Tag Archives: 401(k)

TikTok Tax Advice

There’s tax advice available on TikTok. Is it worth following? Does it miss the big picture?

Retirement Saving Through Various Forms of Life Insurance

TikTok tax advice often boils down to something like the following: don’t save in traditional retirement accounts where you will get crushed by taxes in retirement. Rather, save for retirement through permanent life insurance products (such as indexed universal life insurance policies) to get tax free growth and tax free withdrawals during retirement. 

Watch me discuss two problems with TikTok tax advice on YouTube.

This advice is not just offered on TikTok, though, anecdotally, it appears TikTok is at least something of a hub for promoting indexed universal life (“IUL”) and other forms of permanent life insurance. 

One recent example of this sort of advice posits a retired couple making $160,000 a year in IRA/401(k) distributions and $40K in Social Security/pension income and worries that the couple will have a terrible tax problem. 

But is that really the case? Let’s play it out with a detailed example.

Sally and Joe both turn age 75 in 2022. They are California residents. During their working years, they were prodigious savers in their workplace 401(k) plans, and their employers offered generous matching contributions. As a result, in 2022 they have required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) of $160,000. They also will have $40,000 of Social Security income, $4,000 of qualified dividend income, and $1,000 of interest income. Further, being tax savvy, they contribute $500 a month to their church through qualified charitable distributions (“QCDs”) from their traditional IRAs. They claim the standard deduction as their home is paid off and thus have no mortgage interest deductions. 

Alright, let’s see what Sally and Joe’s 2022 tax picture (all numbers are estimates) looks like:

First, their rough 2022 federal income tax return:

Federal Income Tax Return
RMDs$ 160,000
Social Security$ 40,000
15% Social Security Exclusion$ (6,000)
Interest$ 1,000
Qualified Dividends$ 4,000
QCD RMD Exclusion$ (6,000)
Adjusted Gross Income (“AGI”)$ 193,000
Standard Deduction$ (25,900)
Additional SD Age 65+$ (2,800)
Federal Taxable Income$ 164,300

Let’s turn to what their $164,300 federal taxable income means in terms of federal and California income taxes paid and their 2022 cash flow:

2022 Income Taxes and Cash Flow (Estimated)
Federal Income Tax$ 27,100
Effective Tax Rate on AGI14.04%
Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate22%
California Taxable Income (Approximate):$ 149,000
California Income Tax (Approx.)$ 7,862
Effective CA Income Tax Rate on Fed AGI4.07%
Marginal CA Income Tax Rate9.30%
Total Fed & CA Effective Income Tax Rate18.11%
Cash Flow After Fed & CA Income Tax & QCDs$ 164,038

By my math, after paying both income taxes and charitable contributions, this retired couple has $164,000 in cash flow for living expenses. Considering that, like many retirees, they live in a paid-off home, do we really believe there is a significant risk they will not be able to pay their bills? This couple ought to be able to enjoy a very pleasant, comfortable lifestyle, including recreational activities and travel.

Are Sally and Joe really getting crushed by income taxes? As residents of a high tax state, they do pay about $35K in combined federal and state income taxes. Sure, if $35K was on the table in front of you, you’d grab it pretty quick. But considering the $200K plus in cash flow they generated during the year, paying $35K in income taxes to the IRS and California is hardly financially debilitating. 

Most retired couples, even financially successful couples, will not have federal adjusted gross income of $193,000. If Sally and Joe are not crushed by income taxes (paying just an 18.11% estimated effective rate even living in a high-tax state), it is likely most retirees will be able to withstand the tax hits at retirement from having significant savings in traditional deferred retirement accounts. 

The Trade-Off Unstated on TikTok

TikTok tax advice often presents the boogeyman of taxes in retirement. It says “don’t invest in your 401(k) because it will get crushed in retirement.” Even if that were true, it usually neglects an important consideration: the upfront benefit of investing in a 401(k). 

During their working careers, it is likely that Joe and Sally were subject to marginal income tax rates of 24% or more federal and 9.3% California. Had they used permanent life insurance to save instead of using their 401(k)s, they would have lost 33 cents (or more) on every dollar in immediate tax savings, as there is no tax deduction for amounts contributed to life insurance policies.

The existence of the tax deduction for amounts contributed to a traditional 401(k) does not automatically mean that using permanent life insurance products for retirement is a bad idea. However, in weighing the tax benefits of the traditional 401(k) approach compared to the permanent life insurance approach, one must consider the immediate, and potentially substantial, tax benefits of traditional 401(k) contributions. 

One consideration in weighing the pros and cons of each: traditional 401(k) contributions generally get a tax benefit at the taxpayer’s marginal tax rate, while withdrawals from traditional 401(k)s and IRAs are more generally taxed at a taxpayer’s lower effective rate. On the way out, withdrawals are taxed through the relatively progressive tax brackets existing today, getting the benefits of the 10%, 12%, and 22% federal income tax brackets. 

