Qualified charitable distributions (“QCDs”) are an exciting tax planning opportunity, particularly for the FI community. Below I describe what a qualified charitable distribution is and how members of the FI community should think about them when tax planning.
Of course, this post is educational in nature. Nothing in this blog post is tax advice for any particular taxpayer. Please consult your own tax advisor regarding your unique circumstances.
Qualified Charitable Distributions
QCDs are transfers from a traditional IRA directly to a charity. Up to $100K annually, they are (a) not included in the taxpayer’s taxable income, (b) not deductible as charitable contributions, and (c) qualify as “required minimum distributions” (“RMDs”) (to the lesser of the taxpayer’s required minimum distribution or the actual distribution to the charity). Here is an example:
Example 1: Jack and Jill are 75 years old and file their tax return married filing joint. Jack has a RMD from his traditional IRA of $40,000 in 2021. Jack directs his traditional IRA institution to transfer $40,000 during 2021 to a section 501(c)(3) charity. Jack and Jill recognize no taxable income on the transfer, and Jack does not have to take his 2021 RMD (the $40K QCD having covered it). Further, Jack and Jill receive no charitable contribution deduction for the transfer.
Considering that Jack & Jill (both age 75) enjoy a standard deduction of $27,800 in 2021, they get both the standard deduction and a $40K deduction for the charitable contribution from the traditional IRA (since they do not have to include the $40K in their taxable income). This is the best of both worlds. Further, excluding the $40K from “adjusted gross income” (“AGI”) is actually better than taking the $40K as an itemized deduction, since many tests for tax benefits are keyed off of AGI instead of taxable income.
Important QCD Considerations
Take QCDs Early
Generally speaking, it is best that QCDs come out of the traditional IRA early in the year. Why? Because under the tax rules, RMDs come out of a traditional IRA first. So it is usually optimal to take the QCD early in the year so it can fulfill all or part of the required minimum distribution for the year. Then you can do Roth conversion planning (if desired), so long as the full RMD has already been withdrawn (either or both through a QCD and a regular distribution) from the traditional IRA first.
No Trinkets
I don’t care how much you love your PBS tote bag: do not accept any gift or token of appreciation from the charity. The receipt of anything (other than satisfaction) from the charity blows the QCD treatment. So be sure not to accept anything from the charity in exchange for your QCD.
QCDs Available Only from Traditional IRAs
In order to take advantage of QCD treatment, the account must be a traditional IRA. 401(k)s and other workplace plans do not qualify for QCDs. Further, SIMPLE IRAs and SEP IRAs do not qualify for QCD treatment.
As a practical matter, this is not much of an issue. If you want to do a QCD out of a 401(k) or other tax advantaged account, generally all you need to do is rollover the account to a traditional IRA.
QCD Age Requirement
In order to take advantage of the QCD opportunity, the traditional IRA owner must be aged 70 ½ or older.
Inherited IRAs
QCDs are available to the beneficiary of an inherited IRA so long as the beneficiary is age 70 ½ or older.
QCDs For Those Age 70 ½ and Older
If you are aged 70 ½ or older and charitably inclined, the QCD often is the go-to technique for charitable giving. In most cases, it makes sense to make your charitable contributions directly from your traditional IRA, up to $100,000 per year. QCDs help shield RMDs from taxation and help keep AGI low.
QCDs and the Pro-Rata Rule
If you have made previous non-deductible contributions to your traditional IRA, distributions are generally subject to the pro-rata rule (i.e., the old contributions are recovered ratably as distributions come out of the traditional IRA).
However, QCDs are not subject to the pro-rata rule! This has a positive effect on future taxable distributions from the traditional IRA. Here is an example of how this works:
Example 2: Mike is age 75. On January 1, 2021, he had a traditional IRA worth $500,000 to which he previously made $50,000 of nondeductible contributions. If Mike makes a $10,000 QCD to his favorite charity, his traditional IRA goes down in value to $490,000. However, his QCD does not take out any of his $50,000 of basis from nondeductible contributions. This has the nice effect of reducing the tax on future taxable distributions to Mike from the traditional IRA, since the QCD reduces denominator (by $10K) for determining how much basis is recovered, while the numerator ($50K) is unaffected.
QCDs for Those Under Age 70 ½
Those in the FI community considering early retirement need to strongly consider Roth conversions. The general idea is that if you can retire early with sufficient wealth to support your lifestyle, you can have several years before age 70 during which your taxable income is artificially low. During those years, you can convert old traditional retirement accounts Roth accounts while you are taxed at very low federal income tax brackets.
For the charitably inclined, the planning should account for the QCD opportunity. There is no reason to convert almost every dime to Roth accounts if you plan on giving significant sums to charity during your retirement. Why pay any federal or state income tax on amounts that you ultimately will give to charity?
If you are under the age of 70 ½ and are charitably inclined, QCDs should be part of your long term financial independence gameplan. You should leave enough in your traditional retirement accounts to support your charitable giving at age 70 ½ and beyond (up to $100K annually). These amounts can come out as tax-free QCDs at that point, so why pay any tax on these amounts in your 50s or 60s? Generally speaking, a Roth conversion strategy should account for QCDs for the charitably inclined.
Conclusion
For the charitably inclined, QCDs can be a great way to manage taxable income and qualify for tax benefits in retirement. QCDs also reduce the pressure on Roth conversion planning prior to age 72, since it provides a way to keep money in traditional accounts without having to pay tax on that money.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial advisor! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
Really enjoyed this year-end tax planning conversation with Doc G on the Earn & Invest podcast. Stay tuned to the end for some candid behind the scenes podcast recording.
This post (and this podcast episode) is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
Roth 401(k)s are gaining prominence as a tax-advantaged workplace retirement account. This post provides introductory information regarding Roth 401(k)s and their potential benefits as a retirement savings account.
Two important introductory notes. First, not all 401(k) plans offer a Roth option, so for some employees, a Roth 401(k) contribution is not an option. Second, this post is for educational purposes only and is not advice for any particular taxpayer.
Traditional 401(k) versus Roth 401(k)
In an ideal world, contributions by an employee to a traditional 401(k) result in a tax deduction when contributed, and taxable income when withdrawn.
Example 1: Tony makes $100,000 from his employer in W-2 wages in 2021. Tony contributes $15,000 during the course of 2021 to his employer’s traditional 401(k). Tony will receive a W-2 from his employer reporting $85,000 of taxable W-2 wages for 2021.
In an ideal world, contributions by an employee to a Roth 401(k) result in no tax deduction when contributed, and no taxable income when withdrawn.
Example 2: Rudy makes $100,000 from his employer in W-2 wages in 2021. Rudy contributes $15,000 during the course of 2021 to his employer’s Roth 401(k). Rudy will receive a W-2 from his employer reporting $100,000 of taxable W-2 wages for 2021.
Roth 401(k) Contributions
Employees can contribute the lesser of their earned income or $19,500 (2021 limit) to a Roth 401(k) in “employee deferrals.” For those 50 years old or older, the 2021 limit is the lesser of earned income or $26,000.
The employee deferral limit factors in both traditional 401(k) employee contributions and Roth 401(k) employee contributions. Here’s an illustrative example.
Example 3: Sarah, age 35, earns $100,000 in W-2 income in 2021 at Acme Industries, Inc. Sarah contributes the maximum to her 401(k) plan. Assuming Acme offers both a traditional 401(k) and a Roth 401(k), that maximum $19,500 contribution can be split up however Sarah chooses ($13,000 to the traditional 401(k) and $6,500 to the Roth 401(k), $5,000 to the traditional 401(k) and $14,500 to the Roth 401(k), etc.).
Any combination (including all in the traditional or all in the Roth) is permissible as long as the total does not exceed $19,500 (using 2021’s limits).
Roth 401(k) Contributions: Income Limits
There’s good news here. Unlike their Roth IRA cousins, Roth 401(k) contributions have no income limits. In theory, one could make $1 billion annually in W-2 income and still contribute $19,500 to a Roth 401(k).
Matching Contributions
Employer matching contributions are one of the best benefits of 401(k) plans.
Example 4: Elaine, age 35, works at Perry Publishing. She earns a salary of $50,000. Perry matches 50% of the first 6% of salary that Elaine contributes to her 401(k). Elaine decides to contribute $3,000 (6 percent) of her salary to the 401(k) as a Roth contribution. Perry contributes $1,500 as a matching contribution. The $1,500 employer match goes into the 401(k) as a traditional contribution. The $3,000 and its growth are treated as a Roth 401(k), and the $1,500 and its growth are treated as a traditional 401(k).
