
The Five Year Roth Earnings Rule
Where such rollovers can be disadvantageous is the five year rule as applied to earnings. Recall that being age 59 ½ is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to withdrawing Roth earnings tax free. You also need to meet a 5 year rule.
If you have a Roth 401(k) that is 5 years old but have never had any Roth IRA, and you are less than 5 years away from attaining age 59 ½, rolling into a Roth IRA could subject withdrawals of earnings (after age 59 ½) in excess of IITC to ordinary income taxation. That said, often withdrawals do not exhaust contributions in the first five years after a rollover. Thus, often this will not be a gating issue.
Exception 3: Roth 401(k) Withdrawal then Rollover
There is a third way to overcome the cream-in-the-coffee rule. It is to take a withdrawal from the Roth 401(k) and then rollover the earnings component to a Roth IRA. Let’s see how that would affect Lilly:
Example 5: Lilly needs $10,000 and has decided to access it from her Roth 401(k). Lilly has made five $6,000 contributions to her Roth 401(k) in previous years. She also made a $10,000 conversion from a traditional 401(k) to her Roth 401(k) in 2014. In 2021, at a time when her Roth 401(k) is worth $60,000 and Lilly is 45 years old, Lilly takes a $15,000 withdrawal from her Roth 401(k). Based on her Roth 401(k) consisting of two-thirds IITC and one-third earnings, $5,000 of the withdrawal is taxable and subject to an early withdrawal penalty. However, Lilly can, within 60 days, rollover the $5,000 of earnings into a Roth IRA. The earnings will go into the Roth IRA as earnings, and Lilly avoids the tax and penalty on the withdrawal.
Note that if Lilly does this partial rollover, the rollover piece is not subject to the cream-in-the-coffee rule. The partial rollover attracts earnings before attracting any IITC (see Treasury Regulation Section 1.402A-1 Q&A 5).
Note further that if Lilly has no other Roth IRAs, she now has a Roth IRA that consists only of earnings. She will not (generally speaking) be able to touch this Roth IRA without ordinary income tax and a penalty until age 59 ½.
As a practical matter, the “withdraw then rollover” strategy may not be available to Lilly. The 401(k) plan may not allow partial distributions pre-age 59 1/2 after separation from service.
Coordination with the Rule of 55
Many like the Rule of 55, which is a rule that allows taxpayers to take amounts from workplace retirement plans such as 401(k)s without the early withdrawal penalty. It applies when a taxpayer separates from service at age 55 or older (up to age 59 ½, when withdrawals become penalty free), and the plan allows partial withdrawals.
So the question becomes, if you are in the 4.5 year Rule of 55 window (ages 55 to 59 ½) and you separate from service, should you leave a Roth 401(k) in the plan or roll it into a Roth IRA if you need to withdraw from it? Let’s consider an example.
Example 6: James is 56 years old and leaves his employment. He has contributed $100,000 over more than five years to his Roth 401(k), and it is currently worth $200,000. If he keeps the amounts in the Roth 401(k), every dollar he takes out will be half recovery of IITC (tax-free) and half a withdrawal of earnings (taxable, but qualifies for a penalty exception). If, instead, James follows the “rollover then withdraw” strategy and rolls his Roth 401(k) to a Roth IRA, the first $100,000 he withdraws before age 59 ½ will be a return of contributions, and only if he exceeds $100,000 in withdrawals will he have ordinary income and a penalty. A second option for James would be to do the “withdraw then rollover” strategy whereby James would direct half of each distribution (the earnings half) to a Roth IRA in order to avoid ordinary income taxation on the earnings portion.
This illustrates that numbers matter in this regard. It also shows that as long as the pre-age 59 ½ withdrawals will be less than the previous Roth 401(k) contributions, it is generally better to take the withdrawals from a rollover Roth IRA than from a Roth 401(k) penalty protected by the Rule of 55.
However, if one employs the “withdraw then rollover” strategy, keeping money in the Roth 401(k) can work as effectively as rolling over to a Roth IRA.
A Note on Rollovers
Any designated Roth account (401(k), 403(b), and/or 457) can be rolled into a Roth IRA. Designated Roth accounts can be rolled into other designated Roth accounts, though note there can some be some complexity in this regard.
Roth IRAs cannot be rolled into a designated Roth account, including a Roth 401(k).
The IRS has a handy rollover chart accessible here.
SECURE 2.0 Update
SECURE 2.0 makes three changes relating to Roth 401(k)s. First, it eliminates required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) from Roth 401(k)s during the owner’s lifetime. This change has little practical effect, as many Roth 401(k)s will ultimately be rolled to Roth IRAs anyway in order for the owner to obtain more investment choice and control of the account.
Second, SECURE 2.0 mandates that beginning in 2024, employee catch-up contributions to 401(k) accounts must be Roth contributions if the employee made more than $145,000 in wages the prior year.
Third, SECURE 2.0 allows employer contributions to Roth 401(k)s.
I suspect that based on the second and third changes, more employers may offer Roth 401(k)s in addition to traditional 401(k)s.