Uncertainty

But, Sean, what about future tax rate increases! The federal government is running a huge deficit and it’s not getting any better.

This is a valid point. But let’s consider a few things. First, in my example, Sally and Joe were subject to a 33.3% marginal tax rate during their working years, and barely over an 18% effective tax rate during their retirement. For the math to work out to make permanent life insurance more attractive (tax-wise) than traditional 401(k)s for them, tax rates would need to be increased substantially, by over 80%. Thus, even if tax rates on retirees such as Joe and Sally were to increase 85% from current levels, the tax math might only marginally favor using permanent life insurance instead of a traditional 401(k). 

Second, if there are going to be income tax rate increases, they are more likely to be to the upper tax brackets. There are fewer taxpayers (read: voters) subject to the higher tax brackets, so those are the ones the politicians are more likely to increase. Increasing the 10%, the 12%, and/or the 22% tax brackets will impact more voters and lead to more election risk for the politicians.

Third, recent history suggests that the politicians are not likely to target retirees. It’s true that Social Security went from being tax free to being largely subject to taxation, up to 85% taxable. Interestingly enough, the second Social Security tax increase, which subjected Social Security to possibly being 85% taxable, passed through a Democratic Congress in 1993. The following year the Democrats suffered historic losses in the House and Senate elections. Many factors came into play, but it is interesting that since 1994 tax policy has generally benefited retirees (no more tax increases on Social Security, increasingly progressive tax brackets, and the increased standard deduction). 

Perhaps the politicians in both parties have learned a lesson when it comes to retiree taxation.

Is there zero risk that retirees could be subject to higher taxes in the future? Absolutely not. But, is that risk great enough to eschew traditional 401(k) contributions in favor of permanent life insurance? Not in my opinion.

Further, there are simpler, less costly planning techniques other than permanent life insurance that those using 401(k)s for retirement planning can avail themselves of, including Roth accounts and health savings accounts. 

Roth Accounts

Savers worried about future tax rate hikes have a simple, easy to implement tool to hedge against future tax rate increases: the Roth IRA. The Roth IRA solves the same tax problem that permanent life insurance solves for. In today’s environment, Roth IRAs are available at a vast array of financial institutions with very low fees. 

As I have previously discussed, many savers will benefit from the combination of a maxed out traditional 401(k) and a maxed out annual Roth IRA. 

Many will point out the possibility of much greater contributions to an indexed universal life insurance policy than to a Roth IRA. While true, many of those concerned with getting large amounts into tax-free accounts while working can turn to the Roth 401(k), which has significantly greater annual contribution limits than the Roth IRA. 

Roth Conversions

Many in the FIRE community have access to Roth conversions during what are likely to lower taxable income years. The tax idea behind retiring early is to load up on traditional 401(k) contributions during working years, and then convert amounts inside traditional retirement accounts to Roth accounts during early retirement years prior to collecting Social Security. 

In early retirement years, many in the FIRE movement appear, at least initially, to be poor on their tax return. No longer working, and not yet collecting Social Security, one’s tax return only includes interest income, dividend income, and some capital gains income. If that income is relatively low (which it is likely to be for many early retirees), it likely leaves room for Roth conversions at the 10% or 12% tax brackets during early retirement. 

This is tax rate arbitrage. First, deduct 401(k) contributions in the 24% or greater federal income tax brackets during one’s working years. Then, during early retirement, convert amounts in the traditional retirement accounts at a 10%, 12%, or perhaps 22% marginal federal income tax rate. 

Two observations: A) using permanent life insurance instead of traditional 401(k) contributions followed by early retirement Roth conversions denies members of the FIRE community a significant tax rate arbitrage opportunity. While there is no taxable income inclusion when withdrawing from a permanent life insurance policy, there is also no tax deduction for contributions to IULs, whole life insurance, and other permanent life insurance policies. 

B) By doing Roth conversions during early retirement, FIRE members reduce the uncertainty risk described above. FIRE members face a shorter time frame during which significant savings are in traditional retirement accounts, as the goal is (generally speaking) to get the money (mostly) converted to Roths prior to age 70.

The Roth conversion tool reduces the risk that future tax increases will crush savers who mostly use traditional 401(k)s during their working years. While this is true for all savers, it is most especially true for members of the FIRE community. 

A note on tax optimization: Imagine Joe and Sally were retired at age 55, today’s tax laws existed, and they had many years with artificially low taxable income. Say they did not do Roth conversions during this time. Is that a mistake? From a tax optimization perspective, absolutely. They would have likely been able to do Roth conversions at a 10% or 12% federal income tax rate, which is lower than both their retirement 22% marginal federal income tax rate and 18.11% combined effective income tax rate. While they are not tax optimized, they are something more important in my example: financially successful. Yes, tax optimization is important, but it is not the be-all and end-all. My guess is that financially successful individuals do not regret the failure to tax optimize on their deathbeds, though I look forward to reading Jordan “Doc G” Grumet’s new book to be sure. 