Matching contributions may be subject to vesting requirements, as described in this post. Employee contributions to a 401(k) (whether traditional or Roth) are always 100% vested.
Roth 401(k) Withdrawals
The greatest benefits of a Roth 401(k) are tax-free growth and tax-free withdrawals. Tax-free withdrawals are generally the goal, but they are not automatic. Recently, I wrote a post on Roth 401(k) withdrawals.
One important consideration regarding Roth 401(k) withdrawals: Roth 401(k)s are subject to the required minimum distribution rules starting at age 72. Thus, you must start withdrawing money from a Roth 401(k) at age 72. As a result, you will have less wealth growing tax-free. For this reason, many consider rolling Roth 401(k)s to Roth IRAs prior to age 72.
Conclusion
Roth 401(k)s provide a great opportunity to save and invest for retirement. Taxpayers should consider their own circumstances, and often consult with tax professionals, in deciding their own investment program.
Further Reading
For more information about 401(k) plans, please read this post.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters.Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
We live in a Roth IRA world (or, at least I wish we did). We also live in a world where increasing numbers of people invest through a Roth 401(k).
The Roth 401(k) is still a relatively new account. Taxpayers and practitioners alike are still learning its contours. Things get even more complicated when you roll money from a workplace Roth 401(k) to a Roth IRA.
To get our feet wet, first I will illustrate the ordering rules for withdrawals from a Roth IRA. Then we will explore withdrawals from a Roth 401(k).
Note that much of this post discusses withdrawals before age 59 ½. In most cases, it is not wise to take a withdrawal from a retirement account before age 59 ½ unless (a) there is an emergency or (b) it is part of a well crafted financial plan.
Watch me discuss Roth 401(k) withdrawals.
Default Rule for Roth IRA Withdrawals: The Layers
Unless the distribution qualifies as a “qualified distribution” (see below), amounts come out of Roth IRAs in layers. Only after one layer has been exhausted can the next layer come out.
Here is the order of distributions that come out of a Roth IRA:
Second Layer: Roth IRA conversions (first-in, first-out)
Third Layer: Roth IRA earnings
Here’s a brief example:
Example 1: Steve has made five $5,000 contributions to his Roth IRA in previous years. He also made a $10,000 conversion from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in 2014. In 2021, at a time when his Roth IRA is worth $60,000 and Steve is 45 years old, he takes a $10,000 withdrawal from his Roth IRA. All $10,000 will be a recovery of his previous contributions (leaving him with $15,000 remaining of previous contributions). Thus, the entire distribution from the Roth IRA will be tax and penalty free.
The Roth IRA contributions come out tax and penalty free at any time for any reason!
A qualified distribution from a Roth IRA is usually one where the account holder both (i) has owned a Roth IRA for at least 5 years and (ii) is at least 59 ½ years old. If either condition is not satisfied, the default layering rules described above apply. Qualified distributions from a Roth IRA are tax and penalty free regardless of the layers inside the Roth IRA.
See page 31 of IRS Publication 590-B for more information about qualified distributions from Roth IRAs.
Roth 401(k) Withdrawals
First, a practical note: employers may restrict in-service Roth 401(k) withdrawals before age 59 1/2. Consider that before thinking about how the tax rules apply to withdrawals.
Default Rule: Cream-in-the-Coffee
Generally speaking, Roth 401(k)s have (1) investment in the contract (“IITC”), which is generally previous contributions and conversions and (2) earnings.
Unlike the sequenced layering of Roth IRA withdrawals, Roth 401(k) withdrawals generally default to what Ed Slott refers to as the “cream-in-the-coffee” rule (see Choate — discussed below, page 140).
As a result, withdrawals default to carrying out both some IITC and some earnings. Here’s an example:
Example 2: Lilly has made five $6,000 contributions to her Roth 401(k) in previous years. She also made a $10,000 conversion from a traditional 401(k) to her Roth 401(k) in 2014. In 2021, at a time when her Roth 401(k) is worth $60,000 and Lilly is 45 years old, she takes a $10,000 withdrawal from her Roth 401(k). Two-thirds ($6,667, computed as the fraction $40,000 divided by $60,000 times the withdrawal) of the $10,000 will be a recovery of her IITC (entirely tax and penalty free), and one-third ($3,333, computed as the fraction $20,000 divided by $60,000 times the withdrawal) of the $10,000 will be earnings, which are subject to both ordinary income taxation and a 10 percent penalty.
Quick Thought: Had Lilly’s Roth conversion occurred in 2017 or later, the portion attributable to the conversion ($1,667) would be subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty (but not to ordinary income taxation).See Section 402A(c)(4)(D) and Section 408A(d)(3)(F). Note an earlier version had “2018 or earlier” where the bolded words are in error. I regret the error.
Quick Thought: The cream-in-the-coffee rule does not factor in amounts in traditional 401(k) accounts, even if they are within the same 401(k) plan.
Solving the Cream-in-the-Coffee Issue
We see that the cream-in-the-coffee rule has bad effects. It does not allow exclusive access to tax-favored amounts when there are non-tax favored amounts in an account. So what to do? There are three primary exceptions to the cream-in-the-coffee rule.
Exception 1: Wait for a Qualified Distribution
The cream-in-the-coffee rule can be waited out.
A qualified distribution from a Roth 401(k) is a withdrawal that occurs when the owner is age 59 ½ (see Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.402A-1 Q&A 2(b)(2)) and has had that particular Roth 401(k) account for five years (see Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.402A-1 Q&A 2(b)(1) and Q&A 4). Other qualified distributions can occur upon death or disability (if the 5 year test is satisfied), but for our purposes, we will assume for the rest of the article that any qualified distributions are qualified distributions occurring at or after age 59 ½ and after five years of ownership.
The owner of a Roth 401(k) who qualifies for a qualified distribution does not need to roll the Roth 401(k) to a Roth IRA to take a tax free withdrawal. Once the owner qualifies for a qualified distribution he or she can simply withdraw amounts from the Roth 401(k) tax-free.
However, as a practical matter, it is often the case that Roth 401(k)s are rolled into Roth IRAs (for several reasons). If the rollover from the Roth 401(k) to the Roth IRA would qualify as a qualified distribution if taken directly, then the entire amount in the Roth 401(k) (IITC and earnings) goes into the Roth IRA as a contribution. Ian Berger discussed this issue in an August 11, 2022 response to a question. His answer applies the rule in Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-10 Q&A 3 (the sentence beginning with “Thus,”).
Up to the amount rolled into the Roth IRA can be distributed tax and penalty free. So long as the taxpayer has met the 5 year rule with respect to any Roth IRA, any future earnings beyond the amount rolled in can be withdrawn tax free at any time.
Quick Thought: I would be remiss if I didn’t insert the standard tax planner advice that rollovers from Roth 401(k)s to Roth IRAs are best accomplished through a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer.
There is one five year rule nuance to consider. If the taxpayer has never had a Roth IRA, he or she must wait 5 years (regardless of their age) to access later earnings generated by rollover contribution tax free. Here’s a quick example:
Example 3: John is 60 years old. He has never had a Roth IRA. He has had a Roth 401(k) with his employer for over five years. He has made $100,000 of contributions to the Roth 401(k) which has grown to $200,000. He does not need to roll his Roth 401(k) into a Roth IRA to take out money entirely tax and penalty free.
If John chooses to roll all $200,000 in his Roth 401(k) into a Roth IRA, all $200,000 goes into the Roth IRA as a contribution. If John withdraws more than $200,000 from the new Roth IRA before the Roth IRA turns 5 years old, those withdrawals of new earnings would be subject to income tax (though, of course, penalty free since John is over 59 ½ years old).
As a practical matter, as long as the taxpayer does not plan on withdrawing more than the rolled over amount in the first five years, this nuance is not likely to be a gating issue in determining whether the Roth 401(k) should be rolled over to a Roth IRA.
Exception 2: Roth 401(k) Rollover then Withdraw
The second strategy to overcome the cream-in-the-coffee rule is to rollover the Roth 401(k) to a Roth IRA without waiting.
If either the taxpayer is less than 59 ½ years old and/or has not held that particular Roth 401(k) for at least five years, the nonqualified distribution rules apply to the rollover. The Roth 401(k) goes into the Roth IRA as “contributions” to the extent of the IITC in the Roth 401(k), and as “earnings” to the extent of growth in the Roth 401(k).
Recall the example of Lilly above. Here is how it changes if she rolls the Roth 401(k) into a Roth IRA and then takes the withdrawal.
