Tag Archives: Retirement

2024 IRA Contributions for Beginners

There are only three types of annual contributions to individual retirement accounts (“IRAs”). They are:

  • Traditional, nondeductible contributions
  • Traditional, deductible contributions
  • Roth contributions

This post discusses when a taxpayer can make one or more of these types of annual contributions.

Let’s dispense with what we are not talking about. This post has nothing to do with annual contributions to employer retirement plans (401(k)s and the like) and self-employed retirement plans. We’re only talking about IRAs. The Individual in “IRA” is the key – anyone can set up their own IRA. IRAs are not pegged to any particular job or self-employment.

The above list is the exhaustive list of the possible types of annual contributions you can make to an IRA. But there is plenty of confusion about when you are eligible to make each of the three types of annual contributions.

Why Contribute to an IRA?

Before we dive into annual contributions to IRAs, let’s discuss why you would consider contributing to an IRA. The main reason is to build up tax-deferred wealth (traditional IRAs) and/or tax-free wealth (Roth IRAs) for your future, however you define it: financial independence, retirement, etc. A second potential benefit is the ability to deduct some annual contributions to traditional IRAs. A third benefit is some degree of creditor protection. States offer varying levels of creditor protection to traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs, while the federal government provides significant bankruptcy protection for traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs. 

IRA Annual Contribution Requirement: Earned Income

In order to make any of the three types of IRA annual contributions for any particular year, you or your spouse must have earned income during that year. Earned income is generally that income that is reported to you on your Form W-2, or is reported by you on your tax return on Schedule C (self-employment income). It also includes self-employment income reported to you on a Form K-1 (because you are a self-employed partner in a partnership). It does not include income reported to you on a Form K-1 from an S corporation.

While wages, nontaxable combat income, and self-employment income qualify as earned income for this purpose, several types of income do not. Social security, pensions, rentals, royalties, interest, and dividends are not earned income. Income excluded from taxable income under the foreign earned income exclusion also does not constitute “earned income” for IRA purposes.

Traditional Nondeductible IRA Annual Contributions

There’s are only one requirement to contribute to a traditional, nondeductible IRA for a taxable year:

  • You and/or your spouse have earned income during that taxable year.

That’s it! As long as you satisfy that requirement, you can contribute to a traditional nondeductible IRA, no further questions asked.

Example: Teve Torbes is the publisher of a successful magazine. He is paid a salary of $1,000,000 in 2024 and is covered by the magazine’s 401(k) plan. Teve can make up to a $7,000 nondeductible contribution to a traditional IRA, and Teve’s wife can also make up to a $7,000 nondeductible contribution to a traditional IRA.

There is no tax deduction for contributing to a traditional nondeductible IRA. The amount of your nondeductible contribution creates “basis” in the traditional IRA. When you withdraw money from the traditional IRA in retirement, a ratable portion of the withdrawal is treated as a return of basis and thus not taxable (the “Pro-Rata Rule”).

Example: Ted makes a $6,000 nondeductible traditional IRA contribution for each of 10 years ($60,000 total). When he retires, the traditional IRA is worth $100,000, and he takes a $5,000 distribution from the traditional IRA. Ted is over 59 ½ when he makes the withdrawal. Of the $5,000 withdrawal, Ted will include $2,000 in his taxable income, because 60 percent ($3,000 — $60,000 basis divided by $100,000 fair market value times the $5,000 withdrawn) will be treated as a withdrawal of basis and thus tax free.

Traditional nondeductible IRA contributions generally give taxpayers a rather limited tax benefit. However, since 2010 traditional nondeductible IRA contributions have become an important tax planning tool because of the availability of the Backdoor Roth IRA.

Making a nondeductible IRA contribution requires the filing of a Form 8606 with your federal income tax return.

Traditional Deductible IRA Annual Contributions

In order to make a deductible contribution to a traditional IRA, three sets of qualification rules apply.

ONE: No Workplace Retirement Plan

Here are the qualification rules if neither you nor your spouse is covered by an employer retirement plan (401(k)s and the like and self-employment retirement plans):

  • You and/or your spouse have earned income during that taxable year.

That’s it! As long as you satisfy that requirement and you and your spouse are not covered by an employer retirement plan, you can make a deductible contribution to a traditional IRA, no further questions asked.

Coverage by an employer retirement plan means either you or your employer contributed any amount to an employer retirement plan (on your behalf) during the taxable year. Coverage by an employer retirement plan includes coverage under a self-employment retirement plan.

Example: Teve Torbes is the publisher of a successful magazine. He and his wife are 45 years old. He is paid a salary of $1,000,000 in 2024. Neither he nor his wife is covered by an employer retirement plan. Teve can make up to a $7,000 deductible contribution to a traditional IRA, and Teve’s wife can also make up to a $7,000 deductible contribution to a traditional IRA.

TWO: You Are Covered by a Workplace Retirement Plan

Here are the deductible traditional IRA qualification rules if you are covered by an employer retirement plan:

  • You and/or your spouse have earned income during that taxable year.
  • Your modified adjusted gross income (“MAGI”) for 2024 is less than $87,000 (if single), $143,000 (if married filing joint, “MFJ”), or $10,000 (if married filing separate, “MFS”). 

Note that in between $77,000 and $87,000 (single), $123,000 and $143,000 (MFJ) and $0 and $10,000 (MFS), your ability to make a deductible contribution to a traditional IRA phases out ratably. Here is an illustrative example.

Example: Mike is 30 years old, single, and is covered by a 401(k) plan at work. Mike has a MAGI of $82,000 in 2024, most of which is W-2 income. Based on a MAGI in the middle of the phaseout range, Mike is limited to a maximum $3,500 deductible contribution to a traditional IRA.

Assuming he makes a $3,500 deductible IRA contribution, Mike has $3,500 worth of IRA contributions left. He can either, or a combination of both (up to $3,500) (a) make a contribution to a nondeductible traditional IRA, since he meets the qualification requirement to contribute to a nondeductible traditional IRA or (b) make a contribution to a Roth IRA, since he meets the qualification requirements (discussed below) to contribute to a Roth IRA. In such a case, Mike would be likely to favor a Roth IRA contribution over a nondeductible traditional IRA contribution.

THREE: Only Your Spouse is Covered by a Workplace Retirement Plan

Here are the deductible traditional IRA qualification rules if you are not covered by an employer retirement plan but your spouse is covered by an employer retirement plan:

  • You and/or your spouse have earned income during that taxable year.
  • Your MAGI for 2024 is less than $240,000 (MFJ) or $10,000 (MFS). 

Note that in between $230,000 and $240,000 (MFJ) and $0 and $10,000 (MFS), your ability to make a deductible contribution to a traditional IRA phases out ratably. 

Roth IRA Annual Contributions

Here are the Roth IRA annual contribution qualification rules.

  • You and/or your spouse have earned income during that taxable year.
  • Your MAGI for 2024 is less than $161,000 (single), $240,000 (MFJ), or $10,000 (MFS). 

Note that in between $146,000 and $161,000 (single), $230,000 and $240,000 (MFJ), and $0 and $10,000 (MFS), your ability to make a Roth IRA contribution phases out ratably. 

Notice that whether you and/or your spouse are covered by an employer retirement plan (including a self-employment retirement plan) is irrelevant. You and your spouse can be covered by an employer retirement plan and you can still contribute to a Roth IRA (so long as you meet the other qualification requirements).

Here is an example illustrating your options in the Roth IRA MAGI phaseout range.

