Booming stock markets. Job dissatisfaction. The explosion of 401(k)s since the 1980s. The itch to travel. The desire not to worry about Monday morning.
We may be on the threshold of an early retirement boom. Many potential early retirees will find the lion’s share of their financial assets are in a traditional 401(k) or traditional 401(k)s. The concern becomes the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty.
How can I access my retirement accounts prior to age 59 ½ without paying the 10 percent penalty?
Enter the 72(t) payment plan, sometimes called a series of substantially equal periodic payments or “SEPP.” In today’s environment, they are a very viable option for those looking to retire early primarily on traditional retirement accounts.
There is a drawback: impermissible modifications of a 72(t) payment plan trigger the previously avoided 10 percent penalty and related interest charges. This risks potentially paying the IRS thousands of dollars for a misstep.
Of course, the article is not legal or tax advice for you or any other individual.
For those of you who read Tax Planning To and Through Early Retirement, which I recently published with Cody Garrett, CFP(R), please know the article is written differently. The book is very focused on planning covering a plethora of retirement tax planning topics, including planning for 72(t) payment plans. The article is much more akin to a “501” level discussion of the risks of a 72(t) payment plan and the ambiguities in the tax law surrounding 72(t) payment plans.
This post and the linked-to article are for entertainment and educational purposes only. They do not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
Want to retire before age 59 ½? Have most of your wealth in traditional tax-deferred retirement accounts? Worried about the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty?
This post is for you!
Picture it: You’re age 53, have $50,000 in a savings account, a paid-off home, and $2.5M in a 401(k). Including income taxes, you spend about $80,000 a year. You want to retire, but you’re worried about paying the early withdrawal penalty, which would be about $8,000 a year (not factoring in the penalty on the penalty!).
72(t) payments can make retirement possible prior to age 59 ½ when one has most of their assets in traditional deferred retirement accounts. Done properly, these payments avoid the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty.
Below I explore some of the rules of 72(t) payments (sometimes referred to as a “72(t) payment plan,” “72(t) SEPP,” or “SEPP”) and lay out what I hope will be an informative case study.
** As always, none of this is personalized advice for you, but rather educational information for your consideration. Consult with your own advisors regarding your own situation.
72(t) Substantially Equal Periodic Payments
Methods
The IRS and Treasury provide three methods for computing a 72(t) payment. As a practical matter, the third one I discuss, the fixed amortization method, tends to be the most commonly used and most user friendly in my opinion.
The required minimum distribution method allows taxpayers to take a 72(t) payment just like an RMD. Take the prior year end-of-year balance and divide it by the factor off the IRS table. The biggest problems with this method are it tends to produce a smaller payment the younger you are and the payment changes every year and can decrease if the IRA portfolio declines in value. The fixed annuitization method is complex and generally yields a payment less than that of the fixed amortization method from the same sized retirement account.
The rest of the post focuses on the fixed amortization method of computing 72(t) payments (other than a brief foray into the RMD method to account for changing circumstances)).
Resource: The MyFRS 72(t) calculator can be helpful to early retirees and those planning an early retirement. While I have not validated the calculator’s coding, I have never seen it produce results that I know to be incorrect.
Computing Fixed Amortization 72(t) Payments
To compute a 72(t) payment and the size of the 72(t) IRA using the fixed amortization method, we will need to run through some math. Four numbers are required: the interest rate, the life expectancy, the annual payment, and the size of the 72(t) IRA.
Usually the IRS gives us the interest rate and the life expectancy and we need to solve for the 72(t) IRA size.
Interest Rate: Notice 2022-6 allows taxpayers to always use an interest rate anywhere from just above 0% to 5%, or, if greater, up to 120% of mid-term federal rate for either of the two months preceding the first 72(t) payment distribution. The IRS publishes that rate on a monthly basis.
As a general rule, taxpayers will usually want to use the greatest interest rate permitted to as to decrease the size of the 72(t) IRA. Decreasing the size of the 72(t) IRA will usually be advantageous, for the reasons discussed below.
Life Expectancy: The life expectancy comes to us from an IRS table. While we have three possible choices to use, generally speaking taxpayers will want to use the Single Life Table found at Treas. Reg. Section 1.401(a)(9)-9(b). See Choate, referenced below, at page 587. The taxpayer takes their age on their birthday of the year of the first 72(t) payment and uses the factor from the Single Life Table as the life expectancy.
Payment: Finally, we, not the IRS, get to determine a number! The payment is simply the annual payment we want to receive as a 72(t) payment every year. While this amount is rather inflexible, as discussed below it will be possible to establish additional 72(t) IRAs and payments to increase the amount received if desired.
Size of the 72(t) IRA: This is what we’re solving for in order to establish a “right-sized” IRA to produce the desired 72(t) payment. In Google Sheets, we do a present value calculation to solve for the size of the 72(t) IRA that generates the desired payment amount. The formula is rather simple: =-PV(Interest Rate Cell, Life Expectancy Cell, Annual Payment Cell). I put a negative sign in front of the PV to have the size of the 72(t) IRA appear as a positive number. It’s important that the formula be entered in that order and that the formatting be correct in each cell. Further, it is important the interest rate cell has a percentage sign in it.
Validating a Google Sheets 72(t) IRA Calculation: One technique I recommend to validate a 72(t) IRA calculation in Google Sheets is to use the same formula in Google Sheets on the numbers provided by the IRS FAQ 7. I did that on YouTube here. Note that as applied to the IRS numbers, the final 72(t) size is $6.97 off – an immaterial difference caused by the IRS not using cents.
Another technique to consider is, after doing one’s own calculations to redo the same calculations using the MyFlorida Retirement 72(t) Calculator.
Note on 72(t) Payments with non-IRA Accounts: Setting up a 72(t) from a non-IRA is possible but not frequent in practice. It is not possible to divide up a 401(k) account in a manner conducive to establishing a “right-sized” 72(t) payment account. See Choate, referenced below, at page 595.
Annual Equal 72(t) Fixed Amortization Payments
The computed payments must be made annually and equally. This means that no more and no less than the computed payment comes out every year. I believe that taking an annual flat payment on or around the first payment anniversary date is a best practice. However, this best practice is not required. See also Choate, referenced below, at page 600. For example, monthly payments of the computed amount are allowable. See Choate, referenced below, at page 600.
Annual payments must be made for the longer of five years or until the taxpayer reaches age 59 ½.
72(t) Payments Case Study
Let’s return to the example discussed above: it is early January 2026 and you (let’s call you Pat) are 53 years old (your birthday was January 5th) and you want to retire, spending $80K a year from your $2.5M 401(k). Let’s solve for the size of the 72(t) IRA:
The size of the 72(t) IRA is $1,286,384.59. See IRS FAQ Q&A 7.
Pat would first transfer (preferably through a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer) the 401(k) to a traditional IRA worth $2.5M. Once in the traditional IRA, Pat would call their financial institution and ask them to divide the traditional IRA into two IRAs: one with exactly $1,286,384.59 (the “72(t) IRA”) and one with the reminder of the traditional IRA (the “non-72(t) IRA”). I recommend initially investing the 72(t) IRA in a money market fund so that it can be clearly established that the beginning account balance was exactly the $1,286,384.59 computed to yield the correct payment. Pat takes the first payment of $80,000 on January 29th from the 72(t) IRA in this hypothetical scenario.
Let’s keep going. Assume that in 2030, when Pat turns age 57 and interest rates are well below 5%, Pat wants to increase their annual withdrawal from $80K to $90K. As discussed below, Pat can’t simply increase the withdrawal from the 72(t) IRA. But since Pat kept a non-72(t) IRA, Pat can slice that one up to create a second 72(t) IRA. That second 72(t) IRA can give Pat the extra $10,000 Pat wants to spend.
Here’s what that looks like.
Interest Rate: 5.00%
Life Expectancy: 30.6
Payment: $10,000
The size of the second 72(t) IRA is $153,270.74.
Pat would call their financial institution and ask them to divide the non-72(t) IRA into two IRAs: one with exactly $153,270.74 (the “Second 72(t) IRA”) and one with the remainder of the traditional IRA (the surviving non-72(t) IRA). Pat takes the additional payment of $10,000 also on January 28th from the Second 72(t) in this hypothetical scenario.
Here is what Pat’s withdrawals would look like:
Year
Birthday Age
Required First 72(t) January 29 Withdrawal
Required Second 72(t) January 28 Withdrawal
Total Annual Withdrawal
2026
53
$80,000
$0
$80,000
2027
54
$80,000
$0
$80,000
2028
55
$80,000
$0
$80,000
2029
56
$80,000
$0
$80,000
2030
57
$80,000
$10,000
$90,000
2031
58
$80,000
$10,000
$90,000
2032
59
$80,000
$10,000
$90,000
2033
60
$0
$10,000
$10,000
2034
61
$0
$10,000
$10,000
Remember that the First 72(t) IRA and the Second 72(t) are locked up for a period of time. See Locking the Cage below. The First 72(t) IRA is locked up until and through July 4, 2032, the day before Pat’s 59 ½ birthday. The Second 72(t) IRA is locked up until and through January 27, 2035, the day before the fifth anniversary of the first $10,000 payment from the Second 72(t) IRA. See IRS FAQ 13 on this point. Generally speaking, no amount other than the annual payment should go into, or out of, a 72(t) IRA until the end of the lock-up period.