Example 4: Lilly has made five $6,000 contributions to her Roth 401(k) in previous years. She also made a $10,000 conversion from a traditional 401(k) to her Roth 401(k) in 2014. In 2021, at a time when her Roth 401(k) is worth $60,000 and Lilly is 45 years old, she rolls her Roth 401(k) over to a Roth IRA (her first ever). A month later, Lilly takes a $10,000 withdrawal from her Roth IRA. All $10,000 will be a recovery of her previous contributions (leaving her with $30,000 remaining of previous contributions). Thus, the entire withdrawal will be tax and penalty free.
While rollovers of nonqualified distributions do not eliminate Roth 401(k) earnings, they do eliminate the cream-in-the-coffee rule. As a result, Roth 401(k) to Roth IRA rollovers often make sense.
The Five Year Roth Earnings Rule
Where such rollovers can be disadvantageous is the five year rule as applied to earnings. Recall that being age 59 ½ is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to withdrawing Roth earnings tax free. You also need to meet a 5 year rule.
If you have a Roth 401(k) that is 5 years old but have never had any Roth IRA, and you are less than 5 years away from attaining age 59 ½, rolling into a Roth IRA could subject withdrawals of earnings (after age 59 ½) in excess of IITC to ordinary income taxation. That said, often withdrawals do not exhaust contributions in the first five years after a rollover. Thus, often this will not be a gating issue.
Exception 3: Roth 401(k) Withdrawal then Rollover
There is a third way to overcome the cream-in-the-coffee rule. It is to take a withdrawal from the Roth 401(k) and then rollover the earnings component to a Roth IRA. Let’s see how that would affect Lilly:
Example 5: Lilly needs $10,000 and has decided to access it from her Roth 401(k). Lilly has made five $6,000 contributions to her Roth 401(k) in previous years. She also made a $10,000 conversion from a traditional 401(k) to her Roth 401(k) in 2014. In 2021, at a time when her Roth 401(k) is worth $60,000 and Lilly is 45 years old, Lilly takes a $15,000 withdrawal from her Roth 401(k). Based on her Roth 401(k) consisting of two-thirds IITC and one-third earnings, $5,000 of the withdrawal is taxable and subject to an early withdrawal penalty. However, Lilly can, within 60 days, rollover the $5,000 of earnings into a Roth IRA. The earnings will go into the Roth IRA as earnings, and Lilly avoids the tax and penalty on the withdrawal.
Note that if Lilly does this partial rollover, the rollover piece is not subject to the cream-in-the-coffee rule. The partial rollover attracts earnings before attracting any IITC (see Treasury Regulation Section 1.402A-1 Q&A 5).
Note further that if Lilly has no other Roth IRAs, she now has a Roth IRA that consists only of earnings. She will not (generally speaking) be able to touch this Roth IRA without ordinary income tax and a penalty until age 59 ½.
As a practical matter, the “withdraw then rollover” strategy may not be available to Lilly. The 401(k) plan may not allow partial distributions pre-age 59 1/2 after separation from service.
Coordination with the Rule of 55
Many like the Rule of 55, which is a rule that allows taxpayers to take amounts from workplace retirement plans such as 401(k)s without the early withdrawal penalty. It applies when a taxpayer separates from service at age 55 or older (up to age 59 ½, when withdrawals become penalty free), and the plan allows partial withdrawals.
So the question becomes, if you are in the 4.5 year Rule of 55 window (ages 55 to 59 ½) and you separate from service, should you leave a Roth 401(k) in the plan or roll it into a Roth IRA if you need to withdraw from it? Let’s consider an example.
Example 6: James is 56 years old and leaves his employment. He has contributed $100,000 over more than five years to his Roth 401(k), and it is currently worth $200,000. If he keeps the amounts in the Roth 401(k), every dollar he takes out will be half recovery of IITC (tax-free) and half a withdrawal of earnings (taxable, but qualifies for a penalty exception). If, instead, James follows the “rollover then withdraw” strategy and rolls his Roth 401(k) to a Roth IRA, the first $100,000 he withdraws before age 59 ½ will be a return of contributions, and only if he exceeds $100,000 in withdrawals will he have ordinary income and a penalty. A second option for James would be to do the “withdraw then rollover” strategy whereby James would direct half of each distribution (the earnings half) to a Roth IRA in order to avoid ordinary income taxation on the earnings portion.
This illustrates that numbers matter in this regard. It also shows that as long as the pre-age 59 ½ withdrawals will be less than the previous Roth 401(k) contributions, it is generally better to take the withdrawals from a rollover Roth IRA than from a Roth 401(k) penalty protected by the Rule of 55.
However, if one employs the “withdraw then rollover” strategy, keeping money in the Roth 401(k) can work as effectively as rolling over to a Roth IRA.
A Note on Rollovers
Any designated Roth account (401(k), 403(b), and/or 457) can be rolled into a Roth IRA. Designated Roth accounts can be rolled into other designated Roth accounts, though note there can some be some complexity in this regard.
Roth IRAs cannot be rolled into a designated Roth account, including a Roth 401(k).
The IRS has a handy rollover chart accessible here.
SECURE 2.0 Update
SECURE 2.0 makes three changes relating to Roth 401(k)s. First, it eliminates required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) from Roth 401(k)s during the owner’s lifetime. This change has little practical effect, as many Roth 401(k)s will ultimately be rolled to Roth IRAs anyway in order for the owner to obtain more investment choice and control of the account.
Second, SECURE 2.0 mandates that beginning in 2024, employee catch-up contributions to 401(k) accounts must be Roth contributions if the employee made more than $145,000 in wages the prior year.
Third, SECURE 2.0 allows employer contributions to Roth 401(k)s.
I suspect that based on the second and third changes, more employers may offer Roth 401(k)s in addition to traditional 401(k)s.
Further Reading
For those interested in seeing more information on distributions out of Roth IRAs after rollovers of Roth 401(k)s, please see Treasury Regulation Sec. 1.408A-10. For more information on rollovers of distributions from Roth 401(k)s into Roth IRAs, please see Treasury Regulation Sec. 1.402A-1.
The rules around Roth 401(k)s are complex, and different than those applicable to Roth IRAs. This blog post only presents an educational introduction to those rules. Taxpayers should exercise extra caution, and often consult with tax professionals, before moving money out of a Roth 401(k).
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters.Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
It won’t surprise many to find out that a tax-focused financial planner is fond of the Roth IRA. Below is a brief review of the advantages of a Roth IRA.
Tax Free Growth
Amounts in Roth IRAs grow tax free. Considering many Americans may now live into their 80s, 90s, and beyond, this is a tremendous benefit.
The only caveat is that in order for all distributions from Roth IRAs to be tax and penalty free, they generally have to be either (a) a return of contributions or of sufficiently aged conversions (see below), or (b) a distribution of earnings made in the Roth IRA (or other amounts in the Roth IRA) at a time when the owner of the account is 59 ½ or older and has owned a Roth IRA for at least five years.
The rules for ordering distributions out of a Roth IRA generally provide that contributions come out first, and then the oldest conversions come out next. This means that in many cases Roth IRA distributions, even those occurring before age 59 ½, are tax and penalty free.
N.B. Generally speaking, you want to only take a distribution from a Roth IRA before age 59 ½ if it is either (i) a serious emergency or (ii) part of a well crafted, very intentional financial plan.
Ease of Administration and Withdrawal
There are many financial institutions that provide Roth IRAs. Investment expenses in low-cost index funds at financial institutions that provide Roth IRAs are approaching zero. Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab are among the very good providers of low-cost Roth IRAs (and there are others).
It is also relatively easy to access money inside a Roth IRA. This makes the Roth IRA a great account to have in an emergency. Of course, it is generally best to leave money inside a Roth IRA to let it grow tax free, but it is good to know that you can access money in a Roth IRA relatively easily if an emergency arises.
Tax Free Withdrawals of Contributions
This is a great benefit of the Roth IRA. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be withdrawn at any time for any reason tax and penalty free. Further, the first money deemed distributed from a Roth IRA is a contribution. Here is a quick example:
Mark is 35 years old in 2025. He made $6,000 contributions to his Roth IRA in each of 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 (for $30,000 total). In 2025, when his Roth IRA is worth $41,000, Mark withdraws $10,000 from his Roth IRA in 2025. All $10,000 will be deemed to be a return of contributions, and thus entirely tax free and penalty free.
The only exception is a taxpayer favorable exception: a timely withdrawal of an excess contribution (and related earnings) occurs before regular contributions are considered withdrawn.
N.B. Roth 401(k)s, 403(b)s, and 457s have different distribution rules — most pre-age 59 ½ distributions will take out some taxable earnings.