Example: Mike is 30 years old, single, and covered by a workplace retirement plan. Mike has a MAGI of $155,000 for 2024, most of which is W-2 income. Based on a MAGI 60 percent through the phaseout range, Mike is limited to a maximum $2,800 contribution to a Roth IRA.

Assuming he makes a $2,800 annual Roth IRA contribution, Mike has $4,200 worth of IRA contributions left. He can make up to $4,200 in annual contributions to a nondeductible traditional IRA, since he meets the qualification requirement to contribute to a nondeductible traditional IRA.

IRA Annual Contribution Limits

For taxpayers younger than 50 years old during the entire year, the maximum (for 2024) that can be contributed to the combination of all three types of IRAs is the lesser of:

  • The taxpayer’s and their spouse’s combined earned income, or
  • $7,000.

Thus, if both spouses are younger than 50 years old, the maximum IRA contributions for a married couple is $14,000.

For taxpayers 50 years old or older during any part of the taxable year the maximum (for 2024) that can be contributed to the combination of all three types of IRAs is the lesser of:

  • The taxpayer’s and their spouse’s combined earned income, or
  • $8,000.

Thus, if both spouses are 50 or older, the maximum IRA contributions for a married couple is $16,000.

Deadlines

The deadline to make an IRA contribution for a particular year is April 15th of the year following the taxable year (thus, the deadline to make a 2024 IRA contribution is April 15, 2025). The deadline to make earned income for a taxable year is December 31st of that year.

Rollover Contributions

There’s a separate category of contributions to IRAs: rollover contributions. These can be from other accounts of the same type (traditional IRA to traditional IRA, Roth IRA to Roth IRA) or from a workplace retirement plan (for example, traditional 401(k) to traditional IRA, Roth 401(k) to Roth IRA). 

Rollover contributions do not require having earned income and have no income limits and should be generally tax-free. For a myriad of reasons, it is usually best to effectuate rollovers as direct trustee-to-trustee transfers. 

As a practical matter, it is often the case that IRAs serve at the retirement home for workplace retirement plans such as 401(k)s. 

Correction

A previous version of this blog post, titled “IRA Contributions for Beginners” erroneously stated that one must be a citizen or resident of the United States to make an IRA contribution. I regret the error. 

Further Reading

Deductible traditional IRA or Roth IRA? If you qualify for both, it can be difficult to determine which is better. I’ve written here about some of the factors to consider in determining whether a deductible traditional contribution or a Roth contribution is better for you.

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

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

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

2023 Year-End Tax Planning

It’s that time of year again. The air is crisp and my favorite football team is surging. That can only mean one thing when it comes to personal finance: time to start thinking about year-end tax planning.

I’ll break it down with three categories: Urgent, Year-End Deadline, and Can Wait Till Next Year. I will also provide some thoughts on 2024 tax planning that can/should be done before year-end in 2023.

As always, none of this is advice for your particular situation but rather it is educational information. 

Urgent

By urgent, I mean those items that (i) need to happen before year-end and (ii) may not happen if taxpayers delay and try to accomplish them late in the year. 

Donor Advised Fund Contributions

The donor advised fund is a great way to contribute to charity and accelerate a tax deduction. My favorite way to use the donor advised fund is to contribute appreciated stock directly to the donor advised fund. This gets the donor three tax benefits:

  1. A tax deduction for the fair market value of the contributed appreciated stock,
  2. Elimination of the built-in capital gain on the contributed appreciated stock, and
  3. Tax-free treatment of the income earned inside the donor advised fund.

In order to get the first benefit in 2023, the appreciated stock must be received by the donor advised fund prior to January 1, 2024. This deadline is no different than the normal charitable contribution deadline.

However, due to much year end interest in donor advised fund contributions and processing time, different financial institutions will have different deadlines on when transfers must be initiated in order to count for 2023. Donor advised fund planning should be attended to sooner rather than later. 

Taxable Roth Conversions

For a Roth conversion to count as being for 2023, it must be done before January 1, 2024. That means New Year’s Eve is the deadline. However, taxable Roth conversions should be done well before New Year’s Eve because 

  1. It requires analysis to determine if a taxable Roth conversion is advantageous, 
  2. If advantageous, the proper amount to convert must be estimated, and 
  3. The financial institution needs time to execute the Roth conversion so it counts as having occurred in 2023. 

Remember, generally speaking it is not good to have federal and/or state income taxes withheld when doing Roth conversions!

Roth Conversion Example: See slides 8 through 10 of this slide deck for an example of a Roth conversion in retirement. You might be surprised by just how little federal income tax is owed on a $23,000 Roth conversion.

Example Where I Disfavor Roth Conversions: I present an example of a 73-year old married couple with $400K in deferred retirement accounts and $87K in 2023 gross income. I would not recommend they do end-of-year Roth conversions. This spreadsheet computes the taxable Social Security with and without a $10K Roth conversion.

Gotta Happen Before 2026!!!

You will hear many commentators say “do more Roth conversions before tax rates go up in 2026!” If this were X (the artist formerly known as Twitter), the assertion would likely be accompanied by a hair-on-fire GIF. 😉

I disagree with the assertion. As I have stated before, there’s nothing more permanent than a temporary tax cut. You do your own risk assessment, but mine is this: members of Congress like to win reelection, and they are not going to want to face voters without having acted to ensure popular tax cuts, such as the reduction of the 15% tax rate down to 12% and the increased standard deduction, are extended. 

I recommend that you make your own personal taxable Roth conversion decisions based on your own personal situation and analysis of the landscape and not a fear of future tax hikes.

Learn all about the Pro-Rata Rule here.

Adjust Withholding

This varies, but it is a good idea to look at how much tax you owed last year (line 24 on the Form 1040). If you are on pace to get 100% (110% if 2022 AGI is $150K or greater) or slightly more of that amount paid into Uncle Sam by the end of the year (take a look at your most recent pay stub), there’s likely no need for action. But what if you are likely to have much more or much less than 100%/110%? It may be that you want to reduce or increase your workplace withholdings for the rest of 2023. If you do, don’t forget to reassess your workplace withholdings for 2024 early in the year. 

Backdoor Roth IRA Diligence

The deadline for the Backdoor Roth IRA for 2023 is not December 31st, as I will discuss below. But if you have already completed a Backdoor Roth IRA for 2023, the deadline to get to a zero balance in all traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs is December 31, 2023. 

Solo 401(k) Planning

There’s plenty of planning that needs to be done for solopreneurs in terms of retirement account contributions. Even though Schedule C solopreneurs can now establish a Solo 401(k) after year-end (up to April 15th), it is absolutely the case that it is better to do the planning upfront. For those Schedule C solopreneurs with a Solo 401(k) established, December 31st is the deadline to make 2023 employee deferral contributions or make a 2023 deferral election as an alternative to making the payments in 2023. December 31st is also the 2023 employee deferral contribution for solopreneurs operating out of S corporations.

The Solo 401(k) can get complicated. That’s why I wrote a book about them and post an annual update on Solo 401(k)s here on the blog. 

Year-End Deadline

These items can wait till close to year-end, though you don’t want to find yourself doing them on New Year’s Eve.

Tax Gain Harvesting

For those finding themselves in the 12% or lower federal marginal income tax bracket and with an asset in a taxable account with a built-in gain, tax gain harvesting prior to December 31, 2023 may be a good tax tactic to increase basis without incurring additional federal income tax. Remember, though, the gain itself increases one’s taxable income, making it harder to stay within the 12% or lower marginal income tax bracket. 

