Tag Archives: IRAs

Bogleheads Taxes and Tax Planning

On Friday, November 13th, I presented Taxes and Tax Planning during the “101” portion of the annual Bogleheads Conference.

Since I consider all the Bogleheads who attend the 101 presentations to have attended good high schools, I’m providing this listing of sources cited in the presentation. Beyond being helpful to attendees, I believe the resources below can teach much about retirement tax planning in the United States.

Soon my presentation will be put up on YouTube.

Here are the relevant sources and additional materials:

Slide 11 Nick Maggiulli finds there’s little difference between traditional and Roth accounts if there is always a 30 percent flat tax rate.

Slide 19 The past decade has featured several tax cuts for retirees. The chart displayed is adopted from Tax Planning To and Through Early Retirement (Garrett and Mullaney), page 239.

Slide 21 I discussed the “mini” arc of lifetime taxes here. The post includes an 11 page PDF file with tax calculations.

Slide 24 Roth Conversions and Sequence of Returns Risk

Slide 24 Tax inefficiencies on RMDs tend to amount to Garbage Time Touchdowns for the IRS. Points late in the game that have no effect on the ultimate outcome.

Slide 24 I discussed the Roth Conversion Windfall Problem here.

Slide 25 Mike Piper from the 2024 Bogleheads Conference on Roth Conversions. At 29:52 he stated that “[Roth conversions] do not usually improve financial security in retirement.”

Slide 25 Dr. Jim Dahle stated at the 2025 Bogleheads Conference that “an RMD is a great thing.”

Slide 25 Sean Mullaney on Tactical Taxable Roth Conversions and RMD tax is not as harmful as feared.

Slide 28 According to this research, in 2024 58 percent of the electorate was aged 50 and older.

Slide 28 Recent research indicates that the average age of primary voters is 57 and the median age of primary voters is 59. See page 12 of the linked-to research.

Slide 29 A found $20 bill to Bill Gates is not the same as a found $20 bill is to a struggling young comedian.

Problems with Annuities

If you listen to personal finance podcasts in Fall of 2026, you know annuities are having their moment in the sun.

I believe that prior to considering an annuity, one must consider seven problems presented by that path.

When assessing annuities, it is valuable to consider them against their lowest cost, least restrictive, and most readily available alternative. That alternative, to my mind, is the index fund.

Below is simply one commentator’s (Sean Mullaney’s) opinion. It is not in any way investment, tax, or legal advice for you or anyone else.

Assets Become Income Very Efficiently

Index funds, whether in a taxable brokerage account, Roth retirement account, or traditional retirement account, become income very efficiently in retirement. Whenever a retiree needs a specific amount of money to fund living expenses, he or she can sell a specific amount of the fund. With index funds, there is rarely much of a “back-end” expense such as a load. Money from an index mutual fund redemption or money from an index fund ETF sale can get into a retiree’s checking account very quickly.

The process tends to be quick, simple, and easy. Retirees control the dates they get the money, the amount received each time, etc. Very efficient and very flexible. In today’s world, expenses of holding index funds are quite small. Lastly, the tax treatment of index funds tends to be favorable when compared to that of annuities, as discussed below.

Compare the all around efficiency of index funds with the friction caused by annuities. Finding and vetting a provider. Annuity fees. An inflexible distribution schedule. Surrender charges on exit.

If index funds become income in retirement efficiently, and annuities have inefficiencies, why partner with an insurance company to help fund retirement?

Why do we fear creating a “paycheck” with index funds when doing so in retirement tends to be taxed less than our W-2 paychecks?

Many Americans Already Have a Large Annuity

Imagine I work for Best Buy. I walk into your living room and notice the 97 inch television mounted on the wall.

The first words out of my mouth are “You know what this living room needs? Another 97 inch big screen TV!”

You would think I was crazy, wouldn’t you?

Those advocating for annuities for many American retirees miss a big issue: most Americans already have a very significant annuity: Social Security!

Affluent Americans can have annual Social Security benefits in excess of $40,000 or $50,000 a year per retiree. That is an annuity from a rather creditworthy creditor, the federal government.

If a married couple has over $80,000 a year coming in from Social Security, why do they need an additional annuity from an insurance company?

Spending Studies Justifying Annuities

Commentators defend annuities by arguing that studies show those with annuities spend more in retirement. For example, listen to Jean Chatzky at around the 12 minute mark of this podcast.

Have you or I validated those studies? I certainly have not, and you most likely have not.

But let’s go with them for a moment. Let’s assume the studies are valid just for the sake of argument.

If you are reading my blog, the odds are high that you are (A) a Boglehead, (B) a member of the FI community, or (C) someone who believes you manage your financial affairs better than the average American does. It is exceedingly odd for those who fall into those categories to guide their behavior based on how others behave. The whole point of being A, B, and/or C is you conduct your financial affairs differently than most people.

The studies are studies of hundreds or thousands of retirees who are not you. Why are you interested in the spending behavior of people who are not you?

Nolan Ryan didn’t decide how to pitch to hitters based on what minor league pitchers did. Why would anyone who perceives themselves to be different from the crowd make investment decisions based on the crowd’s tendencies?

Retirees flocking to annuities based on studies risk making an investment decision based not on their own circumstances but rather based on the behavior of others.

Taxes

The tax treatment of using index funds to fund retirement tends to be favorable. That’s true regardless of whether the index funds are in taxable accounts, Roth retirement accounts, or traditional retirement accounts.

By contrast, annuities create inflexible ordinary income in taxable accounts based on an exclusion ratio calculation. Especially when compared to capital gains income, annuity income from a taxable annuity is quite inefficient and inflexible.

Flexibility

Why should retirees spend in retirement based on an insurance company’s payout schedule?

Legendary New York sports talk radio host Joe Benigno preaches that in professional sports, “the greatest ability is availability.”

In personal finance, the greatest ability is flexability. Please pardon the misspelling 😉

In all seriousness, do we expect our annual spending in retirement to be a flat line? I anticipate in my retirement some years my wife and I will take a 15 day vacation in Wailea, and we might even fly Premium Economy to get there. Other years it will be a short drive up to Santa Barbara for a 5 night stay at a Fairfield Inn by Marriott paid for with Bonvoy points.

Some years in retirement have payments for kids’ weddings, new roofs, and new cars. Other years are less costly and retirees go to a single Dodgers game and a Gary Gulman show.

Why shouldn’t our income be flexible in retirement when our expenses are likely to fluctuate?

Single Party Creditor Risk

Index funds have an advantage over annuities.

Index funds do not require signing up to assume single party creditor risk in retirement.

Buying an annuity makes a retiree the creditor of an insurance company. This paper by Thomas E. Lambert and Christopher B. Tobe explores the downsides of this arrangement.

We hear the term “guaranteed income” when talking about annuities. Is it really guaranteed? There is no Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation when it comes to annuities. Annuities are subject to a patch work of 50 state regulators. Do we think insurance companies run to the states requiring the most in terms of protecting annuitants? Probably not.

You might say “retirees using index funds may be subject to their own single party creditor risk by using broad domestic bond index funds.” Yes, it is true the majority of holdings in domestic bond index funds tends to be debt issued by a single party. However, that single party is not an insurance company. Rather, it is the United States government.

Regardless of one’s views of the United States government, two things are true. First, the government can print its own money. Second, the government can impose taxes. These are two powers making bond default highly unlikely. At a minimum, the United States government can fund its debt repayments in ways insurance companies can only dream of.

Remember Jack Bogle?

The older I get (Pushin’ 50 as of the publication of this blog post), the more I admire Jack Bogle for inventing the retail index fund in the 1970s. Bogle pushed back hard on the industry that made him wealthy.

Jack Bogle was right and they were wrong!

Jack’s idea helped pave the way for millions to successfully retire. Pairing index funds with stable Social Security income set up the perfect “1-2 punch” for millions of Americans to retire.

Why is now the time to abandon or at least limit that approach?

Boiled down, to the extent a retiree chooses an annuity over the lowest-cost, least restrictive, readily available alternative, the index fund, they are choosing an insurance company for retirement over the wisdom Jack Bogle.

That does not strike me as a great trade off.

Conclusion

This post demonstrates why I am so fond of index funds and why I question the use of annuities in funding retirement.

Due to the wisdom of Jack Bogle, we live in the golden age of holding low cost, well diversified investments in retirement. Index funds give us the one free lunch in investing, diversification.

I believe we should think twice (or more) before sacrificing a part of that free lunch in order to work with an insurance company for retirement income planning.

Will some retirees enjoy financial success with annuities? Of course. This post is not gloom-and-doom. Rather, it states my views about annuities and how they compare to index funds in America as of 2026.