Maintain Flexibility
I strongly recommend maintaining as much flexibility as possible. One way to do that is to have the 72(t) IRA be as small as possible, leaving as much as possible in a non-72(t) IRA or IRAs. Why?
First, the non-72(t) can be, in a flexible manner, sliced and diced to create a second 72(t) IRA if wanted or needed. Second, for a variety of reasons Roth conversions are generally to be avoided out of a 72(t) IRA. While those on a 72(t) payment plan often have little need to do Roth conversions, if they are so inclined they are better done out of a non-72(t) IRA.
Second, it is important to maintain future payment flexibility. Imagine if Pat did not divide the $2.5M traditional IRA into two IRAs. Pat could have simply used a smaller interest rate on the entire $2.5M traditional IRA to get the $80,000 annual payment out. However, then Pat would not have had the flexibility to create a second 72(t) payment stream. This is an important reason that it is usually best to use the highest possible interest rate to lower the 72(t) IRA size and maintain the most flexibility.
72(t) Payment Plan Disqualification
A “modification” to the 72(t) payment plan blows up the plan with unfavorable consequences. In the year of the modification the taxpayer owes the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty plus interest on the penalty on all the previously taken 72(t) payments. See Choate, referenced below, at page 596.
A blow up after age 59 ½, for those on the five year rule, is bad but tends to be less deleterious than a blow up occurring with respect to a SEPP ending at age 59 1/2. The early withdrawal penalty and related interest are not assessed on 72(t) payments taken after one’s 59 ½ birthday. See Choate, referenced below, at page 596.
There are a few modifications to a 72(t) payment plan that do not blow it up (i.e., they are permissible and don’t trigger the penalty and interest). See Choate, referenced below, at pages 597-601. Those looking to change the payment amount are often well advised to set up a second 72(t) payment plan (as Pat did) rather than seeking a modification to the existing 72(t) payment plan.
72(t) Payment Reduction
Imagine that instead of wanting an additional 72(t) payment amount, Pat wanted to reduce the 72(t) payment. This is not uncommon. Perhaps Pat has a significant inheritance in 2030 and thus no longer needs to take an $80,000 annual payment and pay tax on it.
Unfortunately, Pat is not allowed to simply discontinue or reduce the 72(t) payment without triggering the early withdrawal penalty (and interest charges) on the previously taken 72(t) payments.
But, the rules allow a one-time switch to the RMD method. Making the switch is likely to significantly reduce the annual 72(t) payment. For example, if Pat wants a smaller payment starting in 2030, Pat could take the 72(t) IRA balance on December 31, 2029 (imagine it is exactly $1M) and divide it by the age 57 factor off the Single Life Table (29.8) and get a 2030 72(t) payment of $33,557.05. Alternatively, Pat could use the age 57 factor off the Notice 2022-6 Uniform Life Table (41.6) and get a 2030 72(t) payment of $24,038.46.
If Pat makes this one-time switch, Pat will annually compute the 72(t) payment for the remainder of the 72(t) term using the table used in 2030 (see Notice 2022-6 page 6) and the prior-year end-of-year 72(t) IRA balance.
The one-time switch to the RMD method is helpful if the taxpayer wants to significantly reduce their 72(t) annual payment, perhaps because of an inheritance, marriage, YouTube channel blowing up, or returning to work. The availability of this method to reduce required 72(t) payments (if desired) is another reason to keep 72(t) IRAs as small as possible.
72(t) Locking The Cage
The 72(t) IRA should be thought of as a locked cage. No one goes in, and only the 72(t) payment comes out annually. The rigidity with which the IRS treats the 72(t) IRA gives early retirees incentive to use as high an interest rate as possible to get the highest annual payment out of the smallest 72(t) IRA possible.
Just how rigid is the IRS? In one case, the IRS disqualified a 72(t) SEPP because a taxpayer transferred a workplace retirement plan into the 72(t) IRA during the 72(t) payment period. See page 4 of this newsletter (page 4 is behind a paywall). Right, wrong, or other, Notice 2022-6 Section 3.02(e) has not been updated for SECURE 2.0’s adding Section 72(t)(4)(C), which clearly allows for some roll outs from 72(t) IRAs. Thus, this is an area where early retirees should proceed with caution.
Further, the 72(t) lockup does not end with the taking of the last payment. Rather, as described in IRS FAQ 13, it ends at the end of the lock up period. So if Sean, age 57 in 2023, takes his first 72(t) SEPP of $10,000 from IRA 1 on July 15, 2023, his taking of payment number 5 ($10,000) on July 15, 2027 does not end the lock up. Sean can’t take any additional money out of IRA 1 until July 1, 2028 (the fifth anniversary of his first $10,000 72(t) payment).
Practice Point: As of this writing, it is not a good idea to add money to a 72(t) IRA during the lockup period due to Notice 2022-6 Section 3.02(e). This includes never making an annual contribution to a 72(t) IRA and never rolling an IRA, 401(k), or other qualified plan into a 72(t) IRA. Incredibly enough, current IRS guidance prohibits breaking into jail in this regard.
IRS FAQ 13 is instructive in terms of when the lock up ends. The IRS is clear that the lock up ends on the date of the 59 ½ birthday, not on January 1st of that year. Say Rob, born January 14, 1971, takes his first SEPP of $40,000 on August 16, 2023. His 72(t) IRA is free on his 59 ½ birthday, which is July 14, 2030. Presumably, Rob takes his last $40,000 SEPP on or around August 16, 2029. Nevertheless, he can’t add to or withdraw from his 72(t) IRA prior to July 14, 2030 without blowing up his 72(t) payment plan and incurring significant penalties and interest under the approach of IRS FAQ 13.
As discussed above, the one-time switch to the RMD method is a permissible modification to the 72(t) payment terms that does not trigger the early withdrawal penalty and related interest on previously taken 72(t) payments.
A Note on the 72(t) Risk Profile
The earlier in life the 72(t) payment plan starts, the greater the risk profile on the 72(t) payment plan. The opposite is also true: the later in life a 72(t) payment plan starts, the lower the risk profile.
Why?
Because the sooner the 72(t) payment plan starts, the more years (and more interest) that can be blown up by a future modification requiring the payment of the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty and interest.
Consider Pat’s example. If Pat blows up the First 72(t) payment plan in early 2031, Pat owes the 10% early withdrawal penalty and interest on five previously taken 72(t) payments from the First 72(t) IRA (2026 through 2030). If Pat blows up the Second 72(t) payment plan in early 2035, Pat only owes the early withdrawal penalty and interest on the three 72(t) payments received before Pat turned age 59 ½.
In February 2026 I self-published a 38-page article on the risks presented by 72(t) payment plans. You can access the article here.
72(t) Payment Tax Return Reporting
Taxpayers should keep the computations they and/or their advisors have done to document the 72(t) payment plan. Distributions should be reported as taxable income and on Form 5329. Code 02 should be entered on Line 2 of Form 5329.
72(t) Is An Exception to More Than One Rule
72(t) payment plans are an exception to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. They are also an exception to the general rule that the IRS views all of your IRAs as a single IRA. The 72(t) IRA is the 72(t) IRA. If you have a separate IRA and take ten dollars out of it prior to age 59 ½, you trigger ordinary income tax and a $1 penalty. If you take an additional ten dollars out of the 72(t) IRA prior to the end of the 72(t) lock up, you blow up the 72(t) payment plan and owe the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty and interest on all the pre-59 ½ 72(t) payments.
Other Penalty Free Sources of Early Retirement Funding
Let’s remember that 72(t) payments are a tool. In many cases they are not a “go-to” strategy. I’ve written this post not because 72(t) payments are a go-to strategy but rather because I know there are many in their 50s thinking about retirement but daunted by the prospect of accessing traditional retirement accounts prior to age 59 ½.
Generally speaking, I encourage using resources other than 72(t) payments if you are able to. They include:
Taxable Accounts: This video discusses why I’m so fond of spending down taxable accounts first in early retirement.
Inherited Retirement Accounts: Withdrawals from inherited retirement accounts (other than those the spouse treats as their own) are never subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty. Often they are subject to a 10-year draw down rule, so usually they should be accessed prior to implementing a 72(t) payment plan from one’s own accounts.
Rule of 55 Distributions: Only available from a qualified retirement plan such as a 401(k) from an employer the employee separates from service no sooner than the beginning of the year they turn age 55. This is a great workaround from the early withdrawal penalty, and much more flexible than a 72(t) payment plan. But remember, the money must stay in the workplace retirement account (and not be rolled over to a traditional IRA) to get the benefit.
Governmental 457(b) Plans: Withdrawals from governmental 457(b) plans are generally not subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty.
I previously discussed using a 72(t) payment plan to bail out Roth IRA earnings penalty-free prior to age 59 ½. This is a tactic that I would not recommend unless absolutely necessary (which I believe is a very rare situation).