Tax Free Withdrawals of Sufficiently Aged Converted Amounts
If you convert an amount into a Roth IRA, you start a five year clock as of January 1st of the year of the conversion. Quick example:
Mike is 35 years old in 2025. Mike converts $10,000 from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA on July 2, 2025. His five year conversion clock starts January 1, 2025. On January 1, 2030, Mike can withdraw the entire $10,000 he converted in 2025 tax and penalty free.
This feature of the Roth IRA, the tax free withdrawal of sufficiently aged conversions, is the basis for the Roth Conversion Ladder strategy. Sufficiently aged converted amounts are deemed to come out after contributions are exhausted and before more recent conversions and earnings come out.
No Required Minimum Distributions
During an account holder’s lifetime, there are no required minimum distributions from a Roth IRA. You can live to 150 and never be required to take money from a Roth IRA.
Creditor Protection
In federal bankruptcy proceedings, Roth IRAs are (as of 2024), protected up to $1,512,350.
Where there can be differences in liability protection are state general creditor claims (i.e., creditor protection in non-bankruptcy situations). In some states, Roth IRAs receive a level of creditor protection similar to that of ERISA plans. Generally, such protection is absolute against all creditors except for an ex-spouse or the IRS.
In other states, Roth IRAs receive no or limited creditor protection. In my home state of California, Roth IRAs are only creditor protected up to the amount necessary to provide for you and your dependents in your retirement (as determined by the court). Such protection is valuable but hardly airtight.
A Sneaky Way to Contribute More to Your Retirement
Yes, in theory everyone should save for retirement based on exacting calculations (i.e., I estimate I need $X in retirement, so based on projections I save $A in traditional accounts and $B in Roth accounts this year). That’s the theory.
In practice, it’s “I maxed out this account and that account” or “I put $C into this account and $D into that account.” There isn’t that much wrong with how we practically save for retirement, as long as we are saving sufficient amounts for retirement.
But not all “maxing out” is created equal. We know this because if Jane has $100,000 in a traditional IRA and Mary has $100,000 in a Roth IRA, who has more wealth? Mary! Unless Jane can always be in a zero percent income tax bracket, Mary has more than Jane, even though they both nominally have $100,000.
A Great Account to Leave to Heirs
While non-spouse heirs will have to take taxable required distributions from inherited IRAs (in many cases beginning in 2020 they will need to drain the account within 10 years of death), heirs are never taxed on distributions from Roth IRAs. This makes a Roth IRA a great account to leave to your heirs.
Compare with Other Retirement Accounts
No other retirement account combines ease of administration and withdrawal, low costs, significant tax benefits, creditor protection, and great emergency access the way the Roth IRA does. Most workplace retirement plans have some restrictions on withdrawals. Traditional account withdrawals do not have the tax advantages of a Roth IRA. Distributions from a traditional IRA, even one at a low-cost, easy to use discount brokerage, will trigger ordinary income taxes, and possible penalties, if withdrawn for emergency use.
Financial Planning Objectives
Personal finance is indeed personal. But I submit the following: pretty much every individual has some desire (and/or need) to not work at some point in his/her lifetime and every individual needs to be prepared for emergencies. Further, these are two very important financial planning objectives for most, if not all, individuals.
If the above is true, then we must ask “which account type best supports the combination of these two pressing financial planning objectives?” It appears to me that the answer is clearly the Roth IRA.
None of this is to say that a Roth IRA is the only way to plan for retirement and plan for emergencies, but rather, it is to say that, generally speaking, a Roth IRA ought to be a material element in such planning. Other tools, such as other retirement accounts, insurances, investments in taxable accounts, and sufficiently funded emergency funds are likely needed in addition to a Roth IRA.
Retirement Accounts and Emergencies
Let’s examine how a Roth IRA might help someone facing a very serious emergency.
Picture Jack, who is 52 years old, and has a full time job. He has $1M in a traditional 401(k) and $10,000 in cash in a taxable account. That’s it. Then picture Chuck, also 52 with a full time job. Chuck has $700,000 in a traditional 401(k), $250,000 in a Roth IRA, and $10,000 in cash.
Who is better situated to deal with an emergency? Far and away the answer is Chuck. 401(k)s are difficult to access in an emergency. First of all, the 401(k) plan might not allow in-service distributions, and it might not allow taking out a loan.
Even if the 401(k) allows in-service distributions, distributions from 401(k)s are immediately taxable, and often subject to penalties (10% federal, 2.5% in California, for example) if you are under age 59 ½. Loans, while not immediately taxable, can become taxable if not paid back.
Long story short, a 401(k) may be a tough nut to crack in an emergency.
What about a Roth IRA? In Chuck’s case, he can access his prior Roth IRA contributions and sufficiently aged contributions tax and penalty free at any time for any reason! And his Roth IRA is easy to access, particularly if it is at a low-cost discount brokerage.
When you combine tax-free growth, no requirement to take required minimum distributions during the account holder’s lifetime, and the best emergency access of any tax-advantaged retirement account, it is difficult to see why working adults should not have at least some money in a Roth IRA.
When a Roth IRA Doesn’t Make Sense
The short answer is: not often! I struggle to come up with profiles of individuals that would not benefit from having some amount in a Roth IRA.
I can think of two profiles. The first, a rare case, is someone with very large legal liabilities such that all of their wealth would benefit from the creditor protections offered by an ERISA retirement plan (such as a 401(k)) and who needs almost all of their wealth shielded from creditors.
First, if you have built up 6 figures or more in wealth, having creditors able to claim your entire wealth is relatively rare. Second, in most cases, good insurance coverage, including adequate medical insurance, professional liability insurance (as applicable), home and automobile insurance, and personal umbrella liability insurance, should protect the vast majority of people such that they could withstand any liability exposure caused by having money in a Roth IRA instead of an ERISA protected plan.
The second profile is someone with incredibly high income currently and very little anticipated income in the future (such that their future tax rate is much lower than today’s rate). This too is a bit of a unicorn – people with high income today tend to have decent income tomorrow (even in the FI community).
Health Savings Accounts
It will also come as no surprise that I am fond of health savings accounts. Health savings accounts share some of the attributes that make the Roth IRA such a winner for both retirement savings and emergency planning.
But, there are some drawbacks. First, the distribution ordering rules are not as taxpayer friendly. While it may be the case that you have sufficient old medical expenses that you can reimburse yourself for (and thus not pay tax and a penalty on the HSA distribution), that is not always going to be the case, and even if it is, does add a layer of complexity.
Second, the HSA is not for everyone. If a high deductible health plan is not good medical insurance for you, an HSA is generally off the table.
So, that leaves the HSA as a fantastic option for those who qualify for and use a high deductible health plan (and usually an option that should be part of a comprehensive financial plan if you use a HDHP). But it also means that the HSA is not quite as good as a tool for the combination of retirement saving and emergency planning.
Conclusion
Assuming that an individual (a) has retirement planning and emergency preparedness as financial planning objectives and (b) is not in a position where legal liabilities would cripple them without ERISA creditor protection, it is hard to argue against having at least some material amount in a Roth IRA.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters.Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
In late December 2019 the President and Congress enacted the SECURE Act. The SECURE Act makes some significant revisions to the laws governing IRAs, 401(k)s, and other retirement accounts. This post discusses the impacts of these changes on those pursuing financial independence.
The Big Picture
The SECURE Act is a big win for the FI community, in my opinion.
The FI community significantly benefits from IRAs, 401(k)s, and other tax-advantaged retirement accounts. However, the federal government is facing increasing debts and annual deficits. That puts tax-advantaged accounts in the crosshairs. What Congress gives in tax benefits Congress can take away.
So what does the SECURE Act do? First, it actually gives us a couple more tax advantages during our lifetimes (see “Opportunities” below). Second, it significantly reduces the tax advantages of inherited retirement accounts for our heirs.
For those either with large retirement account balances or planning to have large retirement account balances, any change in tax laws is a potential problem. We should be glad that this round of tax law changes has occurred without our own retirement accounts being negatively impacted. Congress has passed the bill to our heirs, which, right or wrong, is a victory for us.
When you see people in the financial press squawking about how awful the SECURE Act is, remember, it could be a whole lot worse–your retirement account could have been more heavily taxed during your lifetime!
For those pursuing FI, the ability to use tax-advantaged retirement accounts remains the same, and in a couple small ways, has been enhanced. The next generation still has all those retirement account opportunities, even if they won’t be able to benefit from inheriting retirement accounts as much as they do under current law.
Opportunities
Traditional IRA Contributions for those 70 ½ and Older
Starting in 2020, those aged 70 ½ and older will be able to contribute to a traditional IRA. This will open up Backdoor Roth IRA planning for those 70 ½ and older and still working. For those still working (or doing side hustles) at age 70 ½ or older, this is a nice change.