Of course, this post is simply my opinion. It is in no way investment, tax, or legal advice for you or anyone else.

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

Follow me on LinkedIn: @SeanWMullaney

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

The Mini Arc of Lifetime Tax Planning

One objective of tax planning is to limit income taxes paid during one’s lifetime. 

To my mind, it is exceedingly difficult to present an entire adult lifetime tax arc in a single projection or spreadsheet. This is for many reasons, including the fact that we don’t know the date of death.

What I think has more analytical validity is looking at a married couple looking to spend the exact same amounts at age 55, age 65, and age 75. From there we can learn lessons about retirement tax planning. 

The example I will use is Mike and Julie, married filing jointly. 

At age 55, they are both W-2 workers funding their living expenses from salary.

At age 65, they are both retired. Mike and Julie fund their living expenses with sales of taxable brokerage account assets and taxable brokerage account dividends.

At age 75, Mike and Julie fund their living expenses with Social Security, traditional IRA distributions, and taxable brokerage account dividends. 

In all three years, Mike and Julie wish to spend $200,000 annually expressed in 2026 dollars. In all three years, they donate $6,000 of the $200,000 to charity. 

We’d expect that Mike and Julie generate income in all three years to fund living expenses and thus pay similar income taxes to fund similar levels of spending.

But that is not what happens, as revealed in this summary table:

ItemAge 55Age 65Age 75
Total Federal Income Tax Paid$43,897$996$26,392
Total Net Investment Income Tax Paid$646$0$0
Total Estimated IRMAA in Two Years$0$0$0
Total Taxes$44,543$996$26,392
Effective Tax Rate15.68%0.64%11.55%
Marginal Income Tax Rate (Next Dollar of Ordinary Income)24%16.8%24.64%

I have posted the entire spreadsheet, including tax calculations, as a PDF available here. 

A Few Observations On Taxes During The Age 55 to Age 75 Mini Arc

One could write a book with commentary on these results. I’ll skip the book and instead share a few observations. 

Workers Are Taxed More Than Retirees

Notice how much the tax laws favor retirees over workers. This is for a variety of reasons. It’s not any one single rule.

Rules that tend to favor retirees over workers include:

  • Senior deduction (for those 65 and older)
  • Additional standard deduction (for those 65 and older)
  • Basis recovery on capital gain transactions
  • 0% long-term capital gains bracket
  • Qualified charitable distributions (QCDs) available starting at age 70 ½
  • Exclusion of 15 percent to 100 percent of Social Security income

It’s odd that some commentators tell us to fear taxes in retirement when for most Americans, retirement is their largest tax cut.

Traditional IRAs Are Not Bad in Retirement

At age 75, Mike and Julie live, in part, on $139,000 of traditional IRA distributions. Many fear a taxable distribution from a traditional IRA of that size.

It turns out the tax burden is rather light. Here is how that $139,000 distribution is taxed.

AmountFederal Income Tax RateFederal Income Tax
$6,0000% (QCD)$0
$70,36512%$8,448
$8,88522%$1,955
$53,75024.64%$13,244
Totals $139,000Average 17.01%$23,647

Mike and Julie deducted traditional 401(k) contributions at a 24% rate during their working careers. With their only mitigation planning being a $6,000 QCD, they wind up with an effective rate of 17% on their traditional IRA distributions.

Why is a large balance in a traditional IRA something to be feared?

Assuming that the $139,000 distribution is their required minimum distribution (RMD), their IRAs are worth approximately $3.4 million. 

That a traditional IRA worth $3.4 million is taxed so lightly is news to most retirees driven to fear of RMDs by personal finance commentary.

I will note that Mike and Julie have a slight inefficiency here. Due to a favorable tax law change, the new senior deduction, Mike and Julie have a 0.64% inefficiency on approximately $54K of the $139K of the traditional IRA distribution. This inefficiency is simply one small tree in the forest of winning against the IRS by deducting 401(k) contributions at work and having the money come back into taxable income in a very tax efficient manner. 

Roth Conversions Can Be Beneficial But are Hardly Necessary

Could Mike and Julie benefit from some Roth conversions at age 65? Sure. But they would pay a 16.8% tax on the first dollar of the Roth conversion to avoid taxes on later RMDs that could be, under current tax rules, 24.64%.

You saw that the RMD is relatively lightly taxed. Could the Roth conversion make sense on a spreadsheet? Yes. Is it necessary? Hardly.

Also, consider this: how is Mike and Julie’s money best spent at age 65? On saving 75 year old, 85 year old, and 95 year old Mike and Julie’s taxes? Or on living in the moment and enjoying some life while both are still alive and there is health and energy to enjoy new experiences?

Is tomorrow guaranteed? Hardly. It’s odd that American personal finance often tells retirees in their 60s to prioritize spending money to avoid IRS Garbage Time Touchdowns later in life instead of prioritizing enjoying what is likely to be the best part of retirement, the early part of retirement. 

Conclusion

When it comes to tax planning, it’s not about projections. It’s about pattern recognition. 

What are the patterns when it comes to taxes in retirement?

Taxes in retirement tend to light. I’ve previously discussed political reasons why that might be (Hint: politicians are likely to keep acting in the politicians’ own best interests). 

Tax planning should never be driven by fear. Rather, it should be driven by recognizing the patterns. The patterns indicate retirees tend to be favored when it comes to their income taxes in retirement. 

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

Follow me on LinkedIn: @SeanWMullaney

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

The Quirky Roth IRA MAGI Rule and In-Plan Roth Conversions

As much as I might not want to admit it, I’m a sucker for complicated tax technical issues. See my writings here and here. 

Recently an odd issue has come up: does income created by an in-plan Roth conversion count as modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligibility to make an annual Roth IRA contribution?

What follows below is simply one practitioner’s views on a somewhat ambiguous technical tax issue. It is not financial, legal, or tax advice for you or anyone else. 

Issue

The ability to make an annual contribution to a Roth IRA is limited or eliminated at certain levels of “modified adjusted gross income” (MAGI). For example, in 2026 those married filing jointly with MAGI of $252,000 or more are unable to make a 2026 contribution to a Roth IRA.

There is an odd rule: Roth IRA conversion income does not count as MAGI for purposes of determining whether a person has income low enough to make an annual contribution to a Roth IRA. See Section 408A(c)(3)(B)(i). 

Why is this rule the rule? It is counterintuitive considering that if a person simply distributes money from a traditional IRA or a traditional 401(k) to themselves, that income is included in MAGI for purposes of determining whether income is low enough to make an annual contribution to a Roth IRA. 

The rule has a purpose, which I wrote about back in 2022. In 1997, when Congress first created Roth IRAs, it had to define MAGI for two purposes. First was the eligibility to make an annual Roth IRA contribution. Second was the eligibility to do a Roth conversion. Back then Roth conversions were limited only to those with MAGI not exceeding $100,000. See page 39 of this file.

Congress chose to create only one MAGI definition for these two purposes. Since that MAGI definition policed Roth conversions, Congress had to avoid creating a circular calculation issue. If MAGI included income created by Roth conversions, Roth conversions could disqualify themselves. 

A person with $90,000 of other AGI doing any Roth conversion over $10,000 would suddenly be ineligible to have done any Roth conversion by going over the $100,000 MAGI limit if Roth conversions were tested against themselves. Thus, Congress excluded Roth conversion income from the definition to avoid the circular calculation issue. 

While entirely rational, that choice had an interesting lingering effect: Roth conversion income does not count when determining MAGI for purposes of determining whether a person can make an annual Roth IRA contribution.

In-Plan Roth Conversions

The Economic and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 first introduced the concept of a Roth 401(k). See Section 402A as originally enacted on page 66 of this file. 

It was not until 2010 that the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 introduced the concept of an “in-plan Roth conversion” i.e., converting an amount in a traditional 401(k) to a Roth 401(k) in a taxable transaction akin to a Roth IRA conversion. See page 63 of this file. 

So the question emerges: If we exclude Roth IRA conversion income from the annual Roth IRA contribution definition, do we also exclude in-plan Roth conversion income from the definition?

Relevant Authorities

Section 408A established the Roth IRA in 1997, first effective in 1998. In that law, Congress defined MAGI for Roth IRA annual contribution eligibility purposes as MAGI as defined by Section 219(g)(3) except that any income created by a taxable Roth IRA conversion is not included in MAGI. See Section 408A(c)(3)(B)(i). 

A Roth IRA conversion is taxable under Section 408A(d)(3)(A)(i). 

In 1999, the IRS and Treasury published final regulations governing Roth IRAs. 

Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-3 Q&A 5 states that: 

[M]odified AGI is the same as adjusted gross income under section 219(g)(3)(A) (used to determine the amount of deductible contributions that can be made to a traditional IRA by an individual who is an active participant in an employer-sponsored retirement plan), except that any conversion is disregarded in determining modified AGI. (emphasis added)

It’s not immediately clear what this regulation means by “conversion.” To determine what “conversion” means as used in Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-3, we need to look to Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-8(b)(2), which defines “conversion” for purposes of the Roth IRA regulations. That definition states:

The term conversion means a transaction satisfying the requirements of § 1.408A-4 A-1.

Now we have to look at Treas. Reg. Section 1.408A-4 Q&A 1. It defines a conversion as a transfer from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. Note that this regulation has never been updated for the 2006 law change allowing Roth IRA conversions from qualified plans such as traditional 401(k)s directly to Roth IRAs. 

Section 402A, enacted in 2001, first created the Roth 401(k). 

In 2006, the Pension Protection Act allowed Roth IRA conversions directly from qualified plans such as traditional 401(k)s. See Section 824 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006. 

Congress enacted Section 402A(c)(4)(A), which allows for taxable in-plan Roth conversions, in 2010.

Notably, nothing in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 changed Section 408A, the statute governing Roth IRAs, including the MAGI limit on the ability to make annual Roth IRA contributions. 

Today, IRS Publication 590-A has Worksheet 2-1, which computes MAGI for Roth IRA annual contribution purposes. Line 2 of that subtracts from “adjusted gross income” any Roth IRA conversion coming from an IRA and any Roth IRA conversion coming from a qualified retirement plan (such as a traditional 401(k). Nothing in that worksheet subtracts in-plan Roth conversion from adjusted gross income. It is important to note that IRS Publications are not authority binding on the IRS and/or taxpayers and cannot be cited as authority.

In-Plan Roth Conversions and the Roth IRA Annual Contribution MAGI Limit

My view is that income created by in-plan Roth conversions should be included in MAGI for purposes of determining whether a person can make an annual Roth IRA contribution.

In 1997, Congress said to use the IRA MAGI definition (Section 219(g)(3)) but kick out income created under Section 408(d)(3), which is Roth IRA conversion income. See Section 408A(c)(3)(B)(i). Income created by an in-plan Roth conversion is not created by Section 408(d)(3) but rather it is created by Section 402A(c)(4)(A). 

In-plan Roth conversion income could not have been kicked out of the 1997 MAGI definition because it did not exist in 1997 to be kicked out of the MAGI definition!

No subsequent development kicks out in-plan Roth conversion income, or any other income, from the Roth IRA MAGI definition. The 1999 final regulations do not do so.Those regulations define the conversion income to be kicked out as income created by a transfer to a Roth IRA. Thus, the 1999 final regulations do not kick in-plan Roth conversion income out of the definition of MAGI for annual Roth IRA eligibility determination purposes.  

In 2010, Congress created a new type of income: in-plan Roth conversion income. That income is part of all AGI and MAGI determinations unless Congress decides to exclude it from MAGI for any particular purpose. If Congress did not want that new type of income to count as MAGI for annual Roth IRA contribution purposes, it could have concurrently amended the Roth IRA statute in 2010. Congress chose not to. 

Further, there is no compelling reason to kick out in-plan Roth conversion income from the definition of MAGI for annual Roth IRA contribution limitation purposes. Remember, there are essentially two reasons Roth IRA conversion income was kicked out in 1997.

First, in 1997 Congress decided to economize when it came to Section 408A MAGI definitions. It could have created two new MAGI definitions (one for testing annual contributions and one for testing Roth IRA conversions) but it took the economical path and simply created a single definition.

Second, Congress did not want to create a circular calculation definition. As applied to Roth IRA conversions, it would be highly problematic to test Roth conversions against themselves.

When we combine these two reasons, we see why Roth IRA conversion income is kicked out of MAGI for purposes of determining Roth IRA annual contribution eligibility. Neither of these two reasons (separate or together) apply when considering whether in-plan Roth conversion income needs to be excluded from MAGI to determine Roth IRA annual contribution eligibility. 

Planning

The in-plan Roth conversion issue rarely comes up when considering annual Roth IRA contribution MAGI. Why?

As I discussed on an episode of the ChooseFI podcast, our working years tend to be a bad time to do taxable Roth conversions! Having a full time job tends to be a great indicator that a taxable Roth conversion is not advantageous. Note that a “backdoor” Roth conversion is entirely distinct from a “taxable Roth conversion” and something I tend to favor if the profile is right and the cash flow is adequate. 

Thus, the issue addressed in this blog should not hit most workers’ planning radar. But I also know that not everyone agrees with me on the advantageousness of taxable Roth conversions during one’s working career. So the issue will arise from time to time.

Conclusion

My view is that in-plan Roth conversion income, unlike Roth IRA conversion income, is not kicked out of MAGI for purposes of determining eligibility to make an annual Roth IRA contribution. Of course, this post is simply one practitioner’s view. It is not advice for you, your situation, or anyone else.

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

Follow me on LinkedIn at @SeanWMullaney

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

The Roth Conversion Windfall Problem

People worry about taxes on traditional retirement accounts. 

During the owner’s lifetime, those worries are largely unfounded. On my YouTube channel I’ve demonstrated that even those with surprisingly large traditional IRAs are likely to pay modest effective tax rates during their own retirements. 

Spreadsheets tell us the chances we will pay high taxes on our own traditional retirement accounts are rather low.

Inherited Traditional IRA Tax Concern

Spreadsheets also tell us that in many, though certainly not all, cases, our heirs are likely to pay a higher tax rate on our retirement accounts than we will. 

Picture an 80 year old retired married couple. In order for a dollar of their required minimum distribution (RMD) to be subject to a 24% federal income tax rate, their taxable income in 2026 would need to be at least $211,401. In order for a dollar of their RMD to be subject to a 32% federal income tax rate, their taxable income would need to be at least $403,551.

In a world with a high standard deduction, an additional standard deduction, a senior deduction, and qualified charitable distributions, these levels of taxable income are relatively uncommon for married retirees. 

During the owner’s life, RMDs go on top of Social Security income and investment income such as interest income. RMD percentages are quite modest. For those 75, the required distribution is only approximately 4.07 percent of the prior year-end account balance. It rises to 4.95 percent at age 80 and 6.25 percent at age 85.

For those inheriting traditional IRAs (beneficiaries), high levels of taxable income are more common. With inherited IRA distributions over the 10 year window on top of W-2 salary and bonuses, it is very possible Junior will pay tax rates on Mom and Dad’s IRAs in excess of the tax rates Mom & Dad paid on their RMDs. 

For the beneficiary, in most years the inherited IRA distribution is likely to be 10 percent or more of the inherited IRA starting balance to smooth out the taxes paid over the 10 year window. 

The Inherited Traditional IRA Concern Remedy

The potential remedy for the inherited IRA concern is easy: Roth conversions during the owners’ lifetimes. 

On a spreadsheet we can easily justify this remedy. Perhaps Mom and Dad would pay a 22 percent marginal statutory federal rate on Roth conversions. Such conversions might reduce their senior deduction, increasing the effective federal income tax on the conversions from 22 percent to 24.64. 

The potential 2.64 percent “surtax” is created by every dollar of Roth conversion reducing the senior deduction by 12 cents on the dollar. Multiplying 12 cents on the dollar by a 22 percent statutory rate gets us to 2.64 percent. 

Imagine Mom and Dad’s adult children all pay a marginal tax rate of 32 percent. Mom and Dad doing Roth conversions at a 24.64 percent effective tax rate would, intergenerationally, save the family 7.36 cents on the dollar in federal income taxes (32 minus 24.64). 

Thus, assuming relatively high income beneficiaries, the spreadsheet says “Yes” when it comes to owner Roth conversions for the beneficiary’s benefit. 

The Windfall Problem with Roth Conversions

Spreadsheets are great. But they should be ignored if following them disregards common sense.

Those using spreadsheets to argue Roth conversions are necessary to avoid higher beneficiary taxes on inherited IRAs argue that retirees not experiencing a financial windfall should pay more in taxes to benefit future beneficiaries experiencing a financial windfall.

Spreadsheets matter in financial planning.

Personal profiles matter much more. 

Financial planning should ask “who benefits?” and, generally speaking, steer benefits to those in the family in most need of them. Adult children beneficiaries enjoying a financial windfall tend to need much less in financial benefits than those not enjoying a financial windfall. 

Retirees funding their living expenses from their IRAs and 401(k)s are living off their own assets. Retirement accounts are not a windfall to them. Rather, those accounts are their deferred career earnings and growth thereon.

Inherited retirement accounts are a financial windfall for beneficiaries. They stack on top of other resources, including W-2 income and the beneficiary’s own accumulated financial wealth. 

