HUGE UPDATE: On October 16, 2023, the IRS issued this, extending the October 16, 2023 deadline for 2022 tax acts and filings to November 2023.The IRS announcement allows (most) Californians to make Roth IRA, traditional IRA, and HSA contributions for 2022 up to November 16, 2023 and delays the deadline for many 2022 federal income tax returns and income tax payments to November 16, 2023. Hat tip to Justin Miller on X for the news.
Please enjoy below the rest of my post, as originally authored in August 2023, understanding that now you can replace “October 16” with “November 16” for most Californians.
I’m glad that title intrigued you enough to stop on by. It’s not too late for most Californians to make a 2022 IRA contribution, a 2022 Roth IRA contribution, a 2022 HSA contribution, and/or do a 2022 Backdoor Roth IRA contribution.
You’re probably thinking “What the heck are you talking about? It’s the late summer 2023. Time to be thinking about football, not funding 2022 IRAs and HSAs.”
Your thoughts are correct as applied to most Americans. However, most Californians are the beneficiaries of a special situation. The IRS announced that because of early 2023 flooding in many areas of California, most Californians have an extended deadline, October 16, 2023, to perform most 2022 tax acts that otherwise would have been due early in 2023.
This extension opens the door for millions of Californians to consider 2022 contributions to tax-advantaged accounts. Of course, nothing increases the amount Californians can contribute. Thus, those who have already maxed out for 2022 do not benefit from this deadline extension.
2022 Traditional IRA Contributions
Most working Californians can still make 2022 contributions to a traditional IRA. If the taxpayer has not yet filed their 2022 Form 1040, the deduction or the Form 8606 (for a nondeductible contribution) can simply be included with the to-be filed Form 1040.
But what if the taxpayer has already filed their Form 1040 for 2022? Then the question becomes: are they deducting their 2022 traditional IRA contribution? If no, then the taxpayer can simply file a Form 8606 as a standalone tax return to report the 2022 nondeductible contribution.
However, if the contribution is tax deductible, then the taxpayer would need to file amended Forms 1040 and 540 (for California) to report the deductible IRA contribution and claim refunds from both the IRS and the Franchise Tax Board for the tax reduced because of the deductible traditional IRA deduction.
2022 Roth IRA Contributions
Many working Californians can still make 2022 contributions to a Roth IRA. Since Roth IRA contributions are not deductible, and do not require a separate form to report them, the contribution likely would not require any amending of already-filed 2022 tax returns. One exception would be the case of a taxpayer with a low income in 2022. He or she could make a 2022 Roth IRA contribution and possibly qualify for the Saver’s Credit. In order to claim the credit, they would need to amend their Form 1040 if they already filed it for 2022.
2022 Backdoor Roth IRAs
It’s not too late for a 2022 Backdoor Roth IRA for some Californians! This would be a Split-Year Backdoor Roth IRA. The pressing deadline as of late August 2023 is that the 2022 nondeductible traditional IRA contribution needs to be made by October 16, 2023.
Anyone pursuing a Split-Year Backdoor Roth IRA for 2022 in 2023 should ensure they have no balances in traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and/or SIMPLE IRAs as of December 31, 2023.
2022 HSA Contributions
Some Californians can still make 2022 contributions to a health savings account. If the taxpayer has not yet filed their 2022 Form 1040, the tax deduction can simply be added to the to-be filed Form 1040.
But what if the taxpayer has already filed their Form 1040 for 2022? Then the taxpayer would need to file amended Form 1040 to claim the tax deduction and the resulting tax refund from the IRS. Since California does not recognize HSAs, there’s no California tax deduction and no need to amend the California Form 540.
Of course, the taxpayer must meet the eligibility requirements (generally, having had a high deductible health plan as their only medical insurance) in 2022 in order to contribute to a HSA for 2022.
Practical Considerations
First, contributions to IRAs, Roth IRAs, and HSAs made in 2023 that are to count for 2022 must be specifically designated as being for 2022.
Second, I believe that in many cases, in order for qualifying Californians to do this, it will be necessary to use the phone, not internet portals. I suspect most financial institutions’ internet portals will not accommodate a 2022 IRA/Roth IRA/HSA contribution this late. Remember, financial institutions would not want to encourage the vast majority of Americans who do not currently qualify to make 2022 contributions to make 2022 contributions.
Thus, I believe as a practical matter using the phone is a best practice in terms of making any 2022 contributions at this late date.
Who Benefits?
Residents of all California counties except threequalify for the extended deadline. The vast majority of the population of the state qualifies for the extended deadline, but residents of Lassen, Modoc, and Shasta do not appear to qualify (don’t blame me, I don’t make the rules!).
Note that some taxpayers in parts of Alabama and Georgia qualify for this opportunity, but I personally have not explored this in any detail.
Conclusion
Many California residents should consider whether there is some extended last minute 2022 tax planning they can implement by October 16, 2023.
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.
I’m pleased to announce that FI Tax Guy has been nominated for the Best Tax-Focused Content Plutus Award at the upcoming 14th Annual Plutus Awards.
The Plutus Awards honor personal finance independent media content creators.
The award winners will be announced on September 22nd.
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, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
Yesterday I posted Time to Stop 401(k) Contributions?, arguing that as applied to many in the FI community, traditional deductible 401(k) contributions are fine.
Second, UBS and Credit Suisse issued their Global Wealth Report for 2023. Allow me to call your attention to page 16. The median American adult has personal wealth just a bit under $108,000. This means almost half of American adults have less than $100K of wealth, and the majority of American adults do not have $200K of wealth. For most Americans, deferred taxation is not the problem! Sufficiency is the problem!
For me this report cracks the case. If the median American adult does not have close to sufficient wealth to comfortably retire, why are they worried about taxes in retirement?
Assuming this report is anywhere near close to a correct measure of adult American wealth, I believe I am correct and personal finance legends Ed Slott and Clark Howard are wrong when it comes to the traditional 401(k) versus Roth 401(k) debate.
The best way for working Americans to address sufficiency problems is by contributing to traditional, deductible retirement accounts. As demonstrated below, one employing this sort of deduct, deduct, deduct strategy would need to be successful well beyond what most Americans accomplish in order to create a tax problem.
When one has insufficient resources for retirement, the traditional, deductible 401(k) makes the most sense. He or she needs to build up assets, not worry about future taxes! With relatively little in the way of resources, future taxes are not likely to be a problem (especially in retirement when compared to one’s working years). Further, by contributing to a traditional, deductible 401(k) instead of a Roth 401(k), one behind in retirement saving takes home more money to invest in additional saving mechanisms such as Roth IRAs and taxable brokerage accounts.
Let’s Break Down Some Retirement Numbers
I believe we need some numbers to figure out who’s right.
Example 1: I start with Single Sally, who is 75 years old. Since she is somewhat like the median American, but older, let’s assume she has $250,000 of wealth and receives $30,000 a year in Social Security. Assume further that all $250K is in a traditional IRA and Sally, age 75, wants to live for today: she isn’t constrained by the 4% rule but rather decides to withdraw 10 percent per year ($25,000). On that $55,000 annual gross income, Single Sally pays just over $2,000 in federal income taxes (an effective rate less than 4%).
Why would Sally pass on a 10%, 12%, or 22% deduction from a traditional 401(k) contribution during her working years? Why would Single Sally put the money in a Roth 401(k) so as to avoid a less than 4% federal income tax in retirement? And how different is Sally’s situation from that of many Americans?
Update 8/17/2023: Single Sally is in the Tax Torpedo, an interesting tax phenomenon with a modest impact on her total tax liability. I added a spreadsheet to look at this in more detail.
