SECURE 2.0, passed in December 2022, made dozens of changes to the rules governing tax-advantaged retirement accounts.
When Congress passes a major tax law change, the IRS and Treasury issue regulations and other guidance regarding the change. Practitioners and taxpayers often provide the IRS and Treasury comment letters bringing issues and concerns to the government’s attention.
I wrote a comment letter (which you can read here) to the IRS and Treasury addressing facets of the following provisions:
This post (and the linked-to comment letter) is for entertainment and educational purposes only. They do not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
Want to retire before age 59 ½? Have most of your wealth in traditional tax-deferred retirement accounts? Worried about the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty?
This post is for you!
Picture it: You’re age 53, have $50,000 in a savings account, a paid-off home, and $2.5M in a 401(k). Including income taxes, you spend about $80,000 a year. You want to retire, but you’re worried about paying the early withdrawal penalty, which would be about $8,000 a year (not factoring in the penalty on the penalty!).
72(t) payments can make retirement possible prior to age 59 ½ when one has most of their assets in traditional deferred retirement accounts. Done properly, these payments avoid the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty.
Below I explore some of the rules of 72(t) payments (sometimes referred to as a “72(t) SEPP” or “SEPP”) and lay out what I hope will be an informative case study.
** As always, none of this is personalized advice for you, but rather educational information for your consideration. Consult with your own advisors regarding your own situation.
72(t) Substantially Equal Periodic Payments
Methods
The IRS and Treasury provide three methods for computing a 72(t) payment. As a practical matter, the third one I discuss, the fixed amortization method, tends to be the most commonly used and most user friendly in my opinion.
The required minimum distribution method allows taxpayers to take a 72(t) payment just like an RMD. Take the prior year end-of-year balance and divide it by the factor off the IRS table. The biggest problems with this method are it tends to produce a smaller payment the younger you are and the payment changes every year and can decrease if the IRA portfolio declines in value. The fixed annuitization method usually requires actuarial assistance, making it more complicated and less desirable. See Choate, referenced below, at page 587.
We will focus the rest of the post on the fixed amortization method of computing 72(t) payments (other than a brief foray into the RMD method to account for changing circumstances)).
Computing Fixed Amortization 72(t) Payments
To compute a 72(t) payment and the size of the 72(t) IRA using the fixed amortization method, we will need to run through some math. Four numbers are required: the interest rate, the life expectancy, the annual payment, and the size of the 72(t) IRA.
Usually the IRS gives us the interest rate and the life expectancy and we need to solve for the 72(t) IRA size.
As a general rule, taxpayers will usually want to use the greatest interest rate permitted to as to decrease the size of the 72(t) IRA. Decreasing the size of the 72(t) IRA will usually be advantageous, for the reasons discussed below.
Life Expectancy: The life expectancy comes to us from an IRS table. While we have three possible choices to use, generally speaking taxpayers will want to use the Single Life Table found at Treas. Reg. Section 1.401(a)(9)-9(b). See Choate, referenced below, at page 587. The taxpayer takes their age on their birthday of the year of the first 72(t) payment and uses the factor from the Single Life Table as the life expectancy.
Payment: Finally, we, not the IRS, get to determine a number! The payment is simply the annual payment we want to receive as a 72(t) payment every year. While this amount is rather inflexible, as discussed below it will be possible to establish additional 72(t) IRAs and payments to increase the amount received if desired.
Size of the 72(t) IRA: This is what we’re solving for to establish a “right-sized” IRA to produce the desired 72(t) payment. In Google Sheets, we do a present value calculation to solve for the size of the 72(t) IRA that generates the desired payment amount. The formula is rather simple: =-PV(Interest Rate Cell, Life Expectancy Cell, Annual Payment Cell). I put a negative sign in front of the PV to have the size of the 72(t) IRA appear as a positive number. It’s important that the formula be entered in that order and that the formatting be correct in each cell.
Note on 72(t) Payments with non-IRA Accounts: Setting up a 72(t) from a non-IRA is possible but not frequent in practice. It is not possible to divide up a 401(k) account in a manner conducive to establishing a “right-sized” 72(t) payment account. See Choate, referenced below, at page 595.
Annual Equal 72(t) Fixed Amortization Payments
The computed payments must be made annually and equally. This means that no more and no less than the computed payment comes out every year. I believe that taking an annual flat payment on or around the first payment anniversary date is a best practice. However, this best practice is not required. See also Choate, referenced below, at page 600. For example, monthly payments of the computed amount are allowable. See Choate, referenced below, at page 600.
Annual payments must be made for the longer of five years or until the taxpayer reaches age 59 ½.
72(t) Payments Case Study
Let’s return to the example discussed above: it is early November 2023 and you (let’s call you Pat) are 53 years old (your birthday was June 8th) and you want to retire, spending $80K a year from your $2.5M 401(k). Let’s solve for the size of the 72(t) IRA:
The size of the 72(t) IRA is $1,236,012.95. See IRS FAQ Q&A 7.
Pat would first transfer (preferably through a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer) the 401(k) to a traditional IRA worth $2.5M. Once in the traditional IRA, Pat would call their financial institution and ask them to divide the traditional IRA into two IRAs: one with exactly $1,236,012.95 (the “72(t) IRA”) and one with the reminder of the traditional IRA (the “non-72(t) IRA”). I recommend initially investing the 72(t) IRA in a money market fund so that it can be clearly established that the beginning account balance was exactly the $1,236,012.95 computed to yield the correct payment. Pat takes the first payment of $80,000 on November 29th from the 72(t) IRA in this hypothetical scenario.
Let’s keep going. Assume that in 2027, when Pat turns age 57 and interest rates are well below 5%, Pat wants to increase their November withdrawal from $80K to $90K. As discussed below, Pat can’t simply increase the withdrawal from the 72(t) IRA. But since Pat kept a non-72(t) IRA, Pat can slice that one up to create a second 72(t) IRA. That second 72(t) IRA can give Pat the extra $10,000 Pat wants to spend.
Here’s what that looks like.
Interest Rate: 5.00%
Life Expectancy: 30.6
Payment: $10,000
The size of the second 72(t) IRA is $155,059.55.
Pat would call their financial institution and ask them to divide the non-72(t) IRA into two IRAs: one with exactly $155,059.55 (the “Second 72(t) IRA”) and one with the remainder of the traditional IRA (the surviving non-72(t) IRA). Pat takes the additional payment of $10,000 also on November 29th from the Second 72(t) in this hypothetical scenario.
Here is what Pat’s withdrawals would look like:
Year
Birthday Age
Required First 72(t) November 29 Withdrawal
Required Second 72(t) November 29 Withdrawal
Total Annual Withdrawal
2023
53
$80,000
$0
$80,000
2024
54
$80,000
$0
$80,000
2025
55
$80,000
$0
$80,000
2026
56
$80,000
$0
$80,000
2027
57
$80,000
$10,000
$90,000
2028
58
$80,000
$10,000
$90,000
2029
59
$80,000
$10,000
$90,000
2030
60
$0
$10,000
$10,000
2031
61
$0
$10,000
$10,000
Remember that the First 72(t) IRA and the Second 72(t) are locked up for a period of time. See Locking the Cage below. The First 72(t) IRA is locked up until and through December 7, 2029, the day before Pat’s 59 ½ birthday. The Second 72(t) IRA is locked up until and through November 28, 2032, the day before the fifth anniversary of the first $10,000 payment from the Second 72(t) IRA. See IRS FAQ 13 on this point. Generally speaking, no amount other than the annual payment should go into, or out of, a 72(t) IRA until the end of the lock-up period.
Maintain Flexibility
I strongly recommend maintaining as much flexibility as possible. One way to do that is to have the 72(t) IRA be as small as possible, leaving as much as possible in a non-72(t) IRA or IRAs. Why?
First, the non-72(t) can be, in a flexible manner, sliced and diced to create a second 72(t) IRA if wanted or needed. Second, it is not abundantly clear what happens when a 72(t) IRA is used for partial Roth conversions. See Choate, referenced below, at page 384. As Ms. Choate discusses, the only clarity we have is that if the entire 72(t) IRA is Roth converted, the taxpayer must continue to take withdrawals from the Roth IRA for the remainder of the 72(t) term. Doing so limits the benefit of doing Roth conversions in the first place, since we usually want Roth converted amounts to stay in a Roth IRA to facilitate many years of tax-free growth.
Imagine if Pat did not divide the $2.5M traditional IRA into two IRAs. Pat could have simply used a smaller interest rate on the entire $2.5M traditional IRA to get the $80,000 annual payment out. However, then Pat would not have had the flexibility to create a second 72(t) payment stream. This is an important reason that it is usually best to use the highest possible interest rate to lower the 72(t) IRA size and maintain the most flexibility.
72(t) Payment Plan Disqualification
A “modification” to the 72(t) payment plan blows up the plan with unfavorable consequences. In the year of the modification the taxpayer owes the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty plus interest on the penalty on all the previously taken 72(t) payments. See Choate, referenced below, at page 596.