I’m also quite fond of tax gain harvesting that reallocates one’s portfolio in a tax efficient manner. 

Tax Gain Harvesting Example: See slide 15 of this slide deck for an example of tax gain harvesting in retirement.

Tax Loss Harvesting

The deadline for tax loss harvesting for 2023 is December 31, 2023. Just remember to navigate the wash sale rule. 

RMDs from Your Own Retirement Account

The deadline to take any required minimum distributions from one’s own retirement account is December 31, 2023. Remember, the rules can get a bit confusing. Generally, IRAs can be aggregated for RMD purposes, but 401(k)s cannot. 

RMDs from Inherited Accounts

The deadline to take any RMDs from inherited retirement accounts is December 31st. For some beneficiaries of retirement accounts inherited during 2020, 2021, and 2022, the IRS has waived 2023 RMDs. That said, all beneficiaries of inherited retirement accounts may want to consider affirmatively taking distributions (in addition to RMDs, if any) before the end of 2023 to put the income into a lower tax year, if 2023 happens to be a lower taxable income year vis-a-vis future tax years. 

Can Wait Till Next Year

Traditional IRA and Roth IRA Contribution Deadline

The deadline for funding either or both a traditional IRA and a Roth IRA for 2023 is April 15, 2024. 

Backdoor Roth IRA Deadline

There’s no law saying “the deadline for the Backdoor Roth IRA is DATE X.” However, the deadline to make a nondeductible traditional IRA contribution for the 2023 tax year is April 15, 2024. Those doing the Backdoor Roth IRA for 2023 and doing the Roth conversion step in 2024 may want to consider the unique tax filing when that happens (what I refer to as a “Split-Year Backdoor Roth IRA”). 

HSA Funding Deadline

The deadline to fund an HSA for 2023 is April 15, 2024. Those who have not maximized their HSA through payroll deductions during the year may want to look into establishing payroll withholding for their HSA so as to take advantage of the payroll tax break available when HSAs are funded through payroll. 

The deadline for those age 55 and older to fund a Baby HSA for 2023 is April 15, 2024. 

2024 Tax Planning at the End of 2023

HDHP and HSA Open Enrollment

It’s open enrollment season. Now is a great time to assess whether a high deductible health plan (a HDHP) is a good medical insurance plan for you. One of the benefits of the HDHP is the health savings account (an HSA).

For those who already have a HDHP, now is a good time to review payroll withholding into the HSA. Many HSA owners will want to max this out through payroll deductions so as to qualify to reduce both income taxes and payroll taxes.

Self-Employment Tax Planning

Year-end is a great time for solopreneurs, particularly newer solopreneurs, to assess their business structure and retirement plans. Perhaps 2024 is the year to open a Solo 401(k). Perhaps their business is growing such that an S corporation election makes sense. The best time to be thinking about these sorts of things for 2024 is late in 2023. Often this analysis benefits from professional consultations.

Additional Resource

Please see my November 11, 2023 ChooseFI Orange County year-end tax planning presentation slide deck.

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

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

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

CampFI 2023 Presentation

Here are my presentation slides for my presentation delivered October 7, 2023 at CampFI Southwest.

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.

Traditional Versus Roth 2023

The debate continues: what’s preferable, traditional retirement accounts or Roth retirement accounts?

Fortunately, there are plenty of shades of gray in this debate. There’s no “right” answer, but I do believe that there are good insights that can help individuals make the right planning decisions for themselves.

Traditional and Roth Retirement Basics

Before we dive into the traditional versus Roth debate, we should quickly survey the basics of these types of retirement accounts.

Traditional

Traditional retirement accounts feature a tax deduction on the way in (i.e., for contributions) and ordinary income tax on the way out (i.e., for withdrawals). At work these are known as traditional 401(k)s, 403(b), 457s, and occasionally have other names. At home these are known as traditional IRAs.

Additional twist: many working Americans do not qualify to deduct a traditional IRA contribution due to relatively low income limits on claiming a deduction. 

Part of the appeal of traditional retirement accounts includes: (i) the notion that many will have lower taxable income (and thus lower income tax) in retirement than they did during their working years and (ii) the tax saved by contributing to traditional accounts can be invested, potentially creating more wealth for retirement. 

Roth

Roth retirement accounts feature no tax deduction on the way in (i.e., for contributions) and tax free treatment on the way out (i.e., for withdrawals). At work these are known as Roth 401(k)s, 403(b), 457s, and (after SECURE 2.0 implementation) will occasionally have other names. At home these are known as Roth IRAs.

Additional twist: some working Americans do not qualify to make an annual Roth IRA contribution based on income limits, but many can get around this rule by implementing a Backdoor Roth IRA. 

Part of the appeal of contributions to Roth retirement accounts is the notion that it is better for our younger, healthier selves to pay the tax associated with retirement savings when cash flow is good and the investor knows they can bear the cost. 

The basics out of the way, we can get into 2023 insights on the debate between the two types of retirement accounts.

The Risk of Traditional Retirement Accounts is Vastly Overstated

We hear it time and again: be worried about all the tax lurking inside traditional retirement accounts such as 401(k)s and IRAs!

Here’s the thing: rarely do commentators offer any sort of mathematical analysis backing up that contention. I ran the math, and I repeatedly find that many retirees with traditional retirement accounts are likely to pay Uncle Sam a very manageable amount of income taxes in retirement. 

You be the judge and jury. I believe a fair assessment of my posts and videos and the numbers behind them shows that most Americans do not face a high risk of crippling federal income taxes in retirement, even if the vast majority of their portfolio is in traditional 401(k)s and IRAs. 

While I cannot give readers of this blog individualized advice, I can say that if one considers themselves to be an “Average Joe” it is difficult to see how having significant amounts in traditional retirement accounts is a problem. 

The Needle Keeps Moving Towards Traditional

Picture it: United States, September 2017, six short years ago. You’re bright-eyed, bushy-tailed, and fear only one thing: incredibly high taxes on your traditional 401(k) and IRA in retirement.

Then a few things happened.

  • December 2017: TCJA increased the standard deduction and lowered the 15% bracket to 12%
  • December 2019: The SECURE Act (SECURE 1.0) delayed RMDs from age 70 ½ to 72
  • March 2020: CARES Act cancels 2020 RMDs and allows taken RMDs to be rolled back in
  • November 2020: IRS and Treasury issue a new Uniform Life Table, decreasing the amount of annual RMDs beginning in 2022
  • December 2022: SECURE 2.0 delays RMDs from age 72 to 73, and all the way to age 75 for those born in 1960 and later

Tax cut after tax cut for traditional retirement accounts and retirees! In the traditional versus Roth debate, DC keeps putting a thumb on the scale for traditional. 

Watch me assess recent tax law change history as it applies to retirees.

Taxable Roth Conversions Going Away?

One reason I like traditional 401(k) contributions is that they do not close the door on Roths. Rather, traditional retirement account contributions at work are a springboard for years of Roth conversions in retirement for many in the FI community! 

The idea is to take deductions at high marginal tax rates at work into a 401(k) and build up wealth for an early retirement. Then, in retirement, one’s tax rate is artificially low as they no longer have W-2 income to report. This opens up room for potentially very efficient Roth conversions (affirmatively moving money in traditional accounts to Roth accounts) taxed at the 10% or 12% federal income tax rate. 