Example 2: But Sean, I’m reading your blog. I’m not shooting for just $250K in retirement wealth! Okay, let’s start testing it by considering wealth significantly above the mean and median adult Americans. Single Sarah is 75 years old. She receives $30,000 a year in Social Security. But now she also has a $1M traditional IRA and takes an RMD ($40,650) based on her age. Single Sarah also has some taxable accounts and thus has $4,000 of qualified dividend income and $1,000 of interest income. On that approximate $76,000 annual gross income, Single Sarah pays just over $7,200 in federal income taxes (an effective rate of a bit more than 9.5%).
In order to grow a $1M traditional IRA (likely rolled over from workplace 401(k)s), she almost certainly was in the 22% or greater federal marginal tax bracket while working. Why would Single Sarah switch from taking a 22% tax deduction (the traditional 401(k) contribution) to a Roth 401(k) contribution to avoid a 9.5% effective federal tax rate in retirement?
Example 3: Example 3 is Single Sarah at age 80. Her investments are doing so well her traditional IRA is still worth $1M, causing her to be required to take a $49,505 RMD. This causes her federal income tax to increase to $9,175, for an effective federal income tax rate of almost 11%.
How many Americans will get to age 80 with $1M or more in tax deferred accounts? Even if they do, how bad is the tax problem? If Single Sarah’s effective tax rate is 11%, a 50% tax hike gets her to about 16.5%. Will she enjoy paying that tax? No. Is it crippling? Hardly!
Still worried about contributing to a traditional 401(k)? I’ve got a video for you!
Conclusion
The next time you hear “30 or 40% of your 401(k) belongs to the government” you should consider my examples. For many Americans, “10%” will be much closer to the mark than 30% or 40%.
It’s time to step back and ask whether prioritizing Roth 401(k) contributions during one’s working career is the best advice for the majority of Americans. As demonstrated above, a tax increase of 50 percent (highly unlikely) would result in most Americans having an effective tax rate below 20% in retirement.
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, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
Ed Slott believes most Americans should not contribute to traditional 401(k)s. His recent essay on the subject is a great opportunity for the FI community to reassess its love for the traditional 401(k).
My conclusion is that for many in the FI community, traditional deductible 401(k) contributions are still the most logical path when it comes to workplace retirement saving. Below I explain my thinking.
It is important to note it is impossible to make a blanket statement as applied to the entire FI community.
Why the Traditional 401(k) Is Good for the FI Community
Many in the FI community have the very reasonable hope that in retirement they will have years, possibly decades, where their effective tax rate will be lower than their marginal tax rate in their working years.
The above is true of many Americans, but it is particularly true if one retires early by conventional standards. The idea is deduct, deduct, deduct into the 401(k) during one’s working years (particularly the high earning years) and then retire early by conventional standards. Prior to collecting Social Security and/or required minimum distributions (“RMDs”), most retirees look artificially poor on their tax return. This opens up the door to affirmatively convert money from traditional retirement accounts to Roth accounts and pay tax at the lowest federal income tax brackets (currently 10% and 12%). For those who deducted contributions into the 401(k) at a 24% or greater marginal federal tax rate, this is great tax rate arbitrage planning.
Minor litigation risks aside, this strategy just got even easier for those born in 1960 and later, who don’t have to take RMDs under SECURE 2.0 until age 75. With the new delayed RMD beginning date, even those retiring as late as age 65 will have a full decade prior to being required to take RMDs to do tax-efficient Roth conversions at low marginal tax rates. For some in the FI community, this opportunity window might not be a decade long but rather a quarter-century long (if they retire at age 50).
How Bad is the Retiree Tax Problem?
As wonderful as FI tax rate arbitrate planning might be, Ed Slott’s concern that retiree taxes will increase is not entirely unwarranted. It is obvious that the government is not fiscally responsible, and it is obvious that tax increases could be coming in the future.
Let’s assess the situation by looking at just how bad the problem of taxes is in retirement.
We begin with a baseline case. David and Hannah are in their 70s. They never did Roth conversions in early retirement and have the bulk of their financial assets in traditional IRAs and traditional 401(k)s. During most of their working years, David and Hannah maxed out 401(k)s and got deductions in the 24% bracket or greater. For 2023, they have taxable RMDs of $160,000, Social Security of $40,000, $4,000 of qualified dividends and $1,000 of interest income. How bad is their federal income tax situation?
Federal Income Tax Return
RMDs
$ 160,000
Social Security
$ 40,000
15% Social Security Exclusion
$ (6,000)
Interest
$ 1,000
Qualified Dividends
$ 4,000
Adjusted Gross Income (“AGI”)
$ 199,000
Standard Deduction
$ (27,700)
Additional SD Age 65+
$ (3,000)
Federal Taxable Income
$ 168,300
Federal Income Tax (Estimated)
$ 27,361
Effective Tax Rate on AGI
13.75%
Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate
22%
Under today’s rules, David and Hannah, who did no tax planning other than “deduct, deduct, deduct” are doing great. Their federal effective tax rate, even with $200K of RMDs and Social Security, is just 13.75%. They incur such a low effective tax rate because their RMDs go against the 10% tax bracket, the 12% bracket, and the 22% bracket.
While I do think David and Hannah would be in a better position had they done some tax efficient Roth conversion planning earlier in retirement, their unbridled enthusiasm for traditional retirement accounts served them well.
Note: David and Hannah are borderline IRMAA candidates: a $199K 2023 AGI might cost them approximately $2,000 in IRMAA surcharges in 2025 (but it is possible that inflation adjustments for 2025 will prevent that from happening). This is another reason to consider pre-RMD Roth conversions at lower marginal tax rates.
Update 8/19/2023: But what about thewidow’s tax trap? If David or Hannah die, won’t the survivor get crushed by tax increases? Check out this estimate. Assuming the survivor loses the lower-earning spouse’s Social Security benefits of at least $10,000, the survivor’s marginal federal income tax rate would climb from 22% all the way up to . . . 24%!
But what about future tax increases? Okay, let’s add four tax increases to the picture and see just how bad it looks:
Eliminate the TCJA increase to the standard deduction (the law reverts to pre-2018 lower standard deduction and personal exemptions). This would reduce David and Hannah’s deductions by roughly $2,740, costing them approximately $602.80 in additional federal income tax (at today’s 22% marginal tax rate).
Eliminate the TCJA decrease in the 15% tax bracket to 12%. This would cost David and Hannah $2,023.50 in additional federal income tax. I’m highly skeptical that either of these two tax increases will actually occur, but as written in today’s laws they are scheduled to happen in 2026.
Increase the 15% long term capital gains and qualified dividend income rate to 25%. While I believe that the real risk is an increase in the 20% long term capital gains and qualified dividend income rate, let’s stress test things and consider a large increase in the 15% rate. In David and Hannah’s case, this costs them $400 in additional federal income tax.
Increase the 22% tax rate to 33%. Ed Slott is worried about large tax rate increases, so let’s consider one that I believe is politically infeasible, a 50% increase in the 22% tax bracket. This type of tax rate increase would hit millions of voters in a major way. But it’s helpful to consider what could be a worst case scenario. In this case, this tax rate increase costs David and Hannah an additional $8,233.50 in federal income tax.
There’s one more tax hike to consider: the combination of tax increases numbers 1 and 4. If both occurred together, combined they would cost David and Hannah an additional $301.40 in federal income tax.
