Category Archives: Tax

Articles that are mostly tax focused

Defending HDHPs

In the financial independence community and beyond, high deductible health plans (“HDHPs”) have received significant criticism. Few downplay the significant tax benefits of their tag-team partner, the health savings account. But some have written that the HSA sweetener is not sufficient to make high deductible health plans desirable. 

Below I offer a different perspective. I write regarding the approach of anyone seeking financial independence, but I believe much of what is discussed below applies regardless of whether you are seeking financial independence. 

One quick caveat: the below assumes that you are relatively healthy when you select your medical insurance, and that you expect that you will most likely remain so. For those with significant, chronic medical conditions, an HDHP is not likely to be a good medical insurance choice.

HDHP Critiques

High deductible health plans have been criticized by both the national media and by financial independence writers. Several studies have found that those covered by HDHPs tend to delay or forego needed medical assistance when compared with the population at large. This study found that those with HDHP insurance tend not to take advantage of free preventive services. Based on these study findings, there is a concern that the use of HDHPs can cause long term harm and worsen medical and health outcomes. 

Financial Independence Mentality

Those actively seeking financial independence (“FIers”) embrace two beliefs. First, they believe they are not constrained by others’ failures. While FIers understand that others’ failures can be indicative of difficulties they themselves might face, FIers believe that with intentional action they can overcome those difficulties.

FI exists because people see what the “average” or “typical” person does (for example, a very low savings rate) and say, “wait a minute, I’m going to do something very different.” FIers acknowledge a societal trend and then pursue a different path with intention. 

Second, FIers prioritize valuable purchases over immediate bottom-line results. Being financially independent (or seeking FI) frees you from the tyranny of any particular financial number when considering necessary expenses.

Health Insurance and Behavior

Your medical insurance should not determine whether you seek medical care. Only your current condition should determine whether you seek medical care. Assuming, only for the sake of argument, that the studies’ findings are correct, should those findings deter someone pursuing FI from using an HDHP as their medical insurance? I argue that they should not, for several reasons.

First, the studies probably did not include you. Why would you have a limiting belief about your own future behavior based on studies of other people? Even if you were in one of the studies and delayed or forwent necessary medical treatment, is it not possible that you could change your behavior?

Second, why not simply accept that cost will deter some people from obtaining needed medical assistance, but resolve that you will not act in such a shortsighted fashion. Many FIers seek to obtain financial assets of $1 million, $1.5 million, $2 million or more to fund the rest of their lives. Neither an unanticipated $300 medical expense nor an unanticipated $5,000 medical expense will derail your plans to achieve financial independence. 

If you commit to FI, you are committing to acting very differently than most people when it comes to spending and saving. Why then would you believe you will act like the average study subject when it comes to obtaining medical treatment for a medical need? 

Third, there is nothing preventing those with HDHPs from taking advantage of free preventive services. Many workers do not take advantage of the employer match to their 401(k). That outcome does not make a 401(k) a bad retirement plan. Rather, it illustrates that in many areas of life, people should be more intentional about taking advantage of what is offered to them. Suboptimal human behavior does not make 401(k)s and HDHPs bad, and others’ mistakes should not limit your insurance choices.

Finally, financial independence exists in part to make personal finances revolve around what needs to happen, and not to have what needs to happen revolve around personal finances. FIers ought to make medical care decisions based on their health, and not based on avoiding a medical bill that is ultimately minor in the grand scheme of things.

The Role of Insurance

What the studies appear to illustrate is a widespread misunderstanding of medical insurance. Insurance does not exist to determine whether you obtain medical assistance. Insurance exists to prevent financial ruin. 

Might an unexpected medical situation be expensive if you have an HDHP? Yes, absolutely. But should it be ruinous? It should not be. Your annual out-of-pocket maximum for medical expenses will be high: imagine in your mind’s eye that it is $10,000. In the event of a medical calamity, you will pay $10,000 in expenses annually. Then your finances are protected. 

Does an unexpected $10,000 expense hurt? Absolutely. But if your FI plan was to build $1.5 million in assets to fund the rest of your life, is not possible that you instead build $1.51 million in assets? Why would you put off necessary medical care to avoid a very slight increase in the assets you will need to build up to become financially independent? Are you much worse off in this situation than someone with zero-deductible medical insurance? Their “FI number” is $1.5 million; yours is $1.51 million. 

You might argue “but might my insurance company deny my claim?” That is a valid concern with insurance. But it is a concern whether you have a gold-plated, zero-deductible insurance plan, an HDHP, or any other type of medical insurance. Thus, the possibility that you might have to fight with your insurance company to get an expense covered is not a reason to avoid HDHPs. 

Risk/Reward Trade-off

When you use an HDHP, you assume additional risk. Put simply, you risk paying annual medical expenses up to the higher deductible. Two things should be noted about that risk. First, it is capped, as described above. A capped risk is the sort of risk that those building up assets should usually be willing to take on, as long as there is sufficient benefit to doing so.

Second, you are compensated for taking that risk. While your future annual medical expenses are uncertain, the benefits of using an HDHP are largely certain and immediate. Namely, they are:

  1. Lower insurance premiums
  2. Income and payroll tax savings (if the HSA is properly funded)
  3. Employer contributions to the HSA on your behalf
  4. Tax-deferred or (if withdrawn correctly) tax-free growth of the investments in the HSA

For taking on the risk of medical expenses up to the annual out-of-pocket maximum, there are two or three measurable, guaranteed benefits every pay period for using the HSA/HDHP combination. And while the fourth benefit can vary greatly (depending on the length of tax-free growth, future tax rates, etc.), it too is a significant benefit.

When evaluating an insurance plan, the risk/reward trade-offs and the costs are what should be evaluated. When comparing an HDHP with a lower deductible insurance plan, you must weigh the assumption of a speculative, capped risk in exchange for the benefits listed above. Based on the protection against very high annual medical expenses and the four benefits listed above, an HDHP appears to be, in many cases, a good risk/reward trade-off for those without expensive, chronic medical conditions. 

Conclusion 

The studies have not found that an HDHP is suboptimal from a risk trade-off perspective. Rather, they have found suboptimal consumer behavior. That’s where FI comes back in. FI is all about turning around suboptimal saving, investing, and consumer behavior and re-ordering financial priorities. Why shouldn’t obtaining necessary medical care be among the highest financial priorities? Why can’t you examine your own healthcare purchasing behavior and improve it? 

There can be good reasons not to select an HDHP based upon your particular circumstances. Perhaps you have a chronic condition, you do not like the HDHP’s particular insurance carrier, and/or you do not believe the risk trade-off benefits are sufficient. But don’t eschew an HDHP because of a limiting belief about something under your own control: your behavior as a patient and medical consumer. 

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

Health Savings Accounts

Health savings accounts (“HSAs”) are a tremendous wealth building tool. For healthy individuals and families, a health savings account paired with a high deductible health plan (“HDHP”) can be a great way to manage medical costs and grow tax advantaged wealth. 

HSA Basics

A health savings account is a tax advantaged account. Contributions to an HSA are tax deductible. The interest, dividends, capital gains, and other income generated by assets in an HSA is not currently taxable (the same as with a 401(k) or IRA). If withdrawn for qualified medical expenses (or to reimburse the owner for the payment of qualified medical expenses), withdrawals from an HSA are not taxable. 

The HSA combines the best of a traditional retirement account (deductible contributions) and the best of Roth retirement accounts (tax-free withdrawals) if done properly. 

The annual HSA contribution limits (including both employer and employee/individual contributions) are $3,650 for an individual HDHP and $7,300 for a family HDHP in 2022. Those aged 55 or older can make annual catch-up contributions of an additional $1,000 to their HSA. 

HSA Eligibility

Who is eligible to contribute to an HSA? Only those currently covered by a high deductible health plan. As a general matter, a high deductible health plan is medical insurance with an annual deductible of at least $1,400 (for individuals) or $2,800 (for families) (using 2021 numbers). The insurance plan document should specifically state that the plan qualifies as a high deductible health plan. You must be covered on the first day of the month in order to contribute to a HSA in that month.

Once you cease to be covered by a HDHP, you keep your HSA and can use the money in it. The only thing you lose is the ability to make further contributions to the HSA.

HDHPs may not be a good insurance plan if you have certain chronic medical conditions or otherwise anticipate having high medical expenses. But if you are relatively healthy, HDHPs often make sense, particularly if you are young. 

There are some other eligibility requirements. Those also covered by other medical insurance plans, those enrolled in Medicare, and those who can be claimed as a dependent on someone else’s tax return are not eligible to contribute to a HSA.

Benefits of an HSA

Tastes Great and Less Filling

If done right, an HSA is a super-charged tax advantaged account. You get a deduction on the front end (when the money is contributed to the HSA), tax free growth, and no taxation if the money is used for qualified medical expenses or to reimburse the owner for qualified medical expenses. 

There’s no need to debate traditional versus Roth with an HSA. If done right, you get both!

HSA Payroll Tax Benefit

As a tax planner, this is one of my favorite benefits. There are many ways to legally reduce income taxes. Reducing payroll taxes, on the other hand, is more difficult. 

If you fund your HSA through payroll withholding, amounts contributed to the HSA are excluded from your salary for purposes of determining your Social Security and Medicare taxes. This results in saving on payroll taxes. HSA contributions enjoy this benefit while 401(k) elective deferrals do not.

Note that to qualify for the HSA payroll tax break, you must contribute to your HSA through payroll withholding. If, instead, you contribute through a direct personal contribution to your HSA, you do not get to deduct the contribution from your Social Security and Medicare taxable income, though you still get a federal income tax deduction for such contributions. 

Employer Contributions

Many employers offer a contribution to your HSA account. Often these employer contributions are a flat amount, such as $650 or $700 annually. This amounts to essentially free money given to you in a tax advantaged manner. 

Lower Insurance Costs

A great benefit of the combination of HDHPs and HSAs is lower medical insurance premium payments. By insuring with an HDHP, you usually save significant amounts on medical insurance. 

The healthier you are and the wealthier you are, the less financial protection you need against unanticipated medical expenses. Thus, HDHPs are often a good option for those fortunate enough to be relatively healthy and/or wealthy. 

