Tag Archives: FI

Small Business Retirement Plans

If you are self-employed or have a side hustle, you have great opportunities for tax-advantaged savings. Small business retirement planning has been an area of significant confusion due to the multitude of plans available and the different qualification rules for each.

Below I describe the three most important plans for most small businesses to consider, provide the qualification requirements, and discuss when each plan is the best option.

Fortunately, for roughly 90 percent of small businesses, there are only three options worth considering: the Solo 401(k), the SIMPLE IRA, and the SEP IRA. In many cases, one of the three options quickly becomes the advantageous option.

After I discuss the three main small business retirement plans, I will provide some commentary on other available plans, but for most small businesses, the playbook consists of these three plans.

The administrative burdens (forms, paperwork, fees to financial institutions) of all three of these programs are relatively light these days, though all three plans do have some forms that must be properly completed, signed, and filed.

Before we begin, three quick notes. First, on limitations. Below I provide (in a general sense) the upper annual limits on contributions to the plans. It is important to note that contributions can be made in a manner below the limits – the plans are flexible in this regard. Second, generally you can contribute to a small business retirement plan and to a Roth and/or traditional IRA. Having access to a small business retirement plan does not prohibit a contribution to a Roth IRA or a traditional IRA. Third, before implementing a plan it is best to discuss your business and needs with the plan provider. Providers can have rules that are different from (and/or in addition to) the applicable tax rules.

Solo 401(k)

The Basics: A Solo 401(k) (sometimes referred to as an “Individual 401(k)”) is a 401(k) plan established by a self-employed individual for only their own benefit. Solo 401(k)s can be established by self-employed individuals in their own name and by corporations (usually S corporations in this context). Self-employment for this purpose includes a sole proprietorship, limited liability company (“LLC”), or other entity treated as disregarded from their single owner and reported on a Schedule C on their tax return.

The main advantage of the Solo 401(k) is that it allows annual contributions by the self-employed individual in his/her role as the “employee” and annual contributions by the self-employed individual (or S corporation) in his/her role as “employer.”

Employee contributions are limited to the lesser of earned income or $19,500 ($26,000 if 50 or older) in 2020. Employer contributions are limited to either 20 percent of self-employment income or 25 percent of W-2 wages (if the self-employed individual is paid through a corporation, including S corporations). Total employee and employer contributions are limited to $57,000 ($63,500 if age 50 or above) in 2020.

Today, many financial institutions (including Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard) offer low-cost Solo 401(k) options.

If eligible, the Solo 401(k) is almost always the best option for the self-employed individual. It offers the greatest potential for tax savings of the self-employed plans and it is relatively easy to administer.

An important note on the Solo 401(k) vis-a-vis the SIMPLE IRA and the SEP IRA: the Solo 401(k) is the only small business plan that allows Roth “employee” contributions. This allows self-employed individuals the ability to put away up to $19,500 ($26,000 if 50 or older) annually that will grow tax free. For all three plans, the “employer” contribution is always a traditional contribution (i.e., tax deductible today, taxable upon withdrawal). Note, however, that not all financial institutions offer the Roth employee contribution option in their Solo 401(k) plan, so it is important to check with the provider before signing up if the ability to make a Roth contribution is important to you.

Spouses employed by the self-employed individual (or their corporation) can also participate in the Solo 401(k) (only to the extent of their earnings from the business and subject to the above stated limitations), increasing the tax benefits of the plan.

Eligibility: In order to establish a Solo 401(k) plan, a person must have self-employment income, and must not have employees other than their spouse. For this purpose, an employee is anyone who works 1,000 hours during the year for the business. Starting in 2024, an employee also includes anyone who has worked 500 hours in each of 3 consecutive years.

Different plans have different rules on other employees. Some Solo 401(k) plans do not allow you to have any non-owner/non-spousal employees (regardless of the numbers of hours worked).

To have a Solo 401(k) in any tax year, the plan must be established by the deadline for the tax return, including extensions. That deadline also applies to employer contributions.

Generally, employee deferrals to a Solo 401(k) must be made by the end of the calendar year. There is an exception: if the Solo 401(k) is for a self-employed person (reporting self-employment income on Schedule C), the employee deferral must be formally designated by year-end, but then can be paid into the Solo 401(k) before the tax filing deadline (including extensions if the taxpayer extends his/her Form 1040).

Ideal for: Solo 401(k)s are ideal for anyone who is self-employed and does not have employees (other than a spouse).

SIMPLE IRA

The Basics: The SIMPLE IRA works in a manner somewhat similar to a 401(k) plan. It allows employees (including self-employed owners of the business) to defer up to $13,500 ($16,500 if 50 or older) of earnings in 2020 through traditional employee contributions. The SIMPLE IRA also has relatively modest required employer contributions to each eligible employee’s account (described below).

Today, many financial institutions (including Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard) offer low-cost SIMPLE IRA options.  

In order to have a SIMPLE IRA for the year, the employer must establish the SIMPLE IRA by October 1st of the year. One narrow exception is when the business is established after October 1st, in which case the plan must be established when administratively feasible.

The SIMPLE IRA has two main advantages over the SEP IRA. First, it gives the self-employed owner and any employees a valuable option – the option to make traditional contributions to the SIMPLE IRA account. By contrast, the SEP IRA (discussed below) does not allow for employee contributions. Second, the required employer contribution is relatively low. Employers must make either matching contributions of 3 percent of salary (in 2 out of every 5 years that percentage can be reduced to 1 percent) or automatic annual contributions of 2 percent of salary to each employee’s SIMPLE IRA. Thus, the SIMPLE IRA can give the self-employed owner(s) the option to defer up to $13,500 ($16,500 if 50 or over) of earnings in a relatively affordable manner.

Eligibility: In order to be eligible for a SIMPLE IRA, the employer must have no other retirement plan and must have 100 or fewer employers during the year.

Ideal for: Self-employed individuals that are not eligible for a Solo 401(k) and are looking to provide themselves and their employees the option to defer some taxable income at a relatively low cost to the employer. Partnerships where two or more owners (non-spouses) work in the business and/or small businesses with employees are good candidates for a SIMPLE IRA.

SEP IRA

The Basics: A SEP IRA is allows only employer contributions. Generally, the employer can make annual contributions of up to 25 percent of eligible compensation (20 percent of a sole proprietor’s self-employment income), limited to $57,000 of contributions (in 2020).

Today, many financial institutions (including Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard) offer low-cost SEP IRA options.  

The SEP IRA has two important advantages. First, it allows the employer to elect each year whether to make contributions. The employer can elect to forego contributions or reduce the contribution each year. Second, the SEP IRA has the latest deadlines of all the plans. A SEP IRA can be established for a tax year by the deadline for filing that tax year’s tax return, including extensions.

The main disadvantage of a SEP IRA is that it generally requires equal percentage contributions to all eligible employees. Said differently, in order for the self-employed owner of the business to make an employer contribution to his/her own account, the business must make the same percentage contribution to all eligible employees. This makes the SEP IRA an expensive way to save for your own retirement if you are self-employed and have employees. SEP IRAs are also subject to “top heavy” rules whereby the employer may be required to put in additional contributions to the rank-and-file employees’ SEP IRAs if the owners’ and executives’ SEP IRA balances are too high vis-a-vis the rest of the employees’ SEP IRA balances.

Eligibility: An employer (a sole proprietor, partnership, or corporation, including S corporations) can establish a SEP IRA program. Employees that are 21 years old, earn $600, and have worked for three of the previous five years for the employer must be allowed to participate.

Ideal for: There are three situations in which a SEP IRA can be highly advantageous. The first is for a side hustlers that maximize their 401(k)/403(b)/TSP contributions to their W-2 employer’s plan. The SEP IRA provides a mechanism for these side hustlers to defer more income. Note, however, that this can also be accomplished through a Solo 401(k), and in most cases the Solo 401(k) is preferable to the SEP IRA (if a taxpayer is eligible for both).

The second situation is when a self-employed person has not established a self-employed retirement plan by year-end. In such cases, the taxpayer can establish and fund a SEP IRA for the prior year before their tax return deadline (including extensions).

Third, a SEP IRA can be helpful in situations where a small business has a small number of employees, all or most of which are very important to the business. The SEP IRA provides a way to give highly valued employees a significant benefit.

Side Hustlers

For most side hustlers, the question becomes: are you covered by a retirement plan (such as a 401(k)) at your W-2 job? If you are not, the Solo 401(k) in most instances is likely your best option.

If you are covered by a workplace retirement plan, such as a 401(k), then the SEP IRA may be your best option, since you can defer up to the lesser of 20 percent of your side-hustle income or $57,000 (in 2020) while you can take advantage of your $19,500 ($26,000 if 50 or older) employee contributions through your workplace plan. While the “employer” contribution calculation is the same for a SEP IRA and a Solo 401(k), the administrative cost of the SEP IRA (including IRS filings) tends to be lighter than that of the Solo 401(k).

In some situations, side hustlers might want to forego a SEP IRA and use a Solo 401(k) (instead of a workplace 401(k)) for some or all of their annual employee contributions. That would be true if you want to make Roth employee contributions and your workplace plan does not allow them and/or you believe the investment options in your Solo 401(k) plan are better than the options in your employer’s plan. However, in all cases consideration should also be given to ensuring you at least get the full match in your employer’s 401(k) plan.