A blow up after age 59 ½, for those on the five year rule, is bad but tends to be less deleterious than a blow up occurring with respect to a SEPP ending at age 59 1/2. The early withdrawal penalty and related interest are not assessed on 72(t) payments taken after one’s 59 ½ birthday. See Choate, referenced below, at page 596.
There are a few modifications to a 72(t) payment plan that do not blow it up (i.e., they are permissible and don’t trigger the penalty and interest). See Choate, referenced below, at pages 597-601. Those looking to change the payment amount are often well advised to set up a second 72(t) payment plan (as Pat did) rather than seeking a modification to the existing 72(t) payment plan.
72(t) Payment Reduction
Imagine that instead of wanting an additional 72(t) payment amount, Pat wanted to reduce the 72(t) payment. This is not uncommon. Perhaps Pat has a significant inheritance in 2027 and thus no longer needs to take an $80,000 annual payment and pay tax on it.
Unfortunately, Pat is not allowed to simply discontinue or reduce the 72(t) payment without triggering the early withdrawal penalty (and interest charges) on the previously taken 72(t) payments.
But, the rules allow a one-time switch to the RMD method. Making the switch is likely to significantly reduce the annual 72(t) payment. For example, if Pat wants a smaller payment starting in 2027, Pat could take the 72(t) IRA balance on December 31, 2026 (imagine it is exactly $1M) and divide it by the age 57 factor off the Single Life Table (29.8) and get a 2027 72(t) payment of $33,557.05. Alternatively, Pat could use the age 57 factor off the Notice 2022-6 Uniform Life Table (41.6) and get a 2027 72(t) payment of $24,038.46.
If Pat makes this one-time switch, Pat will annually compute the 72(t) payment for the remainder of the 72(t) term using the table used in 2027 (see Notice 2022-6 page 6) and the prior-year end-of-year 72(t) IRA balance.
The one-time switch to the RMD method is helpful if the taxpayer wants to significantly reduce their 72(t) annual payment, perhaps because of an inheritance, marriage, YouTube channel blowing up, or returning to work. The availability of this method to reduce required 72(t) payments (if desired) is another reason to keep 72(t) IRAs as small as possible.
72(t) Locking The Cage
The 72(t) IRA should be thought of as a locked cage. No one goes in, and only the 72(t) payment comes out annually. The rigidity with which the IRS treats the 72(t) IRA gives early retirees incentive to use as high an interest rate as possible to get the highest annual payment out of the smallest 72(t) IRA possible.
Just how rigid is the IRS? In one case, the IRS disqualified a 72(t) SEPP because a taxpayer transferred a workplace retirement plan into the 72(t) IRA during the 72(t) payment period. See page 4 of this newsletter (page 4 is behind a paywall). Imagine paying penalties and interest on old 72(t) payments for what is seemingly an unrelated rollover!
Remember, the “series of substantially equal periodic payments” requires not just an annual payment. It requires that the 72(t) IRA be locked up. Assuming one is using the fixed amortization method for their 72(t) payments, not a dollar more than the 72(t) SEPP should come out each year. It appears the IRS expects the amount to be equal each tax year, see page 5 of this PLR.
Further, the 72(t) lockup does not end with the taking of the last payment. Rather, as described in IRS FAQ 13, it ends at the end of the lock up period. So if Sean, age 57 in 2023, takes his first 72(t) SEPP of $10,000 from IRA 1 on July 15, 2023, his taking of payment number 5 ($10,000) on July 15, 2027 does not end the lock up. Sean can’t take any additional money out of IRA 1 until July 1, 2028 (the fifth anniversary of his first $10,000 72(t) payment).
Practice Point: Never add money to a 72(t) IRA during the lockup period. This includes never making an annual contribution to a 72(t) IRA and never rolling an IRA, 401(k), or other qualified plan into a 72(t) IRA.
IRS FAQ 13 is instructive in terms of when the lock up ends. The IRS is clear that the lock up ends on the date of the 59 ½ birthday, not on January 1st of that year. Say Rob, born January 14, 1971, takes his first SEPP of $40,000 on August 16, 2023. His 72(t) IRA is free on his 59 ½ birthday, which is July 14, 2030. Presumably, Rob takes his last $40,000 SEPP on or around August 16, 2029. Nevertheless, he can’t add to or withdraw from his 72(t) IRA prior to July 14, 2030 without blowing up his 72(t) payment plan and incurring significant penalties and interest.
As discussed above, the one-time switch to the RMD method is a permissible modification to the 72(t) payment terms that does not trigger the early withdrawal penalty and related interest on previously taken 72(t) payments.
A Note on the 72(t) Risk Profile
The earlier in life the 72(t) payment plan starts, the greater the risk profile on the 72(t) payment plan. The opposite is also true: the later in life a 72(t) payment plan starts, the lower the risk profile.
Why?
Because the sooner the 72(t) payment plan starts, the more years (and more interest) that can be blown up by a future modification requiring the payment of the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty and interest.
Consider Pat’s example. If Pat blows up the First 72(t) payment plan in early 2028, Pat owes the 10% early withdrawal penalty and interest on five previously taken 72(t) payments from the First 72(t) IRA (2023 through 2027). If Pat blows up the Second 72(t) payment plan in 2032, Pat only owes the early withdrawal penalty and interest on the three 72(t) payments received before Pat turned age 59 ½.
72(t) Payment Tax Return Reporting
Taxpayers should keep the computations they and/or their advisors have done to document the 72(t) payment plan. Distributions should be reported as taxable income and on Form 5329. Code 02 should be entered on Line 2 of Form 5329.
72(t) Is An Exception to More Than One Rule
72(t) payment plans are an exception to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. They are also an exception to the general rule that the IRS views all of your IRAs as a single IRA. The 72(t) IRA is the 72(t) IRA. If you have a separate IRA and take ten dollars out of it prior to age 59 ½, you trigger ordinary income tax and a $1 penalty. If you take an additional ten dollars out of the 72(t) IRA prior to the end of the 72(t) lock up, you blow up the 72(t) payment plan and owe the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty and interest on all the pre-59 ½ 72(t) payments.
Other Penalty Free Sources of Early Retirement Funding
Let’s remember that 72(t) payments are a tool. In many cases they are not a “go-to” strategy. I’ve written this post not because 72(t) payments are a go-to strategy but rather because I know there are many in their 50s thinking about retirement but daunted by the prospect of accessing traditional retirement accounts prior to age 59 ½.
Generally speaking, I encourage using resources other than 72(t) payments if you are able to. They include:
Taxable Accounts: I’m so fond of using taxable accounts first in retirement I wrote a post about the concept in 2022.
Inherited Retirement Accounts: Withdrawals from inherited retirement accounts (other than those the spouse treats as their own) are never subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty. Often they are subject to a 10-year draw down rule, so usually they should be accessed prior to implementing a 72(t) payment plan from one’s own accounts.
Rule of 55 Distributions: Only available from a qualified retirement plan such as a 401(k) from an employer the employee separates from service no sooner than the beginning of the year they turn age 55. This is a great workaround from the early withdrawal penalty, and much more flexible than a 72(t) payment plan. But remember, the money must stay in the workplace retirement account (and not be rolled over to a traditional IRA) to get the benefit.
Governmental 457(b) Plans: Withdrawals from governmental 457(b) plans are generally not subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty.
I previously discussed using a 72(t) payment plan to bail out Roth IRA earnings penalty-free prior to age 59 ½. This is a tactic that I would not recommend unless absolutely necessary (which I believe is a very rare situation).
72(t) Landscape Change
It should be noted that the issuance of Notice 2022-6 in early 2022 changed the landscape when it comes to 72(t) payments. Before the 5 percent safe harbor, it was possible that taxpayers could be subject to sub-0.5 percent interest rates, meaning that it would take almost $1M in a retirement account to generate just $30,000 in an annual payment in one’s mid-50s. Now with the availability of the 5 percent interest rate much more modest account balances can be used to generate significant 72(t) payments in one’s mid-50s.
What if Pat’s 401(k) contained significant amounts of employer stock? What if that employer stock had significantly appreciated in value since the time Pat and/or Pat’s employer contributed that stock? If so, a 72(t) payment plan may not be ideal. Rather, Pat may want to work with Pat’s advisor(s) to look into a separate and distinct tax planning opportunity, net unrealized appreciation (“NUA”).
I collaborated with Andrea MacDonald to discuss the tax return reporting requirements for NUA here.
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters.Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
If you have basis in an IRA, you will want to read this post. Basis in an IRA creates all sorts of confusion, but it also presents a great planning opportunity for many of those still working. I refer to this opportunity as the Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA.
Where Does IRA Basis Come From?
Basis in a traditional IRA generally emerges from two sources. The first source is old nondeductible traditional IRA contributions that have not been Roth converted or withdrawn. Nondeductible traditional IRA contributions should be reported on a Form 8606 filed with one’s annual federal income tax return.