Higher deductibles reduce the premium. The trade-off is that you self-fund more of your medical expenses. If those medical expenses are modest, the combination of saving on insurance premiums and the tax benefits can more than make up for the (potentially) higher medical expenses. 

HSA Reimbursements

Take note of when you first establish your HSA. Qualifed medical expenses incurred on that date or later can be reimbursed from your HSA.

Why is this important? Because if you track your qualified medical expenses, you can build up years of expenses that you can reimburse yourself, tax-free, from your HSA. There is no time limit to pay yourself a tax-free reimbursement from your HSA. Here is an example:

Keith established an HSA in 2011, when he was 30 years old. In 2015, he had a medical procedure and his total qualified medical expenses were $4,000. In 2018, Keith had $500 worth of qualified medical expenses for two medical appointments. In 2019, Keith had $3,500 in qualified medical expenses for a procedure and various doctors’ appointments. 

Assuming Keith had sufficient funds in taxable accounts when he incurred these expenses, Keith should (a) use those taxable funds to pay his medical expenses, (b) track his qualified medical expenses, and (c) after the money has had many years of tax-free growth, Keith should reimburse himself from his HSA for some or all of these $8,000 worth of qualified medical expenses. 

Unless you are financially strapped or in a dire medical situation, you should strive to use taxable funds to pay current medical expenses and allow the funds in your HSA to enjoy years, possibly decades, of tax-free growth. With no time limit on HSA reimbursements, you can access the funds later in life tax-free.

Note, however, that in the relatively rare cases where a taxpayer deducts medical expenses on their income tax return, expenses paid with HSA money cannot be deducted. In addition, if you have previously deducted medical expenses, those expenses are not “qualified medical expenses” that can be reimbursed tax-free from an HSA. Deducing medical expenses is rare because you can only deduct medical expenses if (i) you itemize your deductions and (ii) to the extent your medical expenses exceed 7.5 percent of your adjusted gross income (“AGI”).

No RMDs

Every tax advantaged retirement account (other than the Roth IRA) is subject to required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) during the account owner’s lifetime. HSAs, fortunately, are not subject to RMDs. They provide incredible flexibility for your financial future, particularly when you carefully track your reimbursable qualified medical expenses for many years. 

Qualified Medical Expenses

Qualified medical expenses are generally those expenses that qualify for the medical expense deduction. While this itself could be its own blog post, you can look to IRS Publication 502, which details which expenses qualify. 

Some items that you might not immediately think of, but are qualified medical expenses, are COBRA insurance premiums and Medicare Part B, Part D, and Medicare Advantage premiums. So if you ever pay COBRA premiums, it is great to pay them out of taxable accounts and keep a tally of the payments you made. Years later you can reimburse yourself for those premiums tax-free from your HSA (assuming you established the HSA prior to paying the COBRA premiums and you did not claim the COBRA premiums as an itemized deduction). 

Taxation of Non-Medical Withdrawals

If you are under age 65, withdrawals from HSAs that are not used for qualified medical expenses are subject to income tax and subject to an early withdrawal penalty of 20 percent. 

If you are under age 65, you can avoid these harsh tax results for an HSA withdrawal if you can find prior qualified medical expenses you can reimburse yourself for, and apply the withdrawal against those prior expenses. If such expenses do not exist, you can roll the money back into the HSA within 60 days (a 60-day rollover). Note you are limited to only one 60-day rollover during any 12 month period.

If you are age 65 or older, you are no longer subject to the 20 percent early withdrawal penalty. Withdrawals that are not for qualified medical expenses (or reimbursements thereof) are subject to income tax (in the same way a traditional IRA withdrawal would be). 

At age 65, an HSA remains an HSA and also becomes an optional IRA (in effect) without RMDs. This, combined with the ability to use HSA funds to pay Medicare Part B, Part D, and Medicare Advantage premiums tax-free, make an HSA a great account to own if you are age 65 or older. 

The Biggest HSA Mistake

Think twice before taking money out of an HSA!

An HSA and the investments in it can be analogized to an oven and a turkey. The HSA is like the oven. The investments are like the turkey. Putting the turkey in the oven is great. But it needs sufficient time to roast. If you take the turkey out of the oven too soon, you spoil it! The investments in your HSA are similar. They need time to bake tax-free in the HSA. If you take them out too soon, you spoil it!

Only the elderly, the financially strapped, and those facing medical emergencies and crises should withdraw HSA funds. Everyone else should keep money in an HSA to grow tax-free. If you are not in one of three listed categories, you should think long and hard before paying medical expenses with HSA money. 

Why waste the tremendous tax benefits of an HSA for minor, non-emergency medical expenses? Doing so is the biggest HSA mistake. Pay those expenses out of pocket, track them, and years later reimburse yourself tax-free from your HSA after the funds have grown tax-free for decades!

The only potential way to correct this mistake is to do a 60-day rollover of the withdrawn amounts back into an HSA. Note that rollovers are limited to one per any 12 month period. Other than the 60-day rollover, the mistake is not correctable. 

The Second Biggest HSA Mistake

The second biggest HSA mistake is not investing a significant percentage of your HSA funds in equities and/or bonds. According to this report, only four percent of HSAs had balances invested in something other than cash as of the end of 2017. Not good!

While I never provide investment advice on the blog, I do discuss the tax location of assets, in a general sense (not as applied to any particular investor). Cash is not a great asset to hold in an HSA. With today’s low interest rates, cash generates little in interest income. HSAs offer tax-free interest, dividends, capital gains, and growth!  That makes them great for high growth, high income assets. Why waste that incredibly favorable tax treatment on very low-yielding cash?

I call this the second biggest mistake (not the first) because unlike the first mistake, this mistake is easily correctable.

Of course, investors must evaluate their HSA investment options and their own individual circumstances to determine if the other investments are preferable to cash based on their particular circumstances.

State Treatment of HSAs

Two states do not recognize HSAs: California and New Jersey. For purposes of these two states, HSAs are simply taxable accounts. On California and New Jersey state income tax returns (a) there is no deduction/exclusion for HSA contributions, (b) interest, dividends, and capital gain distributions generated by HSA assets are taxable, (c) sales of assets in a HSA generate taxable capital gains and losses, and (d) nonqualifying withdrawals of money from an HSA have no tax consequence.

Tennessee and New Hampshire do not impose a conventional income tax. But they do tax residents on interest and dividends above certain levels. Interest and dividends generated by HSAs are included in the interest and dividends subject to those taxes.

HSAs and Death

This is the good news/bad news section of the article. 

First, the good news: HSAs are great assets to leave (through a beneficiary designation form) to a spouse or to a charity. If you leave your HSA to your spouse, he or she inherits it as an HSA and can use it (and benefit from it) just as you did. Charities also make for great HSA beneficiaries. They can use the money in the account and pay no tax on it. You will need to work with your financial institution to ensure the beneficiary designation form properly captures the charity as the intended beneficiary. 

The bad news: HSAs are terrible assets to leave to anyone else. If you leave an HSA to a non-spouse/non-charity, the recipient includes the entire balance of the HSA in their taxable income in the year of your death. 

Conclusion

With a little planning, an HSA can be a great asset to own, and can provide tremendous tax-free benefits. Generally speaking, time is a great asset if you own an HSA. Let your HSA bake tax-free for many years and you will be happy to receive tax-free money later in life to pay for medical expenses or as a reimbursement for many years of previous medical expenses.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

SEP IRA Versus Solo 401(k)

If you qualify for both a SEP IRA and a Solo 401(k), is there a clear winner? In the past, it was often the case that the tax benefits of a SEP IRA and a Solo 401(k) were similar, particularly if you also had access to a 401(k) plan at a full-time employer. Today the landscape has changed, and in most cases, there’s a clear winner.

This post discusses whether a SEP IRA or a Solo 401(k) is better in situations where the self-employed person qualifies for both plans.

Note that both plans have eligibility requirements. For example, under the tax rules, if you employ anyone other than your spouse for 1,000 hours or more during the year you are ineligible for a Solo 401(k). There are additional tax rules and separate (and additional) plan rules to consider to determine if you are eligible for a particular SEP IRA and/or Solo 401(k).

The Basics

Both the SEP IRA and the Solo 401(k) are self-employed retirement plans. They can be established by legal entities (in this context, often S corporations) or they can be established by individuals that have self-employed income. That self-employment income generally must come through a sole proprietorship or through a limited liability company (“LLC”) that is disregarded for tax purposes and reported on a Schedule C filed with the individual’s tax return. 

SEP IRAs

A SEP IRA allows only “employer” contributions. For this purpose, your own sole proprietorship or disregarded LLC can be your employer. 

Generally, the employer can make annual contributions of up to 25 percent of eligible W-2 compensation (from a corporation) or 20 percent of an individual’s self-employment income, limited to $66,000 of contributions in 2023.

Today, many financial institutions (including Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard) offer low-cost SEP IRA options.  

A SEP IRA can be established for a tax year by the deadline for filing that tax year’s tax return, including extensions. 

The administrative compliance burden of a SEP IRA is generally very manageable. 

History of the SEP IRA vs. the Solo 401(k)

Watch me discuss the history of both the SEP IRA and the Solo 401(k).

Solo 401(k)s

A Solo 401(k) (sometimes referred to as an “Individual 401(k)”) is a 401(k) plan established by a self-employed individual for their own benefit. 

The main advantage of the Solo 401(k) is that it allows annual contributions by the self-employed individual in his/her role as the “employee” and annual contributions by the self-employed individual (or S corporation) in his/her role as “employer.” 

Employee contributions are limited to the lesser of earned income or $22,500 ($30,000 if 50 or older) in 2023. Employer contributions are limited to up to 25 percent of eligible W-2 compensation (from a corporation) or 20 percent of an individual’s self-employment income, limited to $66,000 of contributions in 2023. Total employee and employer contributions are limited to $66,000 ($73,500 if age 50 or above) in 2022. 

Today, many financial institutions (including Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard) offer low-cost Solo 401(k) options.

The administrative compliance burden of a Solo 401(k) is generally very manageable, but note that once there are more than $250,000 in the plan and/or the plan is closed, a Form 5500-EZ must be filed.

The Clear Winner

At this point, you might be saying, “Great, both the SEP IRA and Solo 401(k) are attractive. Is there really a big difference between them? Should I care too much about which plan I establish?”