72(t) Landscape Change
It should be noted that the issuance of Notice 2022-6 in early 2022 changed the landscape when it comes to 72(t) payments. Before the 5 percent safe harbor, it was possible that taxpayers could be subject to sub-0.5 percent interest rates, meaning that it would take almost $1M in a retirement account to generate just $30,000 in an annual payment in one’s mid-50s. Now with the availability of the 5 percent interest rate much more modest account balances can be used to generate significant 72(t) payments in one’s mid-50s.
Sean Mullaney, What are the Risks of a 72(t) Payment Plan?, an article that goes into detail on the risks presented by a 72(t) payment plan and ways to mitigate those risks.
Correction
The previous version of this post published in November 2023 incorrectly used 30.6 as the age 57 factor in one of the calculations. The correct factor is 29.8. I regret the error.
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.
So who is right? The FI Tax Guy or Scott Trench and Mindy Jensen of the BiggerPockets Money podcast?
This isn’t just a discussion in my mind or a late night debate at the Waffle House. It’s become a debate in the financial independence space. Just last week, the Middle Class Trap was the topic of the ChooseFI podcast.
We will return to that episode of ChooseFI later. For now, I want to start by defining the Middle Class Trap and providing the two reasons I don’t believe the Middle Class Trap is a trap. Then I will move onto several numerical examples, including four Mindy Jensen provided on ChooseFI.
The Middle Class Trap Defined
Scott Trench and Mindy Jensen walk through their definition of the Middle Class Trap from in this YouTube video. I encourage you to watch it.
Boiled down, the argument is that primary residence wealth is trapped and traditional retirement accounts are trapped until age 59 ½. Thus, many in the middle class have trapped wealth and cannot retire prior to age 59 ½ despite good numbers on paper.
There are two problems with their argument. First, primary residence wealth isn’t the owner’s wealth as we ordinarily conceive and define it. Second, traditional retirement accounts are not trapped prior to age 59 ½.
The Primary Residence Question
Too often we think of primary residences as investments. They are not, as Douglas Boneparth observes. They are a form of consumption.
People say “I have a million dollars in home equity so I am a millionaire.”
No, you are not.
I can prove it.
Peter has a $500 checking account, a car, clothes, and a $1 million home with no mortgage. He sells the home for $1 million. He immediately must get a hotel room to sleep in tonight.
John has a $500 checking account, a car, clothes, rents an apartment, and has $1 million in VTSAX in a taxable account. He sells $10,000 of VTSAX for cash. He now has a pile of cash and need not make any adjustments to have a bed for the night.
Is Peter’s home equity really his wealth when accessing causes significant life adjustments? John’s VTSAX is his wealth. His accessing it requires no life adjustments.
So what then is market driven appreciation in home equity? It’s growth in asset value that primarily benefits three classes of people:
The next generation
Owners willing to change geographies or willing to significantly downsize
Owners needing long-term care at the end of life
Market driven increases in home equity are not a trap. Rather, they are wealth that, in many cases, someone else gets to enjoy.
Imagine I’m writing a blog post and the doorbell rings. I answer and the delivery man says, “Mr. Mullaney, congratulations! You won a contest. The prize is $1,000 of Blippi toys!”
Those Blippi toys are my wealth that my toddler Goddaughter gets to enjoy.
It’s no different with market driven increases in home equity. It’s wealth that shows up on your doorstep that most likely will be enjoyed by the next generation.
In no way do those Blippi toys trap me. Same with market driven increases in home equity.
The 10% Early Withdrawal Penalty is No Bar to Early Retirement
I’ve written about the myriad ways to fund retirement prior to 59 ½ without incurring the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. I’ve spoken about it on two episodes of the ChooseFI podcast (475 and 491).
But until now, I have never explicitly said the following:
Those 50 and older with sufficient assets are in no way barred from early retirement due to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty even if all of their financial asset wealth is in traditional retirement accounts.
While 72(t) payment plans are not the ideal retirement plan, they are more than adequate enough to use to retire in the year one turns age 50 or later. Those 50 or older, with a simple spreadsheet and some diligence, are in no way barred from early retirement due to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty.
What about those under age 50?
Few under age 50 will be able to retire on traditional retirement accounts alone because of sufficiency concerns. Tax concerns are not the problem when thinking about retiring prior to age 50 – it’s all about sufficiency!
Fortunately, the profile tends to resolve itself. To have enough financial wealth to retire in one’s 40s, the prospective early retiree most likely contributed to some combination of Roth accounts or taxable accounts prior to retirement. While not insignificant, traditional retirement account contribution limits are such that for many, it will be difficult to rely on them exclusively to build up sufficient assets for retirement prior to January 1st of the year of one’s 50th birthday. The 40-something early retiree can start their early retirement distributions from Roth accounts, taxable accounts, or a combination of both, obviously without penalty.
Summed up, when assessing the Middle Class Trap, for those under 50, their profile itself usually resolves the issue. For those 50 and older, the 72(t) payment plan rules are so advantageous (due to a major change in 2022) that a spreadsheet requiring one amortization calculation, some coordination with a financial institution, and a bit of ongoing additional diligence resolves the issue.
For both age cohorts, there is no tax trap.
Does this mean the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty has been, in effect, repealed? Hardly! If someone like me, in their late 40s, wants to take $20,000 from a traditional 401(k) to fly round-trip in a suite, I will pay a hefty 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. The penalty is still effective to discourage impulsive onetime withdrawals before retirement. But the penalty is not effective to prevent early retirements with a systematic, sustainable withdrawal plan. That’s the obvious intention behind the series of substantially equal periodic payments exception.
Examples from Mindy Jensen on ChooseFI Episode 543
During the ChooseFI episode, Mindy offered some numerical examples to argue for her case. That is a very legitimate tactic, and I personally love examples. Unfortunately, using numerical examples ran up against a limitation of the audio podcast format, since it can be difficult for participants and listeners to fully process multiple numbers while listening to an episode.
Mindy started sharing numerical examples around 25:00 in the podcast. I went back to the YouTube video and put Mindy’s numbers in the below table. I then added a row totaling financial assets and two rows laying out theoretically possible annual withdrawal rates.
Let’s use a range of withdrawal rates just for illustrative purposes. On the low end, we’ll use Morningstar at 3.7 percent, which can be fairly considered to be conservative. On the high end, let’s roll the dice a bit and use 6 percent.
Notice that the problem in the examples is not that the person has everything locked up in traditional accounts. The problem is sufficiency! Aside from Person C, it does not matter if all of the financial wealth is in Roth accounts, taxable accounts, or split between the two of them.
Persons A, B, and D are not in the Middle Class Trap. Rather, they are in a situation where they need to work longer unless their annual spending is incredibly modest, even by financial independence standards.
I believe that Person C could consider living on cash and later starting a 72(t) payment plan, but we really can’t tell without knowing much more information, including their age and their annual spending level in retirement.
Middle Class Trap 72(t) Payment Plan Examples
In one podcast episode, Mindy and Scott put the parameters of the Middle Class Trap at $1M to $1.5M of trapped wealth (see 3:19 of this video). How bad is the federal income tax result if we assume practically all of that wealth is in traditional deferred retirement accounts?
Using the old Four Percent Rule of Thumb for our 72(t) annual payment at both ends of the spectrum, and assuming a $40,000 taxable savings account and 5 percent interest on it and on the annual 72(t) payment taken at the beginning of the year and spent evenly during the year, here’s the 2025 federal income tax result by my estimation.
72(t) Payment Funding for Expenses Other Than Federal Income Tax
$36,878
$54,416
$38,700
$56,457
Effective Federal Income Tax Rate
7.26%
8.79%
3.02%
5.58%
AGI as a Percent of 2025 Federal Poverty Level
274.76%
405.75%
203.31%
300.24%
I believe this table strongly supports my contention that the tax laws want you to retire early. Look how light the taxation is on 72(t) payments!
You may ask “I thought federal tax rates started at 10 percent – how do these people pay effective rates less than that?” The answer is the standard deduction, which loves early retirees. Because of the standard deduction, all four taxpayers enjoy what I refer to as the Hidden Roth IRA. They take some amounts from their traditional IRAs and pay 0 percent federal income tax on them.
I will note two things. First, I am not arguing anyone should simply plan on getting to an early retirement age and have every last penny in traditional retirement accounts. I am arguing that it is hardly a trap if someone gets to age 50, has every penny in traditional retirement accounts, and wants to retire using a reasonable withdrawal rate.
Second, managing for Premium Tax Credit can be a concern. At the high end of Mindy and Scott’s Middle Class Trap range, a single taxpayer would be shut out of a Premium Tax Credit (having gone a bit over the 400 percent of FPL cliff) if they were on an ACA medical insurance plan in 2026, unless later tax law changes in 2025 amend Section 36B. This person could turn on Premium Tax Credits by electing a slightly lower initial 72(t) annual payment.
Sufficiency Is The Real Problem
We should spend more time on the real problem: retirement sufficiency. According to UBS, median adult wealth in the United States in 2023 was just $112,157. Even considering that older Americans are likely to have greater wealth than younger adults, the median wealth statistic means many Americans of all ages are significantly behind in retirement savings. The best way to catch up is by making traditional retirement account contributions.
Update May 1, 2025
Thank you to Mindy Jensen who wrote a thoughtful response to this blog post. You can read it over at BiggerPockets.