That’s a great plan, in theory. But couldn’t Congress take it away? Sure, they could, but I seriously doubt they will in an effective way. First, let’s look at recent history. In 2021 the Democratic Congress proposed, but did not pass, a provision to eliminate (starting a decade in the future) taxable Roth conversions for those north of $400K of annual income. Such a rule would have had no effect on most retirees, who will never have anything approaching $400K of income in retirement.

Second, why would Congress eliminate most taxable Roth conversions? They “budget” tax bills in a 10 year window. Taxable Roth conversions create tax revenue inside that budget window, making it that much less likely a Congress would eliminate most of them.

While there is not zero risk taxable Roth conversions will go away, I believe that the risk is negligible. The greater one believes Roth conversion repeal risk is, the more attractive Roth contributions during one’s working years look. 

Special Years Favor Roths

I’ve written before about how workers in the early years of their careers may want to consider Roth 401(k) contributions prior to their income significantly increasing. Those in transition years, such as those starting a job after graduating college and those about to take a mini retirement may want to prioritize Roth 401(k) contributions over traditional 401(k) contributions.

Optimize for Known Trade-Offs

People want to know: what’s the optimal income for switching from traditional to Roth? What’s the optimal percentage to have each of traditional, Roth, and taxable accounts?

Here’s the thing: there are simply too many unknown future variables to come up with any precision in this regard. That said, I don’t believe we have to.

Why? Because in retirement planning, we can optimize for known trade-offs. Let me explain. At work, Americans under age 50 can contribute up to $22,500 (2023 number) to a 401(k). At most employers, that can be any combination of traditional or Roth contributions. Every dollar contributed to a Roth 401(k) is a dollar that cannot be contributed to a traditional deductible 401(k). That’s a known trade-off.

What about at home? For most working Americans covered by a 401(k), a dollar contributed to a Roth IRA is not a dollar that could have been contributed to a deductible traditional IRA. So a Roth IRA contribution is not subject to the trade-off downside that a Roth 401(k) contribution is.

Why not optimize for known trade-offs? Contribute to a traditional 401(k) at work and a Roth IRA (or Backdoor Roth IRA) at home. This approach optimizes for the known trade-offs and sets one up with both traditional and Roth assets heading into retirement. 

Further, Roth IRA contributions and Backdoor Roth IRAs can serve as emergency funds, while traditional IRAs, traditional 401(k)s, and Roth 401(k)s do not serve well as emergency funds. Roth IRA contributions do not suffer from an adverse trade-off when it comes to emergency withdrawals, unlike Roth 401(k) contributions. 

Roth Contributions End the Planning

Traditional retirement account contributions set up great optionality. A retiree may have years or decades of opportunity to strategically convert traditional accounts to Roth accounts. Or, a retiree might say, “thanks, but no thanks, on those Roth conversions, I’ll simply wait to withdraw for RMDs or living expenses later in retirement at a low tax rate.” Traditional retirement account contributions open the doors to several planning options.

Roth contributions end the planning. That’s it, the money is inside a Roth account. Considering the potential to have low tax years after the end of one’s working years, is that always a good thing?

Rothification Risks

Having all one’s retirement eggs in the Roth basket can create significant problems. This is an issue I do not believe receives sufficient attention. Previously I posited an example where an early retiree had almost all his wealth in Roth accounts (what I refer to as the Rothification Trap). 

Risks of having all of one’s eggs inside the Roth basket going into retirement include:

  • Missing out on standard deductions
  • Inability to qualify for ACA premium tax credits
  • Missing out on benefits of qualified charitable distributions (QCDs)
  • Missing out on tax efficient Roth conversions in retirement

Sufficiency

Much of the traditional versus Roth debate misses the forest for the trees. Rarely do commentators state that long before one worries about taxation in retirement they have to worry about sufficiency in retirement!

Recent reports indicate that many if not most Americans struggle to afford a comfortable retirement. A quick review of average retirement account balances indicates that many Americans are not set up for what I’d call a comfortable retirement. Further, according to a recent report, the median American adult has a wealth around $108,000. That means the median adult has a significant sufficiency concern when it comes to retirement planning. 

Most Americans will be lucky to have a tax problem in retirement! Most Americans need to build up retirement savings. The quickest, easiest way to do that is by making deductible traditional 401(k) contributions. That deduction makes the upfront sacrifice involved in retirement saving easier to stomach. Further, if one is not likely to have substantial retirement savings, they are not likely to be in a high marginal tax bracket in retirement. 

If all the above is true, what is the problem with having taxable retirement accounts? The tax savings in retirement from having Roth accounts is not likely to be very high for many Americans. 

Conclusion

Both traditional retirement accounts and Roth retirement accounts have significant benefits. When viewed over the spectrum of most Americans’ lifetimes, I believe that workplace retirement plan contributions should be biased toward traditional retirement accounts. For many Americans, either or both of the following will be true. First, there will be low tax years in retirement during which retirees can take advantage of low tax Roth conversions. Second, many Americans will be in a low tax bracket when taking retirement account withdrawals for living expenses and/or RMDs.

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

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

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

Traditional 401(k) Contributions Are Fine for Most Americans (Really!)

Yesterday I posted Time to Stop 401(k) Contributions?, arguing that as applied to many in the FI community, traditional deductible 401(k) contributions are fine.

Today two very interesting pieces of content hit my radar. First, one of my favorite personal finance content creators, Clark Howard, is advocating for Roth contributions instead of traditional contributions for most Americans.

Second, UBS and Credit Suisse issued their Global Wealth Report for 2023. Allow me to call your attention to page 16. The median American adult has personal wealth just a bit under $108,000. This means almost half of American adults have less than $100K of wealth, and the majority of American adults do not have $200K of wealth. For most Americans, deferred taxation is not the problem! Sufficiency is the problem!

For me this report cracks the case. If the median American adult does not have close to sufficient wealth to comfortably retire, why are they worried about taxes in retirement?

Assuming this report is anywhere near close to a correct measure of adult American wealth, I believe I am correct and personal finance legends Ed Slott and Clark Howard are wrong when it comes to the traditional 401(k) versus Roth 401(k) debate.

The best way for working Americans to address sufficiency problems is by contributing to traditional, deductible retirement accounts. As demonstrated below, one employing this sort of deduct, deduct, deduct strategy would need to be successful well beyond what most Americans accomplish in order to create a tax problem.

When one has insufficient resources for retirement, the traditional, deductible 401(k) makes the most sense. He or she needs to build up assets, not worry about future taxes! With relatively little in the way of resources, future taxes are not likely to be a problem (especially in retirement when compared to one’s working years). Further, by contributing to a traditional, deductible 401(k) instead of a Roth 401(k), one behind in retirement saving takes home more money to invest in additional saving mechanisms such as Roth IRAs and taxable brokerage accounts.

Let’s Break Down Some Retirement Numbers

I believe we need some numbers to figure out who’s right.

Example 1: I start with Single Sally, who is 75 years old. Since she is somewhat like the median American, but older, let’s assume she has $250,000 of wealth and receives $30,000 a year in Social Security. Assume further that all $250K is in a traditional IRA and Sally, age 75, wants to live for today: she isn’t constrained by the 4% rule but rather decides to withdraw 10 percent per year ($25,000). On that $55,000 annual gross income, Single Sally pays just over $2,000 in federal income taxes (an effective rate less than 4%).

Why would Sally pass on a 10%, 12%, or 22% deduction from a traditional 401(k) contribution during her working years? Why would Single Sally put the money in a Roth 401(k) so as to avoid a less than 4% federal income tax in retirement? And how different is Sally’s situation from that of many Americans?