Why should someone not enjoying a financial windfall do financial planning for the benefit of someone enjoying a financial windfall?

Why should retirees pay additional taxes for the future benefit of their adult children who will receive a financial windfall?

This is not to say wealthy, elderly parents should not do Roth conversions to benefit their adult children as future retirement account beneficiaries. It is to say Roth conversions for the benefit of adult children who will experience a financial windfall are not necessary. 

I am not opposed to some wealthy retirees making a value judgment that intergenerational tax arbitrage is desirable. For those making such a value judgment who can afford to pay the taxes, great, do Roth conversions for the benefit of the next generation.

But to say such planning is necessary ignores the reality that Roth conversions done for the benefit of the next generation require sacrifice by those not enjoying a financial windfall for the benefit of those who will enjoy a financial windfall. 

Extra Note: You might be asking, “But Sean, what about my ne’er-do-well adult child? Shouldn’t I do Roth conversions for their benefit? They will need my retirement account.” The odds are very good that the ne’er-do-well beneficiary would pay a low tax on the retirement account, since they have little other income. A parent’s Roth conversion might hurt the beneficiary by increasing rather than decreasing the effective tax rate on the parent’s retirement account and reducing the amount of taxable assets the ne’er-do-well beneficiary inherits, since some of the parents’ taxable assets are used to pay the income taxes on what might ultimately be inefficient Roth conversions from an intergenerational perspective. 

Conclusion

Those arguing Roth conversions to reduce taxes on inherited traditional retirement accounts are desirable ignore the Roth conversion windfall problem. It is illogical to say that those not enjoying a financial windfall need to pay more tax for the benefit of those enjoying a financial windfall. 

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

Follow me on LinkedIn at @SeanWMullaney

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

Can You Find the Hidden Roth IRA?

Perhaps you have a Hidden Roth IRA.

You might be thinking “No way. I did not lose track of a Roth IRA!”

The Hidden Roth IRA is not a lost retirement account. 

Rather, the Hidden Roth IRA is a Roth IRA that hides inside traditional IRAs and traditional 401(k)s. 

How can a Roth IRA hide in a traditional retirement account? It turns out tax free distributions (essentially, a Roth IRA) from traditional retirement accounts occur more often than you would think.

This article searches for Hidden Roth IRAs. You’ll be surprised how often retirees can benefit from the Hidden Roth IRA.

The Standard Deduction and the Hidden Roth IRA

We live in an era of a rapidly growing standard deduction. 

The standard deduction is to the Hidden Roth IRA what the flux capacitor is to time travel. 

The standard deduction makes the Hidden Roth IRA possible!

Increasing the standard deduction, as the One Big Beautiful Bill did, greatly expanded the Hidden Roth IRA. 

It gets even better. Through 2028, the senior deduction expands the Hidden Roth IRA for many age 65 and older. The new nonitemizers’ charitable deduction effectively increases the standard deduction by $1,000 per person for Americans with some charitable inclinations. 

Senator Cory Booker has recently proposed a significant increase in the standard deduction which would help many retirees enjoy the benefits of the Hidden Roth IRA.

Golden Years Hidden Roth IRAs

The “prime time” of the Hidden Roth IRA is one’s mid-to-late 60s, particularly the 66th through 69th birthday years.

In today’s environment, a married couple in their mid-to-late 60s could take more than $45,000 annually from traditional IRAs and have the “taxable” income fully offset by the available standard deduction, additional standard deduction, senior deduction, and potentially the nonitemizers’ charitable deduction. 

During the Golden Years, there are no required minimum distributions (RMDs). There’s no Premium Tax Credit on the table, so controlling income for PTC optimization is not a consideration. Further, Social Security can be delayed until age 70, resulting in increased annual payments, potentially reducing volatility in one’s 70s and 80s. 

Yes, the Golden Years Hidden Roth IRA mostly or fully goes away once the couple claims Social Security. Social Security benefits are ordinary income that soak up the standard deduction and senior deduction, reducing or fully eliminating their ability to shield traditional IRA/401(k) distributions from federal income taxation. Nevertheless, for multiple years of one’s retirement well into five figures can come out of traditional IRAs as a tax free Hidden Roth IRA. 

The Golden Years Hidden Roth IRA is the best Hidden Roth IRA, in my opinion. But it’s not the only Hidden Roth IRA. 

72(t) Payment Plans and the Hidden Roth IRA

Some retirees will get a jump start on the Hidden Roth IRA. Early retirees starting a 72(t) payment plan naturally tend to get the benefit of the Hidden Roth IRA.

Prior to the One Big Beautiful Bill, I did a YouTube video about this concept using the then-current 2025 numbers. Even prior to the OBBB expansion of the standard deduction, a married couple on a 72(t) payment plan could have more than $25,000 a year in a Hidden Roth IRA.

72(t) payment planning naturally marries with the Hidden Roth IRA. In most cases, I strongly favor mostly or fully spending down taxable account assets prior to initiating a 72(t) payment plan. Having spent down the taxable assets, it’s difficult for early retirees to incur significant income other than the 72(t) payment itself. 

This naturally clears the path for the 72(t) payment to enjoy the benefit of the Hidden Roth IRA. Those benefits can last for the better part of two decades in an extreme case such as the one posited in this YouTube video. 

Married Couples Taking RMDs

In today’s environment, many taking RMDs will enjoy the Hidden Roth IRA. Why?

Most 70-something and 80-something’s main sources of income are Social Security and retirement account distributions. 

Let’s consider average and median wealth and income statistics. The average monthly Social Security benefit, as of January 2026, is $2,071. Multiply that by 12 months and 2 spouses and you get $49,704 in Social Security per year. 

Median retirement account balances for those 75 and older as of 2022 was just $130,000.

Let’s round up those numbers for an 80 year old couple, Sal and Sophia. Assume $70,000 in total Social Security, $2,000 of interest from an online savings account, and $24,752 in RMDs from $500,000 in traditional IRAs. That’s a retired couple well above Social Security average benefits and median retirement account balances. 

Does this above-the-median married couple enjoy the benefits of the Hidden Roth IRA while taking RMDs?

You betcha!

How much? 

Of that $24,752 RMD, $24,410 is a Hidden Roth IRA!

This YouTube video demonstrates how Sal and Sophia, with a half million traditional IRA, can have all or almost all of their RMD be tax free. That demonstrates the power of the Hidden Roth IRA. 

I’ve found that it’s possible that a married couple taking RMDs on a $1 million traditional IRA could enjoy the benefit of a Hidden Roth IRA to a small degree in 2026. See this YouTube video for some numbers. 

The Hidden Roth IRA is a real phenomenon for many Americans taking RMDs. Based on the Social Security and retirement account statistics, it is very possible the majority of married couples taking RMDs can benefit from the Hidden Roth IRA.

Singles and Widows Taking RMDs

The benefits of the Hidden Roth IRA are not reserved only for married retirees. Singles and widows can also benefit. This is true even for many single/widowed retirees with above average Social Security income and above median retirement account balances.

On my YouTube channel I discussed an 80 year old single person with a half million traditional IRA and $40,000 of annual Social Security income. She enjoyed the benefit of an $8,660 Hidden Roth IRA. 

Yes, singles and widows tend to enjoy much less when it comes to the Hidden Roth IRA. But even those widows with above average Social Security and above median retirement account balances can enjoy a degree of Hidden Roth IRA benefits.

Inherited Traditional IRAs and the Hidden Roth IRA

One thing people fear is the taxes on inherited IRAs. The 10 year payout rule is viewed as a detriment to leaving heirs traditional IRAs. At first blush, taxing a large traditional IRA within 10 years seems to create a huge tax problem.

But will it really be a problem?

Consider many inheritors of large traditional IRAs. They themselves might already be retired or might decide to retire because of the large inheritance.

I ran through one such scenario on my YouTube channel. It may be the case that even a $2 million inherited traditional IRA could enjoy significant Hidden Roth IRA benefits for some or all of the 10 year payout window.

Implications of the Hidden Roth IRA

The Hidden Roth IRA has several important implications for financial planning. 

All of the below tactics and considerations are offered as educational insights. They are not offered as advice for you or any other individual’s situation. There are times when retirees would wisely want to avoid the below tactics. 

But, if all else is equal, in a general sense the Hidden Roth IRA makes the below tactics more appealing. 

Spend Down Taxable Accounts First

The first is that spending down taxable accounts first in retirement is very attractive, particularly for the early retiree. Part of the reason the Hidden Roth IRA can be so significant is the lack of other income hitting one’s annual tax return. 

Spending down taxable assets first has several advantages, including potentially setting up years of enjoying the Hidden Roth IRA later in retirement. 