Many times this basis is simply exhausted annually by Backdoor Roth IRAs. Here’s a quick example:
Example 1: Becky contributed $6,500 to a traditional, nondeductible IRA on January 2, 2023. On February 1, 2023, when the traditional IRA was worth $6,504, she converted the entire traditional IRA balance to a Roth IRA. On December 31, 2023, she had $0 in all traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs. She successfully completed the Backdoor Roth IRA, which created $6,500 of IRA basis on January 2nd and exhausted all $6,500 of that basis on February 1st.
However, there are plenty of Americans who have existing and remaining IRA basis because they can’t do the Backdoor Roth IRA efficiently, or they never did the Backdoor Roth IRA.
To sum up, those doing annual tax-efficient Backdoor Roth IRAs tend not to have any IRA basis at year-end. But some Americans do have existing and remaining IRA basis.
There are Americans with existing IRA basis through transfers from a 401(k) (or other qualified plan) to a traditional IRA. However, going forward this should generally not occur. The IRS and Treasury issued Notice 2014-54, which provides that after-tax 401(k) contribution amounts can be rolled directly to a Roth IRA. From a planning perspective, after-tax 401(k) contributions (and other qualified plan after-tax contributions) should generally be directed into Roth IRAs if the plan participant prefers to exit the plan for IRAs (at retirement or a job change, for example).
Example 2: Chris is age 53. He leaves employment at Consolidated Industries, Inc. on November 1, 2023. At that time, he had a traditional 401(k) at Consolidated worth $500,000. During his time at Consolidated, Chris made $75,000 of after-tax contributions to the traditional 401(k) which remain in the traditional 401(k). Chris prefers to manage the money himself in an IRA or IRAs. Thus, he has two options:
Option One: Transfer the money (preferably through a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer) to a single traditional IRA. Chris now has $75,000 of traditional IRA basis.
Option Two: Transfer (preferably through direct trustee-to-trustee transfers) the after-tax money $75,000 to a Roth IRA and $425,000 to a traditional IRA. The $75,000 goes into the Roth IRA as a nontaxable conversion contribution (see also Notice 2014-54 Example 4). Chris receives no basis in his traditional IRA.
Which option is better for Chris? Clearly it is Option Two, which gives Chris tax-free growth on his $75,000. Further, Chris can withdraw the $75,000 from the Roth IRA tax and penalty free at any time while Chris would be subject to the hard bite of the Pro-Rata Rule if he used Option 1 and later withdrew $75,000 from the traditional IRA. Thus, while Chris is allowed to roll his $75K 401(k) basis into a traditional IRA, he would be much better served to roll the basis tax-free into a Roth IRA.
A Current Employer Qualified Plan That Accepts Rollovers
In order to have an IRA basis isolation opportunity, one must be currently employed by an employer with a qualified plan (often a 401(k)) that accepts IRA roll-ins. Many qualified plans accept IRA roll-ins but not all do.
One should generally employ the Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA if they have a 401(k) or other qualified plan at work they are satisfied with from both an investment choice standpoint and a fee standpoint. If one isn’t satisfied with their workplace retirement plan the Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA may not be a good tactic to employ.
Comprehensive Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA Case Study
Having addressed the two prerequisites to do a Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA, let’s dive in with a comprehensive case study.
Imagine Ray has two (and only two) traditional IRAs. IRA 1 is a $100K traditional IRA rollover from an old 401(k). No basis came along in the rollover into IRA 1. IRA 2 is a traditional IRA worth $25K. It was established with three $6K nondeductible traditional IRA contributions for 2020 through 2022. He filed Forms 8606 reporting those contributions.
Ray’s current employer (Acme) has a great 401(k) that accepts roll-ins of traditional IRAs. What could Ray do to take advantage of his traditional IRA basis? He will need to isolate that basis, and that’s where the Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA comes in.
Step 1
Ray transfers IRA 1 to the Acme 401(k), preferably through a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer.
Step 2
Ray invests about $18,010 of IRA 2 in a money market account and invests the remainder of IRA 2 in any investment of his choice (Mutual Fund A).*
By putting that $18,000 and a bit of change in a money market, Ray makes sure he “leaves behind” the IRA basis in the IRA! We will come back to why this “leave behind” asset is so critically important in the Step 3 discussion and analysis.
* As a practical matter, it may be easier to split IRA 2 into IRA 2 and IRA 3, with the $18,010 in IRA 2 and Mutual Fund A in IRA 3. Either path can work, but splitting into IRA 2 and IRA 3 may be the easier path. That split should be done internally at the IRA 2 institution without any check coming out of IRA 2 to the owner.
Step 3
Ray transfers the entire value of Mutual Fund A to the Acme 401(k), preferably through a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer.
If the $18,010 was invested in an equity mutual fund (call it Mutual Fund B), there’s a risk that when Ray does Step 3 he will leave behind only Mutual Fund B, which could be less than his $18K basis if Mutual Fund B declines in value.
Example 3: Imagine Ray does Step 3 when Mutual Fund A is worth $10K and Mutual Fund B, originally worth $18K is now only worth $14K based on market declines. In such a case, $4K of basis would (theoretically) move into the Acme 401(k) with the $10K going from IRA 2 to the Acme 401(k). That would be a prohibited transfer of basis.
IRA Aggregation: Remember that for tax purposes, the IRS looks at all of Ray’s traditional IRAs (whether he has one or ten) as a single traditional IRA. We can’t say that basis attaches to IRA 2 only, so it is important that Ray leave at least $18K behind in an IRA so that after the transfers from his IRAs to qualified plans he can demonstrate that his basis was left behind in one or more of his traditional IRAs.
Step 4
Step 4: Ray converts the entire remaining balance in IRA 2 (likely to be $18,010 plus a bit of additional interest) to a Roth IRA. The only taxable amount is the small amount over $18,000.
Step 4 is reported on a Form 8606 (Parts 1 and 2).
The Benefits of the Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA
Ray has moved approximately $107K from traditional IRAs to the Acme 401(k). That is entirely tax free and does not change the future tax treatment of that money. Perfectly fine, but by itself this doesn’t improve Ray’s tax position.
Before this planning, Ray had $18K of IRA basis that was of limited value due to the Pro-Rata Rule. Future taxable distributions or conversions from his traditional IRAs would have picked up only a small portion of that $18K, meaning that it would only protect small portions of future distributions and conversions from current taxation.
Example 4 The Pro-Rata Rule Bites Ray: If Ray had $18K of basis and $125K of total traditional IRAs and decided to do a $10K Roth conversion (without first doing the Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA), approximately $1,440 of that Roth conversion would have been tax free and approximately $8,560 would have been taxable. See the mock Form 8606 Part I here and Form 8606 Part II here (though note that tax return software programs may use a separate statement instead of actually completing the form).
But with the Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA Ray puts $18K plus into a Roth IRA and paid almost no tax to do so! Ray successfully isolated all $18,000 of basis to get it all into a Roth IRA without being adversely affected by the Pro-Rata Rule. Further, that $18,000 can now grow tax free for the rest of Ray’s life. Previously, inside a traditional IRA that $18,000 was growing tax-deferred, not tax free.
The Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA improved Ray’s position by getting around the Pro-Rata Rule to get $18K plus into a Roth IRA for hardly any income tax. The only tax Ray pays is on the small amount the conversion amount in Step 4 exceeds $18,000.
The Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA also opens another future tax planning opportunity. Going forward, Ray can do annual Backdoor Roth IRAs in a tax-efficient manner because he cleaned out his traditional IRAs into his workplace 401(k).
Practical Considerations
The Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA is not a tactic to be affirmatively planned into. Rather, it is a clean up tactic. It makes the best of a situation where one has both basis and pretax amounts in traditional IRAs. The Backdoor Roth IRA is an affirmative planning technique, though it may require similar clean-up steps prior to implementation.
This planning is sophisticated and benefits from professional assistance. I recommend that most work with a professional if they are considering this sort of planning. Further, this planning does not occur every day. My experience suggests that most professionals are unfamiliar with this type of planning. Professionals will need to review resources such as this blog post and other sources and measure two or three times to dot I’s and cross T’s on this type of planning.
Of course, this blog post is not advice for the reader or any particular individual.
Additional IRA Basis and IRA Basis Isolation Resource
I went into detail on this planning in a June 2023 Measure Twice Planners presentation. While the presentation is mostly geared towards advisors, I hope I presented it in such a way that layman can also understand much of it and get value from it. The presentation and its slides, like this particular post, are for educational purposes only and are not intended as advice for any particular individual.
Conclusion
Existing basis in IRAs is a planning opportunity if the investor has a good workplace 401(k) or other qualified plan that accepts IRA roll-ins. That planning requires intention and diligence, and measuring two or three times, even if working with a professional.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, investment, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
There are only three types of annual contributions to individual retirement accounts (“IRAs”). They are:
Traditional, nondeductible contributions
Traditional, deductible contributions
Roth contributions
This post discusses when a taxpayer can make one or more of these types of annual contributions.