One important consideration for side hustlers and all self-employed individuals is what I call the Solo 401(k) Trap. Because of the new Section 199A deduction, many will want to forego deducting retirement plan contributions to self-employment retirement accounts (i.e., traditional employee contributions to Solo 401(k)s and employer contributions to Solo 401(k)s and SEP IRAs) and instead make Roth employee contributions to Solo 401(k)s.

Note that there is no benefit to having both a Solo 401(k) and a SEP IRA for your side hustle, because contributions to both plans count against the relevant limitations (i.e., having two separate plans does not increase a taxpayer’s contribution limitations).

Other Plans

There are other options available to small businesses. All (with the exception of the SIMPLE 401(k)) of them involve significantly more administrative burden and costs than the Solo 401(k), the SIMPLE IRA, and the SEP IRA. Often these plans are not feasible for small businesses and these plans are rarely feasible for side hustlers.

SIMPLE 401(k)s

SIMPLE 401(k)s are very similar to SIMPLE IRAs, with some differences on the margins not worth mentioning here. Most financial institutions offer SIMPLE IRAs instead of SIMPLE 401(k)s.

Keoghs

Keoghs come in both defined contribution and defined benefit (i.e., pension) models. Keoghs involve significant additional administrative burdens when compared to Solo 401(k)s, SIMPLE IRAs, and SEP IRAs.

401(k)s

There is nothing stopping a small business from establishing a 401(k) plan just like the largest employers. However, as a practical matter, it is difficult for most small businesses to do so. First, they involve significant set-up and maintenance costs. Second, 401(k)s are subject to discrimination testing to prevent business owners and high compensated employees from enjoying the benefits of the plan to a much greater degree than rank-and-file employees. This testing can lead to either reversals of previous contributions to the plan or additional employer contributions to rank-and-file employees.

Defined Benefit Pension Plans

A defined benefit plan (where the employee receives a stated benefit during retirement years and the employer funds the plan during the employee’s working years) is another option. These plans require significant compliance costs, including actuarial calculations. Further, if you have employees, these plans can be quite expensive for the self-employed business owner. In addition, these plans often work against the financial independence model in that they tie up assets until the account owner reaches a certain retirement age. However, given the right set of circumstances (usually older, highly compensated earners), these plans can be advantageous and create large current tax deductions.

Conclusion

Small businesses have a great opportunity to create tax advantaged retirement savings. For those eligible for a Solo 401(k), in most cases significant consideration should be given to establishing one. Depending on your circumstances, the SIMPLE IRA or the SEP IRA might be a great solution.

My hope is that this post has given you some working knowledge of the three main options for small businesses. Small business owners will often benefit from obtaining professional advice regarding their retirement planning and the programs they ought to establish.

Next Week

Next week’s post (click here) explores small business retirement plans in light of the new Section 199A qualified business income deduction and how the two concepts interact.

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

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, and tax matters.


Tax Efficient Estate Planning

THIS POST HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED FOR THE SECURE ACT, WHICH WAS ENACTED IN LATE 2019.

If you have significant assets, you need an estate plan. A good estate plan makes handling the financial aspects of your death much easier for your loved ones and creates the opportunity for multiple generation wealth creation.

For most, the need for good estate plan is not about the estate tax. Very few Americans, particularly very few actively seeking financial independence, will be subject to the federal estate tax, as there is now (as of 2019) a $11.4 million estate tax exemption. Thus, only the very largest of estates will pay the federal estate tax. For purposes of this post, assume that all estates are below this threshold.

If you are aren’t subject to the estate tax, why do you need to make a tax efficient estate plan? The answer is the income tax considerations of your heirs and beneficiaries. Some assets cause your heirs and beneficiaries to have very little or no additional income tax. Other assets can cause a significant increase in the income tax burdens of your heirs and beneficiaries. Below I analyze each of the tax baskets and discuss the estate planning considerations for each one.

Being that the FI community generally aims to build up significant assets to achieve financial independence, good estate planning is particularly important if you are on the road to (or have achieved) financial independence.

A quick caveat at the beginning – tax is only one consideration in estate planning. There are many others, including the needs of spouses, children, and other potential heirs, and the desires of the donor. Below I offer thoughts on tax optimal estate planning — of course the tax considerations need to be balanced with other estate planning objectives.

Spouses

A quick note on leaving assets to spouses. Generally speaking, the tax laws favor leaving assets to spouses. A spouse is a tax-preferred heir in most situations (the main exception being leaving retirement accounts to younger beneficiaries with low RMDs). As the focus of this post is passing wealth to the second generation efficiently, most of the discussion, other than a few asides, will not address the tax consequences when leaving an asset to a spouse.

Tax Baskets

Below are the four main tax baskets (tax categories in which individuals can hold assets):

  1. Traditional (a/k/a Deductible) Retirement Accounts: These include workplace plans such as the 401(k), the 403(b), the 457, and the TSP, and IRAs. Under ideal conditions, the contributions, when earned, are not taxed but the contributions and earnings are taxed when later withdrawn.
  2. Roth Retirement Accounts: These include workplace plans such as the Roth 401(k), the Roth 403(b), and the Roth TSP, and Roth IRAs. Under ideal conditions, the contributions, when earned, are taxed but the contributions and earnings are tax-free when later withdrawn.
  3. Health Savings Accounts: HSAs are tax-advantaged accounts only available to you if you have a high deductible health plan (a “HDHP”) as your health insurance. Under ideal conditions, the contributions, when earned, are not taxed and the contributions and earnings are tax-free when later withdrawn.
  4. Taxable Accounts: Holding financial assets in your own name or otherwise not in a tax-advantaged account (tax baskets 1 through 3). The basic concept is taxable in, taxable on “realized” earnings (rental income, business income, dividends, interest, etc.) while in the account, and partially taxable (value less “tax basis”) on the way out.

Baskets 1 through 3 require “ideal conditions” (i.e., compliance with the related tax rules) to operate as outlined above. Let’s assume for purposes of this post that no errors are made with respect to the account in question.

Traditional Accounts

Of the four tax baskets, traditional accounts are often (from a tax perspective) the worst kind to leave to a spouse and the third worst to leave to non-spouse heirs. Why? Because traditional accounts, through required minimum distributions (“RMDs”), are eventually going to be entirely taxable to your beneficiaries and/or their beneficiaries. Non-spouse beneficiaries generally must take RMDs in the year following the donor’s death.

When passing traditional accounts to the next generation(s), a general rule of thumb is younger beneficiaries are better for such accounts, because the younger the beneficiary, the smaller their earlier RMDs, and thus the lower the tax hit of the RMD and the longer the tax-deferred growth.  

Spousal beneficiaries, unlike non-spouse beneficiaries, have the option to delay RMDs until the year they turn 70 ½. However, once they turn 70 ½ they will be required to take taxable RMDs, increasing their taxable income.

For charitably inclined, traditional accounts (or portions thereof) are a great asset to leave to charity. As you will see, your individual beneficiaries would prefer to inherit Roth accounts (and in most cases will prefer to inherit taxable accounts), but the charity is generally indifferent to the tax basket of an asset, because charities pay no income tax. So all other things being equal, if you have money in traditional accounts, Roth accounts, and taxable accounts, the first money you should leave to a charity should be from your traditional accounts.

Lastly, whatever your plans, you are well advised to ensure that all your traditional, Roth, and HSA accounts have valid beneficiary designation forms on file with the employer plan or financial institution.

Roth Accounts

Roth accounts are fantastic accounts to inherit for both spouses and non-spouses. While non-spouses must take RMDs from the inherited Roth account in the year following death, the RMD is non-taxable to them. All beneficiaries benefit from tax-free growth of assets while they are in an inherited Roth account. This makes spouses (able to defer RMDs until age 70 ½) and younger beneficiaries ideal (from a tax perspective) to inherit Roth accounts.

Roth conversions are a potential strategy to save your heirs income tax. If you believe your heirs will have a higher marginal income tax rate than you do, and you do not need the tax on the Roth conversion, you can convert amounts in traditional accounts to Roth accounts, pay the tax, and lower the overall tax burden incurred by you and your family.

Health Savings Accounts

There are two, and only two, ideal people to leave an HSA to – your spouse or a charity. Spouses and charities are the only ones who do not pay tax immediately on an HSA in the year of death.

Unfortunately for non-spouse, non-charity beneficiaries, the entire account becomes taxable income to the beneficiary in the year of death and loses its status as an HSA. This can cause a significant one-time spike in marginal tax rates and cause the beneficiary to lose (to federal and state income taxes) a significant amount of the HSA. This makes the HSA the worst tax basket to leave to non-spouse, non-charitable beneficiaries.

Spouses are allowed to continue the HSA as their own HSA, and thus can use it to grow tax-free wealth that can cover (or reimburse) qualified medical expenses.

If you are charitably inclined and unmarried, the HSA should be the first account you consider leaving some or all of to charity.

Taxable Accounts

Taxable accounts, including real estate and securities, are generally good assets to leave to beneficiaries because of the so-called “step-up” in basis. As a general matter, when a person dies, their heirs inherit assets in taxable accounts with a “stepped-up” basis. This gives the heirs a basis of the fair market value of the property on the date of death.