Limit Ordinary Income in Retirement

A second implication is it is desirable to limit ordinary income hitting tax returns in retirement. There are various ways to achieve this. For example, holding bonds in traditional retirement accounts takes bond interest income off our tax returns. Consideration should be given to rolling pensions into IRAs to reduce annual ordinary income payouts earlier in retirement. 

Delay Social Security

Delaying claiming Social Security increases future monthly benefits. It also keeps Social Security income off one’s tax returns in their 60s, increasing the runway available to the Hidden Roth IRA.

RMDs are Not Harmful for Many Retirees

Consider Sal and Sophia. They are required to take a $24,752 RMD, almost all of which is tax free. A forced tax free distribution in one’s 70s or 80s is not harmful. Many Americans will enjoy the benefit of the Hidden Roth IRA on a portion of their RMDs. 

Yes, many affluent retirees taking RMDs will not get the benefit of the Hidden Roth IRA. Even for them, RMDs tend not to be all that harmful. 

Why would a couple like Sal and Sophia ever do a Roth conversion if most, if not all, of their RMDs while they are both alive benefit from the Hidden Roth IRA? 

Resource

I’m aware of only one book that discusses the phenomenon of the Hidden Roth IRA. In Tax Planning To and Through Early Retirement, Cody Garrett and I discuss the Hidden Roth IRA in the context of drawdown planning. 

Conclusion

Do you like Roths? If so, one of the best ways to have a Roth is to contribute to a traditional 401(k) at work. In retirement, some of that account may be distributed tax free as a Hidden Roth IRA. 

Many Americans will enjoy the benefit of the Hidden Roth IRA. The Hidden Roth IRA hides inside “taxable” traditional retirement accounts such as IRAs and 401(k)s. 

Planning such as spending taxable accounts first in retirement and reducing ordinary income hitting one’s tax return can increase the benefits of the Hidden Roth IRA.

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

Follow me on LinkedIn: @SeanWMullaney

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. 

Roth 401(k) vs Roth IRA

Many ask the question: should I contribute to a Roth 401(k) or contribute to a Roth IRA? Below I discuss why, in the vast majority of cases, I strongly favor Roth IRA contributions over Roth 401(k) contributions. 

Roth Accounts

Who does not love tax free accounts? The Roth, properly distributed, can create tax free income.

The Roth is becoming particularly attractive for the early retiree trying to optimize Premium Tax Credits. Yes, you can potentially fund pre-65 retirement expenses from traditional retirement accounts or sales of taxable account assets. But (with uncommon exceptions) both trigger taxable income, increasing the possibility of going over the 400 percent of federal poverty level cliff. 

Roth IRAs

Roth IRAs are an individual account and can be established at a plethora of financial institutions. Most working taxpayers qualify to make annual contributions to a Roth IRA. However, the ability to make an annual contribution to a Roth IRA phases out at certain income levels and is completely eliminated at $168,000 (single) or $252,000 (married filing joint) of modified adjusted gross income (2026 numbers). 

The maximum annual contribution to a Roth IRA is $7,500 (if under age 50) or $8,600 (if age 50 or older) (2026 numbers). 

Annual contributions can be withdrawn from the Roth IRA at any time for any reason tax and penalty free. Thus, Roth IRAs can perform double duty as both a retirement savings vehicle and as an emergency fund. This is an advantage of Roth IRAs over Roth 401(k)s. 

Of course, considering their tax free growth, it is usually best to keep amounts in a Roth IRA for as long as possible, particularly during one’s working years. 

Roth 401(k)s

Roth 401(k)s are a workplace retirement plan. Contributions can be made through payroll withholding. 

The Roth 401(k) does enjoy some advantages when compared to its Roth IRA cousin. First, there is no income limit to worry about. Regardless of income level, an employee can contribute to a Roth 401(k). Second, the contribution limits are much higher than the contribution limits for Roth IRAs. As of 2026, the annual Roth 401(k) contribution limit is $24,500 (under age 50). Those aged 50 and older by year end qualify for additional catch-up contributions. 

The Roth 401(k) is not a good account for emergency withdrawals. Withdrawals occurring prior to both the account holder turning 59 ½ years old and the account turning 5 years old generally pull out a mixture of previous contributions and taxable earnings.

Roth 401(k) vs Roth IRA

So which one should workers prioritize? Contributions to a Roth 401(k) or contributions to a Roth IRA?

To help us answer that question, let’s consider a young couple pursuing financial independence:

Stephen and Becky are both age 35, married (to each other), and pursuing financial independence. They both would like to retire at least somewhat early by conventional standards. They each have a W-2 salary of $110,000. They have approximately $2,000 of annual interest and dividend income. They claim the standard deduction of $32,200 in 2026. At this level of income, they have a 22 percent marginal federal income tax rate. Stephen and Becky each have access to a traditional 401(k) and a Roth 401(k) at work. They would like to maximize their retirement plan contributions. 

How should Stephen and Becky allocate their retirement plan contributions? Should they contribute to a Roth 401(k) and/or to a Roth IRA?

To my mind, the best play here is to contribute to a Roth IRA ($7,500 each) and contribute to a traditional 401(k) ($24,500 each). Stephen and Becky should not contribute to a Roth 401(k). 

There is a significant tax opportunity cost to making a Roth 401(k) contribution: the ability to deduct a traditional contribution to a 401(k). Remember, the Roth 401(k) shares the $24,500 annual contribution limit with the traditional 401(k). Every dollar contributed to a Roth 401(k) is a dollar that cannot be contributed to a traditional 401(k). 

Contrast the significant tax opportunity cost of making a Roth 401(k) contribution to the tax opportunity cost of making a Roth IRA contribution: practically nothing. 

Stephen and Becky have no ability to deduct a traditional IRA contribution because of their income level and the fact that they are covered by a workplace retirement plan. Thus, they aren’t losing much, from a tax perspective, by each making a $7,500 annual Roth IRA contribution. 

For Stephen and Becky, the idea is to Pay Tax When You Pay Less Tax. As I’ve explored on my YouTube channel, it’s frequently the case that retirees are lightly taxed. The odds are that Stephen and Becky will pay the most tax when they are working. Thus, the better path is likely to be to take the tax deduction (the traditional 401(k) contribution) during their working years and then pay tax on traditional retirement accounts in retirement.  

Trade Off Profile

The trade off profile of the traditional 401(k) versus Roth 401(k) tilts towards the traditional 401(k) contribution.

Every dollar contributed to a Roth 401(k) is a dollar that could not have been tax deducted into a traditional 401(k).

The opposite is true when it comes to IRAs. Every dollar contributed to a Roth IRA is not a dollar that could have been deducted into a traditional IRA in many cases due to the relatively low income limits many face on the ability to deduct a traditional IRA contribution.

If I’m going to do Roth, don’t I want to do the Roth that does not sacrifice a tax deduction? 

Situations Where the Roth 401(k) Contributions Make Sense

Generally there are four situations where choosing to contribute to a Roth 401(k) makes sense. In these situations, the tax rate arbitrage play available to Stephen and Becky isn’t available. 

In the first three situations below, a Roth 401(k) contribution is likely preferable to a traditional 401(k) contribution. As compared to a Roth IRA contribution, (a) the first contributions should generally be to the Roth 401(k) to secure the employer match, and then after that, (b) generally both the Roth 401(k) and the Roth IRA work well. To my mind, the emergency-type fund feature of the Roth IRA is probably the tiebreaker in favor of making the next contributions to a Roth IRA.

Transition Years

Think about a year one graduates college, graduate school, law school, or medical school. Usually, the person works for only the last half or last quarter of the year. Thus, they have an artificially low taxable income (since they only work for a small portion of the year). Why take a tax deduction for a contribution to a traditional 401(k) in such a year, when one’s marginal federal income tax rate might only be 10 percent?

End of career wind downs where one reduces workload, and thus, taxable income, can be a great time to switch to the Roth 401(k) for retirement contributions. 

Transition years are a great time to make Roth 401(k) contributions instead of traditional 401(k) contributions. 

Mini-Retirements

Taking a year-long mini-retirement beginning February 1st? January 401(k) contributions might be best made to the Roth 401(k) instead of the traditional 401(k).

No Hope

Picture a charismatic franchise NFL quarterback. He’s got a $50M plus annual NFL contact, endorsement deals, business ventures, and likely a long TV career after his playing days are done. For him, there is no hope ( 😉 ). He will probably be in the top federal income tax bracket the rest of his life. He might be well advised to “lock-in” today’s low (by historical standards) 37% federal income tax marginal tax rate by choosing to contribute to a Roth 401(k) instead of to a traditional 401(k).