Stay Tuned
This won’t be the last time you hear from me on this topic. Cody Garrett and I are currently writing Tax Planning To and Through Early Retirement, a book we hope to publish later this year. We will address all sorts of issues when it comes to accessing wealth and tax planning for those retiring prior to turning 59 ½.
What questions do you have about retiring prior to 59 ½? Let us know in the comments below and we might just answer your questions in Tax Planning To and Through Early Retirement!
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
What some call “tax basketing” and others call “asset location” is becoming increasingly important, particularly for early retirees and those aspiring to be early retirees.
Tax basketing is not portfolio allocation. Tax basketing is the step after portfolio allocation. First the investor decides the assets he or she wants to invest in and in what proportion.
Once that decision is made, tax basketing starts. The idea is where to hold the desired assets within the available tax categories (Roth, Traditional, Taxable, HSA) that makes the most sense from a tax efficiency perspective and a tax planning perspective.
Early Retirees and Aspiring Early Retirees
To assess tax basketing for many early retirees, I will need to make a few assumptions. First, the aspiring early retiree and the early retiree (our avatars) want to hold three main assets: domestic equity index funds, international equity index funds, and domestic bond index funds. That is simply an assumption: it is not investment advice for you or anyone else.
Second, our avatars have at least 50 percent of their financial wealth in traditional retirement accounts. This assumption makes our avatars like most Americans when it comes to their financial assets, and, in my experience, most considering or in early retirement. Third, our avatars want to have less than 50 percent of their portfolio in domestic bond index funds (again, just an assumption, not investment advice).
Lastly, most of this analysis ignores HSAs unless specifically discussed, since the balances in them tend to be rather modest and most of the Roth analysis below applies equally to HSAs.
Let’s dive deep on where our avatars should hold their desired portfolio, considering that they are either striving for early retirement or in early retirement.
Asset Yield
Tax basketing should consider many things. Chief among them is annual asset yield. Financial assets such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and exchange traded funds (ETFs) typically kick off interest and/or dividend income annually (often referred to as “yield”).
The expected amount of that income and the nature of that income strongly inform where to best tax basket each type of asset.
Let’s explore the three assets our avatars want using Vanguard mutual funds as a reasonable proxy for their annual income (yield) profile (not presented as investment advice).
All numbers are as of this writing and subject to change. That said, they strongly inform where we might want to hold each of these types of assets.
Let’s start with VTSAX, our domestic equity index. Notice two things? First, it produces remarkably low yield. Say I owned $1M of VTSAX in a taxable account. How much taxable income does that produce for me? Just around $12,200 annually. Further, most of that is tax-preferred qualified dividend income!
People worry about tax drag when investing in taxable accounts. Tax basketing can solve for most tax drag! Why would you worry about tax drag when it takes $1M of VTSAX to wring out just $12,200 of mostly qualified dividend income on your tax return?
What about VTIAX? In today’s environment, it produces more than twice as much dividend income as VTSAX, and much more of that income will be ordinary income (since only about 61.16% qualifies as QDI).
Lastly, let’s think about VBTLX. Bonds typically produce the most income (bonds tend to pay more out than equities do as dividends) and bonds produce only ordinary income. You can see that from a tax basketing perspective, bonds in taxable accounts tend to be undesirable.
Tax Basketing Insights
Domestic Equity Funds
Domestic equity index funds do great inside a taxable account! They barely produce any income on the owner’s tax return. The small amount of income they produce mostly qualifies for the favored tax rates of 0%, 15%, 18.8%, and 23.8%.
Recall our avatar with $1M in VTSAX. He only gets $12,200 in taxable income from that holding. If that was his only income, he doesn’t have to file a tax return, as the standard deduction is large enough to cancel out that income.
An additional point: most early retirees and potential early retirees will probably have domestic equities in all three of the main baskets: Taxable, Traditional, and Roth. To my mind, that’s not a bad thing. Yes, inside a traditional retirement account, the qualified dividend income becomes tax deferred ordinary income, not a great outcome, but also not a horrible outcome.
The tax tail should not wag the investment dog. But it is logical for most early retirees and aspiring early retirees to only hold domestic equities in taxable accounts and then hold domestic equities in traditional and Roth accounts as needed for their overall asset allocation.
International Equity Funds
International equity funds sit well in retirement accounts, whether they are traditional, Roth, and/or HSAs. They are not awful in taxable accounts, but they are not great. Why do I say that? Compare the 3.22% yield on them to the 1.22% yield on domestic equity index funds. Wouldn’t you rather have the higher yielding asset’s income sheltered by the retirement account’s tax advantages and the lower yielding asset be the one subject to current income taxes?
What About the Foreign Tax Credit?
It is true that holding international equities in a retirement account sacrifices the foreign tax credit. In a world where yields were the same and future gains were the same, the foreign tax credit would be enough to favor holding international equities in a taxable account.
However, we don’t live in that world. Further, the foreign tax credit tends to be quite small. For example, the foreign taxes withheld by Japan when Japanese companies pay Americans a dividend is 10 percent. Not nothing, but considering that there is more than double the yield paid on international equities, not enough to make it highly desirable from a tax standpoint to have income in taxable accounts. Rates vary, but can be as low as zero. Consider that most dividends paid by United Kingdom companies to American shareholders attract no dividend withholding tax and thus create no foreign tax credit on federal income tax returns.
This video breaks down the math on the foreign tax credit.
Domestic Bond Funds
Domestic bonds and bond funds sit very well in traditional retirement accounts. Why waste the tax free growth of Roth accounts on bond funds? Bonds tend to have a lower expected return, making them great for traditional retirement accounts, not Roth accounts. Further, why put the highest yield assets with the worst type of income (none of it QDI) in taxable accounts? The stage is thus set: put all the bonds in traditional retirement accounts and don’t look back.
Two traditional accounts domestic bonds do particularly well in are inherited IRAs and 72(t) IRAs!
Tax-Exempt Bonds
High income people ask: should I hold tax-exempt bonds since I have such high income? In the early 1980s, it might have made sense to alter investment allocation for tax planning reasons and invest in lower yielding tax-exempt bonds instead of high yielding taxable bonds. Back then tax rates were higher and most affluent Americans had most of their money in taxable accounts and pensions. The era of the IRA and the 401(k) was in its infancy and few had large balances in tax deferred defined contribution accounts such as traditional IRAs and traditional 401(k)s.
The world of the mid-2020s is quite different. Many pensions are gone, and affluent early retirees and aspiring early retirees tend to have much of their financial wealth in traditional IRAs and traditional 401(k)s.
That sets the stage beautifully for holding bonds in traditional retirement accounts. Income generated by bonds is tax deferred inside the traditional retirement account. Further, there’s usually plenty of headroom in the traditional IRAs and 401(k)s to hold all of the investor’s desired bond allocation. So why not hold all of the desired bond allocation inside traditional retirement accounts?
This means that for most people, there’s little reason to adjust a desired asset allocation in order to hold tax-exempt bonds and thereby sacrifice yield. Tax-exempt bonds receive no preference over taxable bonds inside a traditional 401(k) or IRA.
Keeping Ordinary Income Low
Do you see what tax basketing can do for the early retiree? If the only thing he or she owns in taxable accounts are domestic equity index funds (perhaps with a small savings account), he or she will have low taxable income and almost no ordinary income.
Or perhaps it is the Hidden Roth IRA where a retirees uses the standard deduction to live off of traditional retirement accounts. It allows the early retiree to use the standard deduction to fund living expenses from a traditional IRA and pay no federal income tax. Again, who’s complaining about paying no income tax?
Lastly, tax basketing can keep those qualified dividends and long-term capital gains at a 0% long term capital gains rate. For married couples with $96,700 or less of taxable income, the federal income tax rate on all long term capital gains and qualified dividends is 0%. One way to help ensure that outcome is tax basketing. Ordinary income from higher yielding bond funds pushes qualified dividends and long term capital gains up (through income stacking) and can subject some of it to the 15% rate. Why not hide out that ordinary income in traditional retirement accounts and only hold low yielding domestic equities in taxable accounts?
Aspiring Early Retirees
For the still working aspiring early retiree, having taxable investments generate low yield and preferred yield (qualified dividend income) can help save taxes during peak earning years. The high earner would prefer to have less QDI (through dividends paid by domestic equities) rather than more ordinary income (through dividends of ordinary income paid by domestic bond funds) hit their annual income tax return. This keeps taxable income lower, keeps the tax rate better on the portfolio income, and reduces or potentially eliminates exposure to the Net Investment Income tax.
In theory, the early retiree can fund their living expenses in three extreme manners: all from traditional retirement accounts, all from Roth retirement accounts, or all from taxable accounts. Testing these three from a Premium Tax Credit perspective can inform us about which tax basket is the best to spend from first in early retirement.
If Goldilocks funds her early retirement first from traditional IRAs and 401(k)s, she will find it’s too hot from a PTC perspective. All her spending creates taxable income, which reduces her Premium Tax Credit.
If Goldilocks funds her early retirement from Roth IRAs, she will find it’s too cold from a PTC perspective. Her spending creates no taxable income in all likelihood. That’s a huge problem from a PTC perspective. If one’s income is too low, they will not qualify for any PTC, creating a big problem in early retirement.