Update 8/17/2023: Single Sally is in the Tax Torpedo, an interesting tax phenomenon with a modest impact on her total tax liability. I added a spreadsheet to look at this in more detail.

Example 2: But Sean, I’m reading your blog. I’m not shooting for just $250K in retirement wealth! Okay, let’s start testing it by considering wealth significantly above the mean and median adult Americans. Single Sarah is 75 years old. She receives $30,000 a year in Social Security. But now she also has a $1M traditional IRA and takes an RMD ($40,650) based on her age. Single Sarah also has some taxable accounts and thus has $4,000 of qualified dividend income and $1,000 of interest income. On that approximate $76,000 annual gross income, Single Sarah pays just over $7,200 in federal income taxes (an effective rate of a bit more than 9.5%).

In order to grow a $1M traditional IRA (likely rolled over from workplace 401(k)s), she almost certainly was in the 22% or greater federal marginal tax bracket while working. Why would Single Sarah switch from taking a 22% tax deduction (the traditional 401(k) contribution) to a Roth 401(k) contribution to avoid a 9.5% effective federal tax rate in retirement?

Example 3: Example 3 is Single Sarah at age 80. Her investments are doing so well her traditional IRA is still worth $1M, causing her to be required to take a $49,505 RMD. This causes her federal income tax to increase to $9,175, for an effective federal income tax rate of almost 11%.

How many Americans will get to age 80 with $1M or more in tax deferred accounts? Even if they do, how bad is the tax problem? If Single Sarah’s effective tax rate is 11%, a 50% tax hike gets her to about 16.5%. Will she enjoy paying that tax? No. Is it crippling? Hardly!

Still worried about contributing to a traditional 401(k)? I’ve got a video for you!

Conclusion

The next time you hear “30 or 40% of your 401(k) belongs to the government” you should consider my examples. For many Americans, “10%” will be much closer to the mark than 30% or 40%.

It’s time to step back and ask whether prioritizing Roth 401(k) contributions during one’s working career is the best advice for the majority of Americans. As demonstrated above, a tax increase of 50 percent (highly unlikely) would result in most Americans having an effective tax rate below 20% in retirement.

I believe for many Americans, the optimal retirement savings path combines deductible workplace 401(k) contributions with Roth IRA contributions at home.

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

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, 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.

Time to Stop 401(k) Contributions?

Ed Slott believes most Americans should not contribute to traditional 401(k)s. His recent essay on the subject is a great opportunity for the FI community to reassess its love for the traditional 401(k).

My conclusion is that for many in the FI community, traditional deductible 401(k) contributions are still the most logical path when it comes to workplace retirement saving. Below I explain my thinking. 

It is important to note it is impossible to make a blanket statement as applied to the entire FI community. 

Why the Traditional 401(k) Is Good for the FI Community

Many in the FI community have the very reasonable hope that in retirement they will have years, possibly decades, where their effective tax rate will be lower than their marginal tax rate in their working years. 

The above is true of many Americans, but it is particularly true if one retires early by conventional standards. The idea is deduct, deduct, deduct into the 401(k) during one’s working years (particularly the high earning years) and then retire early by conventional standards. Prior to collecting Social Security and/or required minimum distributions (“RMDs”), most retirees look artificially poor on their tax return. This opens up the door to affirmatively convert money from traditional retirement accounts to Roth accounts and pay tax at the lowest federal income tax brackets (currently 10% and 12%). For those who deducted contributions into the 401(k) at a 24% or greater marginal federal tax rate, this is great tax rate arbitrage planning.

Minor litigation risks aside, this strategy just got even easier for those born in 1960 and later, who don’t have to take RMDs under SECURE 2.0 until age 75. With the new delayed RMD beginning date, even those retiring as late as age 65 will have a full decade prior to being required to take RMDs to do tax-efficient Roth conversions at low marginal tax rates. For some in the FI community, this opportunity window might not be a decade long but rather a quarter-century long (if they retire at age 50). 

How Bad is the Retiree Tax Problem?

As wonderful as FI tax rate arbitrate planning might be, Ed Slott’s concern that retiree taxes will increase is not entirely unwarranted. It is obvious that the government is not fiscally responsible, and it is obvious that tax increases could be coming in the future. 

Let’s assess the situation by looking at just how bad the problem of taxes is in retirement.

We begin with a baseline case. David and Hannah are in their 70s. They never did Roth conversions in early retirement and have the bulk of their financial assets in traditional IRAs and traditional 401(k)s. During most of their working years, David and Hannah maxed out 401(k)s and got deductions in the 24% bracket or greater. For 2023, they have taxable RMDs of $160,000, Social Security of $40,000, $4,000 of qualified dividends and $1,000 of interest income. How bad is their federal income tax situation?

Federal Income Tax Return
RMDs$ 160,000
Social Security$ 40,000
15% Social Security Exclusion$ (6,000)
Interest$ 1,000
Qualified Dividends$ 4,000
Adjusted Gross Income (“AGI”)$ 199,000
Standard Deduction$ (27,700)
Additional SD Age 65+$ (3,000)
Federal Taxable Income$ 168,300
Federal Income Tax (Estimated)$ 27,361
Effective Tax Rate on AGI13.75%
Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate22%

Under today’s rules, David and Hannah, who did no tax planning other than “deduct, deduct, deduct” are doing great. Their federal effective tax rate, even with $200K of RMDs and Social Security, is just 13.75%. They incur such a low effective tax rate because their RMDs go against the 10% tax bracket, the 12% bracket, and the 22% bracket. 

While I do think David and Hannah would be in a better position had they done some tax efficient Roth conversion planning earlier in retirement, their unbridled enthusiasm for traditional retirement accounts served them well. 

Note: David and Hannah are borderline IRMAA candidates: a $199K 2023 AGI might cost them approximately $2,000 in IRMAA surcharges in 2025 (but it is possible that inflation adjustments for 2025 will prevent that from happening). This is another reason to consider pre-RMD Roth conversions at lower marginal tax rates. 

Update 8/19/2023: But what about the widow’s tax trap? If David or Hannah die, won’t the survivor get crushed by tax increases? Check out this estimate. Assuming the survivor loses the lower-earning spouse’s Social Security benefits of at least $10,000, the survivor’s marginal federal income tax rate would climb from 22% all the way up to . . . 24%!

But what about future tax increases? Okay, let’s add four tax increases to the picture and see just how bad it looks:

  1. Eliminate the TCJA increase to the standard deduction (the law reverts to pre-2018 lower standard deduction and personal exemptions). This would reduce David and Hannah’s deductions by roughly $2,740, costing them approximately $602.80 in additional federal income tax (at today’s 22% marginal tax rate).
  2. Eliminate the TCJA decrease in the 15% tax bracket to 12%. This would cost David and Hannah $2,023.50 in additional federal income tax. I’m highly skeptical that either of these two tax increases will actually occur, but as written in today’s laws they are scheduled to happen in 2026. 
  3. Increase the 15% long term capital gains and qualified dividend income rate to 25%. While I believe that the real risk is an increase in the 20% long term capital gains and qualified dividend income rate, let’s stress test things and consider a large increase in the 15% rate. In David and Hannah’s case, this costs them $400 in additional federal income tax.
  4. Increase the 22% tax rate to 33%. Ed Slott is worried about large tax rate increases, so let’s consider one that I believe is politically infeasible, a 50% increase in the 22% tax bracket. This type of tax rate increase would hit millions of voters in a major way. But it’s helpful to consider what could be a worst case scenario. In this case, this tax rate increase costs David and Hannah an additional $8,233.50 in federal income tax.
  5. There’s one more tax hike to consider: the combination of tax increases numbers 1 and 4. If both occurred together, combined they would cost David and Hannah an additional $301.40 in federal income tax. 