Let’s dispense with what we are not talking about. This post has nothing to do with annual contributions to employer retirement plans (401(k)s and the like) and self-employed retirement plans. We’re only talking about IRAs. The Individual in “IRA” is the key – anyone can set up their own IRA. IRAs are not pegged to any particular job or self-employment.
The above list is the exhaustive list of the possible types of annual contributions you can make to an IRA. But there is plenty of confusion about when you are eligible to make each of the three types of annual contributions.
Why Contribute to an IRA?
Before we dive into annual contributions to IRAs, let’s discuss why you would consider contributing to an IRA. The main reason is to build up tax-deferred wealth (traditional IRAs) and/or tax-free wealth (Roth IRAs) for your future, however you define it: financial independence, retirement, etc. A second potential benefit is the ability to deduct some annual contributions to traditional IRAs. A third benefit is some degree of creditor protection. States offer varying levels of creditor protection to traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs, while the federal government provides significant bankruptcy protection for traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs.
IRA Annual Contribution Requirement: Earned Income
In order to make any of the three types of IRA annual contributions for any particular year, you or your spouse must have earned income during that year. Earned income is generally that income that is reported to you on your Form W-2, or is reported by you on your tax return on Schedule C (self-employment income). It also includes self-employment income reported to you on a Form K-1 (because you are a self-employed partner in a partnership). It does not include income reported to you on a Form K-1 from an S corporation.
While wages, nontaxable combat income, and self-employment income qualify as earned income for this purpose, several types of income do not. Social security, pensions, rentals, royalties, interest, and dividends are not earned income. Income excluded from taxable income under the foreign earned income exclusion also does not constitute “earned income” for IRA purposes.
Traditional Nondeductible IRA Annual Contributions
There’s are only one requirement to contribute to a traditional, nondeductible IRA for a taxable year:
You and/or your spouse have earned income during that taxable year.
That’s it! As long as you satisfy that requirement, you can contribute to a traditional nondeductible IRA, no further questions asked.
Example: Teve Torbes is the publisher of a successful magazine. He is paid a salary of $1,000,000 in 2024 and is covered by the magazine’s 401(k) plan. Teve can make up to a $7,000 nondeductible contribution to a traditional IRA, and Teve’s wife can also make up to a $7,000 nondeductible contribution to a traditional IRA.
There is no tax deduction for contributing to a traditional nondeductible IRA. The amount of your nondeductible contribution creates “basis” in the traditional IRA. When you withdraw money from the traditional IRA in retirement, a ratable portion of the withdrawal is treated as a return of basis and thus not taxable (the “Pro-Rata Rule”).
Example: Ted makes a $6,000 nondeductible traditional IRA contribution for each of 10 years ($60,000 total). When he retires, the traditional IRA is worth $100,000, and he takes a $5,000 distribution from the traditional IRA. Ted is over 59 ½ when he makes the withdrawal. Of the $5,000 withdrawal, Ted will include $2,000 in his taxable income, because 60 percent ($3,000 — $60,000 basis divided by $100,000 fair market value times the $5,000 withdrawn) will be treated as a withdrawal of basis and thus tax free.
Traditional nondeductible IRA contributions generally give taxpayers a rather limited tax benefit. However, since 2010 traditional nondeductible IRA contributions have become an important tax planning tool because of the availability of the Backdoor Roth IRA.
Making a nondeductible IRA contribution requires the filing of a Form 8606 with your federal income tax return.
Traditional Deductible IRA Annual Contributions
In order to make a deductible contribution to a traditional IRA, three sets of qualification rules apply.
ONE: No Workplace Retirement Plan
Here are the qualification rules if neither you nor your spouse is covered by an employer retirement plan (401(k)s and the like and self-employment retirement plans):
You and/or your spouse have earned income during that taxable year.
That’s it! As long as you satisfy that requirement and you and your spouse are not covered by an employer retirement plan, you can make a deductible contribution to a traditional IRA, no further questions asked.
Example: Teve Torbes is the publisher of a successful magazine. He and his wife are 45 years old. He is paid a salary of $1,000,000 in 2024. Neither he nor his wife is covered by an employer retirement plan. Teve can make up to a $7,000 deductible contribution to a traditional IRA, and Teve’s wife can also make up to a $7,000 deductible contribution to a traditional IRA.
TWO: You Are Covered by a Workplace Retirement Plan
Here are the deductible traditional IRA qualification rules if you are covered by an employer retirement plan:
You and/or your spouse have earned income during that taxable year.
Your modified adjusted gross income (“MAGI”) for 2024 is less than $87,000 (if single), $143,000 (if married filing joint, “MFJ”), or $10,000 (if married filing separate, “MFS”).
Note that in between $77,000 and $87,000 (single), $123,000 and $143,000 (MFJ) and $0 and $10,000 (MFS), your ability to make a deductible contribution to a traditional IRA phases out ratably. Here is an illustrative example.
Example: Mike is 30 years old, single, and is covered by a 401(k) plan at work. Mike has a MAGI of $82,000 in 2024, most of which is W-2 income. Based on a MAGI in the middle of the phaseout range, Mike is limited to a maximum $3,500 deductible contribution to a traditional IRA.
Assuming he makes a $3,500 deductible IRA contribution, Mike has $3,500 worth of IRA contributions left. He can either, or a combination of both (up to $3,500) (a) make a contribution to a nondeductible traditional IRA, since he meets the qualification requirement to contribute to a nondeductible traditional IRA or (b) make a contribution to a Roth IRA, since he meets the qualification requirements (discussed below) to contribute to a Roth IRA. In such a case, Mike would be likely to favor a Roth IRA contribution over a nondeductible traditional IRA contribution.
THREE: Only Your Spouse is Covered by a Workplace Retirement Plan
Here are the deductible traditional IRA qualification rules if you are not covered by an employer retirement plan but your spouse is covered by an employer retirement plan:
You and/or your spouse have earned income during that taxable year.
Your MAGI for 2024 is less than $240,000 (MFJ) or $10,000 (MFS).
Note that in between $230,000 and $240,000 (MFJ) and $0 and $10,000 (MFS), your ability to make a deductible contribution to a traditional IRA phases out ratably.
Roth IRA Annual Contributions
Here are the Roth IRA annual contribution qualification rules.
You and/or your spouse have earned income during that taxable year.
Your MAGI for 2024 is less than $161,000 (single), $240,000 (MFJ), or $10,000 (MFS).
Note that in between $146,000 and $161,000 (single), $230,000 and $240,000 (MFJ), and $0 and $10,000 (MFS), your ability to make a Roth IRA contribution phases out ratably.
Notice that whether you and/or your spouse are covered by an employer retirement plan (including a self-employment retirement plan) is irrelevant. You and your spouse can be covered by an employer retirement plan and you can still contribute to a Roth IRA (so long as you meet the other qualification requirements).
Here is an example illustrating your options in the Roth IRA MAGI phaseout range.
Example: Mike is 30 years old, single, and covered by a workplace retirement plan. Mike has a MAGI of $155,000 for 2024, most of which is W-2 income. Based on a MAGI 60 percent through the phaseout range, Mike is limited to a maximum $2,800 contribution to a Roth IRA.
Assuming he makes a $2,800 annual Roth IRA contribution, Mike has $4,200 worth of IRA contributions left. He can make up to $4,200 in annual contributions to a nondeductible traditional IRA, since he meets the qualification requirement to contribute to a nondeductible traditional IRA.
IRA Annual Contribution Limits
For taxpayers younger than 50 years old during the entire year, the maximum (for 2024) that can be contributed to the combination of all three types of IRAs is the lesser of:
The taxpayer’s and their spouse’s combined earned income, or
$7,000.
Thus, if both spouses are younger than 50 years old, the maximum IRA contributions for a married couple is $14,000.
For taxpayers 50 years old or older during any part of the taxable year the maximum (for 2024) that can be contributed to the combination of all three types of IRAs is the lesser of:
The taxpayer’s and their spouse’s combined earned income, or
$8,000.
Thus, if both spouses are 50 or older, the maximum IRA contributions for a married couple is $16,000.
Deadlines
The deadline to make an IRA contribution for a particular year is April 15th of the year following the taxable year (thus, the deadline to make a 2024 IRA contribution is April 15, 2025). The deadline to make earned income for a taxable year is December 31st of that year.
Rollover Contributions
There’s a separate category of contributions to IRAs: rollover contributions. These can be from other accounts of the same type (traditional IRA to traditional IRA, Roth IRA to Roth IRA) or from a workplace retirement plan (for example, traditional 401(k) to traditional IRA, Roth 401(k) to Roth IRA).
Rollover contributions do not require having earned income and have no income limits and should be generally tax-free. For a myriad of reasons, it is usually best to effectuate rollovers as direct trustee-to-trustee transfers.
As a practical matter, it is often the case that IRAs serve at the retirement home for workplace retirement plans such as 401(k)s.
Correction
A previous version of this blog post, titled “IRA Contributions for Beginners” erroneously stated that one must be a citizen or resident of the United States to make an IRA contribution. I regret the error.