If Goldilocks funds her early retirement from taxable accounts, she’s likely to find it just right from a PTC perspective. Say she has $60,000 of living expenses. Will that create $60,000 of “modified adjusted gross income”? Absolutely not. It will create $60,000 less her tax basis in the assets she sold in modified adjusted gross income. This gives her an outstanding chance of having a low enough income to qualify for a significant PTC. If her basis was too high and she did not create enough income to qualify for a PTC, she could, prior to year-end, execute some Roth conversions to get her income to the requisite level.
What Goldilocks’ example demonstrates is that it is a good thing to have amounts, perhaps significant amounts, in the taxable basket heading into early retirement. While there is absolutely hope for those with little in the taxable basket, it will require some additional planning in many cases.
You know what can help mitigate RMDs? Tax basketing!
By holding all of one’s domestic bond investments in traditional IRAs and traditional 401(k)s, retirees can keep the future growth inside traditional retirement accounts modest. When compared to equities, bonds have a lower expected return and thus a lower expected future value. This, in turn, reduces future traditional account balances, reducing future required minimum distributions. Recall that RMDs are computed using the account balance from the prior year as the numerator. Keeping that numerator more modest reduces future RMDs.
Sequence of Returns Risk and Tax Basketing
Some worry about sequence of returns (“SoR”) risk: what if I retire and the equity markets happen to have a year like 1987 or 2008 right as I’m retiring? At least in theory this is a risk of retiring at any time and the risk is magnified by an early retirement.
Say Maury, age 50, is about to retire and worried about SoR risk so he wants to have three years of cash going into retirement (again, not an investment recommendation, just a hypothetical). Cash generates interest income, which is bad from a tax efficiency perspective. Can Maury use tax basketing to manage for SoR risk and stay tax efficient? Sure!
Imagine Maury retires with $500K in a domestic equity index fund in a taxable brokerage, $240,000 of cash and/or money markets in a traditional IRA (3 years of expenses), $500K of domestic bonds in a traditional IRA, and about $1M in a combination of domestic and international equities in a traditional IRA.
Maury can live on the cash and only live on his taxable brokerage account. Wait, what? I thought the cash lives in the traditional IRA. It does.
But Maury can simply sell $80,000 of the domestic equity index fund annually and report mostly long term capital gains and (rather modest) qualified dividend income on his tax return. His income might be so low he wants or needs to do Roth conversions! Separately inside the traditional IRA he “spends down” the cash by annually buying $80,000 of any desired combination of domestic equities, international equities, and/or domestic bonds inside his traditional IRA.
Maury just used tax basketing to live off almost a quarter million of cash for three years without reporting a penny of interest income to the IRS!
Announcement
You have just read a sneak preview of part of the new book! Cody Garrett, CFP(R) and I are working on, tentatively titled Tax Planning To and Through Early Retirement. In 2025 the retirement tax planning landscape is changing, and Cody and I want to be on the cutting edge as retirement tax planning changes.
This post will, in modified form, constitute part of the book’s tax basketing (a/k/a asset location) chapter.
When will the book come out? Well, that’s a question better asked of elected officials in Washington DC than of your authors. 😉
What topics would you like us to cover in the book? Let us know in the comments below!
Stay tuned to me on X and LinkedIn and Cody on LinkedIn for updates on when the book will be available!
Conclusion
Tax basketing can be a great driver of success to and through early retirement. From a purely tax basketing perspective, domestic equity index funds tend to sit well in taxable accounts, international equity index funds tend to sit well in retirement accounts, and domestic bond index funds tend to sit well in traditional retirement accounts. Premium Tax Credit considerations tend to favor having some money in taxable accounts in early retirement. Good tax basketing can keep taxable income low and facilitate excellent early retirement tax planning.
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.
Incredibly, Donald Trump has signed up to make that choice, starting January 20th.
How can that be? It relates to SECURE 2.0. SECURE 2.0 made dozens of additions to the already complicated retirement account rules. Many like its delaying retirement account required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) for many Americans from age 72 to age 73 (and eventually to age 75).
But there is a big time issue few have commented on.
It has to do with the Omnibus Bill’s purported passage in December 2022. If the Omnibus, which contained SECURE 2.0, was not passed in a Constitutionally qualified manner, any Administration enforcing it would be acting counter to the Constitution and contrary to the rule of law.
The Constitutional Problem with SECURE 2.0
A federal judge, in a very well written and reasoned opinion, determined that the 2022 Omnibus Bill, was passed by the House of Representatives at a time the House did not have a required quorum to enact legislation. In Texas v. Garland (accessible here and here), Judge James W. Hendrix ruled for the State of Texas that the House of Representatives impermissibly used proxies to establish a quorum. The House did not have a majority of members physically present, and thus did not have a sufficient quorum to enact legislation at the time of Omnibus’s purported passage.
The quorum rule isn’t contained in the back of a House of Representatives parliamentary procedure manual. Rather, it is contained in the Quorum Clause of the United States Constitution, making it the highest level of legal authority.
This ruling has broad implications for SECURE 2.0. If the Omnibus was not enacted in a Constitutionally qualified manner, SECURE 2.0 is not the law of the land. Any Administration enforcing it would be enforcing a law that is simply not the law of the land.
I encourage the reader to read the Texas v. Garland opinion. I find it convincing, but you get to be the judge and jury in your own mind.
Assuming the new Administration agrees with Judge Hendrix’s reasoning, they should announce they will not enforce SECURE 2.0 in order to avoid acting contrary to the law.
Proposed Action
I recommend that shortly after President Trump’s inauguration the IRS and Treasury issue a Notice announcing the following:
In order to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, the IRS and Treasury will not enforce SECURE 2.0.
Considering the equities involved, the uniqueness of taxpayers having acted under an announced law that was not, in fact, the law, and the limited enforcement resources available, the IRS will not challenge any acts made, plan/account qualification, and tax return positions taken based on SECURE 2.0 prior to the issuance of the Notice. Plans and financial institutions will be allowed a reasonable amount of time to adequately account for the Notice.
In order to eliminate harm from detrimental reliance on SECURE 2.0, appropriate equitable remedies will be applied to prior acts taken under SECURE 2.0 with relevance going forward. For example, any Roth SEP IRAs and Roth SIMPLE IRAs properly created and funded under SECURE 2.0 will be deemed to be Roth IRAs with respect to which valid contributions were previously made.
The IRS and Treasury will exercise their authority under Sections 402(c)(3)(B) and 408(d)(3)(I) and waive the 60-day requirement with respect to rollovers for any SECURE 2.0 qualified distributions followed by three year repayments so long as the distribution occurred prior to the issuance of the Notice and repayment is made back to the retirement account no later than December 31, 2025.
The IRS will not require RMDs and not enforce the failure to withdraw penalty for those who turned age 72 in 2023 and for those who turned age 72 in 2024.
The IRS will require RMDs and enforce the failure to withdraw penalty for those who turn age 72 starting in 2025.
Update February 3, 2025 — the previous version of this post said “73” instead of “72” in the previous two bullets — my apologies for the error.
Relevant 2025 limits will be applied not factoring in provisions from SECURE 2.0. Thus, guidance such as Notice 2024-80 is modified accordingly. For example, the 2025 qualified charitable distribution limit is $100,000 and for those age 60-63 the catch-up contribution limit is $7,500.
I recommend the new Administration issue that notice shortly after Inauguration Day to uphold the Constitution regardless of whether the new Congress chooses to take additional action with respect to SECURE 2.0.
The question then becomes what to do in Congress, if anything, with respect to SECURE 2.0. Since it is likely Congress will enact significant tax legislation, there will be one or more opportunities to address the issue.
I propose that as part of the 2025 tax changes Congress passes, Congress include a provision repealing SECURE 2.0 for the avoidance of doubt. That will end any possible litigation around SECURE 2.0, since the IRS will have waived any challenges resulting from acts occurring prior to the Trump Administration, and Congress will have repealed it (in case it is the law, counter to my opinion) going forward.
SECURE 2.0 had more to do with 401(k) plan administrators and lawyers securing full employment than securing retirement for working Americans. SECURE 2.0 being pushed to the side would be no tragedy. Perhaps Congress should salvage a few good provisions, but most of it should be left on the scrap heap while Congress focuses on more important tax reforms and extending Tax Cuts and Jobs Act individual tax cuts.
I am more ambivalent about the delays in RMDs. Congress could simply enact SECURE 2.0’s RMD delays as part of its 2025 tax reforms. That said, I believe that tax cuts such as eliminating the taxes on tips and overtime are much better tax policy and should be prioritized.
Further, the tax benefit of eliminating the tax on Social Security potentially dwarfs the tax benefit of a one or three year delay in RMDs. There’s a very valid argument that eliminating taxes on Social Security and having RMDs start at age 72 is appropriate and will leave many seniors in a vastly improved tax position when compared to where they stood prior to 2025.
Conclusion
I would pick the Constitution over delayed RMDs any day of the week. The Constitution is far more important than any retirement account tax rule. While it is not good to say dozens of rules that Americans have planned around are invalid, it is far worse to disregard the Constitution.
My hope is that the new Administration’s tax policy staff, including the new Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, work to uphold the Constitution.