Here’s what David and Hannah’s federal tax picture looks like if all of the above tax increases occur:

Federal Income Tax Return
RMDs$ 160,000
Social Security$ 40,000
15% Social Security Exclusion$ (6,000)
Interest$ 1,000
Qualified Dividends$ 4,000
Adjusted Gross Income (“AGI”)$ 199,000
Standard Deduction$ (15,240)
Additional SD Age 65+$ (3,000)
Personal Exemptions$ (9,720)
Federal Taxable Income$ 171,040
Federal Income Tax (Estimated)$ 38,922
Effective Tax Rate on AGI19.56%
Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate33%

Significant tax increases hurt David and Hannah, but how much? By my math, very significant tax increases, including a 50% increase in the 22% bracket, cost them about 6% of their income. Not nothing, but wow, they’re still doing very well. 

Yes, on the margin, the last dollars David and Hannah contributed to the traditional 401(k) were not ideal since they faced a 33% marginal federal tax rate in retirement. But let’s remember (i) their overall effective rate is still more than 4 percentage points lower than their working years’ marginal rate (at which they deducted their 401(k) contributions), (ii) they have income significantly above what most Americans will have in their 70s, and (iii) in my scenario they face four separate tax hikes and still pay a federal effective tax rate less than 20 percent.

Future Retirees’ Tax Risk

Do future tax hikes pose no threat to future retirees? Absolutely not! But my stress test shows that many Americans with substantial RMDs will not get walloped even if Congress enacts unpopular tax increases. Considering many in the FI community will have modest RMDs due to pre-RMD Roth conversions, the threat of future tax hikes is even less perilous for the FI community.

Further, many Americans, particularly those in the FI community, have a great tool that can mitigate this risk: Roth conversions during retirement! With RMDs now delayed to age 75 for those born in 1960 and later, many Americans will have years if not decades where money can be moved in a tax-efficient manner from old traditional accounts to Roth accounts. 

Further, many Americans can claim deductions at work and then at home contribute to a regular Roth IRA or a Backdoor Roth IRA. This too mitigates the risk of having all of one’s retirement eggs in the traditional basket. 

Last, do we really believe that Congress is just itching to raise taxes on future retirees? Sure, it’s possible. But to my mind taxes are more likely to be raised on (i) those in higher ordinary income tax brackets and/or (ii) long term capital gains and/or qualified dividends (particularly the current 20% bracket). If anything, the most Congress is likely to do to retirees is slightly increase their taxes so as to mitigate the political risk involved in raising taxes on retirees who tend to vote. 

The Risks of Not Having Money in Traditional Retirement Accounts

Risk isn’t a one-way street. There are some risks to not having money in traditional retirement accounts. I identify three below.

Qualification for Premium Tax Credits

Picture it: Joe, age 55, retires with the following assets: (i) a paid off car, (ii) a paid off house, (iii) a $40,000 emergency fund in an on-line savings account, and (iv), $2 million in Roth 401(k)s and Roth IRAs. He heard that Roth is the best, so he only ever contributed to Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s, including having all employer contributions directed to a Roth 401(k). Having fallen into the Rothification Trap, in retirement Joe must work in order to generate sufficient taxable income to qualify for any ACA Premium Tax Credit. 

For at least some early retirees, the ability to create modified adjusted gross income by doing Roth conversions will be the way they guarantee qualifying for significant Premium Tax Credits to offset ACA medical insurance premiums. 

Charitable Contributions

Many Americans are at least somewhat charitably inclined. Starting at age 70 ½, Americans can transfer money directly from a traditional IRA to a charity, exclude the distribution from taxable income, and still claim the standard deduction. Essentially, if you’re charitably inclined, at a minimum you would want to go into age 70 ½ with enough in your traditional IRAs (likely through contributions to traditional 401(k)s that are later transferred to an IRA) to fund your charitable contributions from 70 ½ until death. 

Why ever pay tax on that money (i.e., by making contributions to a Roth 401(k) that are later withdrawn to be donated) if the money is ultimately going to charity anyway?

Unused Standard Deductions

Currently, the government tells married couples, hey, you get to make $27,700 a year income tax free! Why not take advantage of that exclusion every year, especially prior to collecting Social Security (which, in many cases will eat up most, if not all, of the standard deduction). 

Why be retired at age 55 with only Roth accounts? By having at least some money in traditional retirement accounts going into retirement, you ensure you can turn traditional money into Roth money tax-free simply by converting (at any time) or even distributing (usually after age 59 1/2) the traditional retirement account against the standard deduction. 

Deduct at Work, Roth at Home

I think for many it makes sense to max out traditional 401(k)s at work and contribute to Roth IRAs or Backdoor Roth IRAs at home. Why? As discussed above, traditional 401(k)s can set up tax rate arbitrage in retirement, help early retirees qualify for Premium Tax Credits, and make charitable giving after age 70 ½ very tax efficient. At home, many working Americans do not qualify to deduct IRA contributions, so why not contribute to a Roth IRA or Backdoor Roth IRA, since (i) you aren’t giving up a tax deduction in order to do so and (ii) you establish assets growing tax free for the future. 

In this post I discuss why deduct at work, Roth at home can often make sense and I provide examples where Roth 401(k) contributions are likely to be better than traditional 401(k) contributions. 

Conclusion

I believe that for many in the FI community, a retirement savings plan that combines (i) traditional deductible 401(k) contributions during one’s working years and (ii) Roth conversions prior to collecting RMDs is likely to be a better path than simply making all workplace retirement contributions Roth contributions.

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

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, 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.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying About the Roth IRA 5 Year Rules

You know what gets too much attention in the personal finance space? The two five-year Roth IRA rules. 

Why do I say that? Because the odds are extremely low that either rule will ever impact most Roth IRA owners. While the rules theoretically have wide effect, in practice, discussed further below, they rarely impact the taxation of Roth IRA distributions.

Before I get started, below is a summary table of the two five-year rules (or five-year clocks, use whichever terminology you prefer). The table is not comprehensive, but rather intended to cover the vast majority of situations. I hope you find this table to be a useful reference regarding the two five-year rules. 

RuleTax BiteAgeCode SectionRegulation
First Five-Year RuleOrdinary income tax on withdrawal of earnings from Roth IRA onlyGenerally bites only if owner is over 59 ½ years old408A(d)(2)(B)1.408A-6 Q&A 2
Second Five-Year Rule10% early withdrawal penalty on withdrawal of taxable converted amounts from Roth IRA onlyOnly bites if owner is under age 59 ½ 408A(d)(3)(F)1.408A-6 Q&A 5(b)

First Five-Year Rule: Earnings Cannot Be Withdrawn Income Tax Free From a Roth IRA Unless the Account Holder has Owned a Roth IRA for Five Full Tax Years

At first, this rule seems daunting. As written, it applies to anyone owning a Roth IRA. But in practice, it rarely has any bite. First, the rule only serves to disqualify a distribution from being a “qualified distribution.” 

Here’s the thing: outside of rare circumstances (see “Two Uncommon Situations” below), anyone under age 59 ½ cannot receive a “qualified distribution” from their own Roth IRA regardless of the first five-year rule.