Further Reading
Deductible traditional IRA or Roth IRA? If you qualify for both, it can be difficult to determine which is better. I’ve written here about some of the factors to consider in determining whether a deductible traditional contribution or a Roth contribution is better for you.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
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.
The debate continues: what’s preferable, traditional retirement accounts or Roth retirement accounts?
Fortunately, there are plenty of shades of gray in this debate. There’s no “right” answer, but I do believe that there are good insights that can help individuals make the right planning decisions for themselves.
Traditional and Roth Retirement Basics
Before we dive into the traditional versus Roth debate, we should quickly survey the basics of these types of retirement accounts.
Traditional
Traditional retirement accounts feature a tax deduction on the way in (i.e., for contributions) and ordinary income tax on the way out (i.e., for withdrawals). At work these are known as traditional 401(k)s, 403(b), 457s, and occasionally have other names. At home these are known as traditional IRAs.
Additional twist: many working Americans do not qualify to deduct a traditional IRA contribution due to relatively low income limits on claiming a deduction.
Part of the appeal of traditional retirement accounts includes: (i) the notion that many will have lower taxable income (and thus lower income tax) in retirement than they did during their working years and (ii) the tax saved by contributing to traditional accounts can be invested, potentially creating more wealth for retirement.
Roth
Roth retirement accounts feature no tax deduction on the way in (i.e., for contributions) and tax free treatment on the way out (i.e., for withdrawals). At work these are known as Roth 401(k)s, 403(b), 457s, and (after SECURE 2.0 implementation) will occasionally have other names. At home these are known as Roth IRAs.
Additional twist: some working Americans do not qualify to make an annual Roth IRA contribution based on income limits, but many can get around this rule by implementing a Backdoor Roth IRA.
Part of the appeal of contributions to Roth retirement accounts is the notion that it is better for our younger, healthier selves to pay the tax associated with retirement savings when cash flow is good and the investor knows they can bear the cost.
The basics out of the way, we can get into 2023 insights on the debate between the two types of retirement accounts.
The Risk of Traditional Retirement Accounts is Vastly Overstated
Here’s the thing: rarely do commentators offer any sort of mathematical analysis backing up that contention. I ran the math, and I repeatedly find that many retirees with traditional retirement accounts are likely to pay Uncle Sam a very manageable amount of income taxes in retirement.
You be the judge and jury. I believe a fair assessment of my posts and videos and the numbers behind them shows that most Americans do not face a high risk of crippling federal income taxes in retirement, even if the vast majority of their portfolio is in traditional 401(k)s and IRAs.
While I cannot give readers of this blog individualized advice, I can say that if one considers themselves to be an “Average Joe” it is difficult to see how having significant amounts in traditional retirement accounts is a problem.
The Needle Keeps Moving Towards Traditional
Picture it: United States, September 2017, six short years ago. You’re bright-eyed, bushy-tailed, and fear only one thing: incredibly high taxes on your traditional 401(k) and IRA in retirement.
Then a few things happened.
December 2017: TCJA increased the standard deduction and lowered the 15% bracket to 12%
December 2019: The SECURE Act (SECURE 1.0) delayed RMDs from age 70 ½ to 72
March 2020: CARES Act cancels 2020 RMDs and allows taken RMDs to be rolled back in
November 2020: IRS and Treasury issue a new Uniform Life Table, decreasing the amount of annual RMDs beginning in 2022
December 2022: SECURE 2.0 delays RMDs from age 72 to 73, and all the way to age 75 for those born in 1960 and later
Tax cut after tax cut for traditional retirement accounts and retirees! In the traditional versus Roth debate, DC keeps putting a thumb on the scale for traditional.
Watch me assess recent tax law change history as it applies to retirees.
Taxable Roth Conversions Going Away?
One reason I like traditional 401(k) contributions is that they do not close the door on Roths. Rather, traditional retirement account contributions at work are a springboard for years of Roth conversions in retirement for many in the FI community!
The idea is to take deductions at high marginal tax rates at work into a 401(k) and build up wealth for an early retirement. Then, in retirement, one’s tax rate is artificially low as they no longer have W-2 income to report. This opens up room for potentially very efficient Roth conversions (affirmatively moving money in traditional accounts to Roth accounts) taxed at the 10% or 12% federal income tax rate.
Second, why would Congress eliminate most taxable Roth conversions? They “budget” tax bills in a 10 year window. Taxable Roth conversions create tax revenue inside that budget window, making it that much less likely a Congress would eliminate most of them.
While there is not zero risk taxable Roth conversions will go away, I believe that the risk is negligible. The greater one believes Roth conversion repeal risk is, the more attractive Roth contributions during one’s working years look.
Special Years Favor Roths
I’ve written before about how workers in the early years of their careers may want to consider Roth 401(k) contributions prior to their income significantly increasing. Those in transition years, such as those starting a job after graduating college and those about to take a mini retirement may want to prioritize Roth 401(k) contributions over traditional 401(k) contributions.
Here’s the thing: there are simply too many unknown future variables to come up with any precision in this regard. That said, I don’t believe we have to.
Why? Because in retirement planning, we can optimize for known trade-offs. Let me explain. At work, Americans under age 50 can contribute up to $22,500 (2023 number) to a 401(k). At most employers, that can be any combination of traditional or Roth contributions. Every dollar contributed to a Roth 401(k) is a dollar that cannot be contributed to a traditional deductible 401(k). That’s a known trade-off.
What about at home? For most working Americans covered by a 401(k), a dollar contributed to a Roth IRA is not a dollar that could have been contributed to a deductibletraditional IRA. So a Roth IRA contribution is not subject to the trade-off downside that a Roth 401(k) contribution is.
Why not optimize for known trade-offs? Contribute to a traditional 401(k) at work and a Roth IRA (or Backdoor Roth IRA) at home. This approach optimizes for the known trade-offs and sets one up with both traditional and Roth assets heading into retirement.
Traditional retirement account contributions set up great optionality. A retiree may have years or decades of opportunity to strategically convert traditional accounts to Roth accounts. Or, a retiree might say, “thanks, but no thanks, on those Roth conversions, I’ll simply wait to withdraw for RMDs or living expenses later in retirement at a low tax rate.” Traditional retirement account contributions open the doors to several planning options.
Roth contributions end the planning. That’s it, the money is inside a Roth account. Considering the potential to have low tax years after the end of one’s working years, is that always a good thing?
Rothification Risks
Having all one’s retirement eggs in the Roth basket can create significant problems. This is an issue I do not believe receives sufficient attention. Previously I posited an example where an early retiree had almost all his wealth in Roth accounts (what I refer to as the Rothification Trap).
Risks of having all of one’s eggs inside the Roth basket going into retirement include:
Missing out on standard deductions
Inability to qualify for ACA premium tax credits
Missing out on benefits of qualified charitable distributions (QCDs)
Missing out on tax efficient Roth conversions in retirement
Sufficiency
Much of the traditional versus Roth debate misses the forest for the trees. Rarely do commentators state that long before one worries about taxation in retirement they have to worry about sufficiency in retirement!
Recent reports indicate that many if not most Americans struggle to afford a comfortable retirement. A quick review of average retirement account balances indicates that many Americans are not set up for what I’d call a comfortable retirement. Further, according to a recent report, the median American adult has a wealth around $108,000. That means the median adult has a significant sufficiency concern when it comes to retirement planning.
Most Americans will be lucky to have a tax problem in retirement! Most Americans need to build up retirement savings. The quickest, easiest way to do that is by making deductible traditional 401(k) contributions. That deduction makes the upfront sacrifice involved in retirement saving easier to stomach. Further, if one is not likely to have substantial retirement savings, they are not likely to be in a high marginal tax bracket in retirement.
If all the above is true, what is the problem with having taxable retirement accounts? The tax savings in retirement from having Roth accounts is not likely to be very high for many Americans.
Conclusion
Both traditional retirement accounts and Roth retirement accounts have significant benefits. When viewed over the spectrum of most Americans’ lifetimes, I believe that workplace retirement plan contributions should be biased toward traditional retirement accounts. For many Americans, either or both of the following will be true. First, there will be low tax years in retirement during which retirees can take advantage of low tax Roth conversions. Second, many Americans will be in a low tax bracket when taking retirement account withdrawals for living expenses and/or RMDs.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, investment, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
Yesterday I posted Time to Stop 401(k) Contributions?, arguing that as applied to many in the FI community, traditional deductible 401(k) contributions are fine.
Second, UBS and Credit Suisse issued their Global Wealth Report for 2023. Allow me to call your attention to page 16. The median American adult has personal wealth just a bit under $108,000. This means almost half of American adults have less than $100K of wealth, and the majority of American adults do not have $200K of wealth. For most Americans, deferred taxation is not the problem! Sufficiency is the problem!
For me this report cracks the case. If the median American adult does not have close to sufficient wealth to comfortably retire, why are they worried about taxes in retirement?