Conclusion

I’m not here to tell you exactly how to save for retirement. But I am concerned that TikTok tax advice has two deficiencies. First, it overstates the problem of taxation in retirement. Is there a potential problem? Yes. Is it as severe as some make it out to be? Not under today’s laws. Further, there are tactics such as annual Roth IRA contributions and Roth conversions during early retirement that can address the problem. Second, TikTok tax advice understates the current benefit of deductible traditional 401(k) contributions during one’s working years. 

Further Reading

Forbes has recently published two articles on the sorts of insurance policies frequently promoted on TikTok. They are available here and here. 

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, 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.

Four Ways to Fight Inflation

Decisions you make today can subject you to more inflation tomorrow! Read below about ways to increase or decrease your exposure to inflation tomorrow.

Watch me discuss fighting back against inflation.

Tax Planning

As a practical matter, most Americans have the majority of their retirement savings in traditional, pre-tax vehicles such as the 401(k). Having money in a traditional 401(k) is not a bad thing. However, the traditional 401(k) involves trade offs: an upfront tax deduction is the primary benefit in exchange for future taxation when there is a withdrawal or Roth conversion.

Having money inside traditional retirement accounts subjects future inflation to taxation. Some of the future growth in a traditional retirement account is likely to be attributable to inflation, and thus there will be a tax on inflation. Further, there are no inflation adjustments when it comes to the taxation of traditional IRA and traditional 401(k) withdrawals. 

An antidote to this problem is the tax free growth offered by Roth accounts and health savings accounts. Getting money into Roths and HSAs excuses future growth from taxation, including growth attributable to inflation. 

Roth 401(k) versus Roth IRA

Of course, inflation is only one consideration. Many will do some traditional retirement account contributions and some Roth retirement account contributions. The question then arises: which Roth account to use? 

My view is that for many a Roth IRA contribution (whether a direct annual contribution or a Backdoor Roth IRA) is better than a Roth 401(k) contribution. Many do not qualify to deduct a traditional IRA contribution but can deduct a traditional 401(k) contribution. Considering that reality, why not combine a deductible traditional 401(k) contribution and a Roth IRA contribution? 

Long Term Fixed Rate Debt

Often we discuss how inflation hurts Americans, and we should be concerned about the bad effects of inflation. However, there is a way to become a beneficiary of inflation: using long-term, low interest fixed rate debt to your advantage.

That’s right: hold onto that low rate 30 year mortgage like it’s a life raft! Okay, that’s a bit hyperbolic, but the overall point holds. Inflationary environments are great for debtors, particularly those debtors who have locked in a low interest rate for a long term.

Here is an example: Sarah and Mike have a 30 year, $400,000 mortgage on their primary residence at a 2.9% fixed interest rate. By paying the required monthly payment, and no more, they benefit from any future inflation. By paying off the mortgage later rather than sooner, they are using devalued future money to pay the mortgage rather than more valuable current day dollars. 

Sarah and Mike benefit from inflation! Are there reasons to pay off a mortgage early? Sure. But in an inflationary environment, paying off the mortgage early gives the bank more valuable dollars to satisfy the debt.

To my mind, a fixed rate, long term mortgage is a great hedge against inflation.

That said, there are few perfect financial planning tactics. Most involve risk trade offs. One risk Sarah and Mike assume by not paying down the mortgage early is the risk of deflation. To obtain this inflation hedge, they expose themselves to the risk of deflation. If the U.S. dollar starts to deflate (i.e., it appreciates in value), Sarah and Mike will find themselves paying more valuable dollars to the bank in the future. 

Travel Rewards

Travel rewards can help fight inflation. One way is using sign-up bonuses and other accrued points to pay for hotel room nights or flights. Using points gets out of cash paying and thus inflation of the dollar hurts a bit less.

However, keep in mind that travel reward points are subject to their own inflation! The hotel chain or airline can devalue the redemption value of points at any time. Thus, if everything else is equal, those with significant travel rewards point balances might want to spend those points sooner rather than later for travel. 

A second consideration are the features of credit cards. Some travel branded credit cards come with certificates for free nights or a companion pass for a companion to receive free or discounted flights. If flighting inflation is a key goal, favoring cards that offer free-night certificates or companion passes can be a way to fight inflation. 

Spending that Leads to More or Less Future Spending

We’re used to assessing the price tag. $28,000 for that brand new car: “that’s a great deal!” or “that’s a terrible deal!” But the price tag is only one part of the financial picture.

If you buy a black cup of coffee at Starbucks, it might cost you $2.65. Fortunately, that’s it. The cup of coffee isn’t likely to cause you to incur later costs.

