Tag Archives: 401(k)

Traditional 401(k) Contributions Are Fine for Most Americans (Really!)

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.

Today two very interesting pieces of content hit my radar. First, one of my favorite personal finance content creators, Clark Howard, is advocating for Roth contributions instead of traditional contributions for most Americans.

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.

I believe for many Americans, the optimal retirement savings path combines deductible workplace 401(k) contributions with Roth IRA contributions at home.

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, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.

Time to Stop 401(k) Contributions?

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 the widow’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

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.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying About the Roth IRA 5 Year Rules

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	408A(d)(2)(B)	1.408A-6 Q&A 2
Second Five-Year Rule	10% early withdrawal penalty on withdrawal of taxable converted amounts from Roth IRA only	Only bites if owner is under age 59 ½	408A(d)(3)(F)	1.408A-6 Q&A 5(b)

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 IRA tax 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.

I recommend that Congress repeal the first five-year rule by removing Section 408A(d)(2)(B) from the Internal Revenue Code as part of retirement tax simplification.

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.

Here is Josh’s Roth IRA history in table form. Thanks to Investopedia for the historic annual contribution maximums.

Year	Age	Roth IRA Contribution	Backdoor Roth IRA	Taxable Amount
2004	30	$3,000
2005	31	$4,000
2006	32	$4,000
2007	33	$4,000
2008	34	$5,000
2009	35	$5,000
2010	36	$5,000
2011	37	$5,000
2012	38	$5,000
2013	39	$5,500
2014	40		$5,502	$2
2015	41		$5,503	$3
2016	42		$5,501	$1
2017	43		$5,502	$2
2018	44		$5,501	$1
2019	45		$6,001	$1
2020	46		$6,002	$2
2021	47		$6,002	$2
2022	48		$6,001	$1
2023	49		$6,004	$4

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.

Sean on the Catching Up to FI Podcast

Listen as I talk tax with Becky Heptig and Bill Yount on the Catching Up to FI podcast.

You can access the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

We discuss tax planning for financial independence, particularly planning for those catching up later in their careers.

The show notes include references to the following FI Tax Guy blog posts.

The Advantages of Living on Taxable Assets First in Early Retirement

TikTok Tax Advice

Early Retirement and Social Security

HSAs and Las Vegas

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.

A Critical Look at the 529

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

Financial Independence

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

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

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

529s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

529s and the FI Community

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Young Parents and 529s

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

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

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

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

The Value of the 529’s Tax Benefits

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

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

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

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

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

Use Restrictions

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

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

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

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

Feeding the Beast

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

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

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

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

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

529 Use Cases

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

Financially Independent Parents

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

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

Capturing State Tax Benefits

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

Health Savings Accounts and Las Vegas

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

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

Health Savings Accounts

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

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

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

Health Savings Accounts PUQME

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

Restricted Accounts

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

Time Restrictions

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

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

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

Use Restrictions

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

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

HSA Use Restrictions

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

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

HSAs and Las Vegas

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

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

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

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

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

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

HSA Planning Risk

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

I don’t think so, for three reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surviving Spouse’s HSA PUQME

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

HSA Resource

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

Emergency Access to Retirement Accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Year Pay Back

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

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

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

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

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

Provision	Effective Date	Source	Limits	Qualification
Minor Emergency Withdrawals	2024	SECURE 2.0 Sec. 115	$1,000 per year, 1 distribution per year	Expenses incurred for an emergency
Domestic Abuse Victims	2024	SECURE 2.0 Sec. 314	Lesser of $10K or 50% of account balance per year	Must be a victim of domestic abuse within the year preceding the distribution
Federally Declared Disaster Area	January 26, 2021	SECURE 2.0 Sec. 331	$22,000 limit per disaster	Must live in a federally declared disaster area and suffered an economic loss due to the disaster
Terminally Ill Individual	Enactment of SECURE 2.0	SECURE 2.0 Sec. 326	Unlimited	Must be terminally ill (generally, medicially expected to die within 7 years).
Qualified Birth or Adoption Distribution	2020	SECURE Sec. 113	$5,000 per parent per birth	Distribution must be within 1 year after birth or adoption of child
Coronavirus Related Distributions can no longer be made, but previously made CRDs can be paid back within 3 years of the distribution.