Here’s what David and Hannah’s federal tax picture looks like if all of the above tax increases occur:
Federal Income Tax Return
RMDs
$ 160,000
Social Security
$ 40,000
15% Social Security Exclusion
$ (6,000)
Interest
$ 1,000
Qualified Dividends
$ 4,000
Adjusted Gross Income (“AGI”)
$ 199,000
Standard Deduction
$ (15,240)
Additional SD Age 65+
$ (3,000)
Personal Exemptions
$ (9,720)
Federal Taxable Income
$ 171,040
Federal Income Tax (Estimated)
$ 38,922
Effective Tax Rate on AGI
19.56%
Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate
33%
Significant tax increases hurt David and Hannah, but how much? By my math, very significant tax increases, including a 50% increase in the 22% bracket, cost them about 6% of their income. Not nothing, but wow, they’re still doing very well.
Yes, on the margin, the last dollars David and Hannah contributed to the traditional 401(k) were not ideal since they faced a 33% marginal federal tax rate in retirement. But let’s remember (i) their overall effective rate is still more than 4 percentage points lower than their working years’ marginal rate (at which they deducted their 401(k) contributions), (ii) they have income significantly above what most Americans will have in their 70s, and (iii) in my scenario they face four separate tax hikes and still pay a federal effective tax rate less than 20 percent.
Future Retirees’ Tax Risk
Do future tax hikes pose no threat to future retirees? Absolutely not! But my stress test shows that many Americans with substantial RMDs will not get walloped even if Congress enacts unpopular tax increases. Considering many in the FI community will have modest RMDs due to pre-RMD Roth conversions, the threat of future tax hikes is even less perilous for the FI community.
Further, many Americans, particularly those in the FI community, have a great tool that can mitigate this risk: Roth conversions during retirement! With RMDs now delayed to age 75 for those born in 1960 and later, many Americans will have years if not decades where money can be moved in a tax-efficient manner from old traditional accounts to Roth accounts.
Further, many Americans can claim deductions at work and then at home contribute to a regular Roth IRA or a Backdoor Roth IRA. This too mitigates the risk of having all of one’s retirement eggs in the traditional basket.
Last, do we really believe that Congress is just itching to raise taxes on future retirees? Sure, it’s possible. But to my mind taxes are more likely to be raised on (i) those in higher ordinary income tax brackets and/or (ii) long term capital gains and/or qualified dividends (particularly the current 20% bracket). If anything, the most Congress is likely to do to retirees is slightly increase their taxes so as to mitigate the political risk involved in raising taxes on retirees who tend to vote.
The Risks of Not Having Money in Traditional Retirement Accounts
Risk isn’t a one-way street. There are some risks to not having money in traditional retirement accounts. I identify three below.
Qualification for Premium Tax Credits
Picture it: Joe, age 55, retires with the following assets: (i) a paid off car, (ii) a paid off house, (iii) a $40,000 emergency fund in an on-line savings account, and (iv), $2 million in Roth 401(k)s and Roth IRAs. He heard that Roth is the best, so he only ever contributed to Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s, including having all employer contributions directed to a Roth 401(k). Having fallen into the Rothification Trap, in retirement Joe must work in order to generate sufficient taxable income to qualify for any ACA Premium Tax Credit.
For at least some early retirees, the ability to create modified adjusted gross income by doing Roth conversions will be the way they guarantee qualifying for significant Premium Tax Credits to offset ACA medical insurance premiums.
Charitable Contributions
Many Americans are at least somewhat charitably inclined. Starting at age 70 ½, Americans can transfer money directly from a traditional IRA to a charity, exclude the distribution from taxable income, and still claim the standard deduction. Essentially, if you’re charitably inclined, at a minimum you would want to go into age 70 ½ with enough in your traditional IRAs (likely through contributions to traditional 401(k)s that are later transferred to an IRA) to fund your charitable contributions from 70 ½ until death.
Why ever pay tax on that money (i.e., by making contributions to a Roth 401(k) that are later withdrawn to be donated) if the money is ultimately going to charity anyway?
Unused Standard Deductions
Currently, the government tells married couples, hey, you get to make $27,700 a year income tax free! Why not take advantage of that exclusion every year, especially prior to collecting Social Security (which, in many cases will eat up most, if not all, of the standard deduction).
Why be retired at age 55 with only Roth accounts? By having at least some money in traditional retirement accounts going into retirement, you ensure you can turn traditional money into Roth money tax-free simply by converting (at any time) or even distributing (usually after age 59 1/2) the traditional retirement account against the standard deduction.
Deduct at Work, Roth at Home
I think for many it makes sense to max out traditional 401(k)s at work and contribute to Roth IRAs or Backdoor Roth IRAs at home. Why? As discussed above, traditional 401(k)s can set up tax rate arbitrage in retirement, help early retirees qualify for Premium Tax Credits, and make charitable giving after age 70 ½ very tax efficient. At home, many working Americans do not qualify to deduct IRA contributions, so why not contribute to a Roth IRA or Backdoor Roth IRA, since (i) you aren’t giving up a tax deduction in order to do so and (ii) you establish assets growing tax free for the future.
In this post I discuss why deduct at work, Roth at home can often make sense and I provide examples where Roth 401(k) contributions are likely to be better than traditional 401(k) contributions.
Conclusion
I believe that for many in the FI community, a retirement savings plan that combines (i) traditional deductible 401(k) contributions during one’s working years and (ii) Roth conversions prior to collecting RMDs is likely to be a better path than simply making all workplace retirement contributions Roth contributions.
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 IRAs allow tax-free distributions to fund retirement. However, to help secure retirement savings and avoid premature raiding of Roth IRAs, Congress did not give them blanket exemption from taxes and penalties. Thus, there are times where distributions from Roth IRAs are subject to either or both ordinary income tax and/or the 10% early withdrawal penalty. The IRS and Treasury have issued regulations governing the rules of the road for Roth IRAs, which interpret the rules Congress wrote in IRC Section 408A.
A Few Introductory Notes Before We Get Started
The below post is different from many posts on FITaxGuy.com in two respects. First, my posts tend to be planning focused, though they often dive into tax rules, as a good understanding of the rules helps with planning. This post is almost entirely rules focused rather than planning focused.
Second, the primary audience for this post is tax and financial advisors (though I welcome both laymen and professionals reading and questioning the post). I have recently observed that professionals seem to be confused about the Roth IRA distribution rules. It’s time to lay out the rules with citations to the relevant governing regulations!
Below I lay out my breakdown of the rules with extensive citation to the regulations so you can see where I’m getting my assertions from. You get to be the judge and jury as to whether I have properly presented the relevant rule.
Now, back to the show. Per Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 1(a) “[t]he taxability of a distribution from a Roth IRA generally depends on whether or not the distribution is a qualified distribution.”
Roth IRA Qualified Distributions
A qualified distribution is not included in the Roth IRA’s owner’s gross income (Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 1(b)) and is thus tax free and penalty free (see Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 5(a)).
The way most distributions from a Roth IRA qualify as a “qualified distribution” is by satisfying the requirements that the owner (1) is age 59 ½ or older (see Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 1(b)(2)) and (2) has owned a Roth IRA for at least 5 years (see Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 1(b)(1)).
Once one qualifies for a qualified distribution by satisfying both the age 59 ½ requirement and the 5 year requirement, he or she no longer has any need to consider either of the two Roth IRA 5-year rules (the so-called 5-Year Conversion Clockand the so-called 5-Year Earnings Clock).
Roth IRA Nonqualified Distributions
Now we turn to the taxation of distributions that do not qualify as qualified distributions (what I colloquially refer to as “nonqualified distributions”). As a very general matter, the taxation of these distributions is mostly governed by Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&As 1, 4, 5, 8, and 9.
Ordering Rule
Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 8 provides an ordering rule for distributions from a Roth IRA. This creates three layers. Each layer must be fully withdrawn prior to a subsequent layer being accessed. See Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 8(a).