The answer is that in most cases, the Solo 401(k) is the much better option for a self-employed person. If you are considering a SEP IRA over a Solo 401(k) in a situation where you qualify for both, you ought to think twice about that decision.

Here are the main reasons why the Solo 401(k) is much better than the SEP IRA in most cases.

Employee Contributions

The Solo 401(k) allows employee contributions. If your self-employment income is relatively modest, this greatly increases the amount you could contribute. For example, if Jane, under age 50, has a side-hustle that earns her $10,000 in 2023 after the deduction for one-half of self-employment taxes is accounted for, her maximum Solo 401(k) contribution is $10,000, while her maximum SEP IRA contribution is only $2,000 (20% of $10,000).

Note that this assumes that Jane has contributed $12,500 or less to a workplace 401(k) or similar retirement plan. Using the 2023 limitations, $22,500 is the maximum total employee deferrals Jane can make to her 401(k) and similar plans, so Jane’s other employer retirement accounts should also be considered.

Section 199A and 80% Deductions

I have previously written about the new Section 199A qualified business income (“QBI”) deduction and its impact on self-employed retirement plans. Traditional contributions to both Solo 401(k) plans and SEP IRAs create, for many taxpayers, deductions that are only “80% deductions.” Here is an example.

After self-employment taxes, Joe, a single taxpayer, earns $120,000 from his sole-proprietorship. Joe makes a 10 percent employer contribution ($12,000) to either his Solo 401(k) or SEP IRA. In the 24 percent marginal tax bracket, he expects to save $2,880 ($12,000 times 24%) on his federal income taxes. He is surprised to learn that he only saved $2,304 on his federal income taxes. 

How is that possible? While Joe is correct that he receives a $12,000 retirement plan contribution tax deduction, he failed to consider that he lost $2,400 of his QBI deduction. A traditional Solo 401(k) contribution and a SEP IRA contribution is an 80% deduction. In Joe’s case, he received a net federal income tax deduction of only $9,600 (80 percent of $12,000). 

Why then would Joe prefer a Solo 401(k) to a SEP IRA? Because the Solo 401(k) gives him a planning option that avoid the 80% deduction issue. Instead of making traditional contributions to a Solo 401(k), Joe can make Roth employee contributions to a Solo 401(k).

Note further that Joe could possibly implement Mega Backdoor Roth IRA planning by making after-tax contributions to his Solo 401(k). Many Solo 401(k) plans do not offer this option, but some do.

The SEP IRA does not offer these options. 

Not all financial institutions offer the Roth Solo 401(k) and the after-tax Solo 401(k) contribution options. It is important to understand the features of any particular Solo 401(k) before you adopt it as your plan. 

For upper income taxpayers, the 80% deduction phenomenon may not be an issue, considering that the ability to claim the QBI deduction is reduced or eliminated above certain income thresholds. These taxpayers need not prefer the Solo 401(k) to a SEP IRA for QBI deduction reasons, but may prefer to have the increased planning ability, such as the ability to make Roth and/or after tax contributions to the Solo 401(k) that a SEP IRA does not offer. They may also prefer the Solo 401(k) for the reasons discussed below.

Backdoor Roth IRA Planning

The Backdoor Roth IRA is a great planning tool. But the Pro-Rata Rule can cause significant snags. For example, if you execute the two independent steps of a $6,500 Backdoor Roth IRA in a year when you have a separate significant traditional IRA, SEP IRA, or SIMPLE IRA at year-end, you will cause most of the Backdoor Roth IRA to be taxable. 

The SEP IRA is a significant roadblock to the ability to execute an efficient Backdoor Roth IRA. A Solo 401(k) does not cause this problem with the Backdoor Roth IRA. For this reason alone many will want to choose a Solo 401(k) instead of a SEP IRA, even if they plan on making traditional deductible contributions to the plan. 

Catch Up Contributions

If you are age 50 or older, you can make up to $7,500 (in 2022) in catch up employee contributions to a Solo 401(k).

This option does not exist for a SEP IRA. Thus, for high earning self-employed persons age 50 or older, a Solo 401(k) has an additional advantage over the SEP IRA.

Solo 401(k) Book

This post was originally published in 2019. In 2022 I published Solo 401(k): The Solopreneur’s Retirement Account, a book that goes into much more depth about Solo 401(k)s.

Conclusion

If you qualify for both, generally the Solo 401(k) is better than a SEP IRA. If you are going with a SEP IRA over a Solo 401(k), you should understand the reasons for doing so. Finally, self-employed retirement plans is an area that taxpayers usually benefit from receiving personal advice from a qualified tax advisor. 

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

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, 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. 

Understanding Your 401(k)

As an employee, your employer’s 401(k) plan can be your most important wealth building tool. Understanding how it functions will help you build your wealth in a tax efficient manner.

The Plan

A 401(k) plan is established by an employer. The employer provides the account, the account administration, and the investment choices. Usually, the investment options include a menu of stock and bond mutual funds and/or similar investments. In some plans, employer stock is one of the investment choices.

While the employer administers the plan, most of the assets in the plan (see Vesting below) belong the employees in individual accounts. Therefore, the employees, not the employer, enjoy the benefits and burdens of the economic appreciation and/or depreciation of the investments.

Creditor Protection

401(k) plans are subject to a host of rules, most of which (from a practical perspective) are the concern of the employer, not the employee. One important benefit of the rules for employees is that under ERISA, assets in a 401(k) plan are generally protected from creditors. During your lifetime only two creditors can access assets in your 401(k): the IRS and an ex-spouse.

Vesting

Contributions to a 401(k) made by the employee (referred to as “employee deferrals” and “after-tax contributions” — see numbers 1 and 3 below) are always immediately “100% vested.” This means that regardless of whether the employee leaves the employment of the employer tomorrow, he or she owns the money he or she contributed to the 401(k) and any related growth.

However, contributions to a 401(k) account made by the employer may be subject to a vesting schedule. Simply put, vesting means amounts become the property of the employee after the employee has been employed by the employer for a certain period of time.

Some plans use a gradual vesting schedule. The least generous of these is as follows:

Years of ServiceVesting Percentage
220%
340%
460%
580%
6100%

More generous (i.e., quicker) vesting is permissible.

Some plans use a “cliff” vesting schedule. This means that employer contributions go from 0% vested to 100% vested when the employee has been employed for a certain period. The longest permissible period is 3 years.

The growth associated with employer contributions is also subject to vesting.

Vesting incentivizes staying with the same employer for a sufficient period of time to capture all of the employer contributions to a 401(k) plan. It can also incentivize returning to a former employer if you have worked a number of vested years of service for them.

Some plans provide for 100% immediate vesting for employer contributions as well as employee contributions.

Contributions

There are five types of contributions to 401(k) plans, listed below in order of their prevalence (employee deferrals being the most prevalent).

1. Employee Deferrals

Employees can contribute, through payroll withholding, a portion of their salary to a 401(k) plan. All 401(k) plans offer “traditional” contributions, meaning employees can contribute amounts to the 401(k) plan and exclude those amounts from their taxable income for the year. Some plans, but certainly not all plans, also offer “Roth” contributions, which are not excludible from taxable income, but, if properly withdrawn, can be tax free in the future when withdrawn.

Employee deferrals are the only type of contribution to a 401(k) plan that can be done as a “Roth” contribution. All other contributions are “traditional” contributions.

Read here for more on the desirability of Roth contributions compared to traditional contributions.

Neither traditional nor Roth contributions reduce the amount of income subject to payroll (i.e., Social Security and Medicare) taxes.

2. Matching Contributions

Matching contributions are one of the most powerful ways employees can build wealth. Previously, I have written that if you participate in a 401(k) plan with an employer match, you must make it your top wealth building priority to contribute at least enough to your 401(k) to secure all of the employer match.

How does it work? Different employers have varying matching programs. There are two components: 1) the percentage of salary that is matched, and 2) the percentage of the match.

Here is an illustrative example:

Example 1: Elaine Benes works for Pendant Publishing. She is under 50 years old and earns $100,000 in annual W-2 wages. Pendant Publishing matches 100 percent of employee contributions up to 3 percent of salary, and matches 50 percent of employee contributions for the next 2 percent of salary. Based on this matching program, Elaine would be a fool not contribute at least 5 percent of her salary to Pendant Publishing’s 401(k) plan. Doing so will earn her $4,000 of matching contributions from Pendant Publishing on her $5,000 of employee contributions.

Employers vary in terms of when they match contributions. Some employers match employee contributions only once a year (usually at or after year-end). Other employers match employee contributions each pay period. If you work for an employer that does so, you need to be careful not to max-out your 401(k) early in the year, as each pay period requires an employee 401(k) contribution in order to obtain the match. Here is an example:

Example 2: The facts are the same as Example 1. In addition, Pendant Publishing’s matches 401(k) contributions every pay period, and has 24 pay periods per year. Elaine believes it is a good idea to accelerate her 401(k) contributions, and thus contributes $3,750.00 of her salary for each of the first 6 pay periods of the year ($22,500 total) and makes no contributions the rest of the year. For those 6 pay periods she receives an employee match of $166.67 each pay period ($100,000 divided by 24 times 4 percent) for a total annual match of $1,000. By doing this, Elaine misses out on $3,000 of her potential employer 401(k) match, because for the next 18 pay periods, she contributes nothing to her 401(k).

Some 401(k) plans adjust for this and would fully match Elaine’s contribution (in her case, by adding $3,000 to her 401(k) plan), but many do not. In Elaine’s case, she should have stretched out her contribution such that she contributed at least 5 percent of each pay period’s paycheck to her 401(k).

Note that employers are not required to provide a matching program. There are some employer 401(k) plans that provide no match at all.

Tax Treatment: Employer match contributions are traditional contributions. They are not subject to income tax when added to your 401(k), but they will be in the future when withdrawn (as will the growth on matching contributions). Matching contributions are not subject to payroll taxes.

3. After-Tax Contributions

Some 401(k) plans allow for employees to make so-called after-tax contributions to their 401(k) through payroll withholding. These contributions are not excluded from the employee’s taxable income, but do create basis in the 401(k) account. After-tax contributions are what make Mega Backdoor Roth IRA planning possible. Unless one is engaging in Mega Backdoor Roth IRA planning, in most cases after-tax contributions are not advisable.