Thus, as a general matter, the first five-year rule is a rule that only applies to those age 59 ½ and older. 

For those doubting me, I’ll prove it with two examples:

Example 1: Ernestine turns age 25 in the year 2023. In March, she made a $6,500 annual contribution to a Roth IRA for the year 2023. This is her only ever Roth IRA contribution. In 2026, when the Roth IRA is worth $8,000 and Ernestine turns age 28, Ernestine withdraws all $8,000 from the Roth IRA. The first $6,500 is a nontaxable return of the $6,500 contribution, and the remaining $1,500 is a taxable distribution of earnings subject to both ordinary income tax and the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. 

Example 2: Hortense turns age 25 in the year 2023. In March, she made a $6,500 annual contribution to a Roth IRA for the year 2023. This is her only ever Roth IRA contribution. In 2030, when the Roth IRA is worth $8,000 and Hortense turns age 32, Hortense withdraws all $8,000 from the Roth IRA. The first $6,500 is a nontaxable return of the $6,500 contribution, and the remaining $1,500 is a taxable distribution of earnings subject to both ordinary income tax and the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. 

Ernestine did not satisfy the first five-year rule, Hortense did. Notice that it did not matter! Both must pay ordinary income tax and the 10% early withdrawal penalty on the $1,500 of earnings they each received from their Roth IRA. The first five-year rule had absolutely no impact on the taxation of the withdrawal because both Roth IRA owners are under age 59 ½. This proves that outside unusual circumstances, the first five-year rule has no impact on those under age 59 ½.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Previous annual contributions to a Roth IRA can be withdrawn from a Roth IRA tax and penalty free at any time for any reason! The first five-year rule has nothing to do with withdrawals of previously made contributions. See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 1(b) (previous contributions are withdrawn tax free) and Q&A 5(a) (tax free withdrawals of previous regular annual contributions are not subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty).

So when the heck does the first five-year rule matter? Here are two examples to help us figure it out.

Example 3: Ernie turns age 58 in the year 2023. In March, he made a $7,500 annual contribution to a Roth IRA for the year 2023. This is his only ever Roth IRA contribution. In 2026, when the Roth IRA is worth $10,000 and Ernie turns age 61, Ernie withdraws all $10,000 from the Roth IRA. The first $7,500 is a nontaxable return of the $7,500 contribution, and the remaining $2,500 is a taxable distribution of earnings subject to ordinary income tax. Ernie does not pay the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty because he is over age 59 ½ when he receives the earnings. 

Example 4: Harry turns age 58 in the year 2023. In March, he made a $7,500 annual contribution to a Roth IRA for the year 2023. This is his only ever Roth IRA contribution. In 2030, when the Roth IRA is worth $10,000 and Harry turns age 65, Harry withdraws all $10,000 from the Roth IRA. As Harry satisfies both the first five-year rule and is over age 59 ½, the entire $10,000 distribution is a qualified distribution and thus entirely tax and penalty free.

We’ve found where the first five-year rule matters! Generally speaking, the first-five year rule only bites when applied to a distribution of earnings if the recipient is over the age of 59 ½. Further, it only applies to subject the earnings to ordinary income tax, not the 10% early withdrawal penalty (as being age 59 ½ or older is always a valid exception to the early withdrawal penalty). 

Remember, though, in most cases it is difficult to access Roth IRA earnings. Why? Because earnings come out of a Roth IRA last. Ernie’s fact pattern is rare. Many Roth IRA owners will have years of contributions and/or conversions inside their Roth IRA. As I have previously discussed, nonqualified distributions from Roth IRAs first access Roth IRA contributions and then access Roth IRA conversions before they can access a penny of earnings. See also Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 8 and Natalie B. Choate’s Life and Death Benefits for Retirement Planning (8th Ed. 2019), page 328. 

Further, in today’s world, most (though not all) 59 ½ year old Roth IRA owners will satisfy the five-year rule. All Roth IRAs are aggregated for this purpose, so the funding (through a contribution or conversion) of any Roth IRA starts the five-year clock as of January 1st of the year for which the contribution was made. See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 2. 

Two Uncommon Situations: There are two uncommon situations in which a Roth IRA owner under age 59 ½ receiving a Roth IRA distribution could save the ordinary income tax by satisfying the first five-year rule. The first is the taking of an up-to $10,000 first-time home buyer distribution. See Choate, previously referenced, at page 612. The second is if the owner is disabled as defined by Section 72(m)(7). Both are rare situations. Further, in both such cases, satisfying the first five-year rule would be irrelevant if the distribution would have been a return of contributions, nontaxable conversions, and/or taxable conversions at least 5 years old. 

Inherited Roth IRA Twist: The first five-year rule can affect distributions from an inherited Roth IRA. I’ve heard this referred to as the third Roth IRA five-year rule, but I view it as simply a continuation of the first five-year rule. A withdrawal of earnings by a beneficiary from an inherited Roth IRA made less than five tax years after the owner originally funded the Roth IRA is subject to ordinary income tax. See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 7.  These situations are quite rare. 

If Anyone on Capitol Hill is Reading This . . .

The first five-year rule serves no compelling purpose, and is superfluous as applied to most taxpayers under the age of 59 ½.

Perhaps in 1997 Congress worried about quick withdrawals from Roth IRAs. Now that we fully understand that contributions and conversions come out of Roth IRAs first, and that being under age 59 ½ prevents a tax-free distribution of earnings in most cases, there’s no reason for the first five-year rule. Being age 59 ½ or older (or death, disability, or first-time home buyer) should be sufficient to receive a qualified distribution. 

I recommend that Congress repeal the first five-year rule by removing Section 408A(d)(2)(B) from the Internal Revenue Code as part of retirement tax simplification.

Second Five-Year Rule: Taxable Conversions Are Subject to the Ten Percent Early Withdrawal Penalty if Withdrawn from the Roth IRA Within Five Taxable Years

This rule is much more logical than the first five-year rule. The reason has nothing to do with Roth IRAs. Rather, the reason is to protect the 10% early withdrawal penalty as applied to traditional IRAs and traditional workplace plans such as 401(k)s and 403(b)s. Without the second five-year rule, taxpayers would never pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty. 

Rather, taxpayers under age 59 1/2 would simply convert any money they want to withdraw from a traditional retirement account to a Roth IRA, and then shortly thereafter withdraw the amount from the Roth IRA tax-free as a return of old contributions or of the conversion itself. 

The second five-year rule prevents the total evisceration of the 10% early withdrawal penalty. 

The second five-year rule applies separately to each taxable Roth conversion. Each Roth conversion that occurs during a year is deemed to occur January 1st of that year for purposes of the second five-year rule. See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 5(c).

Note further that the second five-year rule has nothing to do with income tax: its bite only triggers the distribution being subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty. 

When Might the Second Roth IRA Five-Year Rule Apply

I am not too worried about the application of the second five-year rule. Here’s why.

First, the second five-year rule is not likely to apply while one is working. During the accumulation phase, many are looking to contribute to, not withdraw from, Roth IRAs.

Second, for those retiring after age 59 ½, the second five-year rule will have practically no impact, as (i) they are not likely to take pre-retirement distributions from their Roth IRA, and (ii) distributions taken from the Roth IRA by the owner after turning age 59 ½ are never subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty. 

Third, many early retirees will choose to live off taxable assets first in early retirement. As a result, many will not access Roth accounts until age 59 ½ or later, and thus the second five-year rule will not be relevant. 