Further Reading
For those interested in seeing more information on distributions out of Roth IRAs after rollovers of Roth 401(k)s, please see Treasury Regulation Sec. 1.408A-10. For more information on rollovers of distributions from Roth 401(k)s into Roth IRAs, please see Treasury Regulation Sec. 1.402A-1.
The rules around Roth 401(k)s are complex, and different than those applicable to Roth IRAs. This blog post only presents an educational introduction to those rules. Taxpayers should exercise extra caution, and often consult with tax professionals, before moving money out of a Roth 401(k).
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
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.
It won’t surprise many to find out that a tax-focused financial planner is fond of the Roth IRA. Below is a brief review of the advantages of a Roth IRA.
Tax Free Growth
Amounts in Roth IRAs grow tax free. Considering many Americans may now live into their 80s, 90s, and beyond, this is a tremendous benefit.
The only caveat is that in order for all distributions from Roth IRAs to be tax and penalty free, they generally have to be either (a) a return of contributions or of sufficiently aged conversions (see below), or (b) a distribution of earnings made in the Roth IRA (or other amounts in the Roth IRA) at a time when the owner of the account is 59 ½ or older and has owned a Roth IRA for at least five years.
The rules for ordering distributions out of a Roth IRA generally provide that contributions come out first, and then the oldest conversions come out next. This means that in many cases Roth IRA distributions, even those occurring before age 59 ½, are tax and penalty free.
N.B. Generally speaking, you want to only take a distribution from a Roth IRA before age 59 ½ if it is either (i) a serious emergency or (ii) part of a well crafted, very intentional financial plan.
Ease of Administration and Withdrawal
There are many financial institutions that provide Roth IRAs. Investment expenses in low-cost index funds at financial institutions that provide Roth IRAs are approaching zero. Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab are among the very good providers of low-cost Roth IRAs (and there are others).
It is also relatively easy to access money inside a Roth IRA. This makes the Roth IRA a great account to have in an emergency. Of course, it is generally best to leave money inside a Roth IRA to let it grow tax free, but it is good to know that you can access money in a Roth IRA relatively easily if an emergency arises.
Tax Free Withdrawals of Contributions
This is a great benefit of the Roth IRA. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be withdrawn at any time for any reason tax and penalty free. Further, the first money deemed distributed from a Roth IRA is a contribution. Here is a quick example:
Mark is 35 years old in 2025. He made $6,000 contributions to his Roth IRA in each of 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 (for $30,000 total). In 2025, when his Roth IRA is worth $41,000, Mark withdraws $10,000 from his Roth IRA in 2025. All $10,000 will be deemed to be a return of contributions, and thus entirely tax free and penalty free.
The only exception is a taxpayer favorable exception: a timely withdrawal of an excess contribution (and related earnings) occurs before regular contributions are considered withdrawn.
N.B. Roth 401(k)s, 403(b)s, and 457s have different distribution rules — most pre-age 59 ½ distributions will take out some taxable earnings.
Tax Free Withdrawals of Sufficiently Aged Converted Amounts
If you convert an amount into a Roth IRA, you start a five year clock as of January 1st of the year of the conversion. Quick example:
Mike is 35 years old in 2025. Mike converts $10,000 from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA on July 2, 2025. His five year conversion clock starts January 1, 2025. On January 1, 2030, Mike can withdraw the entire $10,000 he converted in 2025 tax and penalty free.
This feature of the Roth IRA, the tax free withdrawal of sufficiently aged conversions, is the basis for the Roth Conversion Ladder strategy. Sufficiently aged converted amounts are deemed to come out after contributions are exhausted and before more recent conversions and earnings come out.
No Required Minimum Distributions
During an account holder’s lifetime, there are no required minimum distributions from a Roth IRA. You can live to 150 and never be required to take money from a Roth IRA.
Creditor Protection
In federal bankruptcy proceedings, Roth IRAs are (as of 2024), protected up to $1,512,350.
Where there can be differences in liability protection are state general creditor claims (i.e., creditor protection in non-bankruptcy situations). In some states, Roth IRAs receive a level of creditor protection similar to that of ERISA plans. Generally, such protection is absolute against all creditors except for an ex-spouse or the IRS.
In other states, Roth IRAs receive no or limited creditor protection. In my home state of California, Roth IRAs are only creditor protected up to the amount necessary to provide for you and your dependents in your retirement (as determined by the court). Such protection is valuable but hardly airtight.
A Sneaky Way to Contribute More to Your Retirement
Yes, in theory everyone should save for retirement based on exacting calculations (i.e., I estimate I need $X in retirement, so based on projections I save $A in traditional accounts and $B in Roth accounts this year). That’s the theory.
In practice, it’s “I maxed out this account and that account” or “I put $C into this account and $D into that account.” There isn’t that much wrong with how we practically save for retirement, as long as we are saving sufficient amounts for retirement.
But not all “maxing out” is created equal. We know this because if Jane has $100,000 in a traditional IRA and Mary has $100,000 in a Roth IRA, who has more wealth? Mary! Unless Jane can always be in a zero percent income tax bracket, Mary has more than Jane, even though they both nominally have $100,000.