As a result, a beneficiary can generally sell inherited assets shortly after receiving them and incur relatively little, if any, capital gains tax.

A couple of additional notes. First, leaving appreciated taxable assets at death to heirs is much better than gifting such assets to heirs during your life. A quick example: William lives in a house he purchased in 1970 for $50,000. In 2019 the house is worth $950,000. If William gifts the house to his son Alan in 2019, Alan’s basis in the house is $50,000. However, if William leaves the house to Alan at William’s death, Alan’s basis in the house will be the fair market value of the house at William’s death.

Second, the step-up in basis at death benefits spouses in both “common law” states and community property states. In all states, separately held property receives a full step up in basis when inherited by a spouse. For residents of common law states, jointly held property receives a half step-up – the deceased spouse’s portion is receives a step-up in basis while the surviving spouse’s half does not. For residents in community property states, the entirety of community property receives a full basis step-up at the death of one spouse.

Conclusion

Generally speaking, in most cases spouses will prefer to inherit assets in the following order:

  1. Roth
  2. HSA
  3. Taxable
  4. Traditional

In most cases, non-spouses will prefer to inherit assets in the following order:

  1. Roth
  2. Taxable
  3. Traditional
  4. HSA

The best two tax baskets to leave to charities are HSAs and traditional accounts.

You can obtain significant tax benefits for your heirs by being intentional regarding which tax baskets you leave to which beneficiaries. Some relatively simple estate planning can save your heirs a significant amount of federal and state income tax.

FI Tax Guy can be your financial advisor! FI Tax Guy can prepare your tax return! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, and tax matters.

Section 199A Examples and Lessons

Introduction

As this is being re-published (January 2021), we are in the third filing season of the new Section 199A qualified business income deduction. It is an area of the tax law that practitioners are still digesting.

I have previously written on the basics of the Section 199A deduction. This post builds on that introductory post. It provides analysis on rules from the IRS and Treasury and gives examples of how the deduction works in specific situations.

Takeaways

  • Deductions such as the deduction for one-half of self-employment taxes paid and the deduction for self-employed retirement plan contributions reduce the qualified business income (“QBI”) qualifying for the Section 199A deduction.
  • In many cases, Section 199A reduces the tax savings on traditional retirement plan contributions. Taxpayers may want to consider Roth employee contributions instead of traditional employee contributions to retirement plans because of this change.
  • Some taxpayers may want to prioritize contributions to traditional IRAs and HSAs instead of contributions to self-employed and small business retirement plans to maximize their Section 199A deduction.
  • Potentially powerful tax planning opportunities exist whereby taxpayers can reduce their taxable incomes such that they can go from no Section 199A deduction to a significant deduction. See Managing Taxable Income below for one example.
  • Many small businesses (including many sole proprietorships and S corporations) should not make charitable contributions, since these reduce qualified business income deduction. Rather, the owners of these small businesses should make charitable contributions in their own names.
  • The IRS and Treasury have provided a safe harbor under which rental real estate activities can qualify for the Section 199A deduction.
  • Dividends received from mutual funds and ETFs investing in domestic REITs can qualify for the Section 199A deduction.

Below are examples and commentary addressing Section 199A.

Side Hustler

Mike works a full-time job. His W-2 for 2018 reports $90,000 of wages. Mike also receives $1,000 of qualified dividend income (“QDI”) in his taxable account. Mike has a side hustle where he nets $10,000 in Schedule C profit. Mike pays $1,413 in self-employment tax on that profit. Mike claims the standard deduction.

Recall that the Section 199A deduction is the lesser of:

  1. 20 percent of your taxable income less your “net capital gain” which is generally your capital gains plus your QDI; or,
  2. 20 percent of your qualified business income (“QBI”).

The deduction for one-half of self-employment taxes is factored into the determination of QBI. Thus, in Mike’s case, his Section 199A deduction is the lesser of:

  • 20% of Taxable Income: 20% times ($90,000 plus $10,000 plus $1,000 less $707 less $1,000 less $12,000 = $87,293) = $17,459; or,
  • 20% of QBI: 20% times ($10,000 less $707 = $9,293) = $1,859

In this case, Mike’s Section 199A deduction is $1,859.

Mike’s taxable income is determined by deducting, for adjusted gross income, one-half of the self-employment taxes ($707) he pays with respect to his side hustle income. However, that deduction for half of his self-employment tax must also be subtracted in determining his QBI.

Note further that the Section 199A deduction does not reduce self-employment taxes. The Section 199A deduction is only an income tax deduction. It does not reduce the amount subject to self-employment taxes (in Mike’s case, $10,000).

Sole Proprietor with a Solo 401(k)

Lisa owns a sole-proprietorship that generates $100,000 of business income in 2020 as reported on Schedule C. Lisa pays $14,130 in self-employment taxes. Lisa contributed $19,500 to her traditional Solo 401(k), and makes an employer contribution to her traditional Solo 401(k) of $18,587. Lisa is married to Joe who makes $75,000 in W-2 wages. Lisa and Joe claim the standard deduction.

The deduction for retirement plan contributions is factored into the determination of QBI. Thus, in Lisa’s case, her Section 199A deduction is the lesser of:

  • 20% of Taxable Income: 20% times ($100,000 plus $75,000 less $7,065 less $19,500 less $18,587 less $24,800 = $105,048) = $21,010; or,
  • 20% of QBI: 20% times ($100,000 less $7,065 less $19,500 less $18,587 = $54,848) = $10,970

In this case, Lisa’s Section 199A deduction is $10,970.

QBI has the effect of making certain income “80% income.” What I mean by that term is that only 80% of the income is subject to income tax. This has a flip side – some deductions become only “80% deductions,” meaning that only 80% of the deduction generates a tax break.

Notice that the Solo 401(k) contributions reduce the QBI deduction. Thus, Solo 401(k) contributions are now “80% deductions” due to the QBI regime. For example, if your marginal tax rate is 22 percent, the marginal tax rate savings on your traditional 401(k) employee contribution is only 17.6 percent. But years later, when you withdraw the money from the Solo 401(k) the money will be “100% income.” You will not get a QBI deduction for those withdrawals.

I blogged more about the 80% deduction phenomenon here.

This will cause many sole proprietors to consider Roth Solo 401(k) employee contributions instead of traditional Solo 401(k) employee contributions, since the the tax savings on traditional self-employed employee contributions is reduced as a result of the QBI deduction.

Note further that for the Solo 401(k) employer contribution there is no choice to be made because there is no option to make a Roth employer contribution. All employer contributions must be traditional contributions.

Another observation: If Lisa and Joe had a low enough adjusted gross income (under $105,000) and Lisa made a deductible $6,000 contribution to a traditional IRA, that contribution would not have counted against her QBI. A contribution to a health savings account would also not have lowered her QBI.

For taxpayers whose Section 199A deduction is limited by 20% of QBI, contributions to traditional IRAs and HSAs should be favored over self-employment retirement plan contributions, since the IRA and HSA deductions are 100% deductions while the self-employment retirement plan contributions are 80% deductions. Hat tip to Jeff Levine who made the retirement plan contribution prioritization point on Twitter.

For taxpayers whose Section 199A deduction is limited by 20% of taxable income, contributions to traditional IRAs, HSAs, and self-employment retirement plans are all 80% deductions, and thus Section 199A normally does not factor into determining how to prioritize these contributions. However, all of these are tools taxpayers may be able to use to lower taxable income to qualify for a Section 199A deduction, as discussed in the Managing Taxable Income section below.

S Corporation

Assume the facts are the same as the previous example, except for the following differences. Lisa operates her business as a wholly-owned S corporation instead of as sole proprietorship. Before any sort of compensation, the S corporation makes $100,000. Assume that in this case, the S corporation pays Lisa $50,000 of W-2 wages, which is further assumed to be reasonable. Lisa makes employee contributions of $19,500 to her traditional Solo 401(k) from those wages. The S corporation makes the maximum employer contribution of $12,500 (computed as $30,500 of Box 1 W-2 wages plus $19,500 of elective deferrals times 25 percent). Thus, Lisa will have flow-through income from the S corporation (reported to her on a Schedule K-1) of $33,675 ($50,000 less $12,500 less $3,825 — the employer portion of the payroll tax).

Thus, in Lisa’s case, her Section 199A deduction is the lesser of:

  • 20% of Taxable Income: 20% times ($50,000 plus $33,675 plus $75,000 less $19,500 less $24,800 = $114,375) = $22,875; or,
  • 20% of QBI: 20% times ($33,675 — the QBI) = $6,735

In this case, Lisa’s Section 199A deduction is $6,735 because in the S corporation structure, the business income is split between a salary the S corporation pays her (which is not QBI) and the flow through profit of the S corporation, which is QBI (assuming it is domestic trade or business income).

The S corporation has various pros and cons from a tax perspective. Lower employment (payroll) taxes are a significant benefit, while lower maximum employer retirement plan contributions and lower Section 199A deductions are drawbacks.

Managing Taxable Income

Jackie is a lawyer operating as a sole proprietor. Law is one of several specified service trade or businesses (“SSTBs”) where the benefits of Section 199A are completely phased out if your taxable income exceeds $213,300 ($426,600 for married filing joint taxpayers using 2020 numbers). In 2020 Jackie has $240,000 of Schedule C income from the business. His self-employment taxes are $17,075 in Social Security taxes and $6,428 in Medicare taxes, for a total of $23,503 reported on Schedule SE. Jackie takes the standard deduction.