Tax Treatment: After-tax contributions do not reduce the employee’s taxable income (for both income tax and payroll tax purposes). In the future after-tax contributions are taxable to the employee as withdrawn, but the employee can use the created basis to reduce the income inclusion. Depending on how the 401(k) account is disbursed, that basis recovery may be subject to the Pro-Rata Rule.

4. Profit-Sharing Contributions

Some 401(k) programs have a profit-sharing program, whereby the employer contributes additional amounts to each employee’s 401(k) account based on a formula.

Tax Treatment: Profit-sharing contributions are traditional contributions and are treated in the same manner as matching contributions, including being exempt from payroll tax.

5. Forfeitures

Because of vesting, employees forfeit unvested amounts in their 401(k)s when they leave the employer’s employment prior to fully vesting in the 401(k). When that happens, the unvested amounts must be accounted for. In some plans, the unvested amounts are used to offset plan administrative costs. In other plans, forfeited amounts are added to the remaining participants’ accounts.

Tax Treatment: Forfeitures are traditional contributions and are treated in the same manner as matching contributions, including being exempt from payroll tax.

Contribution Limits

Contribution limits get a bit complicated because there are two distinct 401(k) plan contribution limits, not one. Numerical limits are updated annually by the IRS to account for inflation. The numbers provided below are the numbers for 2023.

Employee Deferrals

There is an annual employee deferral limitation. For 2023, that limit is the lesser of $22,500 or total compensation (if under age 50) and the lesser of $30,000 or total compensation (if 50 or older). The limit applies to Roth employee contributions, traditional employee contributions, or any combination thereof.

This limit is per person, not per employer. Thus, those with side hustlers must coordinate employee deferrals to their large employer 401(k) plan with employee deferrals to their Solo 401(k). I discuss this topic in detail in my book, Solo 401(k): The Solopreneur’s Retirement Account.

All Additions

There is a second, less understood limitation on 401(k) contribution. The annual limit for all additions to 401(k) and other employer retirement accounts is the lesser of $66,000 or total compensation (if under age 50) and the lesser of $73,500 or total compensation (if 50 or older).

The all additions limit applies to the sum of numbers 1 through 5 above (employee deferrals through forfeitures) plus a sixth amount. The sixth amount is the amount which is contributed by your employer to another qualified retirement plan account on your behalf.

Some employers offer additional qualified retirement plans. These plans often provide for a contribution to an account by the employer based on a stated percentage of compensation. Employers use various names for these plans. Contributions may be subject to vesting and are traditional contributions that are not subject to payroll tax.

The all additions limit applies per employer, not per employee as the employee deferrals limit does.

Watch me discuss the all additions limit on YouTube.

Auto Enrollment

Many employers now auto-enroll new employees in a 401(k) plan. This has two components: contribution level and investment choice. In most cases, new employees should not simply settle for auto-enrollment. When you start a job, you should review your new 401(k) plan and make informed decisions regarding contribution level and investment choice.

Contribution Level

Auto-enrollment will set a contribution level. Not all employers set the contribution level at a level that maximizes employer matching. Even if the automatic contribution level is set at a level that maximizes the employer match, that level might not be the appropriate level for any particular person.

Investment Selection

Plans typically have a default investment plan for new 401(k) participants. It is best to review your investment options when you start a new job and select an appropriate investment allocation for your circumstances.

Withdrawals from Traditional 401(k)s

When a taxpayer is 59 ½ years old or older, they can withdraw amounts in a traditional 401(k) penalty free. Withdrawals are included in taxable income as ordinary income. Beginning at age 72, taxpayers must take out a required minimum distribution (“RMD”) for each year. The RMD is computed based on IRS tables.

If a taxpayer withdraws money from a 401(k) prior to age 59 ½, the withdrawal is not only taxable, it is subject to a 10 percent early withdrawal penalty, unless a penalty exception applies.

Taxpayers may transfer amounts in a 401(k) to another 401(k) to an IRA. Amounts in traditional 401(k)s and IRAs can be converted to Roth accounts. Such conversions create taxable income, but are not subject to the early withdrawal penalty.

Conclusion

Your workplace 401(k) plan is a vitally important wealth building tool. It is important to be an informed user of your 401(k) in order to build tax advantaged wealth.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

Excess Contributions to an IRA

There are limits to how much can be contributed to traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs. This post describes how excess contributions happen and how to resolve them.

Three introductory notes. First, if you find that you have made an excess contribution, you may be well advised to seek professional advice. Second, please don’t panic, but make sure to act swiftly. Excess contributions are resolvable but do not benefit from delays. Third, you should not plan to make an excess contribution for a variety of reasons.

Traditional IRAs

There are (generally speaking) three situations that generate an excess contribution to a traditional IRA. They are:

  • Contributions are made for a year the taxpayer (and their spouse) does not have earned income.
  • Contributions are made in excess of the annual contribution limits.
  • Rolling into an IRA an amount that did not qualify to be rolled in.

This last category is not immediately obvious, but it does occasionally occur. For example, a taxpayer might inherit a taxable account and incorrectly roll it into an inherited IRA. Or a taxpayer might incorrectly roll an IRA they inherited into their own IRA. Or a taxpayer might attempt a 60-day rollover of amounts previously in an IRA and roll the money into an IRA after the 60-day deadline. Note that in some cases, this last mistake can be resolved by obtaining a private letter ruling from the IRS (doing so is beyond the scope of this post).

For 2019 and prior taxable years, there is an additional category: contributions to a traditional IRA when the taxpayer was 70 1/2 or older. The SECURE Act eliminates the prohibition on those 70 1/2 and older contributing to a traditional IRA.

Resolutions

Recharacterization

Prior to the 2020 tax year, if you qualified to make a contribution to a Roth IRA, but not to a traditional IRA, you could direct your financial institution to recharacterize the contribution to a Roth IRA. This scenario only applied in situations where the taxpayer was over age 70 ½ when the contribution was made to the traditional IRA.

Now there is no scenario where this would be relevant. Anyone not qualifying to make a contribution to a traditional IRA would also not qualify to make a contribution to a Roth IRA.

However, recharacterizations of contributions from traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs can make sense for some taxpayers for tax planning reasons, and are allowable if done properly.

To recharacterize, you must contact the financial institution and direct them to move the contribution and its earnings to a Roth IRA. This must be disclosed in a white paper statement attached to your federal income tax return. The recharacterization deadline is the extended due date of the tax return (generally October 15th).

Withdrawal

A second way to correct an excess contribution to a traditional IRA is to take a “corrective distribution” of the excess contribution and its earnings from the IRA. You will need to inform your financial institution of the excess contribution and request a corrective distribution of the excess contribution and the earnings attributable to the excess contribution. If the excess contribution is withdrawn prior to the extended filing deadline, the withdrawal of the contribution itself is generally not included in taxable income.

As observed in IRS Publication 590-A, page 34, in most cases the financial institution will compute the earnings attributable to the excess contribution. The earnings will be included in taxable income for the actual year the excess contribution was made. For example, if a 2023 IRA contribution is made in January 2024, and the taxpayer later takes a corrective distribution of that contribution and its earnings, the earnings will be includible in taxable income in 2024. In those cases where the taxpayer must compute the earnings, IRS Publication 590-A Worksheet 1-3 is a resource for figuring the earnings or loss.

See Example 1 in this article for insights on the reporting timing of earnings attributable to corrective distributions.

Up until the passage of SECURE 2.0, the earnings were also subject to the ten percent early withdrawal penalty (unless an exception otherwise applied). However, SECURE 2.0 Section 333 repealed the early withdrawal penalty with respect to withdrawals of earnings occurring pursuant to a corrective distribution. Note further that as of March 1, 2024 there is now some doubt as to the on going validity of SECURE 2.0.

If the corrective distribution occurs after the taxpayer files their tax return for the relevant taxable year, but before the extended filing deadline for the year (generally October 15th), the taxpayer must file an amended return which reports the corrective distribution.

A quick note on corrective distributions (as applied to both traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs): they can be done if the taxpayer has changed their mind. Natalie Choate makes this point in her excellent treatise Life and Death Planning for Retirement Benefits (8th ed. 2019, see page 132). Corrective distributions are not limited to simply those times when the taxpayer has made a contribution in excess of the allowed limits.

Apply the Contribution to a Later Year

You can keep an excess contribution in a traditional IRA and apply it to a later year, if you are eligible to make a traditional IRA contribution in that later year. This method does not avoid the six percent penalty discussed below for the year of the contribution, but it allows the taxpayer to avoid taking a distribution of the excess contribution and stops additional impositions of the six percent excess contribution penalty. Generally, this method is only effective if the amount of the excess contribution is relatively modest, since a large excess contribution cannot be soaked up by only one year’s annual IRA contribution limit.

Penalties

If you do not resolve the excess contribution prior to the extended deadline for filing your tax return, you must pay a six percent excise tax on the excess contribution annually until the excess contribution is withdrawn from the traditional IRA. You report and pay the excise tax by filing a Form 5329 with the IRS. Because this six percent tax is imposed each year the excess contribution stays in the traditional IRA, it is important to correct excess contributions to traditional IRAs promptly.

Note further that excess contributions withdrawn after the extended filing deadline are generally included in taxable income, though the taxpayer can recover a portion of any IRA basis they have under the Pro-Rata Rule.

Roth IRAs

There are (generally speaking) four situations that cause an excess contribution to a Roth IRA. They are:

  • Contributions are made for a year the taxpayer (and their spouse) does not have earned income.
  • Contributions are made in excess of the annual contribution limits.
  • Contributions are made for a year the taxpayer exceeds the modified adjusted gross income (“MAGI”) limitations to make a Roth IRA contribution)
  • Rolling into a Roth IRA an amount that did not qualify to be rolled in.

A rather common excess contribution occurs when taxpayers contribute to a Roth IRA in a year they earn in excess of the MAGI limits. That can happen for a host of reasons, including end of year bonuses or other unanticipated income.

Another somewhat common mistake in this regard is made by those subject to required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) when trying to convert traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs. In early January a taxpayer might convert a chunk of their traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. This creates a problem if the taxpayer did not previously take out their annual RMD for the year. There is a rule providing that RMDs are the first money to come out of an IRA during the year, and RMDs may not be converted to Roth IRAs. Thus, “converting” the first dollars out of a traditional IRA (an RMD) during the year creates an excess contribution to a Roth IRA.