Assuming this report is anywhere near close to a correct measure of adult American wealth, I believe I am correct and personal finance legends Ed Slott and Clark Howard are wrong when it comes to the traditional 401(k) versus Roth 401(k) debate.
The best way for working Americans to address sufficiency problems is by contributing to traditional, deductible retirement accounts. As demonstrated below, one employing this sort of deduct, deduct, deduct strategy would need to be successful well beyond what most Americans accomplish in order to create a tax problem.
When one has insufficient resources for retirement, the traditional, deductible 401(k) makes the most sense. He or she needs to build up assets, not worry about future taxes! With relatively little in the way of resources, future taxes are not likely to be a problem (especially in retirement when compared to one’s working years). Further, by contributing to a traditional, deductible 401(k) instead of a Roth 401(k), one behind in retirement saving takes home more money to invest in additional saving mechanisms such as Roth IRAs and taxable brokerage accounts.
Let’s Break Down Some Retirement Numbers
I believe we need some numbers to figure out who’s right.
Example 1: I start with Single Sally, who is 75 years old. Since she is somewhat like the median American, but older, let’s assume she has $250,000 of wealth and receives $30,000 a year in Social Security. Assume further that all $250K is in a traditional IRA and Sally, age 75, wants to live for today: she isn’t constrained by the 4% rule but rather decides to withdraw 10 percent per year ($25,000). On that $55,000 annual gross income, Single Sally pays just over $2,000 in federal income taxes (an effective rate less than 4%).
Why would Sally pass on a 10%, 12%, or 22% deduction from a traditional 401(k) contribution during her working years? Why would Single Sally put the money in a Roth 401(k) so as to avoid a less than 4% federal income tax in retirement? And how different is Sally’s situation from that of many Americans?
Update 8/17/2023: Single Sally is in the Tax Torpedo, an interesting tax phenomenon with a modest impact on her total tax liability. I added a spreadsheet to look at this in more detail.
Example 2: But Sean, I’m reading your blog. I’m not shooting for just $250K in retirement wealth! Okay, let’s start testing it by considering wealth significantly above the mean and median adult Americans. Single Sarah is 75 years old. She receives $30,000 a year in Social Security. But now she also has a $1M traditional IRA and takes an RMD ($40,650) based on her age. Single Sarah also has some taxable accounts and thus has $4,000 of qualified dividend income and $1,000 of interest income. On that approximate $76,000 annual gross income, Single Sarah pays just over $7,200 in federal income taxes (an effective rate of a bit more than 9.5%).
In order to grow a $1M traditional IRA (likely rolled over from workplace 401(k)s), she almost certainly was in the 22% or greater federal marginal tax bracket while working. Why would Single Sarah switch from taking a 22% tax deduction (the traditional 401(k) contribution) to a Roth 401(k) contribution to avoid a 9.5% effective federal tax rate in retirement?
Example 3: Example 3 is Single Sarah at age 80. Her investments are doing so well her traditional IRA is still worth $1M, causing her to be required to take a $49,505 RMD. This causes her federal income tax to increase to $9,175, for an effective federal income tax rate of almost 11%.
How many Americans will get to age 80 with $1M or more in tax deferred accounts? Even if they do, how bad is the tax problem? If Single Sarah’s effective tax rate is 11%, a 50% tax hike gets her to about 16.5%. Will she enjoy paying that tax? No. Is it crippling? Hardly!
Still worried about contributing to a traditional 401(k)? I’ve got a video for you!
Conclusion
The next time you hear “30 or 40% of your 401(k) belongs to the government” you should consider my examples. For many Americans, “10%” will be much closer to the mark than 30% or 40%.
It’s time to step back and ask whether prioritizing Roth 401(k) contributions during one’s working career is the best advice for the majority of Americans. As demonstrated above, a tax increase of 50 percent (highly unlikely) would result in most Americans having an effective tax rate below 20% in retirement.
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
Ed Slott believes most Americans should not contribute to traditional 401(k)s. His recent essay on the subject is a great opportunity for the FI community to reassess its love for the traditional 401(k).
My conclusion is that for many in the FI community, traditional deductible 401(k) contributions are still the most logical path when it comes to workplace retirement saving. Below I explain my thinking.
It is important to note it is impossible to make a blanket statement as applied to the entire FI community.
Why the Traditional 401(k) Is Good for the FI Community
Many in the FI community have the very reasonable hope that in retirement they will have years, possibly decades, where their effective tax rate will be lower than their marginal tax rate in their working years.
The above is true of many Americans, but it is particularly true if one retires early by conventional standards. The idea is deduct, deduct, deduct into the 401(k) during one’s working years (particularly the high earning years) and then retire early by conventional standards. Prior to collecting Social Security and/or required minimum distributions (“RMDs”), most retirees look artificially poor on their tax return. This opens up the door to affirmatively convert money from traditional retirement accounts to Roth accounts and pay tax at the lowest federal income tax brackets (currently 10% and 12%). For those who deducted contributions into the 401(k) at a 24% or greater marginal federal tax rate, this is great tax rate arbitrage planning.
Minor litigation risks aside, this strategy just got even easier for those born in 1960 and later, who don’t have to take RMDs under SECURE 2.0 until age 75. With the new delayed RMD beginning date, even those retiring as late as age 65 will have a full decade prior to being required to take RMDs to do tax-efficient Roth conversions at low marginal tax rates. For some in the FI community, this opportunity window might not be a decade long but rather a quarter-century long (if they retire at age 50).
How Bad is the Retiree Tax Problem?
As wonderful as FI tax rate arbitrate planning might be, Ed Slott’s concern that retiree taxes will increase is not entirely unwarranted. It is obvious that the government is not fiscally responsible, and it is obvious that tax increases could be coming in the future.
Let’s assess the situation by looking at just how bad the problem of taxes is in retirement.
We begin with a baseline case. David and Hannah are in their 70s. They never did Roth conversions in early retirement and have the bulk of their financial assets in traditional IRAs and traditional 401(k)s. During most of their working years, David and Hannah maxed out 401(k)s and got deductions in the 24% bracket or greater. For 2023, they have taxable RMDs of $160,000, Social Security of $40,000, $4,000 of qualified dividends and $1,000 of interest income. How bad is their federal income tax situation?
Federal Income Tax Return
RMDs
$ 160,000
Social Security
$ 40,000
15% Social Security Exclusion
$ (6,000)
Interest
$ 1,000
Qualified Dividends
$ 4,000
Adjusted Gross Income (“AGI”)
$ 199,000
Standard Deduction
$ (27,700)
Additional SD Age 65+
$ (3,000)
Federal Taxable Income
$ 168,300
Federal Income Tax (Estimated)
$ 27,361
Effective Tax Rate on AGI
13.75%
Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate
22%
Under today’s rules, David and Hannah, who did no tax planning other than “deduct, deduct, deduct” are doing great. Their federal effective tax rate, even with $200K of RMDs and Social Security, is just 13.75%. They incur such a low effective tax rate because their RMDs go against the 10% tax bracket, the 12% bracket, and the 22% bracket.
While I do think David and Hannah would be in a better position had they done some tax efficient Roth conversion planning earlier in retirement, their unbridled enthusiasm for traditional retirement accounts served them well.
Note: David and Hannah are borderline IRMAA candidates: a $199K 2023 AGI might cost them approximately $2,000 in IRMAA surcharges in 2025 (but it is possible that inflation adjustments for 2025 will prevent that from happening). This is another reason to consider pre-RMD Roth conversions at lower marginal tax rates.
Update 8/19/2023: But what about thewidow’s tax trap? If David or Hannah die, won’t the survivor get crushed by tax increases? Check out this estimate. Assuming the survivor loses the lower-earning spouse’s Social Security benefits of at least $10,000, the survivor’s marginal federal income tax rate would climb from 22% all the way up to . . . 24%!
But what about future tax increases? Okay, let’s add four tax increases to the picture and see just how bad it looks:
Eliminate the TCJA increase to the standard deduction (the law reverts to pre-2018 lower standard deduction and personal exemptions). This would reduce David and Hannah’s deductions by roughly $2,740, costing them approximately $602.80 in additional federal income tax (at today’s 22% marginal tax rate).
Eliminate the TCJA decrease in the 15% tax bracket to 12%. This would cost David and Hannah $2,023.50 in additional federal income tax. I’m highly skeptical that either of these two tax increases will actually occur, but as written in today’s laws they are scheduled to happen in 2026.
Increase the 15% long term capital gains and qualified dividend income rate to 25%. While I believe that the real risk is an increase in the 20% long term capital gains and qualified dividend income rate, let’s stress test things and consider a large increase in the 15% rate. In David and Hannah’s case, this costs them $400 in additional federal income tax.
Increase the 22% tax rate to 33%. Ed Slott is worried about large tax rate increases, so let’s consider one that I believe is politically infeasible, a 50% increase in the 22% tax bracket. This type of tax rate increase would hit millions of voters in a major way. But it’s helpful to consider what could be a worst case scenario. In this case, this tax rate increase costs David and Hannah an additional $8,233.50 in federal income tax.