What about a $45,000 SUV? That purchase will cause later costs, many significant. For example, the cost to insure a $45,000 SUV might be significantly more than insuring a $22,000 sedan. What about gas? By purchasing a larger, less fuel-efficient car, you lock in more future spending, and thus more exposure to future inflation. 

Think about buying a large home with a pool in the backyard. That square footage attracts property tax, heating and cooling costs, and inflation in both costs. The pool in the backyard requires constant upkeep, subjecting the homeowner to another source of inflation. 

To my mind, food is a big one in the fight against inflation. What you eat today could very well translate into medical costs tomorrow, exposing you to significant inflation. Spending on foods with vegetable oils and sugars today is likely to increase your future exposure to medical expense inflation. 

The lesson is this: you can use today’s spending to reduce your exposure to future inflation. 

Conclusion

Is there a perfect answer to inflation? No. But with some intentional planning and spending today, Americans can reduce their exposure to the harmful effects of future inflation. 

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. 

The Tax Increase in SECURE 2.0

There’s a tax increase in the new SECURE Act 2.0 legislation. Unfortunately, it falls largely on those least equipped to shoulder it.

Catch-Up Contributions

Since enacted in 2001, “catch-up” contributions have been a great feature of 401(k) plans. Currently, they allow those age 50 or older to contribute an additional $6,500 annually to their 401(k) or similar plan. Those contributions can be traditional deductible contributions, Roth contributions, or a combination of both.

The idea is that by age 50, workers have much less time to make up for deficiencies in retirement savings. Thus, the law allows those workers to make catch-up contributions to have a better chance of financial success in retirement.

Other than age (must be at least 50 years old), there are no limits on the ability to make catch-up contributions. That could be viewed as a give-away to the rich. However, it is logical to keep retirement savings rules simple, especially those designed to help older workers behind in retirement savings.

Watch me discuss SECURE 2.0’s tax increase on catch-up contributions

Catch-Up Contributions for Those Behind in Retirement Savings

For those behind in retirement savings, deducting catch-up contributions usually makes the most sense. First, many in their 50s are in their highest earning years, and thus tax deductions are their most valuable. Second, those behind in retirement savings are not likely to be in a high tax bracket in retirement. With modest or low retirement income, they are likely to pay, at most, a 10% or 12% top federal income tax rate in retirement.

Here is an example of how that works:

Sarah, single and age 55, is behind in her retirement savings, so she maxes out her annual 401(k) contribution at $27,000 ($20,500 regular employee contribution and $6,500 catch-up contribution). Sarah currently earns $130,000 a year and lives in California. Since she deducts her catch-up contributions, she saves $2,165 a year in taxes ($6,500 times 24% federal marginal tax rate and 9.3% California marginal tax rate). That $2,165 in income tax savings makes catching up on her retirement savings much more affordable for Sarah.

Sarah’s approach is quite logical. If things work out, Sarah can make up the deficit in her retirement savings. Doing so might push her up to the 12% marginal federal tax bracket and the 8% marginal California tax bracket in retirement.

For someone like Sarah who is behind in their retirement savings, the Roth option on catch-up contributions is a very bad deal!

SECURE 2.0 and Catch-Up Contributions

SECURE 2.0 disallows the tax deduction that people like Sarah rely on. It requires all catch-up contributions to be Roth contributions. For the affluent, this makes some sense. Why should someone with very substantial assets get a tax deduction when they already have a well-funded retirement?

Sadly, many Americans in their 50s and 60s do not have well-funded retirements. Removing the tax deduction for catch-up contributions increases their taxes. These are people who can least afford to shoulder a new tax. The goal should be to make it easier for those behind in retirement savings to catch-up. Taking away this tax deduction makes it more difficult to build up sufficient savings for retirement.

Fortunately, as of this writing SECURE 2.0 has only passed the House. It has not passed the Senate. Hopefully this provision will be reconsidered and will not ultimately become law.

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, 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.

House Passes SECURE Act 2.0

It appears some changes are likely coming to the tax-advantaged retirement savings landscape, as the House of Representatives passed (by a 414-5 vote) the Securing a Strong Retirement Act of 2022. It now goes the Senate where the Senate Finance Committee is likely to offer their own version of the bill. Commentators have referred to this bill as the SECURE Act 2.0 or SECURE 2.0.

Here is the bill text.

This bill is not a paradigm shift in retirement saving and planning. Rather it makes many changes to the tax-advantaged retirement savings rules, most of which are small changes.

Here is a some brief points to consider:

My thinking about the bill

What expanding Roths (“Rothification”) means to the FI/FIRE community

The bill does not include the repeal of the Backdoor Roth IRA.

Deloitte materials on SECURE 2.0.

A good Twitter thread from Ed Zollars.

A nice summary of the most important points from Jamie Hopkins.