Resolutions

Recharacterization

Assuming that the taxpayer qualifies to make a contribution to a traditional IRA, the excess contribution to a Roth IRA can be recharacterized as a contribution to a traditional IRA. Generally, the taxpayer must contact the financial institution and direct them to recharacterize the contribution and its earnings into a traditional IRA and must file a white paper statement with their tax return explaining the recharacterization.

When the taxpayer’s income puts him or her over the Roth IRA MAGI limits, recharacterization is often how excess contributions to Roth IRAs are resolved. In such cases, they will generally qualify to make a contribution to a traditional IRA, so a recharacterization is often the go-to method of correcting an excess contribution to a Roth IRA.

Note that the recharacterization deadline is the extended due date of the tax return (usually October 15th).

Withdrawal

A second way to correct an excess contribution to a Roth IRA is to take a corrective distribution of the excess contribution. You will need to inform your financial institution of the excess contribution and request a corrective distribution of the excess contribution and the earnings attributable to the excess contribution. The withdrawal of the excess contribution itself is generally not taxable.

The financial institution will compute the earnings attributable to the excess contribution. The earnings will be included in taxable income for the actual year the excess contribution was made. The same inclusion timing rules applicable to traditional IRA corrective distributions (discussed above) apply to the earnings from a Roth IRA corrective distribution.

If the corrective distribution occurs after the taxpayer files their tax return for the relevant taxable year, but before the extended filing deadline for the year (generally October 15th), the taxpayer must file an amended return which reports the corrective distribution and includes the earnings in taxable income (if the original contribution actually occurred in the year covered by the tax return).

Apply the Contribution to a Later Year

As with excess contributions to traditional IRAs, you can keep an excess contribution in a Roth IRA and apply it to a later year, if you are eligible to make a Roth IRA contribution in that later year. This method does not avoid the six percent penalty discussed below for the year of the contribution, but it allows the taxpayer to avoid taking a distribution of the excess contribution and stops additional impositions of the six percent excess contribution penalty. Generally, this method is only effective if the amount of the excess contribution is relatively modest, since a large excess contribution cannot be soaked up by only one year’s annual Roth IRA contribution limit.

Penalties

As with excess contributions to traditional IRAs, if you do not resolve the excess contribution to your Roth IRA prior to the extended deadline for filing your tax return, you must pay a six percent excise tax on the excess contribution annually until the excess contribution is withdrawn. It is best to resolve an excess contribution to a Roth IRA sooner rather than later to avoid annual impositions of the penalty.

Tax Return Considerations

Corrective measures applied to traditional IRA and/or Roth IRA contributions may require tax return reporting. Such reporting is discussed in various sources. Examples of such sources include IRS Publication 590-A, the Instructions to the Form 8606, and/or the Instructions to the Form 5329.

Conclusion

Excess contributions to IRAs and Roth IRAs happen. They are not an occasion to panic. They are an occasion for prompt, well considered action. Hopefully this article provides enough background for you to start your decision process and, if necessary, have an informed conversation with a competent tax professional.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

Rental Real Estate Losses

Rental real estate has significant tax advantages. One of them is the ability to claim losses against other income in limited circumstances.

As a default, many taxpayers cannot claim tax losses generated by rental real estate because of the passive activity loss rules. This post describes the situations where the owner of rental real estate are able to claim real estate tax losses against other income.

The Passive Activity Loss Rules

The passive activity loss rules can be greatly oversimplified by saying “you can only deduct passive losses against passive income.” So what do we mean by “passive income”?

For this purpose, “passive income” is not necessarily what you may colloquially refer to as passive income. Portfolio income such as interest, dividends, and capital gains does not count as passive income. Wage income is also not passive income. Income from trade or business activities that the taxpayer does not materially participate in is generally passive income.

What is “material participation”? That could be its own blog post, but for our purposes, it is sufficient to know that, by itself, the activity of renting real estate is not “material participation” in a trade or business. Thus, in most instances, renting real estate will be considered a passive activity that generates passive income and passive losses.

Situations Where Real Estate Losses Can Offset Other Income

Other Rental Income

Passive income, including rental real estate income, can be offset by passive losses. Thus, if a taxpayer rents Condo A and Condo B, and Condo A has $5,000 of net taxable income during the year and Condo B has $4,000 of a net taxable loss during the year, the taxpayer will be able to offset $4,000 of Condo A’s income with Condo B’s loss on his tax return.

Real Estate Professionals

First, the wet blanket. Most taxpayers will not qualify as real estate professionals. If you have a full time job outside of real estate, you can forget about qualifying as a real estate professional.

Why would one want to be a so-called “real estate professional”? Real estate professionals are allowed to deduct losses generated by rental real estate unencumbered by the passive activity loss rules.

How does one qualify as a real estate professional? To qualify, generally one must work primarily in real estate trades or businesses they materially participate in (i.e., you must work more in real estate than in any other jobs or business activities) and must work at least 750 hours during the year in real estate activities.

Qualification could be its own blog post, but for purposes of this particular post it suffices to say that (a) “real estate professional” is a high threshold, and (b) it is great to qualify, because you are able to deduct rental real estate losses against other income unencumbered by the passive activity loss rules.

Active Participation

Taxpayers who are not real estate professionals, but actively participate in their rental real estate can deduct up to $25,000 in rental real estate losses if their modified adjusted gross income (“MAGI”) is below certain limits. The threshold for “active participation” is much lower than that for “material participation.” Generally speaking, the two main requirements are that the taxpayer makes decisions with respect to the activity (or hires someone to do so) and owns at least ten percent of the activity.

Thus, you can actively participate in renting out a house you own in your own name. You cannot actively participate in the renting of real estate by a partnership if you own less than 10 percent of that partnership.

If your MAGI is $100,000 or less, you can deduct up to $25,000 of active participation rental real estate losses. If your MAGI Is $150,000 or more, you cannot deduct any active participation rental real estate losses. In between those two amounts, the $25,000 potential maximum loss is reduced by fifty cents for every dollar above $100,000.

Here’s an example:

Shirley owns House A which she rents out. After taking into account depreciation and other tax deductions, in 2019 House A generates a $15,000 taxable loss reported on Schedule E of Shirley’s tax return. Shirley reports a MAGI of $125,000 on her 2019 tax return. Thus, she is able to claim $12,500 of the House A loss against her other income on her 2019 tax return. The remaining $2,500 of the House A loss will be a suspended passive loss that will carry forward to her 2020 tax return.

Future Passive Income

Previously suspended passive losses can offset future passive income.

Continuing with Shirley from above, in 2020 Shirley has a MAGI of $200,000 and House A reports a rental profit of $1,000 on Shirley’s Schedule E. Shirley can use $1,000 of her previously suspended $2,500 passive loss to offset the $1,000 in income generated by House A on her 2020 tax return. The remaining $1,500 of the House A loss will be a suspended passive loss that will carry forward to her 2021 tax return.

Dispositions

Dispositions of property used in a passive activity creates passive income or passive loss. A disposition of substantially all of a passive activity can trigger the use of all of that activity’s previously suspended passive losses.

One important point here: to trigger the use of all the previously suspended passive loss upon a disposition, the disposition must be of substantially all of the activity. Disposing of only part of the activity, even a significant part, is not enough to trigger the use of all of the previously suspended passive loss.

For example, imagine you and a partner are 50/50 partners in a partnership that invests in four rental properties. Unless you are trying to qualify as a real estate professional, it is usually advantageous to list each of the four rental properties from that partnership as its own separate activity on Schedule E, Part 2. That way, the future sale of one of the four properties will be sufficient to be the disposition of “substantially all” of that property and trigger any previously suspended passive losses related to that particular property.

If the partnership is instead listed as a single activity, the future disposition of any one (or two or three) property owned by the partnership will not be enough to constitute “substantially all” of the activity. While any gain from the disposition creates passive income which can be offset with previously suspended and/or current passive losses, the entire previously suspended loss with respect to that particular property is not necessarily usable because the one property is only a component part of a single activity.

Conclusion

The ability to use rental real estate losses against other income, in the limited circumstances described above, is a significant tax advantage of rental real estate. While tax losses should never be the driving factor in the decision to invest in rental real estate, potential real estate investors should go into the investment understanding the impact it will have on their taxes. Investors in rental real estate often benefit from consultations with tax professionals in order to maximize the potential tax benefits of the investment.

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

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, investment, financial, legal, and tax matters.

Real Estate in Retirement Accounts

Should you hold rental real estate in a self-directed retirement account? Is real estate a great asset to own in a Roth IRA? Is holding real estate in a self-directed retirement account a hack that can help supercharge your path to financial independence? Below I discuss what it looks like to hold real estate in a self-directed IRA or 401(k), with a particular focus on those looking to achieve FI.

A Necessary Predicate

Before I proceed, I need to lay a necessary predicate. Those actively pursuing financial independence will fall into one of the two following groups:

Group 1: Invest in a diversified portfolio of equities and bonds.

Group 2: Invest in real estate and a diversified portfolio of equities and bonds.

Why is there no third group, real estate investors only? For two main reasons. First, many pursuing FI have no interest in owning rental real estate and/or desire to only own a small number of properties. Second, as a general rule, investing in only one sector of the economy (technology, financials, pharmaceuticals, utilities, real estate, etc.) leaves an investor dangerously undiversified and vulnerable to very particular risks to a degree diversified investors are not.

The rest of this post focuses on tax basketing for individuals in Group 2: those pursuing FI  and investing in rental real estate and a diversified portfolio of equities and bonds.

Stock Basis vs. Real Estate Basis

Recall that the basis of stock, bonds, mutual funds, and ETFs (what I will colloquially refer to as “stock basis”) is the amount you paid for the asset plus any distributions reinvested in the asset less any nondividend distributions (returns of capital). Stock basis is great, but for many in the FI community, its benefits are distant and significantly eroded by inflation.

Picture Jack and Jill, a married couple, each 25 years old and actively pursuing financial independence. They max out their IRAs and workplace retirement plans. They have a savings rate in excess of 50 percent, so they must invest in taxable accounts, and choose to invest in low-cost, well diversified index mutual funds. They target early retirement at age 40.