Jackie’s taxable income is thus $215,848 ($240,000 less $11,752 less $12,400). Because Jackie’s QBI is from an SSTB and his taxable income is above $213,300, he cannot claim any Section 199A deduction.

Now let’s add some tax planning to the scenario. Imagine that early in 2020 Jackie realizes he won’t qualify for the Section 199A deduction based on his numbers. He decides to open a Solo 401(k), which he can make an $19,500 employee traditional contribution to, and he can make an employer contribution of $37,500 for total contributions of $57,000 (the maximum allowed). This radically changes his Section 199A math, since (as will be demonstrated) his taxable income is now below $163,300. Once your income is below $163,300, you qualify for the Section 199A deduction only subject to the computational limits. Thus, in Jackie’s case, his Section 199A deduction is the lesser of:

  • 20% of Taxable Income: 20% times ($240,000 less $11,752 less $12,400 less $57,000 = $158,848) = $31,770; or,
  • 20% of QBI: 20% times ($240,000 less $11,752 less $57,000 = $171,248) = $34,250

Thus, Jackie’s Section 199A deduction is now $31,770! By managing his taxable income (by maximizing retirement savings), Jackie turned a $57,000 deduction into a more than $88,000 of deductions. Sure, the $57,000 deduction for retirement plan contributions is an “80% deduction,” but it creates the additional $31,770 of a Section 199A deduction (which is itself a “100 percent” deduction).

Jackie also lowered his marginal federal income tax rate from 35 percent to 24 percent and reduced his taxable income from $215,848 to $127,078!

Note that contributions to a health savings account would be another tool to deploy to lower your taxable income if you are concerned about Section 199A’s taxable income limitations.

Taxpayers bumping up against Section 199A taxable income limitations will likely need to prioritize traditional employee contributions to Solo 401(k) plans over Roth employee contributions. In addition, self-employed taxpayers bumping up against the taxable income limits in 2021 may want to establish 2021 Solo 401(k)s (if they are eligible to do so) to lower taxable income in order to qualify for the Section 199A deduction.

It will be wise for taxpayers to consult with tax advisors to run the numbers on Section 199A and other tax planning considering the complexity of the rules and the potential benefits of successful planning.

Charitable Contributions

The IRS gave us a bit of a head-scratcher in the instructions to the new Form 8995. The Form 8995 is used (starting with 2019 tax returns) to compute the QBI deduction. In the instructions, it states that charitable contributions reduce QBI.

Here is an example of how that rule would play out:

Cosmo is the sole shareholder of Acme Industries, an S corporation. In 2019, Acme reports QBI operating income of $100,000 to Cosmo on his Form K-1. It also reports $1,000 of charitable contributions made by Acme during 2019. The total QBI Cosmo can claim from Acme Industries is only $99,000, as the charitable contribution reduces QBI, according to the IRS. This is true even if Cosmo claims the standard deduction and thus has no use for the charitable contribution on his 2019 tax return.

Personally, I believe the IRS is on questionable ground in claiming charitable contributions reduce qualified business income. However, with some rather simple tax planning (which I generally believe to be prudent), you can avoid this issue altogether. If you want to make a charitable contribution, simply do so in your own name. Do not have your business — whether an S corporation, a small partnership, or a sole proprietorship, make the charitable contribution.

Rental Real Estate

The IRS and Treasury issued Notice 2019-7 and Revenue Procedure 2019-38 providing a safe harbor under which rental real estate activity can qualify for the Section 199A deduction. A safe harbor is a set of requirements, which, if satisfied, automatically qualify a taxpayer for a particular benefit. Stated differently, a safe harbor is a sufficient, but not necessary condition, to receive a benefit.

While rental activities that constitute a trade or business can still qualify for the deduction if they do not meet the requirements of the safe harbor, as a practical matter it will be much easier to sustain the deduction if you can qualify for the safe harbor.

Requirements

The requirements to satisfy the safe harbor with respect to any “rental real estate enterprise”  (a “RREE”) are as follows:

  • Separate books and records documenting the income and expenses of the RREE must be maintained.
  • At least 250 hours per year of qualifying activity must be done with respect to the RREE.
  • Starting in 2020, detailed records documenting the time spent on the RREE must be maintained (see Revenue Procedure 2019-38).
  • A statement electing the application of the safe harbor must be attached to the tax return.

Multiple Rental Properties

Rental property can be combined for purposes of determining if you have an RREE. However, residential and commercial real estate cannot be aggregated and must be kept separate. Thus, at a minimum if you own both commercial and residential property, you have two RREEs, and you must apply the tests to each separately to determine if each RREE qualifies for the safe harbor.

Qualifying Activities

In a bit of good news, the 250 hours can be done by the owner, agents, employees, and/or independent contractors. However, many activities do not count toward the 250 hours, including building and long-term redevelopment, finding properties to rent, and arranging financing. Qualifying activities include collecting rent, daily operation of property, negotiating leases, screening tenants, and maintenance and repairs.

Triple Net Leases

Triple net leases do not qualify for the safe harbor. For purposes of the rule, these include “a lease agreement that requires the tenant or lessee to pay taxes, fees, and insurance, and to be responsible for maintenance activities for a property in addition to rent and utilities.”

House Hacking

For those using house hacking to pursue financial independence, there are several considerations. If you house hack by renting spare bedrooms in your primary residence (tenants, Airbnb, etc.), then you do not qualify for the safe harbor with respect to the rent generated by your primary residence. However, if your house hack consists of renting out separate units in a single building, the rental income could qualify for the safe harbor if (i) those other units are separate residences and not your own residence for any part of the year and (ii) you otherwise satisfy the requirements of the safe harbor.

REIT Mutual Fund Dividends

Dividends from REITs and REIT mutual funds can qualify for the QBI deduction. Generally, box 5 of Form 1099-DIV will indicate those REIT dividends which qualify as Section 199A dividends.

Example

In 2018 Luke makes $50,000 from his W-2 job. He operates a sole proprietorship that generates a $4,000 taxable loss (which would have been QBI had it been net income). Luke also receives $3,000 of dividends from the Acme Real Estate Mutual Fund, which he holds in a taxable account. Acme’s Form 1099-DIV provided to Luke indicates in box 5 that $2,400 of the dividends are Section 199A dividends. Luke claims the standard deduction. In Luke’s case, his Section 199A deduction is the lesser of:

  • 20% of Taxable Income: 20% times ($50,000 less $4,000 plus $3,000 less $12,000 = $37,000) = $7,400; or,
  • 20% of REIT Dividends: 20% times $2,400 = $480

Thus, Luke’s Section 199A deduction is $480. He gets this deduction even though the dividend was paid by a mutual fund and even though he had a QBI loss. His QBI loss will carryover to 2019, and will reduce his 2019 QBI that potentially qualifies for the Section 199A deduction.

Lastly, note that if Luke held the Acme mutual fund shares in a retirement account (traditional and/or Roth IRA/401(k), etc.) or a health savings account, the REIT dividend would not have qualified for the Section 199A deduction.

Conclusion

Even as of January 2021, taxpayers and practitioners are learning new wrinkles in the Section 199A QBI deduction. For taxpayers with side hustles and small businesses, it can represent a significant income tax break. Some taxpayers will need professional help to determine how best to maximize the deduction.

Further Reading

I have written several blog posts addressing the Section 199A QBI deduction. Here are the links below:

Introductory Post

Section 199A and Retirement Plans

Read why the Section 199A QBI deduction may mean a Solo 401(k) is better than a SEP IRA

For the self-employed, the Section 199A QBI deduction may present an opportunity to do more efficient Roth IRA conversions.

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

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

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

Cosmo Kramer and Financial Independence

I’m not aware that there’s ever been a television show or movie about a financially independent character. However, one particular character strikes me as embodying, if inadvertently, many aspects of FI – Cosmo Kramer of the hit comedy Seinfeld.

Two introductory points. First, I’m an avid fan of Seinfeld, but I’m no expert. I’m sure I’ll miss pertinent information in this post – please feel free to add relevant Seinfeld/Kramer info in the comments.

Second, financial independence is not Cosmo Kramer’s lodestar. Quirkiness is. Many things influenced the character, but none more so than his overwhelming quirkiness, which led to many laughs on the show.

Kramer’s Origin

Cosmo Kramer is based on Larry David’s former real life neighbor, Kenny Kramer. Actor Michael Richards put his own spin on the character. The first episodes feature a shut-in motiff for Kramer, but quickly the character became much more social and confident. Kramer believes he’s smarter than everyone else, but he does not brag about it. He simply presents his version of the world as if it is everyone else’s (it’s not).

Kramer does not have a job. In an early episode, The Truth, Kramer claims to not pay taxes. Jerry responds that it is easy not to pay taxes when you don’t have income. 

Kramer’s Finances

In The Visa, George gives some insight into Kramer’s financial situation. According to George, Kramer’s life is sort of like a fantasy camp, and he reveals the following nuggets about Kramer’s financial life: “Do nothing, fall ass-backwards into money, mooch food off your neighbors.”