Post on ten provisions in the bill.

Stay Tuned: Some version of SECURE 2.0 is likely to be enacted in 2022, but it could get seriously changed in the U.S. Senate.

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, 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.

72(t) Series of Substantially Equal Periodic Payments Update

The IRS and Treasury have recently issued two updates to the rules for payments which avoid the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty from retirement accounts. These payments are referred to as a series of substantially equal periodic payments, SEPP, or 72(t) payments. This post discusses the updated rules. 

72(t) Payments

Tax advantaged retirement accounts are fantastic. Who doesn’t love 401(k)s, IRAs, Roth IRAs, and the like?

However, investing through a tax advantaged account can have drawbacks. One big drawback is that taxable amounts withdrawn from a tax advantaged retirement account prior to the account owner turning age 59 ½ are generally subject to a 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. My home state of California adds a 2.5 percent early withdrawal penalty. 

There are some exceptions to this penalty. One of them is taking 72(t) payments. The idea is that if the taxpayer takes a “series of substantially equal periodic payments” they can avoid the penalty. 

72(t) payments must be taken annually. Further, they must last for the longer of (a) 5 years or (b) the time until the taxpayer turns age 59 ½. This creates years of locked-in taxable income. 

There are three methods that can be used to compute the amount of the annual 72(t) payments. These methods compute an annual distribution amount generally keyed off three numbers: the balance in the relevant retirement account, the interest rate, and the table factor provided by the IRS. The factor is greater the younger the account owner is. The greater the factor, the less the account owner can withdraw from a retirement account in a 72(t) payment.

New 72(t) Payment Interest Rates

In January 2022, the IRS and Treasury issued Notice 2022-6. Hat tip to Ed Zollars for the alert. This notice provides some new 72(t) rules. The biggest, and most welcome, change is a new rule for determining the interest rate.

Previously, the rule had been that 72(t) payments were keyed off 120 percent of the mid-term applicable federal rate (“AFR”). The IRS publishes this rate every month. In recent years, that has been somewhat problematic, as interest rates have been historically low. For example, in September 2020, the mid-term AFR was just 0.42 percent. This made relying on a 72(t) payment somewhat perilous. How much juice can be squeezed from a large retirement account if the interest rate is just 0.42 percent?

Here is what a $1M traditional IRA could produce, under the fixed amortization method, in terms of an annual payment for a 53 year old starting a 72(t) payment if the interest rate is just 0.42 percent:

120% of Sept 2020 MidTerm AFR0.42%
Single Life Expectancy Years at Age 5333.4
Account Balance$1,000,000.00
Annual Payment$32,151.93

Notice 2022-6 makes a very significant change. It now allows taxpayers to pick the greater of (i) up to 5 percent or (ii) up to 120 percent of mid-term AFR. That one change makes a 72(t) payment a much more attractive option, since periods of low interest rates do not as adversely affect the calculation. 

Here is what a $1M traditional IRA could produce, under the fixed amortization method, in terms of an annual payment for a 53 year old starting a 72(t) payment if the interest rate is 5 percent:

5% Interest Rate5.00%
Single Life Expectancy Years at Age 5333.4
Account Balance$1,000,000.00
Annual Payment$62,189.80

The new rule provides a 5 percent interest rate floor for those using the fixed amortization method and the fixed annuitization method to compute a 72(t) payment. Using a 5 percent interest rate under the fixed amortization method is generally going to produce a greater payment amount than using the required minimum distribution method for 72(t) payments. 

The interest rate change provides taxpayers with much more flexibility with 72(t) payments, and a greater ability to extract more money penalty free prior to age 59 ½. Taxpayers already have the ability to “right-size” the traditional IRA out of which to take a 72(t) payment to help the numbers work out. In recent years, what has been much less flexible has been the interest rate. Under these new rules, taxpayers always have the ability to select anywhere from just above 0% to 5% regardless of what 120 percent of mid-term AFR is. 

Watch me discuss the update to 72(t) payment interest rates.

New Tables

A second new development is that the IRS and Treasury have issued new life expectancy tables for required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) and 72(t) payments. Most of the new tables are found at Treasury Regulation Section 1.401(a)(9)-9, though one new table is found at the end of Notice 2022-6. 

These tables reflect increasing life expectancies. As a result, they reduce the amount of RMDs, as the factors used to compute RMDs are greater as life expectancy increases. 

From a 72(t) payment perspective, this development is a minor taxpayer unfavorable development. Long life expectancies in the tables means the tables slightly reduce the amount of juice that can be squeezed out of any particular retirement account.

This said, the downside to 72(t) payments coming from increasing life expectancy on the tables is more than overcome by the ability to always use an interest rate of up to 5 percent. These two developments in total are a great net win for taxpayers looking to use 72(t) payments during retirement. 