Remember, regardless of age, in order to contribute to an IRA, you or your spouse must have earned income.
RMDs Begin at 72
For those attaining age 70 ½ after December 31, 2019, the age at which they will need to take RMDs will be 72, not 70 ½. This gives retirement accounts a bit more time to bake tax-deferred. It also slightly expands the window to do Roth conversions before RMDs begin. However, this last benefit is tempered by the fact that you must take Social Security no later than age 70. Roth conversion planning to reduce taxable RMDs should be mostly completed well before age 70 ½, regardless of this change in the law.
Note that taxpayers can still make qualified charitable distributions (“QCD”) starting when they turn age 70 ½. While pre-age 72 QCDs won’t satisfy RMD requirements, they will (a) help optimize charitable giving from a tax perspective (by keeping adjusted gross income lower and avoiding the requirement to itemize to deduct the contribution) and (b) reduce future RMDs.
Annuities in 401(k)s
The new law provides rules facilitating annuities in 401(k) plans. This one requires proceeding with extreme caution. If your 401(k) plan decides to offer annuity products, you need to carefully assess whether an annuity is the right investment for you and you need to fully understand the fees charged.
Remember, just because the law changed doesn’t mean your asset allocation should change!
Leaving Retirement Accounts to Heirs
This is the where the SECURE Act raises taxes. The SECURE Act removes the so-called “stretch” for many retirement plan beneficiaries. For retirement accounts inherited after December 31, 2019, only certain beneficiaries will be able to stretch out distributions over their remaining life (or based on the age of the decedent if over 70 ½ at death). For nonqualified beneficiaries, the rule will simply be that the beneficiary must take the account within 10 years of the owner’s death (the “10-year rule”).
My overall opinion on the SECURE Act stated above, planning for the next generation is important. Particularly if you are already financially independent and want to help your children become financially independent, the SECURE Act has significant ramifications.
Spouses
If your current estate plan features your spouse as your retirement account primary beneficiary, the SECURE Act should in no way change that aspect of your plan. Fortunately, the many advantages applicable to spouses inheriting retirement accounts will not change. Spouses remain an excellent candidate to inherit a retirement account.
Minor Children
If you leave your retirement account to your minor children, they are exempt from the 10-year rule (and can generally take distributions based on IRS RMD tables that are generous to younger beneficiaries) while they are still minors. Once your children reach the age of majority, they will have ten years to empty the retirement account.
The exception to the 10-year rule applies only to your minor children. It does not apply to your grandchildren, your adult children, and the children of others (including nieces and nephews).
Other Eligible Beneficiaries
The exceptions to the 10-year rule apply to your spouse, your minor children, the disabled, the chronically ill, and persons not more than 10 years younger than you at your death. All others will need to empty retirement accounts within 10 years of inheritance. This will require some significant planning in cases where the beneficiary has inherited a traditional retirement account to strategically empty the account over the 10 year window to manage adjusted gross income, taxable income, and total tax.
Planning
For those of you with estate plans involving adult children, the passage of the SECURE Act may well require revisions to your plans. First off, as a practical matter, your revocable living trust may need modifications. Many have designated a trust as a retirement account beneficiary. To do so properly requires conforming with specific income tax rules. Those with trusts as the beneficiary of their retirement account would be well advised to, at a minimum, consult with their lawyer to determine if the language of the trust needs updating.
Second, understanding that inheriting a traditional retirement account will now mean accelerated, and possibly significantly increased, taxation for their heirs, many will want to consider Roth conversion planning. Roth accounts will be subject to the 10-year rule, but the good news is that the beneficiary can keep the assets in the Roth account for 10 years, let it grow tax free, and then take out the money in 10 years tax free. Not too bad.
Roth conversion planning to optimize your heirs’ income tax picture is now even more important. However, it should not be done if it will impose a financial hardship on the account owner during their lifetime. The first priority should be securing the account owner’s retirement. Only if the account owner is financially secure should they consider Roth conversion planning to reduce their heirs’ tax liability.
Conclusion
Tax rules are always changing. This round of changes is a victory for those pursuing financial independence. Any tax law change that does not negatively impact your path to financial independence is a win.
For those considering the financial health of their heirs, particularly their adult children, the SECURE Act should prompt some reconsideration of estate plans. Often it is wise to consult with professional advisors in this regard.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial advisor! FI Tax Guy can prepare your tax return! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, and tax matters.
Are you self-employed? Is your self-employment income your primary source of income? If so, you might want to consider doing a Roth conversion before the end of the year.
Takeaways
If most of your taxable income is self-employment income (either reported on Schedule C or from a partnership), you might want to consider year-end Roth conversions to maximize your QBI deduction and pay a lower-than-expected federal income tax rate on the conversion.
To optimize this strategy, convert traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs (or do in-plan traditional 401(k) to Roth 401(k) conversions) to increase your QBI deduction.
Starting in 2018, there is a deduction for “qualified business income.” This is generally income from a qualified trade or business received from a sole proprietorship (and reported on Schedule C), from a partnership, or from a S Corporation (in these cases, generally reported to the taxpayer on a Form K-1 and reported on the Schedule E with the tax return).
Important for this purpose is the initial limit on the QBI deduction. It is the lesser of following two amounts:
20 percent of taxable income less “net capital gain” which is generally capital gains plus qualified dividend income (“QDI”) (the “Income Limit”) or
20 percent of QBI (the “QBI Limit”).
As a practical matter, in most cases the limit will be determined by the second limitation (such taxpayers are what I call “QBI Limited”). Many taxpayers will have much more taxable income than they have QBI. Consider spouses where one has self-employment income and the other has W-2 income. Unless the W-2 income is very small, their combined taxable income is likely to be in excess of their combined QBI, and thus they will be QBI Limited.
Alternatively, consider a situation where a single person has QBI from an S corporation (say $50,000) and the S corporation also pays him or her a W-2 salary (say $60,000). In such a case the QBI is $50,000 (20% of which is $10,000) and the taxable income might be $97,450 ($110,000 total from the S corporation less a $12,550 standard deduction), 20% of which is $19,490. This taxpayer would also be QBI Limited.
Income Limited
But what if you are not QBI Limited, but rather, limited by the Income Limit listed above (what I call “Income Limited”)? Here is an illustrative example.
Example 1: Seth is single and self-employed. He claims the standard deduction in 2021. He reports a business profit of $100,000 on his Schedule C. He also has $1,000 of interest income.
His Income Limit is computed as follows:
Schedule C Income: $100,000
Interest Income: $1,000
Deduction for ½ Self-Employment Taxes: ($7,065)
Standard Deduction: ($12,550)
Taxable Income: $81,385
20% Limit: $16,277
Seth’s QBI Limit is computed as follows:
Schedule C Income: $100,000
Deduction for ½ Self-Employment Taxes: ($7,065)
QBI: $92,935
20% Limit: $18,587
In this case, Seth’s QBI deduction is only $16,277 (he is Income Limited), the lesser of these two calculated limits.
Roth Conversion Planning
Is there anything Seth can do to increase his limitation and optimize his QBI deduction?
Imagine Seth has $20,000 in a traditional IRA (with zero basis). He could convert some of that traditional IRA to a Roth IRA by December 31, 2021. This would create taxable income, which would increase Seth’s Income Limit. Here is how that could play out:
Without Roth Conversion
Schedule C Income
$ 100,000
Interest Income
$ 1,000
Deduction for ½ Self-Employment Taxes
$ (7,065)
Adjusted Gross Income
$ 93,935
Standard Deduction
$ (12,550)
Qualified Business Income Deduction (see above)
$ (16,277)
Taxable Income
$ 65,108
Federal Income Tax
$ 10,072
With Roth Conversion
Schedule C Income
$ 100,000
Interest Income
$ 1,000
Deduction for ½ Self-Employment Taxes
$ (7,065)
Roth IRA Conversion
$ 11,550
Adjusted Gross Income
$ 105,485
Standard Deduction
$ (12,550)
Qualified Business Income Deduction
$ (18,587)
Taxable Income
$ 74,348
Federal Income Tax
$ 12,105
What has the $11,550 Roth IRA conversion done? First, it has made the Income Limit ($18,587) the exact same as the QBI Limit ($18,587). Thus, Seth’s QBI deduction increases from $16,227 to $18,587.
Second, notice that Seth’s taxable income has increased, but not by $11,550! Usually one would expect that a Roth IRA conversion with no basis recovery would simply increase taxable income by the amount converted. But not here! The interaction with the QBI deduction caused Seth’s taxable income to increase only $9,240 ($74,348 minus $65,108).