The new Administration, consistent with Judge Hendrix’s ruling, should acknowledge the Constitutional problem with SECURE 2.0 and addresses it head on. Doing so will demonstrate President Trump’s commitment to honor the Constitution and the rule of law.
This post is for educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, investment, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
Note that a version of this proposal has been posted to the crowd sourced policy website PoliciesforPeople.com. The views reflected in this post are only those of the author, Sean Mullaney, and are not the views of anyone else.
The 100%/110% safe harbor protects the late-in year lottery winner (among others). As long as he or she has withholding or estimated tax payments that meet 100% or 110% (as applicable) safe harbor, he or she can have millions or billions of dollars in income, meet the safe harbor requirements, avoid the underpayment penalty and pay most of the 2024 tax by April 15, 2025.
Estimated tax payments are great, but they require early in the year action not possible in the fourth quarter. To meet the safe harbor, generally one quarter of the total amount due under the safe harbor must be paid by April 15th, June 15th, September 15th, and the following January 15th. That’s great, but for those who didn’t make the first three payments going into the fourth quarter, estimated tax payments may not be all that helpful at this point.
Most states with an income tax have rules that mirror the federal income tax withholding rules, but some states have differences.
The Retiree’s Secret Weapon for Estimated Tax Payments
Retirees have a secret weapon for making income tax payments, particularly late in the year. IRAs!
People miss paying taxes during the year. It happens for a variety of reasons. If I were a retiree and I found myself underpaid for either (or both) federal and state income taxes purposes in the fourth quarter, the first place I would look to make an estimated tax payment would be a traditional IRA.
Why?
Because income tax withheld from a traditional IRA is deemed paid equally to the IRS throughout the year regardless of when the withholding occurs.
IRA owners can initiate a distribution from their traditional IRA and direct that most of it be directed to the IRS and/or the state taxing authority. That withholding is treated as if it is paid equally throughout the year regardless of whether it occurs on January 5th or December 21st.
That’s pretty good! A late in the year IRA distribution withheld to the IRS can meet either (or both) the 90% safe harbor and/or the 100%/110% safe harbor.
The downside is that it creates taxable income. In many cases, it turns out retirees are rather lightly taxed. As long as the retiree had a relatively low income tax burden either last year or this year, the taxable withdrawal won’t be a large number, because the applicable required safe harbor withholding will be modest. Thus, the tax hit on the mostly withheld distribution should be rather modest.
Another advantage of using a traditional IRA to pay income taxes is RMD mitigation. While I believe the concerns around RMDs are wildly overstated, RMD mitigation is a perfectly valid financial planning objective and a good outcome.
Using an IRA to Pay Income Taxes Under Age 59 ½
You may now be thinking “Sean, that’s a great idea for those over age 59 ½. But what if I’m under age 59 ½? Won’t I be subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty on the amount I fork over to the IRS?”
That’s an excellent thought! Fortunately, the answer to your questions is “maybe.”
The IRS maintains a list of exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty. Many will not be applicable to most retirees. But there are some options–let’s explore two of them: Inherited IRAs and 72(t) payment plans.
Inherited IRAs
Beneficiaries of inherited IRAs never pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty with respect to distributions from their “inherited IRAs.” Thus, the inherited IRA is a great place to look to pay taxes from late in the year.
The only downside is the distribution to the IRS or the state taxing authority is itself taxable to the beneficiary. However, the money in the inherited IRA has to come out eventually (usually under the 10 year rule at a minimum), so why not whittle the traditional IRA down by using it to pay income taxes and avoid an underpayment penalty?
72(t) Payment Plan to Pay Income Taxes
Could someone start a 72(t) payment plan to pay required income taxes? Absolutely, in my opinion. It might even be a good idea!
72(t) Payment to Pay Income Taxes Example
Homer and Marge both turned age 56 in the year 2024. They retired early in 2023 and thus had some W-2 income and some investment income in 2023. They had approximately $120K of adjusted gross income in 2023 and thus paid approximately $8,800 of federal income taxes in 2023 (see Form 1040 line 24 less most tax credits — see the comment below) and $2,000 of California income taxes in 2023.
In 2024 they have ordinary income below the standard deduction and taxable income below the top of the 12% federal income tax bracket. Thus, they owe no federal income tax and a very small amount of California income tax for 2024. They’ve made no estimated tax payments.
In August 2024 they decided to sell their Bay Area home worth $2M to move to a more rural part of California. The sale closed in October 2024 and they had a $500,000 basis in the home. Qualifying for the $500K exclusion, this triggers a $1M taxable long term capital gain to Homer and Marge in 2024. D’oh!
Very, very roughly, the capital gain creates approximately $175K of federal income tax, $30K of federal net investment income tax, and $100K of California income tax. Note also that the proceeds from the home sale are likely to cause some taxable income in December 2024, but let’s just use the above three tax numbers for illustrative purposes only.
One of their other assets is a $2M traditional IRA. They have no inherited retirement accounts but they do have some taxable brokerage accounts. To my mind, there are four main ways Homer and Marge can avoid an underpayment penalty.
Option 1: Q4 Estimated Tax Payments
Homer and Marge could make substantial fourth quarter estimated tax payments out of their taxable brokerage accounts by January 15, 2025. They would owe 90% their entire 2024 tax liability at that time and would need to use annualization on the Form 2210 to avoid an underpayment penalty.
Compared to the other three methods described below, this costs them 3 months of interest on about $275K. In today’s interest rate environment, that is about $2,700 of interest in an online FDIC insured savings account.
Option 2: IRA Regular Distribution
Homer and Marge could, no later than December 31st, trigger a distribution from one of their traditional IRAs, say for $11,100. They could direct the institution to send $8,880 (80%) to the IRS, $2,109 (19%) to the California Franchise Tax Board, and $111 (1%) to themselves (the intuition will likely require they take at least 1% of the distribution). This creates $11,100 more taxable income (taxed at a low federal rate due to income stacking).
The advantage is this qualifies for the safe harbor, meaning Homer and Marge don’t have to pay most of their 2024 income tax until April 15, 2024. The downside to this is it triggers a 10% early withdrawal penalty ($1,110) payable to the IRS and a 2.5% early withdrawal penalty ($278) payable to California.
Option 3: IRA Regular Distribution and Rollover
This option is the IRA Regular Distribution option plus refunding the $11,100 traditional IRA distribution to the traditional IRA from their taxable accounts within 60 days. This has all the same advantages as the IRA Regular Distribution option plus it reduces 2024 taxable income by $11,100 and avoids the early withdrawal penalties.
Gold, right? My view: I tend to disfavor this tactic. Why? Americans are limited to one 60 day rollover from an IRA to an IRA every 12 months. My personal opinion is that pre-age 59 ½ retirees are usually better served to keep that option on the table. You never know when a significant sum will pop out of a traditional IRA. It will be good to have the option to put that money back into the traditional IRA. If Homer and Marge do the $11,100 IRA Regular Distribution and Rollover, they are locked out from the ability to do a 60 day IRA to IRA rollover for the next 12 months.
Option 4: 72(t) Payment Plan
This option is simply the IRA Regular Distribution option as part of a 72(t) payment plan. The advantage of adding the 72(t) payment plan is avoiding the 10% early withdrawal penalty (federal) and the 2.5% early withdrawal penalty (California).
Here’s how it works. Before making the $11,100 IRA withdrawal, Homer and Marge do a 72(t) distribution calculation and have their financial institution set up a $172,116.10 72(t) IRA. Here is the 72(t) fixed amortization calculation:
Item
Amount
Source
Interest Rate
5.00%
Notice 2022-6
Single Life Expectancy Years at Age 56
30.6
IRS Single Life Table
Account Balance
$172,116.10
Annual Payment
$11,100.00
Homer and Marge then take the distribution from the 72(t) IRA prior to the end of 2024, directing 80% to the IRS and 19% to the Franchise Tax Board.
You say, but wait a minute, now they have $11,100 they have to take annually for each of the following four years. I say, well, okay, they have $2M in tax deferred accounts, why not take some of that without a penalty (perhaps as a form of the “Hidden Roth IRA”) and whittle down future RMDs a bit?
That said, Homer and Marge can drastically reduce the annual 72(t) payment if they want with a one-time change to the RMD method. Assuming the 72(t) balance on December 31, 2024 is $164,000, here’s what the 2025 taxable RMD from the 72(t) could look like:
Item
Amount
Source
Account Balance
$164,000
Single Life Expectancy Years at Age 57
41.6
Notice 2022-6 Uniform Life Table
2025 Payment
$3,942.31
One would hardly expect that $4,000 of taxable income would derail Homer and Marge’s tax planning in retirement. Further, they can direct most of that $4,000 to the IRS and Franchise Tax Board to help take care of 2025 tax liabilities, if any.
Conclusion
For those under age 59 ½, a 72(t) payment plan might be the answer to an underpayment of estimated taxes problem. It is a bit of an “out of the box” solution, but it has several advantages. It allows some taxpayers to delay paying significant amounts of tax until April 15th of the following year by qualifying the taxpayer for the 100% of prior year tax safe harbor. Second, it avoids the 10% early withdrawal penalty. Third, it avoids the once-every-twelve-months 60 day rollover rule. Lastly, a 72(t) payment plan is rather flexible and the required taxable distribution in future years can be significantly reduced by a one-time switch to the RMD method.