Other than very occasional tax loss harvesting, the basis Jack & Jill obtain in their taxable mutual fund accounts at age 25 will be meaningless to them until they are at least 40 years old. Even then, using something like the 4 percent withdrawal rule, they will touch only a small fraction of their basis every year. By then, the value of the basis they put in the mutual funds will have been significantly eroded by inflation.

But what if Jack and Jill instead decide that they will max out their IRAs and workplace retirement accounts (using stock and bond index funds), and then everything else will go into taxable rental real estate investments. What value does their basis have then? Much greater value, it turns out. Jack and Jill can immediately depreciate their rental real estate and start using their basis to reduce their taxable rental income from that property and other rental properties. Depending on their circumstances, they may be able to deduct some or all of any rental real estate loss against other taxable income.

When you invest in rental real estate in taxable accounts, your tax basis goes to work for you right away. When you invest in financial assets, your tax basis sits dormant, possibly for many years or the rest of your life. By the time you use your stock basis to obtain a tax benefit, the value of your stock basis (and thus the resulting tax benefit) may be severely diminished by inflation.

This strongly indicates you should house financial assets in retirement accounts and rental real estate in taxable accounts. House the rental real estate (pun intended) in taxable accounts where you can milk its basis for all it’s worth while housing the financial assets in retirement accounts.

Leverage and Tax Basis

You can use leverage to increase the tax value of rental real estate. A young couple will have to likely borrow some or all of the purchase price of their initial rental real estate investments. This can be advantageous from a tax perspective. Here’s an illustrative example:

Jack and Jill have $50,000 of cash to invest in a taxable account. They have decided to invest in a $250,000 fifth floor condominium to rent out. They borrow $200,000, purchase the property, and rent out the condo. In the first year they rent out the condo for a full year, they can get $9,091 ($250,000 divided by 27.5) in depreciation deductions and, assuming a 5% loan, almost $10,000 in interest deductions. Note this and all examples ignore any potential price allocation to land for simplicity.

Jack and Jill leveraged $50,000 into almost $19,000 in tax deductions in one year alone. Had they purchased $50,000 worth of financial assets, they would have received exactly nothing in tax deductions in the first full year, and the value of the $50,000 of basis would be eroding away to inflation. Even if they were able to tax loss harvest, at most the benefit would be a $3,000 deduction against their ordinary income.

In some cases, depreciation combined with other deductions causes rental real estate to produce a loss for tax purposes. Why put an asset that generates a tax loss in a retirement account?

If stock basis has such limited value, and rental real estate basis has such impactful, immediate value, why “exploit” stock basis in a taxable account while you neuter rental real estate basis in an IRA? It makes much more sense to utilize that rental real estate tax basis in a taxable account and put limited value stock basis in a retirement account.

Step-Up at Death

When you leave your heirs rental real estate in taxable accounts, the government gives your heirs hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free tax deductions!

There’s no lack of content discussing the many tax benefits of real estate. Some of it discusses the step-up in basis at death and the ability to hold real estate in a self-directed retirement account. What little of this content acknowledges is that if you hold real estate in a self-directed retirement account, you lose the step-up in basis at death!

If you are at all concerned about Second Generation FI for your children, you need to consider this issue. The step-up in tax basis at death is an incredible opportunity for your heirs. Upon your death, your heirs get to re-depreciate your rental real estate based on the fair market value of the property at your death.

Here’s a comprehensive example.

Jake buys a small rental condo for $100,000 in 2019. He fully depreciates it over 27.5 years, saving significantly on his taxes. He dies in 2049 when the condo is worth $400,000. He leaves the condo to his adult son Jake Jr. He also leaves a Roth IRA with financial assets to Jake Jr. worth $400,000.

What result? Jake Jr. inherits the condo with a $400,000 tax basis and gets to depreciate that new $400,000 basis for 27.5 more years! This drastically reduces his taxable income from the property and may create a currently useable taxable loss. While Jake Jr. must withdraw the inherited Roth IRA within 10 years, the money from the Roth IRA is tax free to Jake Jr. And because Jake Jr houses the inherited Roth IRA at a discount brokerage (such as Vanguard, Fidelity, or Schwab), the Roth IRA pays minimal fees.

What if instead Jake had housed the financial assets in his taxable accounts and the rental property in his Roth IRA. First, the financial assets will produce interest, dividends, and capital gain distributions that will be taxable to Jake Jr. every year. Second, Jake Jr. will pay more in annual fees to a self-directed Roth IRA custodian. Further, Jake Jr. will lose the ability to claim any tax loss generated by the condo against his other income.

The effect is magnified if Jake Jr. leaves the rental property to his son, Jake III. Jake III will again get to step-up the basis in the condo to its fair market value when Jake Jr. dies and re-depreciate it! Over several generations the step-up in basis cycle can create potentially millions of dollars of tax depreciation deductions!

Rental Real Estate: Taxable Accounts and Retirement Accounts

If you are going to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars (possibly millions) of tax deductions for your heirs, you ought to have a compelling reason to do so. I do not believe there’s a compelling reason to house real estate in a retirement account and forego these free future tax deductions.

Roth IRAs are great for protecting the income generated by financial assets from taxation. The step-up in basis is great for protecting the income from rental real estate from taxation. Why waste a Roth IRA on real estate when your heirs will get a fantastic step-up in basis in your real estate to shield a significant portion of the income from taxation (and may possibly generate useable current real estate losses)?

All of this is magnified if the rental real estate is in a traditional IRA instead of a Roth IRA. Instead of depreciation and other deductions to shield rental income from taxation, every dollar you ever take from a traditional IRA will be subject to ordinary taxation (even if the underlying rental property is unprofitable). Combining this with self-directed retirement account custodian fees makes a traditional retirement account a terrible place to house rental real estate.

Stepped-Up Stock Basis

As discussed, the step-up in real estate basis is effective in reducing or eliminating taxable income rental real estate. But the step up in basis does nothing to reduce income from interest, dividends, and capital gain distributions generated by inherited financial assets. This further indicates that the step-up in basis is better used on real estate than on financial assets.

Other Considerations

Tax basis is not the only consideration in determining where to tax basket assets. Below is a run through of several other important considerations.

Costs

As of 2023, costs for investing in well diversified index funds in retirement accounts at discount brokerages are approaching zero. Costs for self-directed IRAs and 401(k)s are more substantial. Costs can include a set-up fee, annual account fees, one-off service fees, and fees for valuations.

Valuations

Starting at age 73, you must take RMDs from your traditional retirement accounts and employer Roth accounts. In the year after your death, certain heirs must take RMDs from your retirement accounts (including Roth IRAs). To do this, the recipient must know the value of each retirement account on December 31st of the prior year. For publicly-traded stock and bond based mutual funds and ETFs, the financial institution will simply report this information to you. For real estate, it is a very different ballgame. You will need to obtain a third party valuation, as the December 31st value of any particular piece of real estate is not readily apparent or known. This is an additional annual cost of owning real estate inside a retirement account.

Capital Gains

If you sell financial assets in a taxable account, you’re stuck with the capital gain, which will increase your federal (and possibly state) income tax bill. There are narrow and/or costly exceptions, including, the qualified opportunity zone program, which requires you to invest in a very specific type of investment that you may have absolutely no interest in investing in, for a minimum period of time. The qualified opportunity zone program can also apply to real estate capital gains.

The other exceptions to stock capital gain, including donations to charities, donor advised funds, and/or charitable trusts, are expensive, in that they require you to relinquish some or all of your economic ownership in order to avoid a taxable capital gain.

If you want to sell your rental real estate, you can use a Section 1031 “like-kind exchange” and simply exchange the rental property for another piece (or pieces) of rental real estate. This defers the capital gain on the sold property for as long as you hold onto the substitute property. Section 1031 exchange treatment is not available for financial assets.

While Section 1031 exchanges may not satisfy investors in every instance, the availability of Section 1031 exchanges is a reason to keep real estate in taxable accounts.

Rules, Rules, Rules

If you put your real estate in a retirement account, you voluntarily subject yourself to a whole host of rules. One is that you are not allowed to use the rental real estate for personal use. Another is that not allowed to personally manage or repair the property. Any violation of these rules can disqualify the retirement plan, resulting in a distribution of the property to the plan owner. This can result in a large taxable income hit and/or early distribution penalties if the owner is under age 59 ½.

Unrelated Debt Financed Income (“UDFI”) Tax

Is your rental property at all debt financed? If it is, and it is in an IRA, your IRA (including a Roth IRA) will be subject to income tax (the “unrelated business income tax”) on the portion of the taxable income that is attributable to the debt (the “unrelated debt financed income”). For example, if you have a condo that was purchased half with debt, half the income will be subject to tax (at the IRA level) as UDFI.

Further, as an entity your IRA is subject to taxation at very steep tax brackets. While the first $1,000 of UDFI is exempt from taxation, by the time the taxable UDFI exceeds $12,500, the IRA pays the highest individual marginal ordinary income tax rate (currently 37 percent) on the income.

There are UDFI workarounds. One is to roll a self directed IRA/Roth IRA to a self directed 401(k)/Roth 401(k). 401(k) plans are not subject to tax on UDFI generated by rental real estate. In order to move to a self directed 401(k)/Roth 401(k) plan, you must have a trade or business that can sustain the self directed 401(k) or self directed Roth 401(k).

If you roll from a Roth IRA to a self directed Roth 401(k), you solve your UDFI problem but you subject yourself to RMDs (and valuation issues) starting at age 73, reducing future tax free growth. You also added a requirement to file an annual Form 5500 tax return with the IRS if the self directed Roth 401(k) has $250,000 or more of assets. Another workaround is placing the real estate in the IRA/Roth IRA in a C corporation. This will lower the tax rate the UDFI is subject to down to 21 percent, but will also subject the non-UDFI income to that 21 percent tax rate.

Real Estate Losses

In some cases, depreciation combined with other deductions causes rental real estate to produce a loss for tax purposes. This can occur even if the property is “cash-flow positive” i.e., it produces cash income in excess of its cash expenses.

Why put an asset that generates a loss in a retirement account? Often times losses are suspended, meaning the rental property nets to zero on the tax return for that particular year. But the suspended loss is tracked and can be used in the future. Read this post for more information on deducting real estate losses.

Is the ability to use real estate losses from real estate held in taxable accounts limited? Absolutely. But it is fully eliminated if the real estate is in a retirement plan. Such losses can never be used on an individual’s tax returns.