First, all annual contributions are withdrawn. Second, all previous Roth conversions are withdrawn (first in, first out). Third, earnings (growth) in the Roth IRA are withdrawn.
Tax Free Withdrawal of Owner Contributions (Both Annual Contributions and Roth Conversions)
Annual contributions and Roth conversions are “contributions” that are always withdrawn income tax free. See Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 1(b) (contributions always are withdrawn tax free), Q&A 8(a) (annual contributions and Roth conversions are both “contributions”).
However, the withdrawal of taxable Roth conversions can be subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty. See Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 5(b) (see also IRC Section 408A(d)(3)(F)). This is only true if the Roth conversion is withdrawn within 5 years. See Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 5(b) (the 5-Year Conversion Clock).
Per Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 5(b), the exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty also apply. The most prominent such exception is having attained the age of 59 ½. Thus, a distribution from a Roth IRA received by an owner at least 59 ½ years old will never be subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty.
Roth Earnings
Nonqualified distributions of earnings are subject to ordinary income tax (see Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 4) and potentially the 10% early withdrawal penalty (see Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 5(a)). Generally speaking, if one is either under age 59 ½ years old (see Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 1(b)(2)) or if the owner has not owned a Roth IRA for at least 5 years (see Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 1(b)(1), the 5-Year Earnings Clock), any withdrawal of earnings will be subject to ordinary income tax. Further, if one receives a distribution of earnings prior to age 59 ½, they are generally subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty, unless they qualify for another exception.
Note that as a practical matter, distributions of earnings received prior to turning age 59 ½ are rare since all previous annual contributions and Roth conversions must be withdrawn prior to a distribution being considered a distribution of earnings.
A Quick Note on Roth IRA Aggregation
For purposes of assessing the taxation of a distribution from a Roth IRA, one aggregates all of their Roth IRAs and treats them together as a single Roth IRA. See IRC Section 408A(d)(4), Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 9(a) and (b), and my YouTube video on the subject.
UPDATE October 30, 2023: I appreciate Andy Ives’s post on IRAHelp.com. He lays out very simply the Roth IRA Distribution rules at the end of this short post. His analysis agrees with mine.
Application to Fact Patterns
Having now covered the universe of the taxation of Roth IRA distributions (both qualified distributions and nonqualified distributions), let’s apply the rules to four examples.
Example 1: Jorge celebrates his 65th birthday in the year 2023. After his birthday party, he converted $40,000 of his traditional 401(k) to a Roth IRA. The conversion is fully taxable. This is the first time Jorge has owned any Roth IRA. On January 1, 2024, Jorge withdrew $25,000 from his Roth IRA. On January 1, 2025, Jorge withdrew $25,000 from his Roth IRA.
What results in 2024 and 2025?
Jorge, as of both 2024 and 2025, does not meet the criteria for taking a qualified distribution because he has not owned a Roth IRA for at least 5 years. Thus, he has a nonqualified distribution in both years.
In 2024, the $25,000 withdrawal of Roth conversions is income tax free (see Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 1(b)) and is penalty free because Jorge is older than age 59 ½. This demonstrates that the 5-Year Conversion Clock is irrelevant once one turns age 59 ½. Check out Jorge’s 2024 Form 8606 Part III here (pardon the use of the 2022 version, it’s the latest one available as of this writing).
In 2025, the first $15,000 of Jorge’s withdrawal is a return of Roth conversions and thus not subject to ordinary income tax. Further, this withdrawal is not subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty. The second $10,000 Jorge withdrew is a nonqualified distribution of earnings. Jorge must pay ordinary income tax on those $10,000 (see Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 4). This withdrawal of earnings violates the 5-Year Earnings Clock and is thus subject to ordinary income tax. However, this withdrawal of earnings is not subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty as Jorge is older than age 59 ½. Check out Jorge’s 2025 Form 8606 Part III here.
Example 2: Samantha celebrates her 45th birthday in the year 2023. After her birthday party, she converted $60,000 of her old traditional 401(k) to a Roth IRA. The conversion is fully taxable. This is the first time Samantha has owned any Roth IRA. On January 1, 2024, Samantha withdrew $25,000 from her Roth IRA. On January 1, 2025, Samantha withdrew $40,000 from her Roth IRA.
What results in 2024 and 2025?
Samantha, as of both 2024 and 2025, does not meet the criteria for taking a qualified distribution because she has not owned a Roth IRA for at least 5 years. Thus, she has a nonqualified distribution in both years.
In 2024, Samantha’s withdrawal is a return of Roth conversions and thus not subject to ordinary income tax. However, because the withdrawal is from Roth conversions younger than 5 years old, and Samantha is under age 59 ½, Samantha must pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty ($2,500) on the distribution (she violates the 5-Year Conversion Clock), unless an exception applies.
In 2025, the first $35,000 of Samantha’s withdrawal is a return of Roth conversions and thus not subject to ordinary income tax. However, because the withdrawal is from Roth conversions younger than 5 years old, Samantha must pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty ($3,500) on the distribution (she violates the 5-Year Conversion Clock), unless an exception applies.
The second $5,000 Samantha withdrew in 2025 is a nonqualified distribution of earnings. Samantha must pay ordinary income tax on those $5,000 (see Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 4) and generally must pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty ($500) on that $5,000 distribution of earnings, unless an exception applies.
Example 3: Ed celebrates his 65th birthday in the year 2023. After his birthday party, he converted $40,000 of his old traditional 401(k) to a Roth IRA. The conversion is fully taxable. Ed has owned a Roth IRA since 1998. On January 1, 2024, Ed withdrew $25,000 from his Roth IRA. On January 1, 2025, Ed withdrew $25,000 from his Roth IRA.
What results in 2024 and 2025?
Unlike Examples 1 & 2, we finally have a qualified distribution! Why? Ed has (i) owned a Roth IRA since 1998 (more than 5 years) and (ii) is over age 59 ½. Thus, the only type of distribution Ed can take from his Roth IRA is a qualified distribution. Per Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 1(b), a qualified distribution is tax free. Further, Ed cannot pay the early withdrawal penalty on a distribution from his Roth IRA as he is in his 60s (see also Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 5(a)). Thus, there is no tax and no penalty on either the 2024 distribution or the 2025 distribution.
Example 4: This example is based on my conversation with Brad Barrett on a recent episode of the ChooseFI podcast. Jonathan turns age 57 on July 1, 2023. He’s never had a Roth IRA. On July 1, 2023, he converted $50,000 from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. The conversion is fully taxable.
What withdrawal constraints does Jonathan have on his Roth IRA?
If Jonathan withdraws up to $50,000 from his Roth IRA prior to turning age 59 ½ on January 1, 2026, Jonathan will have to pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty as he violates the 5-Year Conversion Clock (unless an exception applies).
If Jonathan cumulatively withdraws amounts in excess of $50,000 from his Roth IRA prior to turning age 59 ½, he will pay ordinary income tax on the withdrawal of those earnings (as he violates the 5-Year Earnings Clock) and he will pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty (unless an exception applies).
From January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2027, if Jonathan cumulatively withdraws amounts in excess of $50,000 from his Roth IRA, he will pay ordinary income tax on the withdrawal of those earnings (as he violates the 5-Year Earnings Clock). However, Jonathan will not pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty. Starting on January 1, 2028, Jonathan satisfies the 5-Year Earnings Clock (see Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 2) and is now permanently able to take a qualified distribution from his Roth IRA going forward.
On January 16, 2024, Denzel withdrew $3,000 from his Roth IRA and made no contributions to his Roth IRA during 2024.
What results in 2024?
Denzel, as of 2024, does not meet the criteria for taking a qualified distribution because he has not owned a Roth IRA for at least 5 years. Thus, he has a nonqualified distribution in 2024.