Kramer may not be a millionaire. There’s no indication that Kramer simply sold a lucrative business and is now living off the proceeds. Kramer claims not to be a millionaire when he discovers Calvin Klein is selling a perfume called “The Ocean.” Kramer previously pitched a cologne named “The Beach” to Calvin Klein, and complains to Jerry that “I could’ve been a millionaire! I could’ve been a fragrance millionaire, Jerry!” when he believes Calvin Klein stole his idea.

Later, in The Van Buren Boys, Kramer sells his life stories to J. Peterman for $750 and hosts a get-together to celebrate his financial upturn. Even in the 1990’s, few thousandaires (much less millionaires) would assemble their friends to celebrate a $750 score, but Kramer is quirky enough to do it.

Kramer never seems very anxious financially, but on two occasions he doesn’t appear to have the liquidity to pay unexpected bills. In The Diplomat’s Club Kramer runs up a $3,200 debt gambling on airplane arrivals and departures. He calls Newman to provide a unique piece of U.S. Postal Service memorabilia as collateral so he can make one more bet. In The Seven, Jerry bills Kramer for all his mooching. In order to pay the bill, Kramer sells Newman a bicycle for $50. Perhaps when you have trouble covering an unexpected bill for $50 it’s normal to celebrate a $750 financial upturn . . .

Kramer did have a gambling addiction, but it generally appears to be under control throughout the series. During its rare flare-ups, Kramer either gambles with Jerry’s money or uses Newman’s most valuable asset as collateral.

While the show never uses “FI” to describe Kramer, it once featured the character retiring early to Florida. In The Wizard, Kramer retires (from what, the other characters have no idea) to Del Boca Vista after having sold the movie rights to his coffee table book about coffee tables. Sure enough, Florida living doesn’t agree with Kramer, and he moves back to New York. In the next episode, The Burning, Kramer has a part-time job as an actor portraying diseased patients for medical school students.

Kramer’s Professional Background

Little is known about Kramer from prior to the start of the Seinfeld series. He appears to have little particular business knowledge or training. In The Package, Kramer acknowledges that he does not know what a “write off” is. Assessing Kramer’s work product in The Bizarro Jerry, Mr. Leland surmises that Kramer has “no business training at all.”

Kramer worked at Brandt Leland

Kramer’s Lifestyle

Kramer is known for mooching off his neighbor Jerry. In The Dealership, he test drives a new car Jerry is considering. Kramer wants to know how long the car can run with the gas gauge on “E,” since he doesn’t “want to be the one responsible for purchasing costly gasoline” when borrowing Jerry’s car. Kramer frequently helps himself to Jerry’s food and beverages, thus keeping his grocery bill low.

Kramer appears to live a relatively low cost lifestyle. He wears vintage clothes and drives older cars. In The Nap he swims in the East River for exercise.

Kramer is not immune from frivolous and/or luxury purchases. He purchases a hot tub for his living room. He enjoys Cuban cigars, though he never pays cash for them. Initially, he obtains them from George (who received them as a gift from Mr. Ross). Later, Kramer barters with the Cuban consulate to obtain cigars in exchange for clothing.

One defining Kramer characteristic is that he’s always up for making some additional income. In The Beard he gladly accepts $50 to pose in a police lineup. In The Rye he drives a friend’s hansom cab in order to make $250 a day. In The Bookstore, Kramer and Newman attempt to operate a rickshaw business in New York. Kramer and Morty Seinfeld sell vintage raincoats in The Raincoats. 

Kramer frequently does odd jobs with his friend Mickey Abbott. In The Race, Kramer works as a Coleman’s department store Santa, with Mickey as his elf. In The Burning he and Mickey portray diseased patients for medical school students. In The Stand In he and Mickey work as stand-ins on All My Children. Mickey hooks Kramer up with a seat-filler job at the Tony Awards in The Summer of George.

Kramer is also an arbitrager. In The Bottle Deposit he and Newman collect bottles and cans in New York (where the refund is 5 cents a bottle and can) and plan to drive them to Michigan to collect a 10 cent refund per bottle and can. They joyfully sing “at ten cents a bottle and ten cents a can we’re pulling in $500 a man!!!”

None of these pursuits are what we would call a side-hustle. They are very “one-off” and do not create a consistent stream of income. To my mind, a great modern Seinfeld episode plot would be Kramer offering his services on Fiverr – that would give him odd jobs where hilarity would ensue.

Kramer at His Most FI

The Keys and The Trip (Parts 1 and 2)

In a three episode arc spanning from the end of Season 3 to the beginning of Season 4, Kramer moves to Los Angeles to pursue a Hollywood career. His motivation appears to be two-fold. He’s angry with Jerry over a dispute regarding spare keys, and he is genuinely interested in becoming an actor and producer. Kramer hitch hikes (after his car breaks down) and lives in a rather dilapidated apartment. He certainly isn’t flush with money in California, but he’s willing to sacrifice to pursue his Hollywood dream. Kramer’s is able to follow his dream because he is so financially independent. 

The Voice

In The Voice, Kramer establishes a corporation (Kramerica Industries), hires an intern, and earnestly attempts to invent a bladder system for tankers to prevent oil spills. He and his intern Darren even do some ill-fated research and development on the concept. When the idea fails, Kramer suggests an alternative invention – a bottle that dispenses both ketchup and mustard.

The Strike

Kramer’s back to work!

The Strike, known most for its Festivus angle, is where Kramer is at his most and at his least FI. Kramer receives a call that the strike is over. Apparently, he was an employee of H&H Bagels. Over a decade ago Kramer went on strike for $5.35 an hour. Since the minimum wage recently increased to $5.35 an hour, Kramer ends his strike and goes back to work. It’s the rare occasion where Kramer puts work ahead of his everyday quirky life, and his mindlessly going to work just because they now pay $5.35 an hour strikes me as very un-FI.

Later that episode, Kramer acts in a more FI manner. He strikes when his boss won’t let him take off to celebrate Festivus. Prioritizing Festivus over work is very FI (although obviously it’s much more quirky than it is FI). That said, simply leaving the job, instead of staging a strike and picketing, is the more FI path. Kramer eventually ends his strike, but not because of financial concerns. He caved because he really had to go to the bathroom.

How Did Kramer Achieve His Version of FI

It’s hard to understand why Kramer does not need to have a steady job and yet is quite comfortable. He certainly does not seem to have had a lucrative career, and he’s too young to be a pensioner. One would think the show would have mentioned it if he won the lottery. In The Maestro, Jerry tells Kramer that he’s surprised Kramer is “so litigious.” That quote seemingly rules out Kramer being the beneficiary of a lawsuit judgment or large settlement.

My best guess is that Kramer is the beneficiary of a trust, perhaps established by his father, an aunt or an uncle, or a grandparent. He has access to money, but his difficulty with coming up with money in a pinch in The Diplomat’s Club and The Seven indicates that perhaps he receives income to support himself but does not have access to significant assets. Thus, my best working theory is that Kramer is the beneficiary of a trust or otherwise has access to a stream of income, one that is sufficient but not overly generous. In terms of assets and liabilities, it appears that Kramer probably has a relatively modest amount of assets and little in the way of liabilities. 

Do you agree that Kramer embodies many aspects of FI? Are there other fictional characters that are financially independent?

Photo of Michael Richards by Alan Light

Tax Gain Harvesting

Last week’s post addressed the concept of tax loss harvesting – selling stock or securities (in a taxable account) to create a beneficial tax loss. This post addresses tax gain harvesting – selling stock or securities (in a taxable account) to create a beneficial tax gain.

Beneficial tax gain? How could it be good to create a taxable gain?

Fortunately, not all taxable gains create federal income tax. Below I discuss two scenarios where incurring a taxable gain may not increase a taxpayer’s current tax liability and would have other favorable consequences.

0% Capital Gains Tax

Under current law, some taxpayers pay a 0% federal income tax rate on long-term capital gains. Based on the new tax numbers effective after tax reform, more and more taxpayers will find themselves in relatively low marginal tax brackets.

Single taxpayers with a taxable income of $39,475 or less and married filing joint (“MFJ”) taxpayers with a taxable income of $78,950 are currently (using 2019 numbers) subject to a 0 percent federal long-term capital gains tax rate. Because the calculation is based on taxable income and not adjusted gross income, taxpayers get the benefit of the standard deduction (or itemized deductions, if greater). Thus, single taxpayers with adjusted gross income of $51,675 (including a standard deduction of $12,200) or less and MFJ taxpayers with an adjusted gross income of $103,350 (including the $24,400 standard deduction) or less qualify for the 0% federal capital gains.

This presents a great planning opportunity if the taxpayer has an appreciated security (such as a stock, bond, mutual fund, or ETF). Here is an illustrative example:

Example 1: Joe and Mary file their 2019 tax return MFJ. In 2019 Joe and Mary will together have $81,000 of W-2 wages. They have $1,000 of interest and dividends. They take the standard deduction (which is $24,400 for MFJ in 2019). Thus, their 2019 taxable income is $57,600 ($81,000 plus $1,000 less $24,400). Assume Joe and Mary own 100 shares of Acme Corp., which they purchased five years ago for $10 per share ($1,000 total). Assume further that the stock is worth $11,000 on December 1, 2019. Joe and Mary could sell the stock on December 1st, realize a taxable gain of $10,000 ($11,000 less $1,000 cost basis), thus increasing their taxable income to $67,600.