Use of 72(t) Payments

Traditionally, I have viewed 72(t) payments as a life raft rather than as a desirable planning tool for those retiring prior to their 59 ½th birthday. Particularly for those in the FI community, my view has been that it is better to spend down taxable assets and even dip into Roth basis rather than employ a 72(t) payment plan. 

These developments shift my view a bit. Yes, I still view 72(t) payments as a life raft. Now it is an upgraded life raft with a small flatscreen TV and mini-fridge. 😉

As a practical matter, some will get to retirement prior to age 59 ½ with little in taxable and Roth accounts, and the vast majority of their financial wealth in traditional retirement accounts. Notice 2022-6 just made their situation much better and much more flexible. Getting to retirement at a time of very low interest rates does not necessarily hamstring their retirement plans given that they will always have at least a 5 percent interest rate to use in calculating their 72(t) payments. 

72(t) Payments and Roth IRAs

As Roth accounts grow in value, there will be at least some thought of marrying Roth IRAs with 72(t) payments. 

At least initially, Roth IRAs have no need for 72(t) payments. Those retired prior to age 59 ½ can withdraw previous Roth contributions and Roth conversions aged at least 5 years at any time tax and penalty free for any reason. So off the bat, no particular issue, as nonqualified distributions will start-off as being tax and penalty free.

Only after all Roth contributions have been withdrawn are Roth conversions withdrawn, and they are withdrawn first-in, first-out. Only after all Roth conversions are withdrawn does a taxpayer withdraw Roth earnings.  

For most, the odds of withdrawing (i) Roth conversions that are less than five years old, and then (ii) Roth earnings prior to age 59 ½ are slim. But, there could some who love Roths so much they largely or entirely eschew traditional retirement account contributions. One could imagine an early retiree with only Roth IRAs. 

Being “Roth only” prior to age 59 ½ could present problems if contributions and conversions at least 5 years old have been fully depleted. Taxpayers left with withdrawing conversions less than 5 years old or earnings in a nonqualified distribution might opt to establish a 72(t) payment plan for their Roth IRA. Such a 72(t) payment plan could avoid the 10 percent penalty on the withdrawn amounts attributable insufficiently aged conversions or Roth earnings. Note, however, that Roth earnings withdrawn in a nonqualified distribution are subject to ordinary income tax, regardless of whether they are part of a 72(t) payment plan. 

See Treasury Regulation Section 1.408A-6 Q&A 5 providing that Roth IRA distributions can be subject to both the 72(t) early withdrawal penalty and the exceptions to the 72(t) penalty. The exceptions include a 72(t) payment plan. 

Additional Resource

Ed Zollars has an excellent post on the updated IRS rules for 72(t) payments here.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

The End of the End of the Backdoor Roth IRA?

Update as of December 20, 2021: I originally posted this article on Saturday morning, December 18th. On Sunday, developments occurred which called into question the use of a question mark in the article’s title.

Senator Joe Manchin appeared on Fox News Sunday and very publicly indicated he is a No on Build Back Better. He followed that with a written statement outlining his opposition to Build Back Better. The White House issued a statement in response to Senator Manchin.

A fair assessment indicates the parties are not at all close on this one. This is not a situation where Senator Manchin is bargaining to get A, B, and C into the bill and the White House is hoping to only have to give B and C. While anything is possible with tax legislation, it is quite difficult to argue that the Build Back Better program (which includes Backdoor Roth IRA repeal) has a realistic possibility of passage in this Congress in anything resembling its current form.

Update February 5, 2022: Watch my updated assessment of the lay of the land on 2022 Backdoor Roth IRAs.

Below is the original post posted on December 18, 2021.

There’s an early Christmas present for tax efficient investors. The proposal to end the Backdoor Roth IRA is on life support, and as of now (December 18, 2021) it appears that even if the proposal passes, it will not pass until 2022 at the earliest.

Latest Developments

The White House has now issued a written statement that the so-called Build Back Better program will not be signed into law this year. The proposal to repeal the Backdoor Roth IRA is one of many tax proposals contained within the overall Build Back Better legislative program. As this Deloitte write-up discusses, it is clear the Senate will not pass the legislation any time in the near-term. Thus, for the time being, the Backdoor Roth IRA is in the clear. 

Prospects for 2022

Update December 28, 2021: Read my assessment of 2022 Backdoor Roth IRAs.

There is a reason the Build Back Better program will not be enacted during 2021: it’s not broadly popular. This is reflected in the current opposition of all 50 Senate Republicans and Democrat Senator Joe Manchin. Further, it is not at all clear that Democrat Senator Kyrsten Sinema will ultimately support Build Back Better. 

If the Build Back Better program were to become popular, the dynamics in the U.S. Senate would likely change. But one must ask: is there something that could occur in early 2022 that would make the legislation popular then when it was not popular in late 2021? 