Pursuant to Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 8(b), the taxable portion of the Roth conversion ($2 out of $6,502) comes out first. That $2 is subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty (a $0.20 penalty which roundsdown to $0) since he violates the 5-Year Conversion Clock, unless an exception applies. This $2 constitutes what I colloquially refer to as a micro layer inside the Roth IRA: for 5 years it is subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty if withdrawn (unless an exception applies).
However, the $2 recovery of the taxable Roth conversion is not subject to ordinary income tax. See Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 1(b).
Second, the $2,998 nontaxable portion of the Roth conversion is distributed out. This nonqualified distribution is subject to neither ordinary income tax nor the 10% early withdrawal penalty. See Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 1(b), 5(a), and 5(b). Check out Denzel’s 2024 Form 8606 Part III here.
There is some confusion on this latter result. Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 4 provides that only once all of the owner’s previous “contributions” have been withdrawn are nonqualified Roth IRA distributions subject to ordinary income tax. For this purpose, it is clear from reading Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 8(a) that “contributions” include both “annual contributions” and “Roth conversions.” See also Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 5(b) providing that the 10% early withdrawal penalty does not hit withdrawals of nontaxable converted amounts (“For purposes of applying the tax, only the amount of the conversion contribution includible in gross income as a result of the conversion is taken into account.”). Thus, the nontaxable portion of a Backdoor Roth IRA can be recovered tax and penalty free at any time for any reason.
Other than the minor potential Backdoor Roth IRA micro layer issue, a Backdoor Roth IRA could, in theory, serve as an emergency fund (though generally we want to plan for long term Roth IRA tax-free growth).
Roth IRA Distributions Summary Chart
Type of Distribution
Ordinary Income Tax
10% Early Withdrawal Penalty
Notes
Qualified Distribution
Never
Never
Main way to qualify: attain age 59 ½ and own Roth IRA for 5 years.
NQ Return of Annual Contributions
Never
Never
Comes out prior to returns of conversions and earnings.
NQ Return of Roth Conversions
Never
Can apply. Applies if the taxable conversion is less than 5 years old and the owner is under age 59 ½ (though exceptions can apply).
Come out only if all prior annual contributions and conversions have been withdrawn.
NQ stands for nonqualified
Exceptions to the 59 ½ Year Age Requirement
It is possible to qualify for a qualified distribution if one is younger than 59 ½ years of age. It happens if (1) the 5-Year Earnings Clock is satisfied and (2) the Roth IRA owner (i) is using the money for a first-time home purchase (limit of $10,000), or (ii) is disabled, or (iii) has died. See Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 1(b)(2). Outside of the owner’s death, these situations are rare.
Resources
Notice this post cites the to regulation and occasionally the Internal Revenue Code. That’s because they are the law of land! The Code is the primary law of the land, but it tends to be written in a manner inaccessible to most laymen and difficult for many professionals to understand. The regulations interpret the Code. While not an elementary school level read, Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-6 is much more comprehensible than the Code. The regulation’s question and answer format makes it much easier to digest.
IRS Publication 590-B, Distributions from Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs), is an IRS publication. As such it is (i) informative and (ii) not binding authority on either the IRS or on taxpayers. Please understand both when using an IRS publication. I will note that Publication 590-B has an excellent flowchart (Figure 2-1) which can be used to help determine if a distribution from a Roth IRA is a qualified distribution.
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.
You know what gets too much attention in the personal finance space? The two five-year Roth IRA rules.
Why do I say that? Because the odds are extremely low that either rule will ever impact most Roth IRA owners. While the rules theoretically have wide effect, in practice, discussed further below, they rarely impact the taxation of Roth IRA distributions.
Before I get started, below is a summary table of the two five-year rules (or five-year clocks, use whichever terminology you prefer). The table is not comprehensive, but rather intended to cover the vast majority of situations. I hope you find this table to be a useful reference regarding the two five-year rules.
Rule
Tax Bite
Age
Code Section
Regulation
First Five-Year Rule
Ordinary income tax on withdrawal of earnings from Roth IRA only
Generally bites only if owner is over 59 ½ years old
First Five-Year Rule: Earnings Cannot Be Withdrawn Income Tax Free From a Roth IRA Unless the Account Holder has Owned a Roth IRA for Five Full Tax Years
At first, this rule seems daunting. As written, it applies to anyone owning a Roth IRA. But in practice, it rarely has any bite. First, the rule only serves to disqualify a distribution from being a “qualified distribution.”
Here’s the thing: outside of rare circumstances (see “Two Uncommon Situations” below), anyone under age 59 ½ cannot receive a “qualified distribution” from their own Roth IRA regardless of the first five-year rule.
Thus, as a general matter, the first five-year rule is a rule that only applies to those age 59 ½ and older.
For those doubting me, I’ll prove it with two examples:
Example 1: Ernestine turns age 25 in the year 2023. In March, she made a $6,500 annual contribution to a Roth IRA for the year 2023. This is her only ever Roth IRA contribution. In 2026, when the Roth IRA is worth $8,000 and Ernestine turns age 28, Ernestine withdraws all $8,000 from the Roth IRA. The first $6,500 is a nontaxable return of the $6,500 contribution, and the remaining $1,500 is a taxable distribution of earnings subject to both ordinary income tax and the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty.
Example 2: Hortense turns age 25 in the year 2023. In March, she made a $6,500 annual contribution to a Roth IRA for the year 2023. This is her only ever Roth IRA contribution. In 2030, when the Roth IRA is worth $8,000 and Hortense turns age 32, Hortense withdraws all $8,000 from the Roth IRA. The first $6,500 is a nontaxable return of the $6,500 contribution, and the remaining $1,500 is a taxable distribution of earnings subject to both ordinary income tax and the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty.
Ernestine did not satisfy the first five-year rule, Hortense did. Notice that it did not matter! Both must pay ordinary income tax and the 10% early withdrawal penalty on the $1,500 of earnings they each received from their Roth IRA. The first five-year rule had absolutely no impact on the taxation of the withdrawal because both Roth IRA owners are under age 59 ½. This proves that outside unusual circumstances, the first five-year rule has no impact on those under age 59 ½.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Previous annual contributions to a Roth IRA can be withdrawn from a Roth IRAtax and penalty free at any time for any reason! The first five-year rule has nothing to do with withdrawals of previously made contributions. See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 1(b) (previous contributions are withdrawn tax free) and Q&A 5(a) (tax free withdrawals of previous regular annual contributions are not subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty).
So when the heck does the first five-year rule matter? Here are two examples to help us figure it out.
Example 3: Ernie turns age 58 in the year 2023. In March, he made a $7,500 annual contribution to a Roth IRA for the year 2023. This is his only ever Roth IRA contribution. In 2026, when the Roth IRA is worth $10,000 and Ernie turns age 61, Ernie withdraws all $10,000 from the Roth IRA. The first $7,500 is a nontaxable return of the $7,500 contribution, and the remaining $2,500 is a taxable distribution of earnings subject to ordinary income tax. Ernie does not pay the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty because he is over age 59 ½ when he receives the earnings.
Example 4: Harry turns age 58 in the year 2023. In March, he made a $7,500 annual contribution to a Roth IRA for the year 2023. This is his only ever Roth IRA contribution. In 2030, when the Roth IRA is worth $10,000 and Harry turns age 65, Harry withdraws all $10,000 from the Roth IRA. As Harry satisfies both the first five-year rule and is over age 59 ½, the entire $10,000 distribution is a qualified distribution and thus entirely tax and penalty free.