The above said, the first IRA I would look to if I was under age 59 ½ and looking to pay estimated taxes is an inherited IRA. Those are never subject to the early withdrawal penalty and can always be accessed in a flexible manner.
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.
One area that is insanely and needlessly complicated is the inherited retirement account rules. What happens when someone inherits a traditional IRA, Roth IRA, and/or qualified workplace retirement account? It depends on far too many factors and there are far too many potential outcomes! As just one example, financial planner Jeffrey Levine came up with a flow chart of possible outcomes when a successor beneficiary inherits a retirement account.
That Mr. Levine could come up with such a flow chart is an absolute disgrace (to the government, not to Mr. Levine).
Complexity in our tax and retirement account laws shifts power away from ordinary Americans towards lawyers, accountants, advisors (such as me), and the IRS. Let’s shift some power back to ordinary Americans!
It’s time to radically simplify and reform the inherited retirement account rules.
Current Inherited Retirement Account Rules
Upon the death of the owner of an IRA or qualified plan, the following are potential outcomes in terms of potential inherited retirement account distribution rules:
I propose that the current voluminous, complicated inherited retirement account rules be scrapped. They should be replaced by the following simple rules, all effective January 1, 2025 unless otherwise noted.
At the decedent spouse’s death, any retirement account left to a spouse becomes the surviving spouse’s retirement account in the surviving spouse’s own name automatically and immediately upon death.
All other beneficiaries inherit an inherited retirement account which must be emptied within 10 full years following the owner’s death with no RMDs in years 1 through 9.
The death of a spouse entitles the surviving spouse to a permanent exception to the Section 72(t) 10 percent early withdrawal penalty with respect to distributions from any retirement account.
This applies even if the widow/widower remarries.
For fairness and simplicity, this applies even if the spouse died prior to 2025.
Any inherited retirement account a widow or widower treats as an inherited retirement account instead of a spousal rollover account as of the end of 2024 automatically becomes the surviving spouse’s own retirement account in their own name as of January 1, 2025.
The death of the beneficiary of an inherited retirement account does not change the clock. Successor beneficiaries must empty the inherited retirement account by the end of the 10th full calendar year following the original owner’s death.
Existing inherited retirement accounts (as of the end of 2024) are no longer subject to both the 10 year rule and RMDs. For 2025 and beyond, such accounts are subject to only the 10 year rule.
For fairness and simplicity, any retirement account inherited prior to 2025 subject to a 5 year rule will switch to the 10 year rule (measured as of the owner’s date of death).
Reset Day for Inherited Retirement Accounts Subject to an RMD in 2025: If the original owner died in 2024 or earlier and the inherited retirement account is subject to only an RMD in the year 2025 (under any of the old rules), the inherited account will become subject to the 10 year rule, and no longer be subject to RMDs (both as of 2026), as if the original owner died on December 31, 2025.
The 2025 New Year’s Eve Reset Day applies to both beneficiaries and successor beneficiaries, including those who become successor beneficiaries during 2025.
Simplification
After my proposed reform, there will be two and only two potential treatments for an inherited retirement account: spousal rollovers for spouses and the 10 year rule for everyone else. Note: It takes 8 rules to get to a 2 rule system because in order to get to a 2 rule system there needs to be rules to account for the transition from a very complex system to an understandable system.
Replacing the existing rules with the above 2 rule system would significantly reduce the amount of federal regulations and reduce complexity. Congress stumbled into a great inherited retirement account rule in the SECURE Act: the 10 year rule. It’s time to make that the rule for all inherited retirement accounts except spousal rollovers.
Rules 4, 7, and 8 are simplification and consistency measures. They logically transition the inherited retirement accounts rules to a single, uniform system with only two outcomes: a spousal rollover or the 10 year rule.
Rapid Transition
I propose a rapid, though not overnight, transition to a uniform system. Assuming a bill is passed in early to mid-2025, 2025 can be a transition year and then by New Year’s Day 2026 all inherited retirement accounts would be on the new system, meaning all inherited retirement accounts, regardless of when inherited, would be subject to only one of two rules as of New Year’s Day 2026.
Protecting Young Widows and Widowers
Rule 3 is needed to avoid reform harming pre-age 59 ½ widows and widowers. Under today’s rules, surviving spouses can elect to treat a spouse’s retirement account as an “inherited” account instead of doing a spousal rollover. That inherited treatment avoids the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty on pre-age 59 ½ distributions.
If pre-age 59 ½ widows/widowers must do a spousal rollover (as I propose), they would be subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty if they took taxable distributions prior to their 59 1/2th birthday. To avoid that outcome, why not make becoming a widow/widower an automatic, permanent exception to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty?
Transition Entirely to a New Uniform System
Reform should clean the slate of complexity. Without rules 4, 7, and 8, there would be separate systems of rules for retirement accounts inherited prior to 2025 and those inherited in 2025 or later. There’s no need for two separate systems of rules. These three rules make the rules simple for all inherited retirement accounts going forward.
A Small Net Tax Increase
Rule 8 is a modest tax increase, mostly falling on the wealthiest Americans. Considering the hope that 2025 will bring some popular tax cuts, such as eliminating taxes on tips and Social Security, it is good to have at least some logical tax increases in 2025 that would not significantly impact ordinary Americans. Note also that rules 2 and 5 are also likely to be small tax increases while rules 3 and 7 are likely to be small tax cuts.
Regardless of the likely very modest net tax effect, the simplicity brought by this new system would greatly benefit the administration of the tax rules and ordinary Americans.
Rule 8 Transition Examples
Rule 8, eliminating inherited retirement account RMDs and switching to a 10 year rule as of 2026, is key to transitioning old inherited retirement accounts to the new, uniform system for taxing inherited retirement accounts. Here are three examples of how it would work.
Example 1: In 2017 Jock died and left his $1M traditional IRA to his son JR. JR, 23 years younger than Jock, turned 40 in 2017. JR started taking traditional IRA RMDs based on the IRS Single Life Table in 2018. In 2022 he redetermined the RMD factor such that by 2025 the factor was 37.8 (start with 44.8 for 2018 theoretically, subtract one annually to get down to 37.8 for 2025). For 2025, JR must take his RMD under the old rules (which still apply) by dividing the inherited traditional IRA 12/31/2024 balance by 37.8 and taking that amount by December 31, 2025. In 2026 JR becomes subject to the 10 year rule by Jock’s deemed death on December 31, 2025. Thus, JR has until the end of 2035 to empty the inherited traditional IRA. He has no RMDs other than in 2035 (the entire remaining balance).
Example 2: In 2022 Huey died and left his $1M traditional IRA to his brother Earl. Earl, two years younger than Huey, turned 66 in 2022. Earl, an “eligible designated beneficiary” under the SECURE Act, started taking inherited traditional IRA RMDs based on the IRS Single Life Table in 2023. For 2025, Earl must take his RMD under the old rules (which still apply) by dividing the inherited traditional IRA 12/31/2024 balance by 19.2 and taking that amount by December 31, 2025. In 2026 Earl becomes subject to the 10 year rule by Huey’s deemed death on December 31, 2025. Thus, Earl has until the end of 2035 to empty the inherited traditional IRA. He has no RMDs other than in 2035 (the entire remaining balance).
Example 3: In 2017 Al died and left his $1M traditional IRA to his son Barry. Barry has taken RMDs annually. During 2025 Barry dies and Carl becomes the successor beneficiary. In 2026 Carl becomes subject to the 10 year rule (as Al is deemed to have died December 31, 2025) and Carl has until the end of 2035 to empty the inherited traditional IRA. He has no RMDs other than in 2035 (the entire remaining balance).
Conclusion
The inherited retirement account rules are mindlessly and needlessly complicated. The complexity creates confusion shortly after the death of a loved one. Enough is enough!
It’s time for greatly simplified inherited retirement account rules. That simplifying these rules might help fund popular tax cuts such as eliminating taxes on tips and Social Security is the cherry on top of a great tax reform proposal.
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, investment, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
Note that a version of this proposal will be posted to the crowd sourced policy website PoliciesforPeople.com. The views reflected in this post are only those of the author, Sean Mullaney, and are not the views of anyone else.
I’ve talked about what I refer to as a “72(t) IRA” both here on the blog and on my YouTube channel.
What I haven’t talked much about, until now, is a 72(t) payment plan coming out of a 401(k). Is it possible? Does it make sense?
Inspired by a comment on a recent video, I’m breaking down taking 72(t) payments from a 401(k) in this post. As you will see, when compared with the 72(t) IRA, the 72(t) 401(k) has significant disadvantages.
401(k) Plan Rules
Can you do a 72(t) out of your 401(k)? The answer is “maybe.” Qualified plans, including 401(k)s, have all sorts of unique rules. They vary plan to plan.
There’s no guarantee that you can access partial withdrawals from a 401(k) in accordance with a 72(t) payment plan after a separation from service.
By contrast, IRAs allow for easily accessible partial withdrawals regardless of age.