Another issue the legislation has is the unlikelihood of any potential tax increase passing during an election year. New tax laws have proponents and opponents: in recent years Congress has hesitated to create opponents during election years by enacting significant tax legislation. 

What If?

What if the legislation is enacted in early 2022? What happens to Backdoor Roth IRAs? That is highly, highly speculative. My guess is that if the legislation (at that point) bans Backdoor Roth IRAs, either (i) Backdoor Roth IRAs will be prohibited as of January 1, 2023 (instead of January 1, 2022 in the current legislation) or (ii) prohibited as of the enactment of the law. 

But all sorts of alternative possibilities exist. A much smaller version of the Build Back Better program could be enacted, and that version could omit the Backdoor Roth IRA repeal. Or there will be no legislation enacted at all. 

Why Are We Here?

Is the Backdoor Roth IRA gimmicky? Absolutely it is!

But there is a bigger issue. Why the heck is there any income limitation on the ability to make a $6,000 annual contribution to a Roth IRA? Consider these two examples.

Wealthy Investor controls a large public company and is known for his ability to earn good investment returns. He is worth billions of dollars and is 80 years old. He can direct the large public company to offer a Roth 401(k), and on January 1st of 2022 he can have payroll issued to him, of which he can put $27,000 into his Roth 401(k). 

Single Nurse, age 35, is a nurse and earns $170,000 from her W-2 job. Her employer offers a traditional 401(k) but no Roth 401(k). Single Nurse earns too much (due to the Roth IRA modified adjusted gross income limit) to make an annual $6,000 contribution to a Roth IRA. As a result, Single Nurse’s annual Roth contributions are limited to $0.

Wealthy Investor can contribute $27,000 to a Roth 401(k) but Single Nurse can’t contribute $6,000 to a Roth IRA?

To borrow an exasperated quote from Cosmo Kramer, “What’s going on!!!”

The Backdoor Roth IRA solves this problem for Single Nurse and many other Americans. This workaround does not work for all Americans, as I have previously written. 

The simplest solution is to eliminate the modified adjusted gross income limit for all Roth IRA contributions. So some very wealthy Americans will get a few thousand dollars into Roth IRAs every year. Is this a horribly worrisome outcome considering many very wealthy Americans already have access to much greater workplace retirement plan contributions with absolutely no income limitation?

Once the income limit on the ability to make a Roth IRA contribution is repealed, there will be no need for Backdoor Roth IRAs. 

Conclusion

The only constant in the tax world is change. We shall see what the future holds for the Backdoor Roth IRA, but the coast appears to be clear for the rest of the year. Stay tuned!

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.

FI Tax Guy Featured on the Optimal Finance Daily Podcast

Today and tomorrow my year-end tax planning post will be featured on the Optimal Finance Daily podcast.

Listen to today’s episode on podcast players and here.

Read my year-end tax planning blog post here.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

Sean Talks Tax with DocG

Listen to my discussion with DocG on the latest episode of the Earn and Invest podcast. Available on all major podcast players and at this link: https://www.earnandinvest.com/episodes/five-tax-questions-you-must-ask

FI Tax Guy can be your financial advisor! 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. 

Tax Planning for Inflation

In recent years, inflation existed but was not significant. Significant inflation was associated with wide lapels and eight-track tapes and thought to be left behind in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

But, sure enough, significant inflation is back. Inflation is 6.2 percent for the 12 months ending October 2021.  

Inflation has a tax angle. How does one use tax planning to minimize the impact of inflation? In this post, I review the issues associated with inflation and tactics to consider if one is concerned about inflation.

Inflation: The Tax Problem

Inflation increases the nominal (i.e., stated) value of assets without a corresponding increase in the real value of the asset. Here is an example:

Larry buys $100,000 worth of XYZ Mutual Fund on January 1, 2022. During the year 2022, there is 10 percent inflation. On January 1, 2023, the XYZ Mutual Fund is worth $110,000. Inflation-adjusted, the position has the same real value as it did when Larry purchased it. However, were Larry to sell the entire position, he would trigger a $10,000 capital gain ($110,000 sales price less $100,000 tax basis), which would be taxable to him. 

Hopefully you see the problem: Larry has not experienced a real increase in wealth. Larry’s taxable “gain” is not a gain. Rather, it is simply inflation! Larry will pay tax on inflation if he sells the asset. Ouch!

While inflation increases the nominal value of assets, there is no inflation adjustment to tax basis! Thus, inflation creates artificial gains subject to income tax. 

There are other tax problems with inflation. Inflation artificially increases amounts received as wages, self-employment income, interest, dividends, and retirement plan distributions. Those artificial increases are not real increases in income (as they do not represent increases in value) but they are subject to income tax as though they were real increases in income.

The tax law does provide some remedy to address the problem of taxing inflation. The IRS provides inflation adjustments to increase the size of progressive tax brackets. In addition, the standard deduction is adjusted annually for inflation. Recently the IRS released the inflation adjustments for 2022.  