Since their taxable income is still $78,950 or less, the entire $10,000 capital gain is subject to the 0 percent federal capital gains tax. This result obtains regardless of whether Joe and Mary purchase 100 Acme shares two days later for $11,000. Unlike tax loss harvesting, which is subject to the wash sale rules, there are no wash sale rules as applied to taxable gains.

Why might Joe and Mary sell at a tax-free gain and then repurchase? While they don’t pay tax, they don’t save on their 2019 taxes. However, the sale/repurchase significantly increases their tax basis and decreases the taxable gain they will have on a future sale of Acme stock. There’s no way to know if a future sale of Acme stock will be subject to a 0 percent federal capital gains tax rate. By tax gain harvesting, Joe and Mary have dramatically increased their basis in the Acme stock from $1,000 to $11,000 tax-free. Thus, a future taxable sale will incur much less tax.

If, alternatively, Joe and Mary decide that they want to exit their Acme stock holding (thinking that perhaps its meteoric rise has concluded), tax gain harvesting provides them with a tax-free exit. Tax gain harvesting, if you qualify for a 0 percent capital gains tax rate, provides a way to reallocate your portfolio’s holdings without paying federal capital gains tax on appreciated holdings.

Caveats

Three caveats about tax gain harvesting are worth mentioning. First, the determination of whether your taxable income is low enough to qualify for the 0 percent capital gains rate includes the gain itself. Referencing Joe and Mary, if instead of $81,000 of W-2 wages, they had $100,000 of W-2 wages, their tax gain harvesting opportunity is dramatically decreased. In this case, their taxable income before the gain ($76,700 – computed as $100,000 plus $1,000 less $24,400)) appears to qualify for the 0 percent capital gains rate, once you add the $10,000 gain, the taxable income is $86,600, and the gain no longer qualifies for the 0 percent capital gains tax rate.

Second, the gain causes your “adjusted gross income” and “modified adjusted gross income” to increase, and thus have negative consequences on other preferential tax items, including deductions, credits, and qualifying for certain tax benefits. In some cases it may be worth it to run the numbers through a tax forecasting program and/or consult with a professional advisor before pulling the trigger to help understand the impacts on other parts of your tax picture.

Third, state income taxes must always be considered when tax gain harvesting. There are some states that impose no income tax, and thus there’s no problem. But in most states there is an income tax, and there’s no preferential rate for capital gains. States generally tax capital gains like any other type of income. Thus, there can be a (usually small) state income tax on capital gains triggered through tax gain harvesting.

Depending on the state, the tax rate on the harvested gain might be small enough to make tax gain harvesting still well worth it. In any event, it is always advisable to consider what the state income tax effects of potential tax gain harvesting will be before pulling the trigger.

Offsetting Losses

Another time it may be worth it to tax gain harvest is when you already have incurred a significant taxable loss during the taxable year. Here is an illustrative example:

Example 2: In March 2019, Eileen sold shares of the XYZ Mutual Fund and realized a $13,000 capital loss. She has no other capital gains or losses in 2019. If she does nothing else, she will be able to deduct $3,000 of the loss against her ordinary income and carryforward $10,000 of the capital loss to 2019. If Eileen owns shares in the ABC Mutual Fund with a $10,000 built-in gain, she could sell those shares in December 2019, incur no marginal federal or state income tax, and still claim a $3,000 capital loss on her 2019 federal income tax return.

Eileen is now positioned to realize the benefits of tax gain harvesting. She can either restructure her portfolio in 2019 with no additional tax cost on the ABC Mutual Fund gain, or can repurchase ABC Mutual Fund shares shortly after the sale and increase her basis by $10,000.

It is worthwhile to note that by tax gain harvesting here, Eileen does cost herself in tax in the future, since she won’t have the $10,000 capital loss carryforward to use to offset future capital gains (and up to $3,000 in ordinary income) in 2020 and beyond. Thus, tax gain harvesting to offset current year capital losses involves tradeoffs, and taxpayers considering it are often well advised to run the numbers through a tax forecasting program and/or consult with a professional advisor before pulling the trigger.

Conclusion

Those with appreciated assets in taxable accounts should consider tax gain harvesting. One or both of the following need to be true: the taxpayer is in a relatively low tax bracket or has a capital loss in the current taxable year. If either or both are true, there may be an opportunity to save on future capital gains taxes and/or restructure a portfolio at no or low tax cost. As always, it is best to run the numbers and/or consult with a professional advisor before pulling the trigger.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

Tax Loss Harvesting

If you have individual stocks or other securities that have a loss in them, you may have a tax planning opportunity: tax loss harvesting.

First off, it is important to keep in mind that tax loss harvesting only applies to assets (such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs, etc.) in taxable accounts. It does not apply to assets in retirement accounts and health savings accounts.

If you have assets in taxable accounts that have declined in value relative to your purchase price, you have an opportunity to tax loss harvest. Here’s a basic example:

Example 1: Mark purchased 100 shares of Kramerica stock two years ago for $100 a share ($10,000 total). Based on a disappointing test of an oil-tanker bladder system, Kramerica’s stock is now worth $70 per share. If Mark sells all 100 shares for $70, his total basis in the stock ($10,000) exceeds the amount he realizes on the sale ($7,000) by $3,000.

In Mark’s case, he has a $3,000 capital loss for tax purposes. Capital gains and losses from the sale of property (for most individuals, from securities) are different for tax purposes than other types of income, such as wages, rents, self-employment income, interest, and dividends (collectively, usually referred to as “ordinary income”). Federal income tax law does two things to capital gains and losses. First, it taxes capital gains at a lower tax rate than most other types of income. Second, and most importantly for the purposes of tax loss harvesting, it limits the ability of a capital loss to offset ordinary income.

Capital losses, such as Mark’s loss on Kramerica stock, can offset either capital gains or ordinary income, but only to the extent of $3,000 ($1,500 if the taxpayer files married filing separate) of ordinary income a year.

Thus, tax loss harvesting is a great play in two situations:

  1. A taxpayer has a large capital gain in a taxable year; and,
  2. A taxpayer has ordinary income and can trigger a $3,000 capital loss.

A second example can illustrate the first situation.

Example 2: Lucy sells stock with a historic cost basis of $30,000 for $50,000 in March. Thus, she will have to report a $20,000 capital gain on her tax return. If, however, Lucy has another stock/bond/mutual fund/ETF with a historic cost of $100,000 and a fair market value of $80,000, and she sells it by year-end, she will harvest the $20,000 loss in time to offset the previous $20,000 gain.

Taxpayers with significant capital gains during a year should review their taxable accounts towards year-end to see if there are any opportunities to harvest losses and offset existing capital gains.

For those taxpayers without capital gains, there still can be some opportunity to tax loss harvest.

Example 3: Edward anticipates making approximately $100,000 in 2021 in wages from his employer. If Edward can identify a stock/bond/mutual-fund/ETF with a built-in loss, he can sell the security and reduce his taxable income up to the lesser of the loss or $3,000 in 2021. If Edward owns the XYZ mutual fund with a historic basis of $5,000 and a current value of $2,000, he can sell it before year-end and reduce his taxable ordinary income from approximately $100,000 to approximately $97,000. The capital loss deduction is one taken on the first page of the Form 1040 and is not an “itemized deduction.” Thus, Edward gets the deduction regardless of whether he itemizes his deductions.

Note that Edward is limited in his ability to deduct capital losses in any one taxable year to $3,000. Let’s slightly revise the previous example.

Example 3A: The facts are the same as in Example 3, except the the stock Edward sells has a basis of $10,000. Thus, Edward’s current year capital loss is $8,000 ($10,000 basis less $2,000 sales price) instead of $3,000. However, Edward still can only deduct $3,000 because of the limit on taking capital losses against ordinary income. Thus, Edward’s 2021 taxable income is still approximately $97,000.

Edward can carry forward the excess unused capital loss ($5,000, which is the $8,000 actual loss less the $3,000 used loss) into future tax years. Thus, in 2022, he can offset capital gains and up to $3,000 of ordinary income by the $5,000 capital loss carried forward. If Edward has no capital gains or losses in 2022, he can deduct $3,000 of the $5,000 against his 2022 ordinary income, and then carryforward a $2,000 capital loss into 2023. Edward carries forward the capital loss until it is fully used.

Wash Sales

Tax loss harvesting sounds great, right? But with tax, there’s almost always a catch, and one exists here. The so-called “wash sale” rules.

They are best understood by understanding the concern they address. Say in our first Example Mark sells his 100 shares of Kramerica stock on December 15th to trigger the capital loss. Then on December 16th Mark buys 100 shares of Kramerica stock. Absent the wash sale rules, Mark has had no change in his overall economic position (he still owns 100 shares of Kramerica) yet he’s realized a $3,000 capital loss for tax purposes.

The wash sale rules step in to prevent this sort of gamesmanship. They disallow any loss on the sale of securities when the taxpayer buys the same or similar securities within the period starting 30 days before the loss sale and going through 30 days after the loss sale. The rule applies broadly. It applies to similar securities — for example, selling Vanguard’s S&P 500 index mutual fund at a loss and buying Fidelity’s S&P 500 index mutual fund. It applies to purchases of the same or similar securities by the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, and by entities controlled by the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s spouse. It can also potentially apply to purchases inside retirement accounts. The wash sale rule also bites to the extent of shares purchased through a dividend reinvestment program where the reinvestment occurs within the 61 day window described above.