We’ve found where the first five-year rule matters! Generally speaking, the first-five year rule only bites when applied to a distribution of earnings if the recipient is over the age of 59 ½. Further, it only applies to subject the earnings to ordinary income tax, not the 10% early withdrawal penalty (as being age 59 ½ or older is always a valid exception to the early withdrawal penalty).
Remember, though, in most cases it is difficult to access Roth IRA earnings. Why? Because earnings come out of a Roth IRA last. Ernie’s fact pattern is rare. Many Roth IRA owners will have years of contributions and/or conversions inside their Roth IRA. As I have previously discussed, nonqualified distributions from Roth IRAs first access Roth IRA contributions and then access Roth IRA conversions before they can access a penny of earnings. See also Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 8 and Natalie B. Choate’s Life and Death Benefits for Retirement Planning (8th Ed. 2019), page 328.
Further, in today’s world, most (though not all) 59 ½ year old Roth IRA owners will satisfy the five-year rule. All Roth IRAs are aggregated for this purpose, so the funding (through a contribution or conversion) of any Roth IRA starts the five-year clock as of January 1st of the year for which the contribution was made. See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 2.
Two Uncommon Situations: There are two uncommon situations in which a Roth IRA owner under age 59 ½ receiving a Roth IRA distribution could save the ordinary income tax by satisfying the first five-year rule. The first is the taking of an up-to $10,000 first-time home buyer distribution. See Choate, previously referenced, at page 612. The second is if the owner is disabled as defined by Section 72(m)(7). Both are rare situations. Further, in both such cases, satisfying the first five-year rule would be irrelevant if the distribution would have been a return of contributions, nontaxable conversions, and/or taxable conversions at least 5 years old.
Inherited Roth IRA Twist: The first five-year rule can affect distributions from an inherited Roth IRA. I’ve heard this referred to as the third Roth IRA five-year rule, but I view it as simply a continuation of the first five-year rule. A withdrawal of earnings by a beneficiary from an inherited Roth IRA made less than five tax years after the owner originally funded the Roth IRA is subject to ordinary income tax. See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 7. These situations are quite rare.
If Anyone on Capitol Hill is Reading This . . .
The first five-year rule serves no compelling purpose, and is superfluous as applied to most taxpayers under the age of 59 ½.
Perhaps in 1997 Congress worried about quick withdrawals from Roth IRAs. Now that we fully understand that contributions and conversions come out of Roth IRAs first, and that being under age 59 ½ prevents a tax-free distribution of earnings in most cases, there’s no reason for the first five-year rule. Being age 59 ½ or older (or death, disability, or first-time home buyer) should be sufficient to receive a qualified distribution.
Second Five-Year Rule: Taxable Conversions Are Subject to the Ten Percent Early Withdrawal Penalty if Withdrawn from the Roth IRA Within Five Taxable Years
This rule is much more logical than the first five-year rule. The reason has nothing to do with Roth IRAs. Rather, the reason is to protect the 10% early withdrawal penalty as applied to traditional IRAs and traditional workplace plans such as 401(k)s and 403(b)s. Without the second five-year rule, taxpayers would never pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty.
Rather, taxpayers under age 59 1/2 would simply convert any money they want to withdraw from a traditional retirement account to a Roth IRA, and then shortly thereafter withdraw the amount from the Roth IRA tax-free as a return of old contributions or of the conversion itself.
The second five-year rule prevents the total evisceration of the 10% early withdrawal penalty.
The second five-year rule applies separately to each taxable Roth conversion. Each Roth conversion that occurs during a year is deemed to occur January 1st of that year for purposes of the second five-year rule. See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 5(c).
Note further that the second five-year rule has nothing to do with income tax: its bite only triggers the distribution being subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty.
When Might the Second Roth IRA Five-Year Rule Apply
I am not too worried about the application of the second five-year rule. Here’s why.
First, the second five-year rule is not likely to apply while one is working. During the accumulation phase, many are looking to contribute to, not withdraw from, Roth IRAs.
Second, for those retiring after age 59 ½, the second five-year rule will have practically no impact, as (i) they are not likely to take pre-retirement distributions from their Roth IRA, and (ii) distributions taken from the Roth IRA by the owner after turning age 59 ½ are never subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty.
Third, many early retirees will choose to live off taxable assets first in early retirement. As a result, many will not access Roth accounts until age 59 ½ or later, and thus the second five-year rule will not be relevant.
However, some will choose to employ a Roth Conversion Ladder strategy with respect to an early retirement. Here the second five-year rule might bite. Let’s consider a quick example:
Example 5: Josh is considering retiring in 2024 when he turns age 50. In his 30s, he qualified to make an annual Roth IRA contribution and maxed out his Roth IRA each year. In his 40s, he made income in excess of the annual MAGI limits on Roth IRA contributions, so he maxed out the Backdoor Roth IRA for each year. He plans on living on taxable assets for the first five years of retirement and then living off Roth conversion ladders from age 55 through age 59 ½. Josh has never previously taken a distribution from a Roth IRA.
If Josh started withdrawing from his Roth IRA in 2024, he would first withdraw all $45,500 of previous annual contributions (all tax and penalty free) and then withdraw all $33,510 of his 2014 through 2019 Backdoor Roth IRAs (all tax and penalty free) before he could take a distribution with respect to which the second five-year rule could bite.
Note that for withdrawals of up to $79,010, it is irrelevant that Josh does not satisfy the second five-year rule with respect to the 2020 through 2023 Backdoor Roth IRAs. Josh can withdraw up to $79,010 entirely tax and penalty free in 2024. Perhaps the second five-year rule’s bark is worse than its bite . . .
If, in 2024, Josh withdraws both of the above listed amounts from his Roth IRA, then yes, the next $2 of withdrawals in 2024 would be from the $2 taxable amount of his 2020 Backdoor Roth IRA, which would be subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty ($0.20) under the second five-year rule.
In Josh’s extreme example, the second five-year rule bites, but, as you can see, it barely bites!
As an aside, assuming Josh continues to withdraw money from his Roth IRA in 2024, the next $6,000 is a tax and penalty free return of the non-taxable portion of his 2020 Backdoor Roth IRA! See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 8. The generosity of the Roth IRA nonqualified distribution rules is, by itself, a reason not to sweat the two Roth IRA five-year clocks too much.
Assuming Josh follows through with his plan and waits until age 55 (the year 2029) to start withdrawing from his Roth IRA, he can access all of his 30s Roth IRA annual contributions ($45,500), all of his 40s Backdoor Roth IRAs ($57,519), and whatever amount he converted to his Roth IRA in 2024 tax and penalty free in 2029! After that, however, the second five-year rule will bite ten cents on the dollar for amounts additionally distributed in 2029, since amounts converted in 2025 or later would still be subject to the second five-year rule if distributed in 2029.
In Josh’s early retirement example, assuming Josh takes no distributions from his Roth IRA until age 55, the second five-year rule can only possibly bite from age 55 to 59 ½, and even then, the combination of years of built up Roth basis and affirmative planning make that possibility at least somewhat remote.
Don’t over think it: If the owner of a Roth IRA is 59 1/2 years old or older, and has owned a Roth IRA for at least 5 years, all distributions they receive from a Roth IRA are qualified distributions and thus fully tax and penalty free. In such circumstances, the 5-year clocks are entirely irrelevant.
Conclusion
It’s perfectly cromulent to proceed with financial planning without too much worry about the two Roth IRA five-year rules. For personal finance nerds (myself included), the two Roth IRA five-year clocks can be fun to dive into. But from a practical standpoint, they rarely impact the taxation of distributions from Roth IRAs. The two five-year clocks are best understood as sporadically applicable exceptions to the general rule that most nonqualified distributions from Roth IRAs are tax and penalty free.