IRS inflation adjustments are helpful, but they do not excuse inflation from taxation. Rather, they only soften the blow. Thus, they are not a full cure for the tax problems caused by inflation. 

Inflation and Traditional Retirement Accounts

Inflation is detrimental to traditional retirement accounts such as pre-tax 401(k)s and IRAs. Holding assets inside a traditional retirement account subjects the taxpayer to income tax on the growth in the assets caused by inflation.

Inflation artificially increases amounts in these accounts that will ultimately be subject to taxation. Inflation can also limit the opportunity to do Roth conversions in early retirement. Greater balances to convert from traditional to Roth accounts and increased dividend, capital gain, and interest income triggered by inflation makes early retiree Roth conversion planning more challenging. 

Inflation and Real Estate

There are several tax benefits of rental real estate. One of the main benefits is depreciation. For residential real estate, the depreciable basis is deducted in a straight-line over 27.5 years. For example, if the depreciable basis of a rental condo is $275,000, the annual depreciation tax deduction (for 27.5 years) is $10,000 (computed as $275,000 divided by 27.5). That number rarely changes, as most of the depreciable basis is determined at the time the property is purchased or constructed. 

Over time, inflation erodes the value of depreciation deductions. Inflation generally increases rental income, but the depreciation deduction stays flat nominally and decreases in real value. Increasing inflation reduces the tax benefits provided by rental real estate. 

Planning Techniques

There are planning techniques that can protect taxpayers against the tax threat posed by inflation. 

Roth Contributions and Conversions

Inflation is yet another tax villain the Roth can slay. Tax free growth inside a Roth account avoids the tax on inflation. 

Once inside a Roth, concerns about inflation increasing taxes generally vanish. Properly planned, Roths provide tax free growth and tax free withdrawals. Thus, Roths effectively eliminate the concern about paying tax on inflation. 

For those thinking of Roth conversions, inflation concerns point to accelerating Roth conversions. The sooner amounts inside traditional retirement accounts are converted to Roth accounts, the less exposure the amounts have to inflation taxes. 

Roth contributions and conversions provide tax insurance against the threat of inflation. For those very concerned about inflation, this consideration moves the needle toward the Roth in the ongoing Roth versus traditional debate. 

Watch me discuss using Roth accounts to help manage an investor’s exposure to inflation.

Health Savings Accounts

A Health Savings Account, like its Roth IRA cousin, offers tax free growth. HSAs also protect against taxes on inflation. Inflation is another argument to take advantage of an HSA. 

Basis Step Up Planning

There is another tax planning opportunity that can wipe away the taxes owed on years of inflation: the basis step up at death. At death, heirs receive a basis in inherited taxable assets which is usually the fair market value of the assets on the date of death. For taxable assets, death provides an opportunity to escape the tax on inflation.

It is important to note that traditional retirement accounts do not receive a basis step up. Inflation inside a traditional retirement account will eventually be subject to tax (either to the original owner or to a beneficiary after the original owner’s death). 

During one’s lifetime, there is the tax gain harvesting opportunity to step up basis and reduce inflation taxes. The tactic is to sell and repurchase an investment with a built-in gain at a time when the investor does not pay federal income tax on the capital gain. If one can keep their marginal federal income tax rate in the 12% or lower marginal tax bracket, they can pay a 0% federal income tax rate on the gain and “reset” the basis to the repurchase price of the sold and then repurchased asset. 

There is a second flavor of tax gain harvesting: triggering a capital gain (at an advantageous time from a tax perspective) by selling an asset and reinvesting the proceeds in a more desirable asset (essentially, investment reallocation). 

One inflation consideration with respect to tax gain harvesting: as inflation increases interest and dividends, there will be less room inside the 12 percent taxable income bracket to create capital gains that are federal income tax free.

Conclusion

Inflation is yet another tax planning consideration. As we are now in a period of significant inflation, taxpayers and advisors will need to weigh inflation’s potential impact on tax strategies. 

None of the above is advice for any particular taxpayer. Hopefully it provides some educational background to help assess the tax impact of inflation and consider tactical responses to inflation.

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.

Sean Discusses Year-End Tax Planning on the ChooseFI Podcast

Listen to me discuss year-end tax planning with Brad and Jonathan on the ChooseFI podcast. The episode is available on all major podcast players, YouTube, and on the ChooseFI website (https://www.choosefi.com/year-end-tax-planning-2021-ep-351/).

During the conversation we referenced this blog post.

As always, the discussion is general and educational in nature and does not constitute tax, investment, legal, or financial advice with respect to any particular individual or taxpayer. Please consult your own advisors regarding your own unique situation. Sean Mullaney and ChooseFI Publishing are currently under contract to publish a book authored by Sean Mullaney.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial advisor! 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.