High Earners’ Catch-Up Contributions

This isn’t a question of “traditional versus Roth” preference. It’s a question of the tax law.

Starting in 2026, those making more than $150,000 in prior-year W-2 wages from an employer cannot make catch-up contributions to a traditional 401(k). Their catch-up contributions must be made to the Roth 401(k). 

Sure, this rule takes away a valuable tax deduction. But having Roth money going into retirement is not a bad thing. Those high earners with cash flow sufficient to make Roth catch-up contributions should consider doing so. 

Additional Resource

Cody Garrett and I did a deep dive on all things retirement planning, including Roth retirement accounts, in Tax Planning To and Through Early Retirement, available on Amazon and many other online sources. 

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

Follow me on LinkedIn: @SeanWMullaney

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. 

California Umbrella Insurance

Live in California? Do you wonder “how much personal liability umbrella insurance should I have?”

In this article, I cover the basics of personal liability umbrella insurance and then discuss five principles I believe to be most relevant in deciding how much personal liability umbrella insurance California residents should have. 

Insurance for Personal Liabilities 

Living our lives generates the possibility of liabilities to others. Accidents happen. It’s part of the human experience.

Most Californians have two primary insurances to guard against personal liability to others.

The first is homeowners insurance. For those who rent, this is renter’s insurance. This insurance can cover things like slip-and-fall accidents inside one’s home or one’s stoop.

The second is auto insurance, specifically liability insurance to third parties. 

Often homeowners and auto insurance have limits on the amount of liabilities it will pay to third parties. These could be $300,000 or $500,000 per accident, for example.

In today’s environment, particularly in California, it is very possible that our liabilities to third parties through auto accidents or in-home accidents can exceed these liability caps. Thus, many can and should obtain additional insurance coverage in the form of personal liability umbrella insurance, often referred to as “umbrella insurance.”

Personal Liability Umbrella Insurance

An umbrella policy sits on top of, not “instead of” or “in addition to” primary insurance. Umbrella insurance is generally secondary coverage.

Here is an example of how that works in practice. Oscar has a car and has a $500,000 auto insurance liability policy. Further, Oscar has a $2 million personal liability umbrella policy. Dollars $1 through $500,000 of Oscar’s potential auto liability to third parties would be paid out by the auto policy. Dollars $500,001 through $2 million of liability would be paid out by the umbrella policy

It is not the case that Oscar now has $2.5 million worth of auto liability coverage. Oscar’s $2 million umbrella is not added to his primary auto insurance coverage. Rather, the umbrella fills in coverage up to its limit, in this case $2 million. 

You can see that with respect to Oscar, the most likely insurance to pay out is his auto insurance. Say Oscar rear-ends another car and causes $25,000 worth of damage. His auto insurance policy would pay out $25,000 and his umbrella policy would pay $0.

Since umbrella insurance is generally a secondary policy, it tends to be somewhat affordable. That said, in California my experience has been that even umbrella insurance premiums are rising fast as of 2026. 

Oftentimes it is logical to bundle home, auto, and umbrella. Carriers often give discounts when consumers bundle. 

Umbrella carriers generally require minimum levels for home and auto protection. They don’t want consumers using an umbrella policy as a backdoor home and/or auto policy, so it is quite common for an umbrella carrier to require certain minimum coverage amounts with respect to home and auto policies. 

Umbrella insurance is generally offered in million dollar increments. In most cases, insurance companies will issue up to $5 million of umbrella insurance as long as the insured (a) has sufficient minimum home and auto coverage and (b) can write the check. Beyond $5 million generally requires additional underwriting. 

Protected Assets and Umbrella Insurance

In theory, if all of one’s wealth was in protected assets in certain states, there’s not much need for any umbrella coverage. The person could be sued, but if every significant asset was protected, at least in theory there would be little to nothing to collect in litigation. 

Depending on the state, creditor protected assets often include 401(k) and other ERISA protected retirement accounts. States also offer varying degrees of protection for one’s primary residence. In Florida, the entirety of one’s primary residence value is a protected asset. 

Retirement account protection depends on both federal and state law.

IRAs have been subject to relatively weak California law creditor protection, though they do qualify for decent federal protection in bankruptcy. A relatively new California law, AB 2837, has placed distributions from 401(k)s and other ERISA protected accounts at some risk. It remains to be seen how courts implement new AB 2837.

Ultimately, the amount of retirement account wealth that will be protected in litigation in California is subjective and dependent on all the facts and circumstances, including whether bankruptcy has been declared. Limited retirement account protection is a risk of living in California. 

The amounts protected by California’s homestead exemption vary by county and may not fully cover the value of one’s primary residence. 

For Californians, residents of what is generally perceived as a litigious state, the question arises, how much umbrella insurance coverage should I have?

California Umbrella Insurance Principles

I don’t have the silver bullet formula for exactly how much personal liability umbrella insurance you or anyone else should have.

But I have some principles that I believe can be helpful in making that determination. Of course, these five principles are not the only potential considerations one has when determining umbrella insurance coverage level. But I do believe they can be helpful for many Californians.

The Most Important Million is the First Million

In my opinion, the most important million in umbrella coverage is the first million. 

Why?

First, a $1 million personal liability umbrella insurance policy covers a significant swath of the liability probability curve. 

Generally speaking, the liability probability curve is at its highest at lower levels of monetary liability and slopes down. The greater the amount of monetary liability, the lower the likelihood of incurring it.

Further, consider the practicalities of settlements, as discussed in the second principle. The potential to settle a liability claim at $1 million is very valuable. 

Second, it is helpful to have a deep pocket in one’s corner if one has a liability event. The umbrella insurance company is on the hook for a significant amount of money if the insured has a liability event (such as a car accident) and thus has incentive to work through their legal team to limit the ultimate settlement amount. Obviously this is beneficial to the insured.

I look at umbrella insurance coverage level like an elementary school spelling test. When I went to Catholic elementary school, in second grade we had 20 word spelling tests on Friday mornings. Each word was worth 5 points.

For many Californians, having no personal liability umbrella insurance is like getting a 0 on the spelling test, while having $1 million of personal liability umbrella insurance is like getting a 100 on the spelling test. 

For some more well-to-do Californians, the $1 million umbrella policy is like getting an 80, 85 or 90 on the spelling test. Increasing umbrella coverage to $2 million, $3 million, $4 million, or $5 million (depending on the circumstances) would get these well-to-do Californians to a 100 score on the test. 

Consider Potential Exposure

Perhaps the most important question to ask is “how much could someone sue me for?”

In this regard, Dr. Jim Dahle, known online as The White Coat Investor, makes a very helpful assertion: most people are very willing to walk away for a $1 million settlement. Thus, Dr. Dahle argues that for most people a $1 million personal liability umbrella insurance policy can be sufficient. 

For this reason I believe even the extremely wealthy rarely need more than $5 million worth of personal liability umbrella insurance, even in a litigious state like California. 

One can never precisely predict the ultimate outcome of a future dispute. But settlement practicalities, including both sides’ desire to avoid a lengthy and costly legal process, do help define, to a certain degree, potential exposure.

Consider Unprotected Assets

I believe Californians should look at things like taxable accounts, HSAs, high housing values, rental real estate, etc. and consider protecting them with umbrella insurance. As discussed above, the extent to which retirement accounts are protected will depend on various facts and circumstances, including but not limited to whether bankruptcy has been declared. 

The extent to which Californians should protect retirement accounts with umbrella insurance is highly subjective and should be considered, in today’s environment, very much in conjunction with the other principles mentioned here. 

If In Doubt, Round Up in California

California is a challenging environment when it comes to cost of living, asset protection, litigation, and the like. No one precisely knows exactly how much personal liability umbrella insurance is optimal. Why not round up, not down, on umbrella insurance coverage level if in any doubt?

Frequently Revisit Umbrella Insurance Coverage Levels

I believe Californians should frequently revisit coverage levels. People’s circumstances change. California law changes. The frequently evolving landscape both legally and personally strongly suggests Californians should frequently revisit umbrella insurance coverage levels.

Consider Driving Less

Risk mitigation is certainly not limited to personal liability umbrella insurance. 

What’s the highest risk personal activity most Californians engage in? It’s easily driving. 

Living in California usually requires time behind the wheel. But is every last mile behind the wheel necessary?

A personal anecdote: This Fall I am speaking at and attending a three day financial planner conference in San Diego. My original plan was to drive down from Los Angeles. The problem with that plan is it required 150 miles each way fighting Southern California traffic. That’s 300 miles for me to get into an accident, only to have my car sit in a hotel garage for three days incurring parking fees.