Conclusion

Tax loss harvesting provides taxpayers a great opportunity to offset capital gains and possibly up to $3,000 of ordinary income. To work effectively for 2021, taxpayers must sell loss securities by December 31st and must be careful to avoid repurchasing the same or similar securities in a manner that triggers the wash sale rules and disallows the capital loss.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

Tax-Efficient Charitable Giving

Introduction

Charitable giving is fantastic! Why not give some of your assets to improve a part of our world? And while you’re at it, why not save a few bucks in income taxes? As is to be expected, this requires some thoughtfulness. For some people, this can drive significant tax savings.

Lay of the Land after Tax Reform

The December 2017 tax reform legislation (often referred to as “tax reform,” the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or “TCJA”) significantly altered the landscape for claiming itemized deductions. For 2017, before tax reform became effective, the standard deduction for single taxpayers was $6,350 and $12,700 for married filing joint (“MFJ”) taxpayers. Thus, in order to claim itemized deductions, the taxpayer’s total itemized deductions (such as mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable contributions) had to exceed these thresholds for the 2017 tax year. Many itemized simply because their state tax withholding alone put them in a position to equal or exceed these thresholds. This matters with respect to charitable contributions because if you don’t itemize, you don’t get any tax benefit for your charitable contributions.

Post tax reform, things are different. First, tax reform significantly increased the standard deduction. In 2018 the standard deduction increased to $12,000 for single taxpayers and $24,000 for MFJ taxpayers. Second, the deductible amount of state and local taxes (including individual income and property taxes) is capped at $10,000 per tax return. Thus, for MFJ filers and who paid $10,000 or more in state and local taxes still need $14,001 more in itemized deductions (mostly mortgage interest and charitable contributions) to itemize.

Thus, many will now find that they will take the standard deduction instead of itemizing. The downside is losing the tax benefits of charitable contributions. However, there are several planning opportunities whereby taxpayers can still reap significant income tax benefits of charitable contributions.

Donor Advised Fund (“DAF”)

Ideal for: People (a) with standard deductions very close to their itemized deduction amount or greater and (b) who makes regular, predictable (weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly) donations to charities or plan to donate to charities in the future.

How it Works and Tax Benefits: A donor establishes a donor advised fund with a financial institution that has established a charitable institution for the purpose of managing donor advised funds. The donor provides assets to the DAF. Then the donor “advises the fund,” meaning that he or she requests that the fund make disbursements to particular charities in particular amounts. While the institution in control of the DAF could, theoretically, reject the request, as a practical matter as long as the requested charity is a valid, properly registered section 501(c)(3) public charity, the DAF will send money to the charity. There is no explicit time requirement for the DAF to disburse its funds, and thus the DAF can make donations to public charities for several years.

The DAF gives the donor a significant tax benefit in today’s high standard deduction environment. The donor receives an upfront tax deduction for the fair market value of the assets contributed to the DAF in the year of the contribution. It is a way for a donor to bring forward, for tax purposes, the charitable deduction for contributions to a charity or charities occurring over several years. For tax purposes, the DAF aggregates several years’ worth of charitable contributions in a single year without a future tax cost, since the donor is covered by the high standard deduction in the later years when the DAF contributes to the charities.  

Example: Jane and Joe Smith attend Mass every Sunday at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church. Every time they attend Mass they put money in the collection basket as a charitable donation. In November 2018 Jane and Joe add up their projected 2018 itemized deductions (mortgage interest, state taxes, and charitable contributions) and project that they are at $24,000, exactly the same as the standard deduction. They anticipate their itemized deductions in 2019 will only be $18,000. If they make a $5,000 contribution to a DAF in early December 2018, their 2018 itemized deductions will increase to $29,000. Going forward until the DAF is exhausted, the DAF will make disbursements to St. Joseph’s instead of the Smiths making the contributions.

The contribution to the DAF provides the Smiths a significant tax benefit in 2018 ($5,000 reduction to taxable income) and will cost them nothing in 2019, since they will take the standard deduction for 2019 regardless. Forgoing 2019 tax deductions (by accelerating them to 2018 through the DAF contribution) did not cost Jane and Joe Smith any additional tax in 2019 and saved them tax in 2018.

If Jane and Joe were initially at $18,000 in 2018 itemized deductions instead of at $24,000, a $5,000 DAF contribution would not have made sense, because the Smiths would not have enough itemized deductions ($23,000) to exceed the standard deduction.  

Another DAF tax benefit for the donor is that income earned by the DAF (i.e., interest, dividends, and capital gains) is not taxable to the donor. That income increases the charitable impact of the original DAF contribution.

Some caveats: First, a transfer to a donor advised fund is an irrevocable transfer. While the donor retains the right to advise the DAF regarding disbursements to charities, the donor cannot reclaim the funds for him or herself. Second, the institution holding the DAF will charge fees against the DAF assets. Finally, institutions usually require a minimum initial contribution in order to form a DAF.

Donation of Appreciated Stock

Ideal for: Charitably inclined people owning appreciated stock, bonds, ETFs, or mutual funds.

How It Works and Tax Benefits: Donations of appreciated securities to an eligible charity allow the donor to deduct the entire FMV of the stock, up to 30% of adjusted gross income (“AGI”). Alternatively the donor can elect to deduct the basis of the stock, up to 60% of AGI. Further, the donor avoids recognizing the capital gain on the securities on his or her tax return. Thus, this strategy has a benefit from an income perspective (avoids recognition of a gain) and a benefit from a deduction perspective (the itemized charitable deduction).

For those looking to get rid of securities that no longer fit their desired investment portfolio, this can be a very tax efficient manner to do so.

Note that built-in loss securities should not be donated to charities. Rather, they should be sold first in order to trigger the capital loss for tax purposes, and then the proceeds should be donated to the charity.

Hyper Donor Advised Fund

Ideal for: Charitably inclined people owning appreciated stock, bonds, ETFs, or mutual funds that make routine charitable contributions or are interested in making future charitable contributions.

How It Works and Tax Benefits: The “hyper donor advised fund” (my pet name for this technique) simply combines the first two planning techniques.

Here is an example: Sammy owns 100 shares of Kramerica Industries. It is worth $50 per share ($5,000 total) and Sammy paid $5 per share ($500 total). Sammy has determined that he will have $11,000 of itemized deductions in 2018 and is likely to have no more than that in 2019 and 2020. Sammy plans to donate approximately $1,000 to his favorite charity, The Human Fund, annually.

Sammy can transfer the appreciated Kramerica stock to a DAF in December, 2018 and claim $16,000 of itemized deductions on his 2018 tax return without lowering his tax deductions in 2019 and 2020. Sammy also avoids recognizing on a tax return the $4,500 ($5,000 less $500 cost basis) gain he has in the Kramerica stock. The DAF can sell the Kramerica stock, invest the proceeds, and make, at Sammy’s recommendation, annual donations to The Human Fund.

Qualified Charitable Distribution (“QCD”)

Ideal for: (a) those 70 ½ or older and (b) those nearing age 70 ½ who cannot yet do a QCD, but should consider future QCDs when doing current tax planning.

How it Works and Tax Benefits: Donors 70 ½ years old and older can contribute up to $100,000 annually to charity directly from their traditional IRA without the amounts contributed being included in taxable income. The main advantage of this strategy is that the taxpayer’s “required minimum distribution” (“RMD”) can be satisfied by the QCD without a taxable income inclusion to the donor. While the donor does not receive a charitable deduction, that is made up for by excluding the amount of the QCD from taxable income. Given the new higher standard deduction, the taxpayer essentially gets the benefit of a charitable deduction without having to itemize.

While the QCD can satisfy the RMD, it does not have to – if a taxpayer has a RMD of $10,000 for the year but wants to make a $20,000 donation from their IRA to a charity, they can do so and the entire $20,000 amount qualifies for QCD treatment.

QCDs also present a planning opportunity for those not yet 70 ½ years old. Many do Roth Conversions (converting traditional IRAs and other traditional accounts to Roth IRAs) prior to age 70 ½ to reduce future RMDs. Doing so creates current taxable income, but lowers the future balance in the traditional IRA or 401(k) such that in the future RMDs are lower. For those charitably inclined, they may want to limit current Roth Conversions designed to mitigate future RMDs, since future QCDs can be used to eliminate the tax impact of RMDs in the future. Thus, charitably inclined individuals in their 60s may want to leave some amounts in traditional IRAs for future charitable donations. Then, when they turn 70 ½ they can make QCDs to avoid RMD taxable income.

It is important to note that to qualify for QCD treatment, the donor must be 70 ½ or older on the date of the distribution. Second, gifts to private foundations and DAFs do not qualify for QCD treatment. Third, inherited IRAs qualify for QCDs as long as the beneficiary inheriting the IRA is 70 ½ or older at the time of the distribution.

Lastly, the charity should never give any token gift of appreciation for the QCD donation because the receipt of anything in return for the donation disqualifies the distribution from favorable QCD tax treatment.

Bunching Contributions

Ideal for: Charitably inclined people with excess cash at year end.