This example illustrates that, under the right circumstances, a Roth IRA conversion can receive the benefit of the QBI deduction!
As a result, at Seth’s 22 percent marginal federal income tax bracket, his total federal income tax increased only $2,033. In effect, Seth pays only a 17.6 percent rate on his Roth IRA conversion ($2,033 of federal income tax on a $11,550 Roth IRA conversion). This is true even though Seth is in the 22 percent marginal tax bracket. His Roth IRA conversion is only 80 percent taxable. This is the flip-side of the 80% deduction phenomenon I previously blogged about here.
Is it advantageous for Seth to convert his traditional IRA? Well, it depends on Seth’s expected future tax rates. If Seth’s future marginal tax bracket is anticipated to be 22 percent, then absolutely. Why not convert at a 17.6 percent instead of face a 22 percent rate on future traditional IRA withdrawals?
Strategy
Seth’s Roth IRA conversion is optimized. The takeaway is that the Roth IRA conversion gets the benefit of the QBI deduction, but only for amounts that increase the Income Limit up to the QBI Limit.
A *very general* rule of thumb for solving for the optimal Roth conversion amount is to multiply the difference between the QBI Limit and the Income Limit (without a Roth conversion) by 5. In Seth’s case, that was $18,587 minus $16,277 (which equals $2,310) times 5.
In this case, converting exactly $11,550 made Seth’s Income Limit exactly equal his QBI Limit. As long as the Roth conversion increases the Income Limit toward the QBI Limit, the conversion benefits from the QBI deduction.
But the first dollar of the Roth conversion that pushes the Income Limit above the QBI Limit does not receive the benefit. If Seth converted $11,551 from his traditional IRA to his Roth IRA, that last dollar above $11,550 would be taxed at Seth’s full 22 percent federal marginal tax bracket.
Note that instead of / in addition to a Roth IRA conversion, Seth could do an in-plan traditional 401(k) to Roth 401(k) conversion, if he had sufficient funds in a traditional 401(k), and the 401(k) plan permits Roth 401(k) conversions.
Also note that the strategic considerations with QBI deductions become much more complicated once taxpayers exceed the initial QBI taxable income limitations (in 2021, those are $164,900 for single taxpayers and $329,800 for married filing joint taxpayers).
Conclusion
Taxpayers whose taxable income consists mostly or exclusively of self-employment income should consider Roth conversions toward year-end. This is often an area that benefits from consulting with a professional tax advisor before taking action.
Further Reading
I have blogged about the QBI deduction and retirement plans here. After the IRS and Treasury provided some QBI deduction regulations in January 2019, I provided some QBI deduction examples and lessons here.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, and tax matters.Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
In the financial independence community and beyond, high deductible health plans (“HDHPs”) have received significant criticism. Few downplay the significant tax benefits of their tag-team partner, the health savings account. But some have written that the HSA sweetener is not sufficient to make high deductible health plans desirable.
Below I offer a different perspective. I write regarding the approach of anyone seeking financial independence, but I believe much of what is discussed below applies regardless of whether you are seeking financial independence.
One quick caveat: the below assumes that you are relatively healthy when you select your medical insurance, and that you expect that you will most likely remain so. For those with significant, chronic medical conditions, an HDHP is not likely to be a good medical insurance choice.
HDHP Critiques
High deductible health plans have been criticized by both the national media and by financial independence writers. Several studies have found that those covered by HDHPs tend to delay or forego needed medical assistance when compared with the population at large. This study found that those with HDHP insurance tend not to take advantage of free preventive services. Based on these study findings, there is a concern that the use of HDHPs can cause long term harm and worsen medical and health outcomes.
Financial Independence Mentality
Those actively seeking financial independence (“FIers”) embrace two beliefs. First, they believe they are not constrained by others’ failures. While FIers understand that others’ failures can be indicative of difficulties they themselves might face, FIers believe that with intentional action they can overcome those difficulties.
FI exists because people see what the “average” or “typical” person does (for example, a very low savings rate) and say, “wait a minute, I’m going to do something very different.” FIers acknowledge a societal trend and then pursue a different path with intention.
Second, FIers prioritize valuable purchases over immediate bottom-line results. Being financially independent (or seeking FI) frees you from the tyranny of any particular financial number when considering necessary expenses.
Health Insurance and Behavior
Your medical insurance should not determine whether you seek medical care. Only your current condition should determine whether you seek medical care. Assuming, only for the sake of argument, that the studies’ findings are correct, should those findings deter someone pursuing FI from using an HDHP as their medical insurance? I argue that they should not, for several reasons.
First, the studies probably did not include you. Why would you have a limiting belief about your own future behavior based on studies of other people? Even if you were in one of the studies and delayed or forwent necessary medical treatment, is it not possible that you could change your behavior?
Second, why not simply accept that cost will deter some people from obtaining needed medical assistance, but resolve that you will not act in such a shortsighted fashion. Many FIers seek to obtain financial assets of $1 million, $1.5 million, $2 million or more to fund the rest of their lives. Neither an unanticipated $300 medical expense nor an unanticipated $5,000 medical expense will derail your plans to achieve financial independence.
If you commit to FI, you are committing to acting very differently than most people when it comes to spending and saving. Why then would you believe you will act like the average study subject when it comes to obtaining medical treatment for a medical need?
Third, there is nothing preventing those with HDHPs from taking advantage of free preventive services. Many workers do not take advantage of the employer match to their 401(k). That outcome does not make a 401(k) a bad retirement plan. Rather, it illustrates that in many areas of life, people should be more intentional about taking advantage of what is offered to them. Suboptimal human behavior does not make 401(k)s and HDHPs bad, and others’ mistakes should not limit your insurance choices.
Finally, financial independence exists in part to make personal finances revolve around what needs to happen, and not to have what needs to happen revolve around personal finances. FIers ought to make medical care decisions based on their health, and not based on avoiding a medical bill that is ultimately minor in the grand scheme of things.
The Role of Insurance
What the studies appear to illustrate is a widespread misunderstanding of medical insurance. Insurance does not exist to determine whether you obtain medical assistance. Insurance exists to prevent financial ruin.
Might an unexpected medical situation be expensive if you have an HDHP? Yes, absolutely. But should it be ruinous? It should not be. Your annual out-of-pocket maximum for medical expenses will be high: imagine in your mind’s eye that it is $10,000. In the event of a medical calamity, you will pay $10,000 in expenses annually. Then your finances are protected.
Does an unexpected $10,000 expense hurt? Absolutely. But if your FI plan was to build $1.5 million in assets to fund the rest of your life, is not possible that you instead build $1.51 million in assets? Why would you put off necessary medical care to avoid a very slight increase in the assets you will need to build up to become financially independent? Are you much worse off in this situation than someone with zero-deductible medical insurance? Their “FI number” is $1.5 million; yours is $1.51 million.
You might argue “but might my insurance company deny my claim?” That is a valid concern with insurance. But it is a concern whether you have a gold-plated, zero-deductible insurance plan, an HDHP, or any other type of medical insurance. Thus, the possibility that you might have to fight with your insurance company to get an expense covered is not a reason to avoid HDHPs.
Risk/Reward Trade-off
When you use an HDHP, you assume additional risk. Put simply, you risk paying annual medical expenses up to the higher deductible. Two things should be noted about that risk. First, it is capped, as described above. A capped risk is the sort of risk that those building up assets should usually be willing to take on, as long as there is sufficient benefit to doing so.
Second, you are compensated for taking that risk. While your future annual medical expenses are uncertain, the benefits of using an HDHP are largely certain and immediate. Namely, they are:
Lower insurance premiums
Income and payroll tax savings (if the HSA is properly funded)
Employer contributions to the HSA on your behalf
Tax-deferred or (if withdrawn correctly) tax-free growth of the investments in the HSA
For taking on the risk of medical expenses up to the annual out-of-pocket maximum, there are two or three measurable, guaranteed benefits every pay period for using the HSA/HDHP combination. And while the fourth benefit can vary greatly (depending on the length of tax-free growth, future tax rates, etc.), it too is a significant benefit.
When evaluating an insurance plan, the risk/reward trade-offs and the costs are what should be evaluated. When comparing an HDHP with a lower deductible insurance plan, you must weigh the assumption of a speculative, capped risk in exchange for the benefits listed above. Based on the protection against very high annual medical expenses and the four benefits listed above, an HDHP appears to be, in many cases, a good risk/reward trade-off for those without expensive, chronic medical conditions.
Conclusion
The studies have not found that an HDHP is suboptimal from a risk trade-off perspective. Rather, they have found suboptimal consumer behavior. That’s where FI comes back in. FI is all about turning around suboptimal saving, investing, and consumer behavior and re-ordering financial priorities. Why shouldn’t obtaining necessary medical care be among the highest financial priorities? Why can’t you examine your own healthcare purchasing behavior and improve it?