A Great Account to Leave to Heirs
While non-spouse heirs will have to take taxable required distributions from inherited IRAs (in many cases beginning in 2020 they will need to drain the account within 10 years of death), heirs are never taxed on distributions from Roth IRAs. This makes a Roth IRA a great account to leave to your heirs.
Compare with Other Retirement Accounts
No other retirement account combines ease of administration and withdrawal, low costs, significant tax benefits, creditor protection, and great emergency access the way the Roth IRA does. Most workplace retirement plans have some restrictions on withdrawals. Traditional account withdrawals do not have the tax advantages of a Roth IRA. Distributions from a traditional IRA, even one at a low-cost, easy to use discount brokerage, will trigger ordinary income taxes, and possible penalties, if withdrawn for emergency use.
Financial Planning Objectives
Personal finance is indeed personal. But I submit the following: pretty much every individual has some desire (and/or need) to not work at some point in his/her lifetime and every individual needs to be prepared for emergencies. Further, these are two very important financial planning objectives for most, if not all, individuals.
If the above is true, then we must ask “which account type best supports the combination of these two pressing financial planning objectives?” It appears to me that the answer is clearly the Roth IRA.
None of this is to say that a Roth IRA is the only way to plan for retirement and plan for emergencies, but rather, it is to say that, generally speaking, a Roth IRA ought to be a material element in such planning. Other tools, such as other retirement accounts, insurances, investments in taxable accounts, and sufficiently funded emergency funds are likely needed in addition to a Roth IRA.
Retirement Accounts and Emergencies
Let’s examine how a Roth IRA might help someone facing a very serious emergency.
Picture Jack, who is 52 years old, and has a full time job. He has $1M in a traditional 401(k) and $10,000 in cash in a taxable account. That’s it. Then picture Chuck, also 52 with a full time job. Chuck has $700,000 in a traditional 401(k), $250,000 in a Roth IRA, and $10,000 in cash.
Who is better situated to deal with an emergency? Far and away the answer is Chuck. 401(k)s are difficult to access in an emergency. First of all, the 401(k) plan might not allow in-service distributions, and it might not allow taking out a loan.
Even if the 401(k) allows in-service distributions, distributions from 401(k)s are immediately taxable, and often subject to penalties (10% federal, 2.5% in California, for example) if you are under age 59 ½. Loans, while not immediately taxable, can become taxable if not paid back.
Long story short, a 401(k) may be a tough nut to crack in an emergency.
What about a Roth IRA? In Chuck’s case, he can access his prior Roth IRA contributions and sufficiently aged contributions tax and penalty free at any time for any reason! And his Roth IRA is easy to access, particularly if it is at a low-cost discount brokerage.
When you combine tax-free growth, no requirement to take required minimum distributions during the account holder’s lifetime, and the best emergency access of any tax-advantaged retirement account, it is difficult to see why working adults should not have at least some money in a Roth IRA.
When a Roth IRA Doesn’t Make Sense
The short answer is: not often! I struggle to come up with profiles of individuals that would not benefit from having some amount in a Roth IRA.
I can think of two profiles. The first, a rare case, is someone with very large legal liabilities such that all of their wealth would benefit from the creditor protections offered by an ERISA retirement plan (such as a 401(k)) and who needs almost all of their wealth shielded from creditors.
First, if you have built up 6 figures or more in wealth, having creditors able to claim your entire wealth is relatively rare. Second, in most cases, good insurance coverage, including adequate medical insurance, professional liability insurance (as applicable), home and automobile insurance, and personal umbrella liability insurance, should protect the vast majority of people such that they could withstand any liability exposure caused by having money in a Roth IRA instead of an ERISA protected plan.
The second profile is someone with incredibly high income currently and very little anticipated income in the future (such that their future tax rate is much lower than today’s rate). This too is a bit of a unicorn – people with high income today tend to have decent income tomorrow (even in the FI community).
Health Savings Accounts
It will also come as no surprise that I am fond of health savings accounts. Health savings accounts share some of the attributes that make the Roth IRA such a winner for both retirement savings and emergency planning.
But, there are some drawbacks. First, the distribution ordering rules are not as taxpayer friendly. While it may be the case that you have sufficient old medical expenses that you can reimburse yourself for (and thus not pay tax and a penalty on the HSA distribution), that is not always going to be the case, and even if it is, does add a layer of complexity.
Second, the HSA is not for everyone. If a high deductible health plan is not good medical insurance for you, an HSA is generally off the table.
So, that leaves the HSA as a fantastic option for those who qualify for and use a high deductible health plan (and usually an option that should be part of a comprehensive financial plan if you use a HDHP). But it also means that the HSA is not quite as good as a tool for the combination of retirement saving and emergency planning.
Conclusion
Assuming that an individual (a) has retirement planning and emergency preparedness as financial planning objectives and (b) is not in a position where legal liabilities would cripple them without ERISA creditor protection, it is hard to argue against having at least some material amount in a Roth IRA.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
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.