So I chose a different path: I’m taking the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner to and from the conference. I even upgraded (for just $20 each way) to Business Class. Instead of fighting traffic and risking an accident, I’m relaxing in Business Class drinking free coffee, catching up on work and/or listening to the Hindley Street Country Club. 

Consideration should be given to taking an Uber or Lyft to the airport instead of driving and parking there. There are marginal tactics like these available that can reduce the miles we drive. 

Conclusion

Asset protection is a significant financial planning consideration in California. Personal liability umbrella insurance is one of the best available tools to provide financial protection in the event of an accident. Californians often benefit from having personal liability umbrella insurance. There’s no precise science for determining exactly how much coverage to have. But I hope the five principles I provided in this article are helpful as Californians consider the appropriate level of coverage they should have. 

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

Follow me on LinkedIn: @SeanWMullaney

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.

Five Phases of Retirement: Sean’s Presentation at the 2025 Bogleheads Conference

I presented Tax Planning for the Five Phases of Retirement at the October 2025 Bogleheads Conference in San Antonio, Texas.

Highlights of the presentation include, but are not limited to, the following:

Tailored Taxable Roth Conversions (TTRCs) 7:48

The Hidden Roth IRA 13:20

Might Half Your Income Be Tax Free in Retirement? 19:43

7 Ways to Mitigate RMDs 25:09

The Widow’s Tax Trap 28:43

The Real Job of a Retirement Account 33:20

Airplane! and Tax Planning 42:38

HSA PUQME Planning 47:57

I hope you enjoy it!

If you like this sort of analysis, there’s a whole bunch more in the book Tax Planning To and Through Early Retirement, which Cody Garrett, CFP(R) and I wrote in 2025.

Please let me know what you think about the presentation in the comments.

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

Follow me on LinkedIn: @SeanWMullaney

This post and the presentation (including Q&A) in the YouTube video 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.

IRA Basis Isolation Revisited

Basis in IRAs is a funny thing. It necessitates the Pro-Rata Rule, one of the least understood tax rules affecting financial planning. IRA basis creates all sorts of confusion, making traditional IRAs less user friendly. 

Further, the value of basis in a traditional IRA is whittled away by inflation. Basis is generally the undistributed prior after-tax (or nondeductible) contributions in the IRA. Since basis might be distributed or converted years, perhaps decades, after the contribution, and is not increased for inflation, its value diminishes the longer it exists. 

Thus, basis isolation techniques gain attention. The idea is to use the basis in an advantageous way to (1) harvest it prior to its value being eroded away by inflation and (2) move basis amounts into Roth IRAs relatively tax free. 

Basis Isolation Techniques

The most basic basis isolation technique is a properly done Backdoor Roth IRA. IRA basis is created and quickly used to move money into Roth IRAs. The basis is fully used before inflation can erode its value.

The Backdoor Roth IRA is a simple tactic that, employed over many years, can be tremendously beneficial. It has very little downside risk and is relatively simple to implement. 

Another basis isolation tactic is the qualified charitable distribution (“QCD”). This one is even easier than the Backdoor Roth IRA. QCDs do not take IRA basis when transferred to a charity. Thus, distributions the taxpayer receives and/or Roth conversions attract more of the available IRA basis to reduce the taxable amount. A small IRA basis benefit, but still helpful. 

What about situations where someone has (1) significant basis in an IRA and (2) significant pretax amounts in an IRA? Now we have complexity, risk, and opportunity. The tactic I wrote about which could be useful in this situation is the Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA.

The Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA does the following:

  1. Cleans up IRA basis and uses it before inflation reduces its value. 
  2. Creates a Roth IRA the owner can use for tax free withdrawals in retirement. 
  3. Reduces future required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) by reducing the size of a traditional IRA. 

I believe advisors and IRA owners need to proceed with caution when it comes to the Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA. What initially looks incredibly attractive may turn out to be an unattractive planning technique.

Note that some 401(k) and other qualified plans do not accept roll-ins of IRAs. Some other plans only accept roll-ins of a certain type of IRA, a “conduit IRA.” A conduit IRA is an IRA comprised only of old 401(k)s, 403(b)s, governmental 457s, and other qualified plans and the growth thereon. Thus, plans requiring that the rolled-in IRA be a conduit IRA cannot be used to facilitate isolation of IRA basis created by old nondeductible traditional IRA annual contributions, since the growth on nondeductible traditional IRA contributions is not eligible to be moved over to such plans. 

Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA Examples

To analyze whether employing a sophisticated IRA basis isolation technique is advisable, I’m going to present two examples. These examples will illustrate when I favor and when I disfavor using the Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA. 

Example 1: Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA into a Large Employer 401(k)

April, age 48 in 2026, works for Apple Inc. She is a participant in their 401(k) plan. In 2022 through 2026 her adjusted gross income was such that she qualified for neither a deductible annual contribution to a traditional IRA nor an annual contribution to a Roth IRA. In 2022 she contributed $6,000 to a traditional IRA. In 2023 she contributed $6,500 to a traditional IRA. In 2024 she contributed $7,000 to a traditional IRA.

All of these contributions were nondeductible. In 2025 April learned about the Backdoor Roth IRA and the Pro-Rata Rule. Thus, she did not make any contributions to a traditional IRA for 2025. 

April is planning on retiring in five years. She has a sizable balance in her 401(k). Her taxable brokerage account is worth $100,000, and her traditional IRA is worth $100,000, consisting of (1) the three nondeductible contributions ($19,500 total), (2) a $20,000 401(k) rollover from a former employer plan and (3) investment growth on both 1 and 2. April has no Roth IRAs or health savings accounts.

Only for sake of this analysis, assume Apple’s 401(k) both accepts all IRA roll-ins (other than IRA basis) and offers satisfactory low-cost investment options. 

April proceeds as follows:

Step 1: In May 2026, April contacts her IRA custodian and splits her $100,000 traditional IRA into two IRAs. The first is $19,700 invested in a money market account (her basis amount of $19,500 plus a small $200 round up). This IRA is the Leave Behind IRA. The second IRA (IRA 2) is worth $80,300 and can be invested in whatever April desires.

Step 2: April works with the Apple 401(k) plan and her IRA custodian to arrange a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer of IRA 2 from the traditional IRA to April’s Apple 401(k) account. 

Step 3: After the completion of Step 2, April converts the entire Leave Behind IRA (now worth $19,900 due to interest accruing on the money market fund) to a Roth IRA. Due to IRA basis isolation, only $400 of the $19,900 is taxable to April on her 2026 federal income tax return. 

Steps 1 through 3 are the Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA. 

Step 4: April executes the two steps of a 2026 Backdoor Roth IRA, getting another $7,500 (plus a small amount of interest) into her Roth IRA.

Step 5: April ensures that as of December 31, 2026, she has $0 balances in all traditional IRAs, traditional SEP IRAs, and traditional SIMPLE IRAs. 

I’m drafting this at the end of the Winter Olympics. Recall that many of the figure skaters make the “heart sign” gesture after their skates. You can feel free to picture me making the heart sign gesture when thinking about April’s Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA. 

Why do I like this basis isolation play for April? Let me list the reasons.

Reason One: Helpful to April in early retirement. Recall that April intends to retire at age 53. Recall further that April has just $100,000 in a taxable brokerage account and no Roth IRA or HSA. Steps 1 through 4 create approximately $27,500 in Roth IRA basis that April can access in early retirement prior to age 59 ½ without tax or penalty. Further, the Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA opens up the Backdoor Roth IRA for the last five years of her career, allowing her to create even more Roth IRA basis that can help fund early retirement advantageously from a Premium Tax Credit perspective and an income tax perspective.

Reason Two: Relatively modest IRA transfer. April moves approximately $80,000 of pretax IRA money. Any movement of pretax IRA money involves, however small, an element of risk. While $80,000 is not a tiny sum, it is also not a huge sum. It’s not the lion’s share of April’s wealth. Execution risk is mitigated in April’s case by the modesty of the sum moving into the Apple 401(k).

Reason Three: Using a large employer 401(k). Unless you work at Apple, you, like me, have little insight as to the contours and compliance record of Apple’s 401(k). Regardless, we would be absolutely shocked if we woke up tomorrow morning and read that the IRS and/or the Department of Labor challenged Apple’s 401(k) plan qualification. 

Why? Disqualifying Apple’s 401(k) plan would create problems for thousands of voters. Congressmen from multiple Congressional districts, and perhaps even Senators, would strongly question the IRS and/or the Department of Labor about the issue. We know the motivations of the IRS and Department of Labor in this regard. They have every incentive to avoid significant headaches and work with Apple to get to a place where Apple’s 401(k) qualifies as a 401(k). 

None of this is to cast aspersions at IRS and/or Department of Labor personnel. It’s simply acknowledging reality. How often do you look to stir up a hornet’s nest at your place of work? 