Must Separate From Service
There’s a tax rule to consider: one can only do a 72(t) payment plan from a 401(k) or other qualified plan after a separation from service from the employer.
From a planning perspective, this is not much of an issue. Few would want to do a 72(t) payment plan while still working, as taxable withdrawals from a 401(k) are not ideal if one still has significant W-2 income hitting their tax return.
72(t) Account Size
According to Notice 2022-6, the 72(t) account balance for the fixed amortization calculation must be determined in a reasonable manner. See Section 3.02(d). The Notice goes on to state that using a balance of the account from December 31st of the prior year through the date of the first 72(t) distribution is reasonable. One should document, usually with an account statement, the balance they are using to have in case the IRS ever examines the 72(t) payment.
Account size is one area where a 72(t) IRA is generally preferable to a 72(t) 401(k). As Natalie Choate observes in her classic Life and Death Planning for Retirement Benefits (8th Ed. 2019), an IRA can be sliced and diced into two or more IRAs, allowing one to take a 72(t) payment from a smaller IRA and remain flexible, in part through having a non-72(t) IRA as well. This flexibility is generally not possible with a 401(k) or other qualified plan. See Choate, page 595. That means without a transfer to an IRA first, the 401(k) account holder is generally stuck with an account size for the fixed amortization calculation, other than the bit of wiggle room given by Notice 2022-6 Section 3.02(d). Further, the entire account is subject to the locked 72(t) cage.
72(t) Locked Cage
A 72(t) 401(k) is entirely subject to the many restrictions on 72(t) retirement accounts. When one uses a 72(t) IRA, they often can have a 72(t) IRA and a non-72(t) IRA. This means less of their retirement account portfolio is subject to the 72(t) rules “locking the cage.” For example, the non-72(t) IRA can be used to accept other IRA roll-ins.
72(t) 401(k) Example
An example can illustrate the problems involved in using a 72(t) 401(k) instead of a 72(t) IRA.
Bob wants to retire early in 2024 at age 53. He has some rental real estate that will generate $40,000 of positive cash flow annually and needs $50,000 more annually from his retirement account to support his lifestyle. He has a $2,000,000 401(k) at his current employer. He sets up a 72(t) 401(k) instead of rolling out to a traditional IRA and establishing a non-72(t) IRA and a 72(t) IRA.
Solving for interest rate, we get an interest rate of -1.015124%.
Notice that in order to generate a $50K annual payment out of a $2M 401(k), Bob must use a negative interest rate. Bob can’t simply ask his 401(k) administrator to establish two separate 401(k) accounts for him and then use a positive interest rate for the 72(t) payment plan.
72(t) Negative Interest Rate
This raises an issue: can a taxpayer use a negative interest rate for a 72(t) payment plan under the fixed amortization method?I believe the answer is Yes. Notice 2022-6 Section 3.02(c) allows an interest rate “that is not more than the greater of (i) 5% or (ii) 120% of the federal mid-term rate (determined in accordance with section 1274(d) for either of the two months immediately preceding the month in which the distribution begins)” (emphasis added).
In my opinion, that wording in no way precludes using a negative interest rate for a 72(t) payment plan. Further, I see no compelling reason for the IRS to be concerned about using a negative interest rate. That said, there is at least some uncertainty around the issue.
The issue is entirely avoided if Bob rolled out to a traditional IRA and then split that traditional IRA into two IRAs. He could have a 72(t) IRA of about $804K generating an annual $50K payment (using a 5% interest rate) and a non-72(t) IRA of about $1.196M. From a planning perspective, it’s certainly my preference to avoid the issue by using the 72(t) IRA.
72(t) Structuring Alternative
As a structuring alternative that might be available to Bob (depending on the plan’s rules), Bob could roll the $804K out to a traditional IRA and use that as a 72(t) IRA. He could keep the balance inside his 401(k) and effectively use his 401(k) as what I refer to as the “non-72(t) IRA.” This sort of structuring was discussed on the Forget About Money podcast (timestamped here).
Unfortunately, using a 72(t) 401(k) boxed Bob into a bad corner. Say Bob is age 57 and the 72(t) 401(k) is still worth exactly $2M. He could use the age 57 factor from the Notice 2022-6 Uniform Life Table (41.6) and reduce his annual payment to $48,077. Not much of a reduction from his $50,000 required annual payment.
Had he used a 72(t) IRA/non-72(t) IRA structure instead, and the 72(t) IRA was worth $804K, he could reduce his $50,000 annual payment all the way down to $19,327.
For those looking for protection against significant tax in the event of an inheritance or other income producing event, the 72(t) IRA is preferable to the 72(t) 401(k).
What if Bob has a 72(t) 401(k)? I believe that establishing a second 72(t) payment from his 72(t) 401(k) would blow up his existing 72(t) payment plan. The second 72(t) payment would be an impermissible modification of the original 72(t) payment plan, triggering the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty and interest charges with respect to all prior distributions.
I am uncomfortable with any modification to a 72(t) retirement account unless it is specifically allowed by IRS guidance such as Notice 2022-6, and I see no evidence that a second 72(t) payment plan out of the same retirement account is permissible. Natalie Choate is also of the opinion that taking a second 72(t) payment from an existing 72(t) account is an impermissible modification of the first 72(t) payment plan. See Choate, page 594. See also IRS Q&A 9 (nonbinding), allowing a new 72(t) payment plan from the retirement account only after the taxpayer has blown up their original 72(t) payment plan.
That said, there is a single 2009 Tax Court case, Benz v. Commissioner, that gives the slightest glimmer of hope. In that case an additional distribution from a 72(t) IRA excepted from the 10% early withdrawal penalty as being for higher education expenses did not blow up an existing 72(t) payment plan, because the additional distribution itself qualified for a 10 percent early withdrawal penalty exception under Section 72(t)(2)(E).
It’s likely a stretch to apply Benz to a second 72(t) payment plan from the same retirement account. That said, I don’t believe it is an impossible outcome. But note that Benz is a single 15 year old court case binding neither on any federal district court nor on any federal appellate court. Further, the IRS never acquiesced to the decision in Benz, meaning they may still disagree with it. Even if the IRS now agrees with Benz they (and more importantly, a court) may not believe the logic of Benz goes so far as to allow a second 72(t) payment plan from the same retirement account.
Asset Protection
Depending on the circumstances and on the state, it can be true that IRAs offer materially less creditor protection than 401(k)s and other qualified plans. That could be a reason to use a 72(t) 401(k) instead of a 72(t) IRA.
I believe that, as a practical matter, sufficient personal liability umbrella insurance, which tends to be affordable, can adequately fill-in gaps between IRA and 401(k) creditor protection. Of course, everyone needs to do their own analysis, possibly in consultation with their lawyers and/or insurance professionals, as to the adequacy of their creditor protection arrangements.
72(t) Payment Plan Resources
72(t) payment plans are complex. Here are some resources from me and other content creators for your consideration:
The 72(t) 401(k) is a possibility if one’s 401(k) plan allows it. I usually strongly disfavor doing a 72(t) payment plan out of a 401(k) considering how rigid it is compared to the 72(t) IRA alternative. Further, as discussed above, 72(t) 401(k)s can create situations where the tax law has not, to my knowledge, definitely stated the governing rules. For these reasons, I generally favor using 72(t) IRAs in conjunction with non-72(t) IRAs instead of the more inflexible 72(t) 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.
Recently, the IRS and Treasury issued Notice 2024-55. This notice provided initial rules for SECURE 2.0 emergency personal expense distributions (“EPEDs”), domestic abuse victim distributions, and repayments into retirement accounts. The Notice also asked for comments on the above and on Section 72(t) in general.
I wrote a comment letter (which you can read here) to the IRS and Treasury obliging that request. The letter addresses EPEDs, repayments into retirement accounts, and the impact of Texas v. Garland on SECURE 2.0. Further, the comment letter requests clarification that Solo 401(k)s of retired solopreneurs qualify for the Rule of 55 exception to the Section 72(t) ten percent early withdrawal penalty.
This post (and the linked-to comment letter) is for entertainment and educational purposes only. They do not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice for you or any other individual. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
If that is the case, the Solo 401(k) should be rolled over to an IRA and there’s no ability to use the Rule of 55.
Until now, I’m not aware that anyone has done a deep dive to validate or disprove that concern. So I decided to do it myself. My research took me as close to the year 1962 as one can get without a flux capacitor, a DeLorean, and 1.21 gigawatts of electricity.
I’ve now changed my view on the Solo 401(k) Rule of 55 issue. The analysis is too complicated to write adequately in a blog post. Thus, I’m self-publishing an article, Solo 401(k)s and the Rule of 55: Does the Answer Lie in 1962? (accessible here), on the topic.
Of course, the article is not legal or tax advice for you, any other individual, and any plan.
For those of you who read my book, Solo 401(k): The Solopreneur’s Retirement Account (thank you!), please know the article is written differently. The book is a “101” and “201” level discussion of tax planning for the self-employed with some beginning and intermediate tax rule analysis. The article is much more akin to a “501” level discussion of a complex and somewhat uncertain tax issue emerging from ambiguities in the Internal Revenue Code
Enjoy the article and let me know what you think in the comments below.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post and the linked-to article are for entertainment and educational purposes only. They do not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