Gilding the Lily

Discount brokerages have made this the best era to be a well diversified investor in equities and bonds. Costs associated with investing in index funds in retirement accounts are approaching zero.

This means equities and bonds reside in retirement accounts very well. Why do you need to gild the lily at that point? You have great investment options at a low cost.

To my mind, there is no compelling reason to reject this approach, particularly considering (1) depreciation and other tax advantages that help make rental real estate efficient in taxable accounts and (2) the burdens associated with housing real estate in retirement accounts.

Conclusion

In the vast majority of cases, if you want to own both financial assets (stocks/bonds/mutual funds/ETFs) and rental real estate as part of your portfolio, you are well advised to house your rental real estate in taxable accounts and save your retirement accounts for the financial assets.

It comes back to the tyranny of tactics. Real estate in an IRA sounds great, but when you peel back the onion, simplicity usually wins. Does this mean some with real estate in a retirement account will not achieve financial independence? Absolutely not. But the simpler path will keep your costs low and will likely be tax efficient.

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

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, 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.

Tax Basis for Beginners

What is Tax Basis?

To answer that question, let me posit two hypotheticals:

Hypothetical 1: Mark buys one share of Acme Industries stock for $100 on Monday. The following Monday he sells that share for $100.

Hypothetical 2: Judy buys one share of Kramerica Industries for $20 on Monday. On Thursday, Kramerica Industries announces the release of a new bottle that dispenses both ketchup and mustard, and the stock soars. On the following Monday, Judy sells her share of Kramerica Industries for $100.

What tax result? Do both Mark and Judy have $100 of taxable income? Of course not. We know that Mark has no taxable income and Judy has $80 of taxable income? But how do we know that? The answer: Basis!

Basis is the tax concept that ensures amounts are not taxed twice when they should not be. In Mark’s case, he has no real income when he sells the stock. Judy however, does have income. When she sells the Kramerica stock, she realizes the $80 gain.

Basis is what allows us to measure the appropriate gain or income to the seller of property. While we have a sense that Mark should not have had taxable income and Judy should have, without basis we have no way of measuring whether a disposition of property should trigger a taxable gain, loss, or nothing.

Generally, the basis of an asset is its historic cost, plus any capital improvements or additions made to the asset. In the case of a financial asset in a taxable account, basis is simply the purchase price plus reinvested distributions less any nondividend distributions (returns of capital).

Depreciation

Basis serves another function. Business assets are usually subject to a depreciation allowance on the theory that assets waste away from wear and tear over a useful life. The method and time period for depreciating an asset varies based on the asset. Residential real estate is depreciated in a straight line over 27.5 years. Most non-real estate property is depreciated using an accelerated method and over a shorter period. One business asset that never depreciated is land, on the theory that land has an indefinite useful life.

Each asset is depreciated based on its depreciable basis, which is generally historic cost plus capital improvements. For example, if you purchase a fourth floor residential condominium for $1,000,000 and rent it out, each full year it is used in the rental business you divide the $1,000,000 depreciable basis over 27.5 to come up with a depreciation deduction of $36,364, which lowers the taxable income from the rental activity, and may even be currently deductible against other income if the rental property produces a loss. Note that some of the basis may be attributable to land, which is good basis that can be recovered upon a sale, but it cannot be depreciated.

Step-up at Death

The tax code offers a tremendous benefit for those looking to facilitate Second Generation FI. The tax basis of inherited assets is “stepped-up” to the fair market value of the asset on the original owner’s date of death. This means, among other things, it is usually much better to leave an asset to an heir at death rather than to gift that asset to an heir during life. The asset left upon death has a stepped-up asset basis, while the gifted asset only has the original owner’s basis in the hands of the recipient.

I previously wrote an example of how this works:

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.

Lastly, in order to qualify for the step-up at death, an asset must be held in a taxable account. Assets held in retirement accounts do not receive a step-up at death.

Tax Loss Harvesting

Basis is what makes tax loss harvesting possible. Picture Joey, who owns Blue Company stock worth $10,000. He purchased the stock a year ago for $13,000. He can sell his Blue Company stock and deduct the $3,000 loss on his tax return, realizing a nice benefit.

Tax loss harvesting is a neat tool in the tax planning tool box. But it’s a fools errand to succumb to the “tyranny of tactics” and arrange one’s portfolio around tax loss harvesting. At most, tax loss harvesting reduces your taxable income in any particular year by $3,000. Over the long run, that is not the way to build wealth and achieve financial freedom.

Sure, play the tax loss harvesting card when the right opportunity arises, but don’t structure your portfolio with dozens of holdings in the hopes you can get a $3,000 loss every year. Rather, structure your portfolio with your ultimate goal in mind, and if toward year-end an opportunity to do some tax loss harvesting arises, pounce on it.

Retirement Accounts

The term “basis” means something a bit different in the context of retirement accounts. Two points: First, it is possible to have basis in a traditional account. Generally this means that nondeductible, or “after-tax” contributions have been made to the account, and thus, in the future when there are taxable distributions a portion of the distribution will be offset by that basis.

Second, the assets inside of a retirement account (including a Roth account) do not have basis to the owner of the account. These assets do have basis, but that basis is never directly accessible to the owner of the account (in the way that depreciable basis or stock basis is accessible to the owner). Importantly, assets inside of a retirement account do not enjoy the step-up in basis at the owner’s death that assets in taxable accounts enjoy.

Conclusion

Tax basis is an important attribute to understand as you do tax planning. In two weeks I will build on this post to discuss in detail important implications of tax basis for those pursuing financial independence.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

What to Do if You Don’t Qualify for a Backdoor Roth IRA

In my last post, I discussed the basics of the Backdoor Roth IRA, which can be a great planning tool for some higher income Americans. But not everyone qualifies for a tax-efficient Backdoor Roth IRA. Recall Jennifer’s case:

Jennifer makes too much to qualify to make a Roth IRA contribution in 2022. She contributed $6,000 to a nondeductible traditional IRA on April 19, 2022. She also had a separate traditional IRA with no basis. As of December 31, 2022, that separate traditional IRA was worth $93,998.53.

If, in 2022, Jennifer were to convert the $6,000 that she put into the nondeductible traditional IRA to a Roth IRA she would increase her taxable income by over $5,600. Ouch!

Options

Jennifer has two possible options to qualify for a much more tax efficient Backdoor Roth IRA. The first option is to use her workplace 401(k), 403(b), or 457 plan. Some 401(k) plans and other workplace plans allow participants to “roll in” amounts in traditional IRAs. Workplace plans are not required to offer participants this option. If a workplace plan does, it can be worthwhile to consider this option in order to facilitate Backdoor Roth IRA planning.

Of course, there are considerations that go beyond income tax planning, including the quality of the investment choices available in a traditional IRA versus a workplace 401(k) or other retirement plan, and the expenses associated with each option.

A second option is rolling the traditional IRA into a Solo 401(k) plan. Jennifer must have a Solo 401(k) plan from self-employment and the plan must accept IRA roll ins in order for her to do this. As with workplace retirement plans, Solo 401(k) plans are not required to accept traditional IRA roll ins, and any decision must appropriately consider the relevant non-tax issues (as discussed above). Further, a Solo 401(k) plan has several requirements (including the conduct of a trade or business) that should be carefully considered before opening a Solo 401(k).

Considerations

Trustee-to-Trustee Rollover

If Jennifer wants to roll her traditional IRA into a workplace retirement plan or Solo 401(k), she should structure the transfer as a “trustee-to-trustee” direct rollover of the money between the financial institution holding the traditional IRA and the workplace retirement plan or Solo 401(k). If instead of a trustee-to-trustee direct rollover, Jennifer receives a check from her IRA financial institution payable to her, she has 60 days to roll over that check (i.e., to get it to her workplace retirement plan or Solo 401(k)). If she does not move the money within the 60 days, the distribution from the IRA is taxable, subject to early withdrawal penalties if Jennifer is under age 59 ½, and cannot be transferred into a retirement plan.

Timing

Roll ins should be completed by December 31st of the year of the Roth IRA conversion. Otherwise the pro-rata rule will bite, because there will be a balance in the taxpayer’s traditional IRAs at year-end. That balance will attract a sizable portion of the $6,000 of IRA basis established by the nondeductible traditional IRA contribution. This causes the Roth IRA conversion to grab little basis and thus be tax inefficient.

For simplicity’s sake, it is usually best to clean out traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs and then make the nondeductible traditional IRA contribution.

Basis

Prior to implementing a traditional IRA to 401(k) “roll-in” strategy, Jennifer should review all of her traditional IRAs to ensure that she has no basis in any existing traditional IRA. IRA basis amounts cannot be rolled into the 401(k) and must be left behind under the rule of Section 408(d)(3)(A)(ii) and this technical write up.

SIMPLE IRAs and SEP IRAs

Those with amounts in SIMPLE IRAs, need to be careful. During the first two years of the SIMPLE IRA account, it cannot be rolled into a plan other than another SIMPLE IRA plan. Doing so would create a taxable event, subject to both early withdrawal and excess contribution penalties (on the transfer to the non-SIMPLE IRA).

Thus, if Jennifer’s traditional IRA balance is in a SIMPLE IRA and she first deposited into the SIMPLE IRA less than two years ago, she must wait until the two year window has expired to roll her SIMPLE IRA into a workplace retirement plan or a Solo 401(k).

In addition, those with a SIMPLE IRA (beyond the two year window) or a SEP IRA from their current employer may not be allowed in-service distributions. Thus, they would not be able to roll over those accounts into a 401(k)/Solo 401(k)/403(b)/457. Additionally, amounts may be added to these accounts prior to December 31st. These considerations make it difficult to successfully execute Backdoor Roth IRA planning for those currently covered by an employer’s SIMPLE IRA or SEP IRA.

December 31st

Any Backdoor Roth IRA planning should involve an additional diligence step: ensuring that as of December 31st of the year of the Roth conversion step, the taxpayer has a zero balance in all traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs. This helps ensure the Backdoor Roth IRA is a tax-efficient tactic.

Illustrative Example

Jennifer expects to earn $300,000 from her W-2 job in 2022, is covered by a workplace 401(k) plan, and expects to have some investment income. On March 1, 2022, Jennifer has a $90,000 balance in a traditional IRA but otherwise has no balance in a traditional IRA, SEP IRA, or SIMPLE IRA.