There can be good reasons not to select an HDHP based upon your particular circumstances. Perhaps you have a chronic condition, you do not like the HDHP’s particular insurance carrier, and/or you do not believe the risk trade-off benefits are sufficient. But don’t eschew an HDHP because of a limiting belief about something under your own control: your behavior as a patient and medical consumer.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
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.
As an employee, your employer’s 401(k) plan can be your most important wealth building tool. Understanding how it functions will help you build your wealth in a tax efficient manner.
The Plan
A 401(k) plan is established by an employer. The employer provides the account, the account administration, and the investment choices. Usually, the investment options include a menu of stock and bond mutual funds and/or similar investments. In some plans, employer stock is one of the investment choices.
While the employer administers the plan, most of the assets in the plan (see Vesting below) belong the employees in individual accounts. Therefore, the employees, not the employer, enjoy the benefits and burdens of the economic appreciation and/or depreciation of the investments.
Creditor Protection
401(k) plans are subject to a host of rules, most of which (from a practical perspective) are the concern of the employer, not the employee. One important benefit of the rules for employees is that under ERISA, assets in a 401(k) plan are generally protected from creditors. During your lifetime only two creditors can access assets in your 401(k): the IRS and an ex-spouse.
Vesting
Contributions to a 401(k) made by the employee (referred to as “employee deferrals” and “after-tax contributions” — see numbers 1 and 3 below) are always immediately “100% vested.” This means that regardless of whether the employee leaves the employment of the employer tomorrow, he or she owns the money he or she contributed to the 401(k) and any related growth.
However, contributions to a 401(k) account made by the employer may be subject to a vesting schedule. Simply put, vesting means amounts become the property of the employee after the employee has been employed by the employer for a certain period of time.
Some plans use a gradual vesting schedule. The least generous of these is as follows:
Years of Service
Vesting Percentage
2
20%
3
40%
4
60%
5
80%
6
100%
More generous (i.e., quicker) vesting is permissible.
Some plans use a “cliff” vesting schedule. This means that employer contributions go from 0% vested to 100% vested when the employee has been employed for a certain period. The longest permissible period is 3 years.
The growth associated with employer contributions is also subject to vesting.
Vesting incentivizes staying with the same employer for a sufficient period of time to capture all of the employer contributions to a 401(k) plan. It can also incentivize returning to a former employer if you have worked a number of vested years of service for them.
Some plans provide for 100% immediate vesting for employer contributions as well as employee contributions.
Contributions
There are five types of contributions to 401(k) plans, listed below in order of their prevalence (employee deferrals being the most prevalent).
1. Employee Deferrals
Employees can contribute, through payroll withholding, a portion of their salary to a 401(k) plan. All 401(k) plans offer “traditional” contributions, meaning employees can contribute amounts to the 401(k) plan and exclude those amounts from their taxable income for the year. Some plans, but certainly not all plans, also offer “Roth” contributions, which are not excludible from taxable income, but, if properly withdrawn, can be tax free in the future when withdrawn.
Employee deferrals are the only type of contribution to a 401(k) plan that can be done as a “Roth” contribution. All other contributions are “traditional” contributions.
Read here for more on the desirability of Roth contributions compared to traditional contributions.
Neither traditional nor Roth contributions reduce the amount of income subject to payroll (i.e., Social Security and Medicare) taxes.
2. Matching Contributions
Matching contributions are one of the most powerful ways employees can build wealth. Previously, I have written that if you participate in a 401(k) plan with an employer match, you must make it your top wealth building priority to contribute at least enough to your 401(k) to secure all of the employer match.
How does it work? Different employers have varying matching programs. There are two components: 1) the percentage of salary that is matched, and 2) the percentage of the match.
Here is an illustrative example:
Example 1: Elaine Benes works for Pendant Publishing. She is under 50 years old and earns $100,000 in annual W-2 wages. Pendant Publishing matches 100 percent of employee contributions up to 3 percent of salary, and matches 50 percent of employee contributions for the next 2 percent of salary. Based on this matching program, Elaine would be a fool not contribute at least 5 percent of her salary to Pendant Publishing’s 401(k) plan. Doing so will earn her $4,000 of matching contributions from Pendant Publishing on her $5,000 of employee contributions.
Employers vary in terms of when they match contributions. Some employers match employee contributions only once a year (usually at or after year-end). Other employers match employee contributions each pay period. If you work for an employer that does so, you need to be careful not to max-out your 401(k) early in the year, as each pay period requires an employee 401(k) contribution in order to obtain the match. Here is an example:
Example 2: The facts are the same as Example 1. In addition, Pendant Publishing’s matches 401(k) contributions every pay period, and has 24 pay periods per year. Elaine believes it is a good idea to accelerate her 401(k) contributions, and thus contributes $3,750.00 of her salary for each of the first 6 pay periods of the year ($22,500 total) and makes no contributions the rest of the year. For those 6 pay periods she receives an employee match of $166.67 each pay period ($100,000 divided by 24 times 4 percent) for a total annual match of $1,000. By doing this, Elaine misses out on $3,000 of her potential employer 401(k) match, because for the next 18 pay periods, she contributes nothing to her 401(k).
Some 401(k) plans adjust for this and would fully match Elaine’s contribution (in her case, by adding $3,000 to her 401(k) plan), but many do not. In Elaine’s case, she should have stretched out her contribution such that she contributed at least 5 percent of each pay period’s paycheck to her 401(k).
Note that employers are not required to provide a matching program. There are some employer 401(k) plans that provide no match at all.
Tax Treatment: Employer match contributions are traditional contributions. They are not subject to income tax when added to your 401(k), but they will be in the future when withdrawn (as will the growth on matching contributions). Matching contributions are not subject to payroll taxes.
3. After-Tax Contributions
Some 401(k) plans allow for employees to make so-called after-tax contributions to their 401(k) through payroll withholding. These contributions are not excluded from the employee’s taxable income, but do create basis in the 401(k) account. After-tax contributions are what make Mega Backdoor Roth IRA planning possible. Unless one is engaging in Mega Backdoor Roth IRA planning, in most cases after-tax contributions are not advisable.
Tax Treatment: After-tax contributions do not reduce the employee’s taxable income (for both income tax and payroll tax purposes). In the future after-tax contributions are taxable to the employee as withdrawn, but the employee can use the created basis to reduce the income inclusion. Depending on how the 401(k) account is disbursed, that basis recovery may be subject to the Pro-Rata Rule.
4. Profit-Sharing Contributions
Some 401(k) programs have a profit-sharing program, whereby the employer contributes additional amounts to each employee’s 401(k) account based on a formula.
Tax Treatment: Profit-sharing contributions are traditional contributions and are treated in the same manner as matching contributions, including being exempt from payroll tax.
5. Forfeitures
Because of vesting, employees forfeit unvested amounts in their 401(k)s when they leave the employer’s employment prior to fully vesting in the 401(k). When that happens, the unvested amounts must be accounted for. In some plans, the unvested amounts are used to offset plan administrative costs. In other plans, forfeited amounts are added to the remaining participants’ accounts.
Tax Treatment: Forfeitures are traditional contributions and are treated in the same manner as matching contributions, including being exempt from payroll tax.
Contribution Limits
Contribution limits get a bit complicated because there are two distinct 401(k) plan contribution limits, not one. Numerical limits are updated annually by the IRS to account for inflation. The numbers provided below are the numbers for 2023.
Employee Deferrals
There is an annual employee deferral limitation. For 2023, that limit is the lesser of $22,500 or total compensation (if under age 50) and the lesser of $30,000 or total compensation (if 50 or older). The limit applies to Roth employee contributions, traditional employee contributions, or any combination thereof.
This limit is per person, not per employer. Thus, those with side hustlers must coordinate employee deferrals to their large employer 401(k) plan with employee deferrals to their Solo 401(k). I discuss this topic in detail in my book, Solo 401(k): The Solopreneur’s Retirement Account.
All Additions
There is a second, less understood limitation on 401(k) contribution. The annual limit for all additions to 401(k) and other employer retirement accounts is the lesser of $66,000 or total compensation (if under age 50) and the lesser of $73,500 or total compensation (if 50 or older).
The all additions limit applies to the sum of numbers 1 through 5 above (employee deferrals through forfeitures) plus a sixth amount. The sixth amount is the amount which is contributed by your employer to another qualified retirement plan account on your behalf.