As discussed above, I have absolutely no knowledge or opinion about the qualification of Apple’s 401(k) and/or the quality of the investments in it. I simply raise possibilities and discuss pivotal actors’ motivations to explore planning where one uses a workplace 401(k) to facilitate an IRA basis isolation transaction. 

Helping fund early retirement. Relatively low risk of transferring pretax amounts. Parking assets in a stable, established, large employer 401(k) to achieve the objective.

April’s Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA is quite attractive, in my opinion. 

Example 2: Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA into a Solo 401(k)

Jack, age 66 in 2026, and his wife, Becky, also age 66 in 2026, retired two years ago. Jack made $80,000 of nondeductible traditional IRA contributions over the years. With rollovers of prior large employer 401(k)s, today Jack’s traditional IRA is worth $2 million. Jack is very happy with the financial institution holding the traditional IRA and the investments offered by that institution. 

Jack and Becky currently live off taxable brokerage accounts, currently worth $1 million. Becky also has $500,000 in a traditional IRA with no basis. Neither Jack nor Becky has a Roth IRA or an HSA. 

Jack is interested in isolating his $80,000 traditional IRA basis and getting it into a Roth IRA. He’s heard about the Solo 401(k) and is intrigued. He concocts an idea. He will drive for Lyft part time for three months. Doing so brings in $3,000 of revenue. After expenses and a deduction for half of his self-employment taxes, he has $2,000 of net profit.

Jack proceeds as follows:

Step 1: Jack takes the position that he has self-employment income in 2026 and thus opens a Solo 401(k). He makes a maximum $2,000 employee deferral contribution for 2026.

Step 2: In August 2026, Jack contacts his IRA custodian and splits his $2 million traditional IRA into two IRAs. The first is $80,200 invested in a money market account (his basis amount of $80,000 plus a small $200 round up). This IRA is the Leave Behind IRA. The second IRA (IRA 2) is worth $1,920,000 and can be invested in whatever Jack desires.

Step 3: Jack works with the Solo 401(k) plan custodian and his IRA custodian to arrange a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer of IRA 2 from the traditional IRA to Jack’s Solo 401(k) account. 

Step 4: After the completion of Step 3, Jack converts the entire Leave Behind IRA (now worth $80,500 due to interest accruing on the money market fund) to a Roth IRA. Due to IRA basis isolation, Jack takes the position that only $500 of the $80,500 is taxable to him on his 2026 federal income tax return. 

Steps 2 through 4 are the Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA. 

Step 5: Jack ensures that as of December 31, 2026, he has $0 balances in all traditional IRAs, traditional SEP IRAs, and traditional SIMPLE IRAs. 

Jack’s Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA makes me feel the way my New York Jets fandom has in recent years. For those unaware, the Jets currently have the longest streak of missing the playoffs in North American major sports. 

Why do I disfavor this basis isolation play for Jack? Let me list the reasons.

Reason One: No help solving retirement funding issues. Jack and Becky’s retirement is well funded. Unlike April, they do not need to control income for Premium Tax Credit purposes. Jack and Becky are currently living off taxable accounts. As I have previously discussed, they may pay practically no federal income tax doing so. 

Why are Jack and Becky moving a large account and doing sophisticated distribution planning when they already have years of paying hardly any federal income tax?

Reason Two: Large IRA transfer. Jack moves approximately $1.92M of pretax IRA money. Any movement of pretax IRA money involves, however small, an element of risk. $1.92 million is the lion’s share of Jack and Becky’s financial wealth. Execution risk on a $1.92 million transfer of assets already in a satisfactory location, a traditional IRA with a liked institution, is not something I favor successful retirees affirmatively planning into. 

Reason Three: Using a Solo 401(k). Compare the IRS disqualifying Jack’s Solo 401(k) with disqualifying Apple’s Solo 401(k). No Congressman is reaching out to the IRS if they disqualify Jack’s Solo 401(k). Further, the success of Jack’s strategy depends on him successfully maintaining his Solo 401(k) in the future. Rocket science? No. But guaranteed? Also, no. 

Is Jack’s Solo 401(k) Valid? 

Contributions of Self-Employment Income

I strongly question whether Jack would have a valid Solo 401(k) in this fact pattern. Consider the Congressional intent behind Solo 401(k)s. Solo 401(k)s allow the self-employed to make significant contributions of self-employment income to retirement accounts. Solo 401(k)s solve for the problem of the self-employed not having access to large employer 401(k) plans. 

Jack’s use of a Solo 401(k) is hardly reflective of the intent behind the Solo 401(k). Jack accumulated years of retirement account contributions in a traditional IRA. He had no need for the Solo 401(k) to accumulate and maintain retirement savings. Further, about a tenth of a percent of the Solo 401(k) balance is funded by “self-employment income.” About 99.9 percent of the balance of Jack’s Solo 401(k) has nothing to do with self-employment. 

These numbers indicate that Jack’s Solo 401(k) has little to do with contributions of self-employment income to save for retirement. 

Is Jack Self-Employed?

As I discussed on page 24 of this article, one needs self-employment to have a Solo 401(k). I strongly question whether Jack’s Lyft driving qualifies as self-employment allowing him to open a Solo 401(k). 

Consider making the case to respect Jack’s Lyft activities as “self-employment.” How is a retired person self-employed? What do Jack and Becky live off of? Accumulated retirement assets or Lyft income? That Jack and Becky live off their retirement savings and not off Jack’s Lyft income is instructive in determining whether that income comes from an activity sufficient to be considered a business to allow Jack to have a Solo 401(k). 

IRA Basis Isolation and Solo 401(k) Stuffing

I’m not shy when I see the IRS in a weak position. In this article, I strongly argue the IRS has a very weak position if they attempt to enforce the literal terms of Notice 2022-6 governing 72(t) payment plans. 

I’m also not shy in acknowledging situations where the IRS may have a strong position. When it comes to stuffing Solo 401(k)s for distribution motivated reasons, I believe the IRS has a strong position. I previously wrote about this when it comes to stuffing a Solo 401(k) for Rule of 55 planning. See pages 24 through 26 of this article. 

I believe the IRS would have a high likelihood of success were they to challenge the validity of Jack’s Solo 401(k). Can you imagine taxing a $2 million traditional IRA through an attempted rollover into an invalid Solo 401(k) just to get $80,000 into a Roth IRA?

After considering Solo 401(k) stuffing in the contexts of both the Rule of 55 and the Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA, I’ve come up with Mullaney’s Solo 401(k) Distribution Planning Principle: 

Do not use a Solo 401(k) for distribution planning. 

Solo 401(k)s can be distributed out of (as I argue in this article), but I disfavor using them to facilitate sophisticated distribution planning such as a Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA. 

Fortunately, Solo 401(k)s remain a great option for accumulation planning for the fully self-employed. 

Tax Planning and New Businesses

I disfavor tax planning that necessitates the starting of a business to achieve retirement tax benefits. 

Picture a financial planner, Jill, recommending to Jane, a self-employed lawyer, that she opens a Solo 401(k). Jill’s recommendation does not necessitate Jane starting a business. Jill simply is recommending a potentially advantageous tactic that Jane’s preexisting business opens the door to. 

Contrast Jane’s preexisting business with Jack’s new “business” of Lyft driving. There are legitimate Lyft businesses operated by thousands of Americans. But in Jack’s case, his Lyft activity does not strike me as likely to be considered a trade or business sufficient to open a Solo 401(k). 

Even if the Lyft activity is a sufficient trade or business, why do tax planning that requires changes in lived experience when the retiree is already financially successful? 

Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA Planning

Factors I view as favorable indicators that the Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA may be a good planning tactic:

  • Need for Roth basis in early retirement
  • Relatively modest pretax amounts in traditional IRAs
  • Possibility of opening up several years worth of Backdoor Roth IRAs
  • Rolling pretax amounts into a large employer 401(k) with good investment selections

Factors I view as indicative that the Basis Isolation Backdoor Roth IRA should be disfavored:

  • No compelling need for Roth basis in early retirement
  • Significant pretax amounts in traditional IRAs
  • No ability to do future Backdoor Roth IRAs
  • Rolling pretax amounts into a Solo 401(k)
  • The necessity to start a business to achieve a tax benefit in retirement
  • Confusion surrounding the actual amount of IRA basis, since IRA basis cannot be rolled into a 401(k) or other workplace retirement plan

The above are my opinions. None of this should be read as advice for you or anyone else. Further, none of this should be read as to say any previously implemented planning in this regard is “wrong.” Rather, all this is intended to provide is my views as to what is desirable and what is not desirable from a planning perspective. 

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

Follow me on LinkedIn: @SeanWMullaney

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.