Further Reading
For even more on Roth IRA distributions, please read this post, which goes through the details of Roth IRA distributions, including citations to the relevant regulations and links to three example Forms 8606 Part III.
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.
You know what doesn’t get enough coverage in the personal finance space: Medicare! It’s complicated, and frankly, I have neither the time nor the mental bandwidth to become a Medicare expert.
However, recently I have seen some excellent YouTube Videos on the topic. I believe all the links provided below are worthy of consideration. That consideration should, of course, include critical analysis: these videos are great, but they didn’t come down the mountain with Moses (neither did any of my blog posts or YouTube videos).
Further, none of the videos should be relied upon as advice for any particular person. They are all educational resources.
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.
America has a retirement savings problem. To varying degrees, Social Security and Medicare support retirees. Other than for the very wealthy, a significant diminution in either program would materially hurt retirees.
I have seven proposals to address the problem. These proposals won’t solve funding problems for all time, but will move the needle significantly towards securing Social Security and Medicare. All the tax related proposals tax those who have benefited the most from the American economy and a very favorable investment tax climate.
Before I get started, I would like to encourage the reader to endeavor to reduce his or her dependence on these programs by building up their own retirement assets and/or income streams. That said, as a practical matter both Social Security and Medicare are very important to the retirements of the vast majority of Americans.
Who Pays to Save Social Security and Medicare?
PROPOSAL ONE: No changes to the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages.
I believe that to be a horrible idea, for a myriad of reasons. Over the long term, there are fiscal holes in Social Security and Medicare. By definition, someone in the world must pay for those holes. If we eliminate more outlandish possibilities such as billing invading extraterrestrials and foreign plunder, most of the cost must be made up by some cohort or cohorts of Americans. Raising the eligibility ages to fix the holes simply decides that Americans in their mid-to-late 60s of all income and wealth levels are the cohort of Americans who must pay for those holes.
But why? Are 60-somethings particularly well off compared to other cohorts? I don’t believe they are, and many in their mid-to-late 60s are far worse off than the average American citizen.
My three tax proposals below are hardly perfect. But at least they put the onus on filling the holes on those who (i) have benefited most from the recent American economy and (ii) have most benefited from America’s very favorable investment and endowment tax environment. Why shouldn’t the people who have benefited the most, and would be harmed by tax increases the least, fix the Social Security and Medicare holes?
Further, my three tax proposals have a significant advantage over delaying eligibility ages. Delaying eligibility ages is a delayed fix! If enacted in 2023, my three proposals go to work (in full!) on January 1, 2024.
Would you be happy if you called a plumber to fix a leak in your sink and he responded, “Sure, happy to help, I’ll swing on by in 10 years.” No!
Further, I am not going to advocate for a politically untenable solution, and I wouldn’t recommend any politician do so either. There are plenty of solutions that can be implemented short of solutions that are guaranteed to be wildly unpopular with the electorate.
One piece of evidence demonstrates just how unpopular cutting Social Security and Medicare are. A recent Axios-Ipsos poll (see the bottom of page 9) found that Americans generally oppose Social Security and Medicare cuts by a 7 to 2 margin. Any highly unpopular solution will ultimately be counterproductive.
Further, it might be tempting to only increase the payroll tax rates paid by employers. But this runs into two big problems. First, it’s a tax on job creation. I, for one, want employers of all sizes creating more jobs in the United States. Increasing the tax rates employers pay for Social Security and Medicare increases incentives to offshore jobs and shifts towards automation. Count me against that.
Second, increasing employer tax rates is a tax hike on the self-employed. The self-employed face many challenges. They are not a cohort that should shoulder the burden of closing the fiscal holes in Social Security and Medicare.
Tax Increases to Save Social Security and Medicare
PROPOSAL THREE: Increase the additional Medicare tax on earned income from 0.9% to 2.0% Use half the tax (1.0%) fund Medicare and half the tax (1.0%) fund Social Security.
These two proposals have several advantages. They incrementally increase taxes on the most successful in America in order to close the shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. They are not taxes on employers hiring more employees, so they do not discourage hiring. Further, these two tax proposals leverage off existing taxes such that implementation of the proposals should be relatively easy.
PROPOSAL FIVE: Impose a new 25% excise tax on net investment income of college endowments with $1 billion or more in assets as of year end.
Congress can allocate tax collections between Social Security and Medicare as they best see fit.
Once subject to the tax, a college endowment would be subject to it going forward until the endowment can demonstrate its year-end assets have been under $750 million for three consecutive years.
Net investment income for this purpose would be the endowment’s Section 1411(c)(1)(A) income, less the following limited expenses: salaries and benefits for employees primarily working for the endowment (limited to $20,000 per month per employee), endowment tax return preparation fees, endowment legal fees, office supplies and equipment (printers, copiers, scanners, etc.) for the endowment, and computer software for the endowment (limited to $1 million per year). Capital gains and capital losses would be netted and no net capital loss could be taken, though any net capital loss would carry forward without limit to subsequent years.
As the excise tax taxes endowments of financial assets, dorms, classrooms, and other buildings used by the university in their educational mission would not be endowment assets for purposes of the new excise tax.
Estimated payments would be due the same dates as individual estimates are due (and the same underpayment penalties would apply), and the net investment income of any controlled endowment entity (domestic or foreign) would also be included in the endowment’s net investment income.
These tax-free hoards have enjoyed incredibly favored treatment long enough.Some of these endowments now exceed $1 million per student, more than enough to fund many students without collecting a dollar of tuition.
Most colleges do not pay income tax on tuition and donations received. I don’t propose to change that, but it’s time these colleges, which mostly serve a select privileged few, pay a significant tax on their investment income. Considering these endowments are worth vast sums of money, that tax should be equal to the rate paid by highest income individuals on long term capital gains, 25% (20% long term capital gain rate plus 5% net investment income tax under my proposal).
You might think this is unfair to colleges. But let’s imagine we were tasked with creating the entire U.S. federal tax system from scratch. If I proposed to subject waiters and factory workers to both income taxes and payroll taxes on their entire salary, while exempting colleges from taxation on tuition collected and donations received, and then added a 25% net investment income tax on large endowments, you’d probably say “Wow, you’re being unfair to waiters and factory workers and too generous to colleges.”
I don’t propose a revolution in tax policy, but rather a fair, equitable, and incremental tax change that increases the tax burden on those most able to bear it in order to combat funding shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare.
Stabilizing The Federal Government’s Finances
PROPOSAL SIX: Significant reductions in military and foreign spending
Practically all Americans reading this are owed Social Security and/or Medicare benefits! That makes you a creditor of the U.S. government.
Your creditor’s financial health matters to you. It’s time your creditor got its house in order. Your creditor’s house is not in order for many reasons, including spending that is consistent with neither the founding nor the history of our great republic.
My hope is that more and more Americans will become aware of the role of diet in health, and that will, over time, reduce long term medical expenses, including the expenses paid for by Medicare. Eventually, this renewed health will hopefully lead to longer life spans and increase future Social Security payments. If this happens, it hurts Social Security many years in the future. That much delayed good problem to have will hopefully be more than compensated for by earlier (and hopefully permanent) reductions in Medicare costs.
Conclusion
As the federal government racks up more and more debt, and the clock ticks towards financial peril for both Social Security and Medicare, it’s time to take action to preserve and protect these programs.
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical, accounting, financial, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal medical, accounting, financial, legal, investment, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
The above does not represent the opinion of anyone other than the author, Sean W. Mullaney. The author was not compensated by any individual or entity for writing this blog post, and this blog post does not necessarily reflect the views of any current or former employer of Sean W. Mullaney.
This post, and the above mentioned podcast episode, are for entertainment and educational purposes only. They do 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.