Some employers offer additional qualified retirement plans. These plans often provide for a contribution to an account by the employer based on a stated percentage of compensation. Employers use various names for these plans. Contributions may be subject to vesting and are traditional contributions that are not subject to payroll tax.
The all additions limit applies per employer, not per employee as the employee deferrals limit does.
Watch me discuss the all additions limit on YouTube.
Auto Enrollment
Many employers now auto-enroll new employees in a 401(k) plan. This has two components: contribution level and investment choice. In most cases, new employees should not simply settle for auto-enrollment. When you start a job, you should review your new 401(k) plan and make informed decisions regarding contribution level and investment choice.
Contribution Level
Auto-enrollment will set a contribution level. Not all employers set the contribution level at a level that maximizes employer matching. Even if the automatic contribution level is set at a level that maximizes the employer match, that level might not be the appropriate level for any particular person.
Investment Selection
Plans typically have a default investment plan for new 401(k) participants. It is best to review your investment options when you start a new job and select an appropriate investment allocation for your circumstances.
Withdrawals from Traditional 401(k)s
When a taxpayer is 59 ½ years old or older, they can withdraw amounts in a traditional 401(k) penalty free. Withdrawals are included in taxable income as ordinary income. Beginning at age 72, taxpayers must take out a required minimum distribution (“RMD”) for each year. The RMD is computed based on IRS tables.
If a taxpayer withdraws money from a 401(k) prior to age 59 ½, the withdrawal is not only taxable, it is subject to a 10 percent early withdrawal penalty, unless a penalty exception applies.
Taxpayers may transfer amounts in a 401(k) to another 401(k) to an IRA. Amounts in traditional 401(k)s and IRAs can be converted to Roth accounts. Such conversions create taxable income, but are not subject to the early withdrawal penalty.
Conclusion
Your workplace 401(k) plan is a vitally important wealth building tool. It is important to be an informed user of your 401(k) in order to build tax advantaged wealth.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
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.
In my last post, I discussed the basics of the Backdoor Roth IRA, which can be a great planning tool for some higher income Americans. But not everyone qualifies for a tax-efficient Backdoor Roth IRA. Recall Jennifer’s case:
Jennifer makes too much to qualify to make a Roth IRA contribution in 2022. She contributed $6,000 to a nondeductible traditional IRA on April 19, 2022. She also had a separate traditional IRA with no basis. As of December 31, 2022, that separate traditional IRA was worth $93,998.53.
If, in 2022, Jennifer were to convert the $6,000 that she put into the nondeductible traditional IRA to a Roth IRA she would increase her taxable income by over $5,600. Ouch!
Options
Jennifer has two possible options to qualify for a much more tax efficient Backdoor Roth IRA. The first option is to use her workplace 401(k), 403(b), or 457 plan. Some 401(k) plans and other workplace plans allow participants to “roll in” amounts in traditional IRAs. Workplace plans are not required to offer participants this option. If a workplace plan does, it can be worthwhile to consider this option in order to facilitate Backdoor Roth IRA planning.
Of course, there are considerations that go beyond income tax planning, including the quality of the investment choices available in a traditional IRA versus a workplace 401(k) or other retirement plan, and the expenses associated with each option.
A second option is rolling the traditional IRA into a Solo 401(k) plan. Jennifer must have a Solo 401(k) plan from self-employment and the plan must accept IRA roll ins in order for her to do this. As with workplace retirement plans, Solo 401(k) plans are not required to accept traditional IRA roll ins, and any decision must appropriately consider the relevant non-tax issues (as discussed above). Further, a Solo 401(k) plan has several requirements (including the conduct of a trade or business) that should be carefully considered before opening a Solo 401(k).
Considerations
Trustee-to-Trustee Rollover
If Jennifer wants to roll her traditional IRA into a workplace retirement plan or Solo 401(k), she should structure the transfer as a “trustee-to-trustee” direct rollover of the money between the financial institution holding the traditional IRA and the workplace retirement plan or Solo 401(k). If instead of a trustee-to-trustee direct rollover, Jennifer receives a check from her IRA financial institution payable to her, she has 60 days to roll over that check (i.e., to get it to her workplace retirement plan or Solo 401(k)). If she does not move the money within the 60 days, the distribution from the IRA is taxable, subject to early withdrawal penalties if Jennifer is under age 59 ½, and cannot be transferred into a retirement plan.
Timing
Roll ins should be completed by December 31st of the year of the Roth IRA conversion. Otherwise the pro-rata rule will bite, because there will be a balance in the taxpayer’s traditional IRAs at year-end. That balance will attract a sizable portion of the $6,000 of IRA basis established by the nondeductible traditional IRA contribution. This causes the Roth IRA conversion to grab little basis and thus be tax inefficient.
For simplicity’s sake, it is usually best to clean out traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs and then make the nondeductible traditional IRA contribution.
Basis
Prior to implementing a traditional IRA to 401(k) “roll-in” strategy, Jennifer should review all of her traditional IRAs to ensure that she has no basis in any existing traditional IRA. IRA basis amounts cannot be rolled into the 401(k) and must be left behind under the rule of Section 408(d)(3)(A)(ii) and this technical write up.
SIMPLE IRAs and SEP IRAs
Those with amounts in SIMPLE IRAs, need to be careful. During the first two years of the SIMPLE IRA account, it cannot be rolled into a plan other than another SIMPLE IRA plan. Doing so would create a taxable event, subject to both early withdrawal and excess contribution penalties (on the transfer to the non-SIMPLE IRA).
Thus, if Jennifer’s traditional IRA balance is in a SIMPLE IRA and she first deposited into the SIMPLE IRA less than two years ago, she must wait until the two year window has expired to roll her SIMPLE IRA into a workplace retirement plan or a Solo 401(k).
In addition, those with a SIMPLE IRA (beyond the two year window) or a SEP IRA from their current employer may not be allowed in-service distributions. Thus, they would not be able to roll over those accounts into a 401(k)/Solo 401(k)/403(b)/457. Additionally, amounts may be added to these accounts prior to December 31st. These considerations make it difficult to successfully execute Backdoor Roth IRA planning for those currently covered by an employer’s SIMPLE IRA or SEP IRA.
December 31st
Any Backdoor Roth IRA planning should involve an additional diligence step: ensuring that as of December 31st of the year of the Roth conversion step, the taxpayer has a zero balance in all traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs. This helps ensure the Backdoor Roth IRA is a tax-efficient tactic.
Illustrative Example
Jennifer expects to earn $300,000 from her W-2 job in 2022, is covered by a workplace 401(k) plan, and expects to have some investment income. On March 1, 2022, Jennifer has a $90,000 balance in a traditional IRA but otherwise has no balance in a traditional IRA, SEP IRA, or SIMPLE IRA.
On March 2, 2022, Jennifer directs her workplace 401(k) plan and her IRA custodian to roll her traditional IRA to her workplace 401(k) plan. Her traditional IRA is rolled into her workplace 401(k) through a trustee-to-trustee direct rollover.
Jennifer contributes $6,000 to a traditional IRA on April 20, 2022. The contribution is nondeductible. Because the contribution is nondeductible, Jennifer gets a $6,000 basis in her traditional IRA. Jennifer must file a Form 8606 with her 2022 tax return to report the nondeductible contribution.
On May 2, 2022, Jennifer converts all the money in her traditional IRA to a Roth IRA (a Roth IRA conversion). At that time, Jennifer’s traditional IRA had a value of $6,001.47. Jennifer also ensures that as of December 31, 2022, she has a $0 balance in all traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs.
If Jennifer executes the above stepsas described above, she will get the desired result. Done in this manner, the Roth IRA conversion step results in an increase in Jennifer’s taxable income of just $1.47 ($6,001.47 fair market value less $6,000 of traditional IRA basis).
Tactics vs. Goals
What if Jennifer’s workplace retirement plan does not accept roll ins? What if Jennifer doesn’t have access to a Solo 401(k)? What if Jennifer’s workplace retirement plan accepts roll ins but does not have quality investment options and/or charges high fees?
Remember, Jennifer’s ultimate goal is not to do a Backdoor Roth IRA. Her goal is financial independence! She should not let what I call the “tyranny of tactics” distract her from her ultimate goal.
The Backdoor Roth IRA is a great tactic to employ toward achieving that goal. But it’s okay if you can’t use this particular tactic. Plenty of people have and will achieve financial independence without executing a Backdoor Roth IRA.
If you can’t use the Backdoor Roth IRA for whatever reason, simply use other appropriate tactics, including but not limited to a high savings rate, to achieve your financial goals.
Further Reading
I discuss how to properly report a Backdoor Roth IRA on a tax return and what to do if has been incorrectly reported here.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
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.