How it Works and Tax Benefits: For taxpayers at or over the standard deduction threshold near year end, it may be advisable to make next year’s planned charitable donations this year to accelerate the tax deduction and take advantage of the next year’s higher standard deduction. Similar to some of the above techniques, the technique picks a year to itemize deduction and then picks a year (or years) to utilize the standard deduction in a manner the optimizes the total tax deductions taken over a period of time.

Charitable Remainder Trust

Ideal for: Wealthy charitably inclined people looking for a large current tax deduction, often in cases where they have a one-time significant income event, such as the sale of a significant asset or business or a very significant bonus.

How it Works and Tax Benefits: Taxpayers can contribute assets to a trust whereby the donor receives the income from the trust assets for a period of time and a designated charity receives the assets of the trust at the end of a period of years. This technique gives the donor a large upfront one-time deduction based on IRS rules.

This is generally not a strategy very applicable in the FI community, but for certain wealthy taxpayers looking for a significant tax deduction and willing to engage the right legal and tax professionals, it can create significant benefits.

Conclusion

Charitable giving illustrates the need to always consider whether there is a tax angle to a transaction. Contributions, if structured in particular way, can provide significant tax benefits while fulfilling their main purpose — the improvement of society and the advancement of the charity’s eleemosynary cause.  

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

Section 199A for Beginners

Introduction

Tax is a crucial consideration for those with small businesses and side hustles. A new tax provision, Section 199A, passed as part of Tax Reform in December 2017, gives many small business owners and side hustlers a deduction determined with respect to their “qualified business income” (or “QBI”).

So what’s going on? Why would you get a tax deduction for a certain type of income? The short answer is that the Section 199A deduction was needed to help level the playing field for small businesses (especially manufacturers) vis-à-vis large corporations. Tax Reform cut taxes for corporations (generally from 35 percent to 21 percent). To keep small businesses, many of which are taxed on individual tax returns at federal rates up to 37 percent, competitive with larger corporations, Congress enacted a partial deduction for qualified business income. The deduction has the effect of lowering the federal income tax rate on that income.

The QBI deduction also applies to so-called Section 199A dividends. Please see the discussion further below regarding Section 199A dividends.

Do I Qualify for the Section 199A Deduction?

The bad news is that, even for a tax rule, Section 199A is incredibly complex. The much better news is that most of that complexity applies to about 10 percent or less of taxpayers. For 90 plus percent of taxpayers, it isn’t too complicated!

To figure out if it is going to be complicated for you, ask yourself one question (all amounts as applicable for 2021):

Is my taxable income $164,900 or less?

If you’re married filing a joint tax return (“MFJ”), change the question to

Is my taxable income $329,800 or less?

For 2020, apply the above questions with $163,300 for single taxpayers and heads of household, and $326,600 for MFJ taxpayers. For 2021, married filing separate taxpayers use $164,925 as their number.

Remember, the key number is taxable income. Taxable income is your adjusted gross income less your standard deduction ($12,550 in 2021 for singles, $18,800 for heads of householder, and $25,100 for MFJ) or your itemized deductions. So if you take the standard deduction, you’re looking at adjusted gross income of $177,450 for singles, $183,725 for heads of household, and $354,900 for MFJ filers. Those are high thresholds for most Americans and for most of those seeking financial independence).

Section 199A Basic Calculation

If you answered Yes to your bolded question, your Section 199A deduction is computed based on a relatively simple (for tax) calculation. Your Section 199A deduction is the lesser of

  1. 20 percent of your taxable income less your “net capital gain” which is generally your capital gains plus your qualified dividend income (“QDI”) or
  2. 20 percent of your QBI.

Here are two examples to illustrate the calculation (all examples avoid discussing self-employment tax for ease of illustration):

Example 1: Phil has $100,000 of W-2 wage income, $1,000 of QDI from mutual funds owned in taxable accounts, makes $10,000 from a trade or business side hustle reported on Schedule C, and claims the standard deduction on his tax return. Phil’s Section 199A deduction is the lesser of

  1. 20% of Phil’s taxable income less net capital gain ($100,000 of wages, plus $1,000 QDI plus $10,000 of QBI less $12,000 standard deduction less $1,000 “net capital gain” – in this case, his QDI – equals $98,000. $98,000 X 20% = $19,600) or
  2. 20% of Phil’s QBI ($10,000 X 20% = $2,000).

Thus, Phil’s Section 199A deduction is $2,000, fully 20 percent of his side hustle income.

Example 2: Mary owns a sole proprietorship engaged in a domestic trade or business which earned $100,000 this year reported on Schedule C. Mary also earned $1,000 of QDI from mutual funds owned in taxable accounts and claims the standard deduction on her tax return. Mary’s Section 199A deduction is the lesser of

  1. 20% of her taxable income less net capital gain ($100,000 of Schedule C income plus $1,000 QDI less $12,000 standard deduction less $1,000 “net capital gain” – in this case, her QDI – equals $88,000. $88,000 X 20% = $17,600) or
  2. 20% of her QBI ($100,000 X 20% = $20,000).

Thus, Mary’s Section 199A deduction is $17,600, 17.6 percent of her sole proprietorship income.

Section 199A is great news for side hustlers and pretty good news for sole proprietors and other owners of flow-through businesses. Why the slight benefit reduction for our sole proprietor? The answer lies in the benefit of the standard deduction (or itemized deductions, if applicable). Since Mary already had the standard deduction protecting some of her QBI from full taxation, the Section 199A deduction was reduced to account for that benefit.

Note that if Mary had another source of income (other than long-term capital gains or qualified dividend income), such as a Roth conversion amount, or a spouse with income, that income would increase her taxable income limitation and she could qualify for up-to the full 20 percent QDI deduction.

What is QBI?

Now that we have the calculation illustrated, we must ask what is “qualified business income” (“QBI”)? Generally, QBI is domestic income from a trade or business (as defined under normal U.S. tax principles) received by a sole proprietor or by an individual from a “flow-through” business (a partnership, LLC, S-corporation, trust, or estate). Some important considerations:

  • QBI does not include wage income (W-2 income).
  • It is important to maintain documentation supporting that the activity is a trade or business.
  • It is important that the activity not be considered a hobby.
  • Rental income from the active conduct of a rental real estate trade or business is QBI. Income from the renting out of buildings where the owner is not engaged in a real estate trade or business is not QBI. Real estate may become a hot-spot for disputes between the IRS and taxpayers.

High Income Taxpayers

What if you answered No to your question? If you have QBI, you’re likely to need the assistance of a qualified tax professional. The rules get complicated quickly. For those with taxable income above $164,900 ($329,800 for MFJ, $164,925 for MFS), their Section 199A deduction is subject to a limitation and possibly a second additional limitation, as follows:

  1. For taxpayers over the taxable income thresholds, all QBI is subject to a limitation on the Section 199A deduction based on W-2 wages paid by the business and the unadjusted asset basis in the business. The more of these attributes, the greater the Section 199A deduction. Note that unadjusted asset basis is generally the acquisition cost of property. It includes tangible property (including buildings) but does not include land.
  2. Income from a specified service trade or business suffers an additional limitation. The Section 199A deduction for such income is phased out for taxable incomes between $164,900 and $214,900 ($329,800 and $429,800 for MFJ filers) (using 2021 numbers).

The preamble to the proposed regulations states that a “specified service trade or business” is (1) any trade or business involving the performance of services in the fields of health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial services, brokerage services, or any trade or business where the principal asset of such trade or business is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees or owners, and (2) any trade or business that involves the performance of services that consist of investing and investment management, trading, or dealing in securities . . . partnership interests, or commodities.”

The general idea behind the specified service trade or business is that Congress wanted to prevent high earning doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc., from benefiting from Section 199A. Congress intended for the benefits to generally go to manufacturers.  Manufacturers will generally find themselves only subject to the first limitation, and many will have buildings and equipment with tax basis and/or will pay significant W-2 wages to employees and thus will not find the limitation to have much effect.

For those subject to these complex limitations, there can be significant benefits from doing planning and restructuring with the assistance of qualified tax advisors to maximize their Section 199A deduction. Such planning can include planning to increase current year tax deductions (through, for example, increased retirement plan contributions) to reduce taxable income below the relevant testing thresholds.

Section 199A Dividends and Income from Publicly Traded Partnerships

Qualified dividends from real estate investment trusts (“REITs”) (Section 199A dividends) and ordinary income from publicly traded partnerships qualify for the Section 199A deduction. There is no need for the taxpayer to be in a trade or business and there are no limitations based on taxable income. In terms of sheer volume, I expect more returns will claim this Section 199A QBI deduction than the QBI deduction for “normal” qualified business income discussed above.

It is important to note that dividends and other income received in tax advantaged accounts (IRAs, 401(k)s, HSAs, other retirement accounts) does not qualify for the Section 199A deduction.

Tax Reporting

Taxpayers report their QBI deduction on either a Form 8995 or a Form 8995-A (for the 2019 tax year and later). Box 5 of Form 1099-DIV (Section 199A dividends) reports the dividends that qualify for the QBI deduction.

Further Reading

I published a more detailed Section 199A post here. It provides more examples of the application of Section 199A.

I published a post discussing the Section 199A QBI deduction and how the concept interacts with small business retirement plans (click here).

I published a post on a potential planning opportunity available to some self-employed individuals to capitalize on the interplay of self-employed income, Roth conversions, and the Section 199A deduction here.


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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

This posting 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.