On March 2, 2022, Jennifer directs her workplace 401(k) plan and her IRA custodian to roll her traditional IRA to her workplace 401(k) plan. Her traditional IRA is rolled into her workplace 401(k) through a trustee-to-trustee direct rollover.

Jennifer contributes $6,000 to a traditional IRA on April 20, 2022. The contribution is nondeductible. Because the contribution is nondeductible, Jennifer gets a $6,000 basis in her traditional IRA. Jennifer must file a Form 8606 with her 2022 tax return to report the nondeductible contribution.

On May 2, 2022, Jennifer converts all the money in her traditional IRA to a Roth IRA (a Roth IRA conversion). At that time, Jennifer’s traditional IRA had a value of $6,001.47. Jennifer also ensures that as of December 31, 2022, she has a $0 balance in all traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs.

If Jennifer executes the above steps as described above, she will get the desired result. Done in this manner, the Roth IRA conversion step results in an increase in Jennifer’s taxable income of just $1.47 ($6,001.47 fair market value less $6,000 of traditional IRA basis).

Tactics vs. Goals

What if Jennifer’s workplace retirement plan does not accept roll ins? What if Jennifer doesn’t have access to a Solo 401(k)? What if Jennifer’s workplace retirement plan accepts roll ins but does not have quality investment options and/or charges high fees?

Remember, Jennifer’s ultimate goal is not to do a Backdoor Roth IRA. Her goal is financial independence! She should not let what I call the “tyranny of tactics” distract her from her ultimate goal.

The Backdoor Roth IRA is a great tactic to employ toward achieving that goal. But it’s okay if you can’t use this particular tactic. Plenty of people have and will achieve financial independence without executing a Backdoor Roth IRA.

If you can’t use the Backdoor Roth IRA for whatever reason, simply use other appropriate tactics, including but not limited to a high savings rate, to achieve your financial goals.

Further Reading

I discuss how to properly report a Backdoor Roth IRA on a tax return and what to do if has been incorrectly reported here.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

Backdoor Roth IRAs for Beginners

If you read enough FI blogs, you will eventually come across the term “Backdoor Roth IRA.” This post answers the question “What’s the deal with Backdoor Roth IRAs?”

Why Do a Backdoor Roth IRA?

Why would someone do a Backdoor Roth IRA? The Backdoor Roth IRA gets money into a Roth IRA in cases where the taxpayer earns too much to make a direct annual contribution to a Roth IRA. Doing the Backdoor Roth IRA gets money that would have been invested in a taxable account into a tax-free Roth account. Further, the money in the Roth account gets better creditor protection than money in a taxable account.

History of the Backdoor Roth IRA

Before 2010, what is now referred to as a Backdoor Roth IRA would have been permissible and/or necessary in only relatively limited circumstances, and then only in years prior to 2008. But a 2006 change in the law opened up the Backdoor Roth IRA in the form we know now (starting in 2010).

Two fundamental concepts must now be addressed. The first is a Roth IRA contribution.

Roth IRA Contributions

This post discusses Roth IRA contributions in detail. Simplified, U.S. citizens and residents with earned income can make an annual Roth IRA contribution of up to $7,000 in 2024 ($8,000 if 50 or older). Done for many years, it can be a tremendous wealth building tool, since it moves wealth into an account that is tax-free (if properly executed).

The one catch is that your “modified adjusted gross income” (or “MAGI”) must be below a certain threshold in order to make a Roth IRA contribution. To make a full contribution in 2024, your MAGI must be less than $146,000 (if single) or $230,000 (if married filing joint).

Because of these limits, many taxpayers are unable to make a Roth IRA contribution. Further, based on the qualification rules for traditional deductible IRA contributions, most taxpayers unable to make a Roth IRA contribution are also unable to make a deductible traditional IRA contribution.

Roth IRA Conversions

The second fundamental concept is a Roth IRA conversion. A Roth IRA conversion is a movement of amounts in traditional accounts to a Roth IRA. This creates a taxable event. The amount of the Roth IRA conversion, less any “basis” in the traditional account (more on that later), is taxable as ordinary income on the taxpayer’s tax return.

Prior to 2010, only taxpayers with a modified adjusted gross income of $100,000 or less were allowed to do a Roth IRA conversion. This amount was not indexed for inflation and applied per tax return, making it particularly difficult for many married couples to qualify.

In 2006, Congress changed the law, effective beginning in 2010. As of January 1, 2010, there is no modified adjusted gross income limitation on the ability to do a Roth IRA conversion. The richest, highest earning Americans now qualify to do a Roth IRA conversion just as easily as anyone else.

The Backdoor

Okay, so there’s no MAGI limitation on the ability to execute a Roth IRA conversion. So what? Aren’t they taxable? What’s the advantage of doing one?

Recall I mentioned a taxpayer’s basis in a traditional account. Basis in an IRA occurs when a taxpayer makes a nondeductible contribution to a traditional IRA. Here is an example.

Mike expects to earn $300,000 from his W-2 job in 2024, is covered by a workplace 401(k) plan, and expects to have some investment income. Mike has no balance in a traditional IRA, SEP IRA, or SIMPLE IRA.

Mike contributes $7,000 to a traditional IRA on April 20, 2024. The contribution is nondeductible. Because the contribution is nondeductible, Mike gets a $7,000 basis in his traditional IRA. Mike must file a Form 8606 with his 2024 tax return to report the nondeductible contribution.

The “backdoor” opens because of the confluence of two rules: the ability to make a nondeductible traditional IRA contribution and the ability to do a Roth IRA conversion regardless of your income level. Let’s extend Mike’s example a bit.

On May 2, 2024, Mike converts all the money in his traditional IRA to a Roth IRA (a Roth IRA conversion). At that time, Mike’s traditional IRA had a value of $7,011.47.

What result? To start, all $7,011.47 is taxable. All money converted in a Roth IRA conversion is taxable. Uh oh! But there’s good news for Mike. Mike gets to offset the $7,011.47 that is taxable by the $7,000 of basis in his traditional IRA. Thus, this Roth IRA conversion will only increase Mike’s taxable income by $11.47 ($7,011.47 minus $7,000).

The combination of these two separate, independent steps (a nondeductible traditional IRA contribution and a later Roth IRA conversion) is what many now refer to as the Backdoor Roth IRA. Notice this is only possible because of the repeal of the MAGI limitation on Roth IRA conversions. Under the rules effective prior to 2010, Mike would have been allowed to make the nondeductible traditional IRA contribution, but his income (north of $300,000) would have prohibited him from a Roth IRA conversion.

The Backdoor Roth IRA allows Mike to obtain the benefits of an annual Roth IRA contribution without qualifying to make a regular annual Roth IRA contribution.

December 31st

Any Backdoor Roth IRA planning should involve an additional diligence step: ensuring that as of December 31st of the year of the Roth conversion step, the taxpayer has a zero balance in all traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs. This helps ensure the Backdoor Roth IRA is a tax-efficient tactic.

The Pro-Rata Rule

The Backdoor Roth IRA works well for someone with Mike’s profile. But it does not work well for everyone. Let’s change up the example a bit.

Jennifer’s story is the same as Mike’s story above, except that she had a separate traditional IRA before she did her 2024 nondeductible IRA contribution. That separate IRA had no basis. As of December 31, 2024, that separate traditional IRA was worth $92,988.53.

This one change in facts dramatically increases Jennifer’s taxable income from the Roth IRA conversion. Jennifer must apply the so-called Pro-Rata Rule to the Roth IRA conversion. Even though her two IRAs are in separate accounts, they are treated as one IRA for purposes of determining how much of Jennifer’s $7,000 of basis she recovers upon her Roth IRA conversion.

Jennifer starts with $7,011.47 of income (the amount she converts). To determine the amount of her $7,000 of basis she gets to recover against the proceeds of the Roth IRA conversion, we must multiply that $7,000 times the amount converted ($7,011.47) divided by the sum of the amount converted and her traditional IRA balance at the end of the year ($7,011.47 plus $92,988.53). Thus, Jennifer gets to recover 7.00147 percent of the $7,000 of basis, which is only $490.80. This results in Jennifer’s Roth IRA conversion increasing her taxable income by $6,520.67 ($7,011.47 minus $490.80).

What was a great idea for Mike becomes a horrible idea for Jennifer when she has a significant balance in another traditional IRA.

Note further that Jennifer would have the same bad outcome if that $92,988.53 traditional IRA was instead in a traditional SEP IRA or in a traditional SIMPLE IRA.

Tax Reporting

Assume Mike did his Roth IRA conversion and did not have any other money in traditional IRAs in 2024. He will get a Form 1099-R from his financial institution. In box 1 it will report a gross distribution of $7,011.47 (the amount of the Roth IRA conversion).

In box 2a the Form 1099-R will say that the “taxable amount” is $7,011.47 and box 2b will be checked to indicate that the “taxable amount not determined.” Wait, what? How can $7,011.47 be the taxable amount while the next box claims the taxable amount is not determined? The answer is the basis concept discussed above.

Mike’s financial institution does not know the rest of Mike’s story (his income, retirement plan coverage at work, IRAs at other institutions, etc.), so it has no way of determining how much basis, if any, Mike recovers when he did the Roth IRA conversion. Box 2b simply means that Mike might have recovered some basis, but the institution is not in a position to determine if he did.

Form 8606 helps complete the tax reporting picture. By filing that form, Mike establishes that he was entitled to $6,000 of traditional IRA basis and how the pro-rata rule applies (if at all) to his Roth IRA conversion. It is important that Mike file a properly completed Form 8606 with his timely-filed 2024 federal income tax return.

When Mike files his 2024 Form 1040, he puts $7,011.47 on line 4a (“IRA distributions”) and $11.47 on line 4b (“Taxable amount”). Most tax return preparation software will round cents to the nearest whole dollar.

Note that failing to report the transactions on the Forms 8606 and 1040 in this way can result in Mike paying an incorrect amount of tax.

Further Reading

This post discusses what you can do if you find yourself in Jennifer’s situation to get a result similar to Mike’s result. I discuss how to properly report a Backdoor Roth IRA on your tax return and what to do if has been incorrectly reported here.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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