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

Future 3 Year Pay Back Regulations

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

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

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

TWO: Plan Loans

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

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

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

THREE: SECURE 2.0 Minor Emergency Withdrawals

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOUR: SECURE 2.0 401(k) Emergency Savings Accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FIVE: Roth IRA Basis

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

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

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

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

Roth IRA Basis and the Minor Emergency Withdrawal Rule

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

Roth IRA Basis and Other 3 Year Pay Back Rules

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

Taxable Accounts

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

Conclusion

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

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

SECURE 2.0 and the FI Community

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

SECURE 2.0 Big Picture

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

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

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

Traditional Retirement Account Contributions Are Even More Attractive

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

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

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

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

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

Rothification Trap

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rothification Trap Antidote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Changes to Backdoor Roths

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

Rolling 529 Plans to Roth IRAs

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

SECURE 2.0 and the FIRE Movement on YouTube

Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

SECURE 2.0 Resources

Here is the bill text for SECURE 2.0.

SECURE 2.0 Big Picture

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

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

Some Highlights (or Lowlights)

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

Resources

Bill text

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

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

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

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

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

My Plan

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

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

2023 RMDs and Roth Conversions

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

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

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

Tax Rules: RMDs Come Out First and Cannot be Converted

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

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

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

Properly Roth Converting After Taking the RMDs

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

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

Income Risk, Reversibility, and Market Risk

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

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

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

Inherited Retirement Accounts

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

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

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

Let’s Break Down Some Retirement Numbers

Conclusion

Why the Traditional 401(k) Is Good for the FI Community

How Bad is the Retiree Tax Problem?

Future Retirees’ Tax Risk

The Risks of Not Having Money in Traditional Retirement Accounts

Qualification for Premium Tax Credits

Charitable Contributions

Unused Standard Deductions

Deduct at Work, Roth at Home

Conclusion

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

If Anyone on Capitol Hill is Reading This . . .

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

When Might the Second Roth IRA Five-Year Rule Apply

Conclusion

Further Reading

Financial Independence

529s

529s and the FI Community

Young Parents and 529s

The Value of the 529’s Tax Benefits

Use Restrictions

Feeding the Beast

529 Use Cases

Financially Independent Parents

Capturing State Tax Benefits

Conclusion

Health Savings Accounts

Health Savings Accounts PUQME

Restricted Accounts

Time Restrictions

Use Restrictions

HSA Use Restrictions

HSAs and Las Vegas

HSA Planning Risk

Surviving Spouse’s HSA PUQME

HSA Resource

Conclusion

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

3 Year Pay Back

Future 3 Year Pay Back Regulations

TWO: Plan Loans

THREE: SECURE 2.0 Minor Emergency Withdrawals

FOUR: SECURE 2.0 401(k) Emergency Savings Accounts

FIVE: Roth IRA Basis

Roth IRA Basis and the Minor Emergency Withdrawal Rule

Roth IRA Basis and Other 3 Year Pay Back Rules

Taxable Accounts

Conclusion

SECURE 2.0 Big Picture

Traditional Retirement Account Contributions Are Even More Attractive

Rothification Trap

Rothification Trap Antidote

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

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

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

No Changes to Backdoor Roths

Rolling 529 Plans to Roth IRAs

SECURE 2.0 and the FIRE Movement on YouTube

Resources

SECURE 2.0 Big Picture

Some Highlights (or Lowlights)

Resources

My Plan

Tax Rules: RMDs Come Out First and Cannot be Converted

Properly Roth Converting After Taking the RMDs

Income Risk, Reversibility, and Market Risk

Inherited Retirement Accounts

Further Reading