Considering the HSA is less than 20 years old (as of this writing) and contribution limits are relatively modest, inherited HSAs have not been much of an issue in the personal finance world. I suspect that will soon change, as HSAs and their account owners age and HSA balances grow.
HSA Planning
There is something very fundamental one must keep in mind: planning for traditional retirement accounts and Roth retirement accounts is two sided. There is planning that owners should do for those retirement accounts prior to death and there is planning that inheriting beneficiaries should do after the owner’s death.
HSA planning, as you will see below, is mostly prior to the owner’s death. Other than a spouse, anyone else inheriting an HSA has relatively few planning opportunities.
Spousal Beneficiaries
The tax rules generally favor spousal beneficiaries, and the world of HSAs is no different. Section 223(f)(8)(A) has a very specific rule that changes the HSA account owner to the spouse as of death. This means the continuation of HSA account status, and thus continued tax free growth and future tax free withdrawals for payments of qualified medical expenses and for payments of previously unreimbursed qualified medical expenses (what I refer to as PUQME, pronounced “puck-me”).
Obviously, HSA tax-free carryover treatment is very favorable. It is difficult to imagine circumstances where a married HSA owner would want to name anyone other than their spouse as the 100 percent primary beneficiary of their HSA. In theory, leaving an HSA to a charity at the first spouse’s death could be neutral when compared to leaving to the surviving spouse, if the couple is both very affluent and charitably inclined. Even then, it’s hard to see much of a drawback to naming the spouse as the primary beneficiary.
Other Individuals
Section 223(f)(8)(B) has some bad news for an individual, other than the surviving spouse, inheriting an HSA. Sure, they get the assets in the HSA. But, (i) the account loses its status as an HSA, and (ii) even worse, the entire amount of the HSA is included in the recipient’s taxable income in the year of the original owner’s death.
This is the hidden HSA death tax. As the HSA is under 20 years old, and frequently owed by younger people, the issue of the hidden HSA death tax has not come to the forefront of the personal finance space. To my mind, this is a lurking issue that many aren’t aware of.
The tax hit from an HSA inheritance could be quite significant. Here is one theoretical example.
Jack and Meghan are married, both age 51 in 2023, file joint, and claim the standard deduction. Planning on having an AGI of approximately $155K for 2023, they each contributed $7,500 to a Roth IRA for 2023 on January 2, 2023. They have one child in college and thus plan on getting a $2,500 AOTC tax credit for tuition paid.
On September 2, 2023, Meghan’s widowed father died and left his HSA, worth $75K, to Meghan. As a result, their AGI increases by $75K. On March 1, 2024, informed by their tax return preparer they did not qualify to make the Roth IRA contributions, they withdrew the contributions and the earnings attributable to the contributions ($750 each based on 10 percent growth). They also lose the ability to claim a credit for the college tuition they paid.
Here’s the tax consequences of Meghan inheriting the HSA.
Item
W/o HSA Inheritance
With HSA Inheritance
Ordinary Income (Initial)
$153,000
$153,000
Qualified Dividend Income
$2,000
$2,000
AGI (Initial)
$155,000
$155,000
HSA Inheritance
$0
$75,000
Roth IRA Earnings
$0
$1,500
AGI
$155,000
$231,500
Standard Deduction
$27,700
$27,700
Taxable Income
$127,300
$203,800
Tentative Tax
$18,481
$35,572
AOTC
$2,500
$0
Federal Income Tax
$15,981
$35,572
Federal Tax Increase
$0
$19,591
Effective Rate on AGI
10.31%
15.37%
The tax hit on inheriting the HSA is almost $20,000! Jack and Meghan pay more federal income tax on inheriting the HSA than they do on the rest of their income! Further, because tax benefits such as being able to contribute to a Roth IRA and AOTC qualification are based on MAGI, and inherited HSA income increases MAGI, Jack and Meghan (i) lost their 2023 AOTC and (ii) had to withdraw $15,000 in 2023 Roth IRA contributions and the related earnings.
Deduction Planning: Yes, Jack and Meghan could potentially tax loss harvest(getting a current deduction of up to $3,000) and/or increase contributions to charities and/or donor advised funds to itemize their deductions in a year they are now in the 24% bracket. This planning is only marginally helpful (particularly in a high standard deduction world) and does not lower their MAGI sufficient to still qualify for the AOTC and to make most of the annual Roth IRA contributions. Further, if Meghan inherited the HSA late in the year, there may not be enough time to execute such planning.
Inherited HSA Tax Exception
There is a narrow exception to full income inclusion. The inheriting non-spouse beneficiary can reduce the inherited HSA income inclusion by the amount of medical expenses incurred by the original owner prior to death and paid by the inheriting beneficiary in the year after the death.
The Estate
In theory, an HSA could be left to the estate of the HSA owner if (i) the owner elected such treatment on the beneficiary designation form or (ii) they failed to file a beneficiary designation form with the HSA provider.
The original owner’s final income tax return must include the fair market value of the HSA in taxable income if the HSA is left to the estate. See IRS Publication 969, page 10.
Obviously, this is not a great result. In theory, if the owner is low income and the ultimate intended beneficiary is high income, one might want to name their estate as the beneficiary of the HSA. Considering that the are planning alternatives that can avoid anyone paying income tax on an HSA, this is not likely to be a good “go-to” planning option.
Charitable Beneficiaries
Many HSA owners are at least somewhat charitably inclined. The inherited HSA rules present a planning opportunity: leave HSA balances to charity if the HSA owner is not married. Charities pay no income tax when inheriting an HSA.
As discussed above, the optimal planning for a charitably inclined married couple is likely to be to name the spouse as the primary beneficiary. Only after the death of the first spouse would the primary beneficiary be changed to the charity.
Note that HSA owners should discuss naming a charity or charities as a primary or secondary beneficiary with their HSA account provider.
Later In Life HSA Planning
What could Meghan’s widowed father have done to avoid costing his daughter and son-in-law almost $20,000 in federal income taxes?
First, strong consideration should be given to bailing out HSAs during old age, particularly if the HSA owner is not married. HSAs will not be too difficult to deplete tax and penalty free. Reimbursements of PUQME can access thousands of dollars of old qualified medical expenses, and the elderly will have plenty of new qualified medical expenses, including final medical expenses of deceased spouses. Further, Medicare Parts B and D premiums qualify as qualified medical expenses, so even the healthy elderly should be able to reimburse themselves tax-free from their HSA annually for some qualified medical expenses.
Had Meghan’s father reimbursed himself tax-free for PUQME instead of leaving the money inside the HSA, Meghan could have inherited the money (now in a taxable account) income tax free.
Second, Meghan’s widowed father could have named a charity as the primary beneficiary on the HSA, and left taxable brokerage accounts, Roth retirement accounts, and even traditional retirement accounts to Meghan. Even the traditional retirement accounts would not have either created no taxable income to Meghan in 2023, or, at worst, would have required Meghan to take the RMD her father was required to take in 2023 (if her father died before taking it).
I recently wrote about strategic planning in this regard. If one is not married, accounts such as Roth IRAs and taxable brokerage accounts are great to leave to individual beneficiaries. HSAs are great for unmarried people to leave to a charity if one is charitably inclined.
Conclusion
HSAs are arguably the most tax favored accounts during one’s lifetime. This remains true when passing an HSA to a spouse. However, the tax advantage of an HSA can turn into a tax bomb if left to a non-spouse. I refer to this as the hidden HSA death tax.
Planning to avoid the hidden HSA death tax includes taking reimbursements of PUQME from the HSA later in life and/or naming a charity as the primary beneficiary on an HSA if the owner is not married.
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, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