There’s one more tax hike to consider: the combination of tax increases numbers 1 and 4. If both occurred together, combined they would cost David and Hannah an additional $301.40 in federal income tax.
Here’s what David and Hannah’s federal tax picture looks like if all of the above tax increases occur:
Federal Income Tax Return
RMDs
$ 160,000
Social Security
$ 40,000
15% Social Security Exclusion
$ (6,000)
Interest
$ 1,000
Qualified Dividends
$ 4,000
Adjusted Gross Income (“AGI”)
$ 199,000
Standard Deduction
$ (15,240)
Additional SD Age 65+
$ (3,000)
Personal Exemptions
$ (9,720)
Federal Taxable Income
$ 171,040
Federal Income Tax (Estimated)
$ 38,922
Effective Tax Rate on AGI
19.56%
Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate
33%
Significant tax increases hurt David and Hannah, but how much? By my math, very significant tax increases, including a 50% increase in the 22% bracket, cost them about 6% of their income. Not nothing, but wow, they’re still doing very well.
Yes, on the margin, the last dollars David and Hannah contributed to the traditional 401(k) were not ideal since they faced a 33% marginal federal tax rate in retirement. But let’s remember (i) their overall effective rate is still more than 4 percentage points lower than their working years’ marginal rate (at which they deducted their 401(k) contributions), (ii) they have income significantly above what most Americans will have in their 70s, and (iii) in my scenario they face four separate tax hikes and still pay a federal effective tax rate less than 20 percent.
Future Retirees’ Tax Risk
Do future tax hikes pose no threat to future retirees? Absolutely not! But my stress test shows that many Americans with substantial RMDs will not get walloped even if Congress enacts unpopular tax increases. Considering many in the FI community will have modest RMDs due to pre-RMD Roth conversions, the threat of future tax hikes is even less perilous for the FI community.
Further, many Americans, particularly those in the FI community, have a great tool that can mitigate this risk: Roth conversions during retirement! With RMDs now delayed to age 75 for those born in 1960 and later, many Americans will have years if not decades where money can be moved in a tax-efficient manner from old traditional accounts to Roth accounts.
Further, many Americans can claim deductions at work and then at home contribute to a regular Roth IRA or a Backdoor Roth IRA. This too mitigates the risk of having all of one’s retirement eggs in the traditional basket.
Last, do we really believe that Congress is just itching to raise taxes on future retirees? Sure, it’s possible. But to my mind taxes are more likely to be raised on (i) those in higher ordinary income tax brackets and/or (ii) long term capital gains and/or qualified dividends (particularly the current 20% bracket). If anything, the most Congress is likely to do to retirees is slightly increase their taxes so as to mitigate the political risk involved in raising taxes on retirees who tend to vote.
The Risks of Not Having Money in Traditional Retirement Accounts
Risk isn’t a one-way street. There are some risks to not having money in traditional retirement accounts. I identify three below.
Qualification for Premium Tax Credits
Picture it: Joe, age 55, retires with the following assets: (i) a paid off car, (ii) a paid off house, (iii) a $40,000 emergency fund in an on-line savings account, and (iv), $2 million in Roth 401(k)s and Roth IRAs. He heard that Roth is the best, so he only ever contributed to Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s, including having all employer contributions directed to a Roth 401(k). Having fallen into the Rothification Trap, in retirement Joe must work in order to generate sufficient taxable income to qualify for any ACA Premium Tax Credit.
For at least some early retirees, the ability to create modified adjusted gross income by doing Roth conversions will be the way they guarantee qualifying for significant Premium Tax Credits to offset ACA medical insurance premiums.
Charitable Contributions
Many Americans are at least somewhat charitably inclined. Starting at age 70 ½, Americans can transfer money directly from a traditional IRA to a charity, exclude the distribution from taxable income, and still claim the standard deduction. Essentially, if you’re charitably inclined, at a minimum you would want to go into age 70 ½ with enough in your traditional IRAs (likely through contributions to traditional 401(k)s that are later transferred to an IRA) to fund your charitable contributions from 70 ½ until death.
Why ever pay tax on that money (i.e., by making contributions to a Roth 401(k) that are later withdrawn to be donated) if the money is ultimately going to charity anyway?
Unused Standard Deductions
Currently, the government tells married couples, hey, you get to make $27,700 a year income tax free! Why not take advantage of that exclusion every year, especially prior to collecting Social Security (which, in many cases will eat up most, if not all, of the standard deduction).
Why be retired at age 55 with only Roth accounts? By having at least some money in traditional retirement accounts going into retirement, you ensure you can turn traditional money into Roth money tax-free simply by converting (at any time) or even distributing (usually after age 59 1/2) the traditional retirement account against the standard deduction.
Deduct at Work, Roth at Home
I think for many it makes sense to max out traditional 401(k)s at work and contribute to Roth IRAs or Backdoor Roth IRAs at home. Why? As discussed above, traditional 401(k)s can set up tax rate arbitrage in retirement, help early retirees qualify for Premium Tax Credits, and make charitable giving after age 70 ½ very tax efficient. At home, many working Americans do not qualify to deduct IRA contributions, so why not contribute to a Roth IRA or Backdoor Roth IRA, since (i) you aren’t giving up a tax deduction in order to do so and (ii) you establish assets growing tax free for the future.
In this post I discuss why deduct at work, Roth at home can often make sense and I provide examples where Roth 401(k) contributions are likely to be better than traditional 401(k) contributions.
Conclusion
I believe that for many in the FI community, a retirement savings plan that combines (i) traditional deductible 401(k) contributions during one’s working years and (ii) Roth conversions prior to collecting RMDs is likely to be a better path than simply making all workplace retirement contributions Roth contributions.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
You know what gets too much attention in the personal finance space? The two five-year Roth IRA rules.
Why do I say that? Because the odds are extremely low that either rule will ever impact most Roth IRA owners. While the rules theoretically have wide effect, in practice, discussed further below, they rarely impact the taxation of Roth IRA distributions.
Before I get started, below is a summary table of the two five-year rules (or five-year clocks, use whichever terminology you prefer). The table is not comprehensive, but rather intended to cover the vast majority of situations. I hope you find this table to be a useful reference regarding the two five-year rules.
Rule
Tax Bite
Age
Code Section
Regulation
First Five-Year Rule
Ordinary income tax on withdrawal of earnings from Roth IRA only
Generally bites only if owner is over 59 ½ years old
First Five-Year Rule: Earnings Cannot Be Withdrawn Income Tax Free From a Roth IRA Unless the Account Holder has Owned a Roth IRA for Five Full Tax Years
At first, this rule seems daunting. As written, it applies to anyone owning a Roth IRA. But in practice, it rarely has any bite. First, the rule only serves to disqualify a distribution from being a “qualified distribution.”
Here’s the thing: outside of rare circumstances (see “Two Uncommon Situations” below), anyone under age 59 ½ cannot receive a “qualified distribution” from their own Roth IRA regardless of the first five-year rule.
Thus, as a general matter, the first five-year rule is a rule that only applies to those age 59 ½ and older.
For those doubting me, I’ll prove it with two examples:
Example 1: Ernestine turns age 25 in the year 2023. In March, she made a $6,500 annual contribution to a Roth IRA for the year 2023. This is her only ever Roth IRA contribution. In 2026, when the Roth IRA is worth $8,000 and Ernestine turns age 28, Ernestine withdraws all $8,000 from the Roth IRA. The first $6,500 is a nontaxable return of the $6,500 contribution, and the remaining $1,500 is a taxable distribution of earnings subject to both ordinary income tax and the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty.
Example 2: Hortense turns age 25 in the year 2023. In March, she made a $6,500 annual contribution to a Roth IRA for the year 2023. This is her only ever Roth IRA contribution. In 2030, when the Roth IRA is worth $8,000 and Hortense turns age 32, Hortense withdraws all $8,000 from the Roth IRA. The first $6,500 is a nontaxable return of the $6,500 contribution, and the remaining $1,500 is a taxable distribution of earnings subject to both ordinary income tax and the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty.
Ernestine did not satisfy the first five-year rule, Hortense did. Notice that it did not matter! Both must pay ordinary income tax and the 10% early withdrawal penalty on the $1,500 of earnings they each received from their Roth IRA. The first five-year rule had absolutely no impact on the taxation of the withdrawal because both Roth IRA owners are under age 59 ½. This proves that outside unusual circumstances, the first five-year rule has no impact on those under age 59 ½.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Previous annual contributions to a Roth IRA can be withdrawn from a Roth IRAtax and penalty free at any time for any reason! The first five-year rule has nothing to do with withdrawals of previously made contributions. See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 1(b) (previous contributions are withdrawn tax free) and Q&A 5(a) (tax free withdrawals of previous regular annual contributions are not subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty).
So when the heck does the first five-year rule matter? Here are two examples to help us figure it out.
Example 3: Ernie turns age 58 in the year 2023. In March, he made a $7,500 annual contribution to a Roth IRA for the year 2023. This is his only ever Roth IRA contribution. In 2026, when the Roth IRA is worth $10,000 and Ernie turns age 61, Ernie withdraws all $10,000 from the Roth IRA. The first $7,500 is a nontaxable return of the $7,500 contribution, and the remaining $2,500 is a taxable distribution of earnings subject to ordinary income tax. Ernie does not pay the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty because he is over age 59 ½ when he receives the earnings.
Example 4: Harry turns age 58 in the year 2023. In March, he made a $7,500 annual contribution to a Roth IRA for the year 2023. This is his only ever Roth IRA contribution. In 2030, when the Roth IRA is worth $10,000 and Harry turns age 65, Harry withdraws all $10,000 from the Roth IRA. As Harry satisfies both the first five-year rule and is over age 59 ½, the entire $10,000 distribution is a qualified distribution and thus entirely tax and penalty free.
We’ve found where the first five-year rule matters! Generally speaking, the first-five year rule only bites when applied to a distribution of earnings if the recipient is over the age of 59 ½. Further, it only applies to subject the earnings to ordinary income tax, not the 10% early withdrawal penalty (as being age 59 ½ or older is always a valid exception to the early withdrawal penalty).
Remember, though, in most cases it is difficult to access Roth IRA earnings. Why? Because earnings come out of a Roth IRA last. Ernie’s fact pattern is rare. Many Roth IRA owners will have years of contributions and/or conversions inside their Roth IRA. As I have previously discussed, nonqualified distributions from Roth IRAs first access Roth IRA contributions and then access Roth IRA conversions before they can access a penny of earnings. See also Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 8 and Natalie B. Choate’s Life and Death Benefits for Retirement Planning (8th Ed. 2019), page 328.
Further, in today’s world, most (though not all) 59 ½ year old Roth IRA owners will satisfy the five-year rule. All Roth IRAs are aggregated for this purpose, so the funding (through a contribution or conversion) of any Roth IRA starts the five-year clock as of January 1st of the year for which the contribution was made. See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 2.
Two Uncommon Situations: There are two uncommon situations in which a Roth IRA owner under age 59 ½ receiving a Roth IRA distribution could save the ordinary income tax by satisfying the first five-year rule. The first is the taking of an up-to $10,000 first-time home buyer distribution. See Choate, previously referenced, at page 612. The second is if the owner is disabled as defined by Section 72(m)(7). Both are rare situations. Further, in both such cases, satisfying the first five-year rule would be irrelevant if the distribution would have been a return of contributions, nontaxable conversions, and/or taxable conversions at least 5 years old.
Inherited Roth IRA Twist: The first five-year rule can affect distributions from an inherited Roth IRA. I’ve heard this referred to as the third Roth IRA five-year rule, but I view it as simply a continuation of the first five-year rule. A withdrawal of earnings by a beneficiary from an inherited Roth IRA made less than five tax years after the owner originally funded the Roth IRA is subject to ordinary income tax. See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 7. These situations are quite rare.
If Anyone on Capitol Hill is Reading This . . .
The first five-year rule serves no compelling purpose, and is superfluous as applied to most taxpayers under the age of 59 ½.
Perhaps in 1997 Congress worried about quick withdrawals from Roth IRAs. Now that we fully understand that contributions and conversions come out of Roth IRAs first, and that being under age 59 ½ prevents a tax-free distribution of earnings in most cases, there’s no reason for the first five-year rule. Being age 59 ½ or older (or death, disability, or first-time home buyer) should be sufficient to receive a qualified distribution.
Second Five-Year Rule: Taxable Conversions Are Subject to the Ten Percent Early Withdrawal Penalty if Withdrawn from the Roth IRA Within Five Taxable Years
This rule is much more logical than the first five-year rule. The reason has nothing to do with Roth IRAs. Rather, the reason is to protect the 10% early withdrawal penalty as applied to traditional IRAs and traditional workplace plans such as 401(k)s and 403(b)s. Without the second five-year rule, taxpayers would never pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty.
Rather, taxpayers under age 59 1/2 would simply convert any money they want to withdraw from a traditional retirement account to a Roth IRA, and then shortly thereafter withdraw the amount from the Roth IRA tax-free as a return of old contributions or of the conversion itself.
The second five-year rule prevents the total evisceration of the 10% early withdrawal penalty.
The second five-year rule applies separately to each taxable Roth conversion. Each Roth conversion that occurs during a year is deemed to occur January 1st of that year for purposes of the second five-year rule. See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 5(c).
Note further that the second five-year rule has nothing to do with income tax: its bite only triggers the distribution being subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty.
When Might the Second Roth IRA Five-Year Rule Apply
I am not too worried about the application of the second five-year rule. Here’s why.
First, the second five-year rule is not likely to apply while one is working. During the accumulation phase, many are looking to contribute to, not withdraw from, Roth IRAs.
Second, for those retiring after age 59 ½, the second five-year rule will have practically no impact, as (i) they are not likely to take pre-retirement distributions from their Roth IRA, and (ii) distributions taken from the Roth IRA by the owner after turning age 59 ½ are never subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty.
Third, many early retirees will choose to live off taxable assets first in early retirement. As a result, many will not access Roth accounts until age 59 ½ or later, and thus the second five-year rule will not be relevant.
However, some will choose to employ a Roth Conversion Ladder strategy with respect to an early retirement. Here the second five-year rule might bite. Let’s consider a quick example:
Example 5: Josh is considering retiring in 2024 when he turns age 50. In his 30s, he qualified to make an annual Roth IRA contribution and maxed out his Roth IRA each year. In his 40s, he made income in excess of the annual MAGI limits on Roth IRA contributions, so he maxed out the Backdoor Roth IRA for each year. He plans on living on taxable assets for the first five years of retirement and then living off Roth conversion ladders from age 55 through age 59 ½. Josh has never previously taken a distribution from a Roth IRA.
If Josh started withdrawing from his Roth IRA in 2024, he would first withdraw all $45,500 of previous annual contributions (all tax and penalty free) and then withdraw all $33,510 of his 2014 through 2019 Backdoor Roth IRAs (all tax and penalty free) before he could take a distribution with respect to which the second five-year rule could bite.
Note that for withdrawals of up to $79,010, it is irrelevant that Josh does not satisfy the second five-year rule with respect to the 2020 through 2023 Backdoor Roth IRAs. Josh can withdraw up to $79,010 entirely tax and penalty free in 2024. Perhaps the second five-year rule’s bark is worse than its bite . . .
If, in 2024, Josh withdraws both of the above listed amounts from his Roth IRA, then yes, the next $2 of withdrawals in 2024 would be from the $2 taxable amount of his 2020 Backdoor Roth IRA, which would be subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty ($0.20) under the second five-year rule.
In Josh’s extreme example, the second five-year rule bites, but, as you can see, it barely bites!
As an aside, assuming Josh continues to withdraw money from his Roth IRA in 2024, the next $6,000 is a tax and penalty free return of the non-taxable portion of his 2020 Backdoor Roth IRA! See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 8. The generosity of the Roth IRA nonqualified distribution rules is, by itself, a reason not to sweat the two Roth IRA five-year clocks too much.
Assuming Josh follows through with his plan and waits until age 55 (the year 2029) to start withdrawing from his Roth IRA, he can access all of his 30s Roth IRA annual contributions ($45,500), all of his 40s Backdoor Roth IRAs ($57,519), and whatever amount he converted to his Roth IRA in 2024 tax and penalty free in 2029! After that, however, the second five-year rule will bite ten cents on the dollar for amounts additionally distributed in 2029, since amounts converted in 2025 or later would still be subject to the second five-year rule if distributed in 2029.
In Josh’s early retirement example, assuming Josh takes no distributions from his Roth IRA until age 55, the second five-year rule can only possibly bite from age 55 to 59 ½, and even then, the combination of years of built up Roth basis and affirmative planning make that possibility at least somewhat remote.
Don’t over think it: If the owner of a Roth IRA is 59 1/2 years old or older, and has owned a Roth IRA for at least 5 years, all distributions they receive from a Roth IRA are qualified distributions and thus fully tax and penalty free. In such circumstances, the 5-year clocks are entirely irrelevant.
Conclusion
It’s perfectly cromulent to proceed with financial planning without too much worry about the two Roth IRA five-year rules. For personal finance nerds (myself included), the two Roth IRA five-year clocks can be fun to dive into. But from a practical standpoint, they rarely impact the taxation of distributions from Roth IRAs. The two five-year clocks are best understood as sporadically applicable exceptions to the general rule that most nonqualified distributions from Roth IRAs are tax and penalty free.
Further Reading
For even more on Roth IRA distributions, please read this post, which goes through the details of Roth IRA distributions, including citations to the relevant regulations and links to three example Forms 8606 Part III.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
This post, and the above mentioned podcast episode, are for entertainment and educational purposes only. They do not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