However, some will choose to employ a Roth Conversion Ladder strategy with respect to an early retirement. Here the second five-year rule might bite. Let’s consider a quick example:

Example 5: Josh is considering retiring in 2024 when he turns age 50. In his 30s, he qualified to make an annual Roth IRA contribution and maxed out his Roth IRA each year. In his 40s, he made income in excess of the annual MAGI limits on Roth IRA contributions, so he maxed out the Backdoor Roth IRA for each year. He plans on living on taxable assets for the first five years of retirement and then living off Roth conversion ladders from age 55 through age 59 ½. Josh has never previously taken a distribution from a Roth IRA.

Here is Josh’s Roth IRA history in table form. Thanks to Investopedia for the historic annual contribution maximums. 

YearAgeRoth IRA ContributionBackdoor Roth IRATaxable Amount
200430$3,000
200531$4,000
200632$4,000
200733$4,000
200834$5,000
200935$5,000
201036$5,000
201137$5,000
201238$5,000
201339$5,500
201440$5,502$2
201541$5,503$3
201642$5,501$1
201743$5,502$2
201844$5,501$1
201945$6,001$1
202046$6,002$2
202147$6,002$2
202248$6,001$1
202349$6,004$4

If Josh started withdrawing from his Roth IRA in 2024, he would first withdraw all $45,500 of previous annual contributions (all tax and penalty free) and then withdraw all $33,510 of his 2014 through 2019 Backdoor Roth IRAs (all tax and penalty free) before he could take a distribution with respect to which the second five-year rule could bite. 

Note that for withdrawals of up to $79,010, it is irrelevant that Josh does not satisfy the second five-year rule with respect to the 2020 through 2023 Backdoor Roth IRAs. Josh can withdraw up to $79,010 entirely tax and penalty free in 2024. Perhaps the second five-year rule’s bark is worse than its bite . . .

If, in 2024, Josh withdraws both of the above listed amounts from his Roth IRA, then yes, the next $2 of withdrawals in 2024 would be from the $2 taxable amount of his 2020 Backdoor Roth IRA, which would be subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty ($0.20) under the second five-year rule. 

In Josh’s extreme example, the second five-year rule bites, but, as you can see, it barely bites!

As an aside, assuming Josh continues to withdraw money from his Roth IRA in 2024, the next $6,000 is a tax and penalty free return of the non-taxable portion of his 2020 Backdoor Roth IRA! See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-6 Q&A 8. The generosity of the Roth IRA nonqualified distribution rules is, by itself, a reason not to sweat the two Roth IRA five-year clocks too much. 

Assuming Josh follows through with his plan and waits until age 55 (the year 2029) to start withdrawing from his Roth IRA, he can access all of his 30s Roth IRA annual contributions ($45,500), all of his 40s Backdoor Roth IRAs ($57,519), and whatever amount he converted to his Roth IRA in 2024 tax and penalty free in 2029! After that, however, the second five-year rule will bite ten cents on the dollar for amounts additionally distributed in 2029, since amounts converted in 2025 or later would still be subject to the second five-year rule if distributed in 2029. 

In Josh’s early retirement example, assuming Josh takes no distributions from his Roth IRA until age 55, the second five-year rule can only possibly bite from age 55 to 59 ½, and even then, the combination of years of built up Roth basis and affirmative planning make that possibility at least somewhat remote. 

Don’t over think it: If the owner of a Roth IRA is 59 1/2 years old or older, and has owned a Roth IRA for at least 5 years, all distributions they receive from a Roth IRA are qualified distributions and thus fully tax and penalty free. In such circumstances, the 5-year clocks are entirely irrelevant.

Conclusion

It’s perfectly cromulent to proceed with financial planning without too much worry about the two Roth IRA five-year rules. For personal finance nerds (myself included), the two Roth IRA five-year clocks can be fun to dive into. But from a practical standpoint, they rarely impact the taxation of distributions from Roth IRAs. The two five-year clocks are best understood as sporadically applicable exceptions to the general rule that most nonqualified distributions from Roth IRAs are tax and penalty free.

Further Reading

For even more on Roth IRA distributions, please read this post, which goes through the details of Roth IRA distributions, including citations to the relevant regulations and links to three example Forms 8606 Part III.

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

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, 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.

Medicare Resources

You know what doesn’t get enough coverage in the personal finance space: Medicare! It’s complicated, and frankly, I have neither the time nor the mental bandwidth to become a Medicare expert.

However, recently I have seen some excellent YouTube Videos on the topic. I believe all the links provided below are worthy of consideration. That consideration should, of course, include critical analysis: these videos are great, but they didn’t come down the mountain with Moses (neither did any of my blog posts or YouTube videos).

Further, none of the videos should be relied upon as advice for any particular person. They are all educational resources.

Sarasota Tim on Medicare Basics and Enrolling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNCk7x26i_M

Clark Howard Shares His Concerns with Medicare Advantage (Medicare Part C): https://youtu.be/QUSdn7nGXvQ?t=192

Danielle Kunkle Roberts on Medigap Part G: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtqfO22-Tss

Danielle Kunkle Roberts on Medigap High Deductible Part G: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2aRGN7pR1Q

MedicareSchool on Medigap Part G Versus Medigap Part N: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYXvKvMPbpI

MedicareSchool on Medicare Part D (Prescription Drugs): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSLx-lFr-DM

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

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

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

Saving Social Security and Medicare

America has a retirement savings problem. To varying degrees, Social Security and Medicare support retirees. Other than for the very wealthy, a significant diminution in either program would materially hurt retirees. 

Most can agree with a simple proposition: over the long term, there are fiscal holes in Social Security and Medicare. 

I have seven proposals to address the problem. These proposals won’t solve funding problems for all time, but will move the needle significantly towards securing Social Security and Medicare. All the tax related proposals tax those who have benefited the most from the American economy and a very favorable investment tax climate. 

Before I get started, I would like to encourage the reader to endeavor to reduce his or her dependence on these programs by building up their own retirement assets and/or income streams. That said, as a practical matter both Social Security and Medicare are very important to the retirements of the vast majority of Americans. 

Who Pays to Save Social Security and Medicare?

PROPOSAL ONE: No changes to the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages.

Some propose to increase the eligibility age for Medicare and/or Social Security full retirement age.

I believe that to be a horrible idea, for a myriad of reasons. Over the long term, there are fiscal holes in Social Security and Medicare. By definition, someone in the world must pay for those holes. If we eliminate more outlandish possibilities such as billing invading extraterrestrials and foreign plunder, most of the cost must be made up by some cohort or cohorts of Americans. Raising the eligibility ages to fix the holes simply decides that Americans in their mid-to-late 60s of all income and wealth levels are the cohort of Americans who must pay for those holes.

But why? Are 60-somethings particularly well off compared to other cohorts? I don’t believe they are, and many in their mid-to-late 60s are far worse off than the average American citizen. 

I’m not the only commentator to oppose increasing Social Security eligibility ages.

My three tax proposals below are hardly perfect. But at least they put the onus on filling the holes on those who (i) have benefited most from the recent American economy and (ii) have most benefited from America’s very favorable investment and endowment tax environment. Why shouldn’t the people who have benefited the most, and would be harmed by tax increases the least, fix the Social Security and Medicare holes?

Further, my three tax proposals have a significant advantage over delaying eligibility ages. Delaying eligibility ages is a delayed fix! If enacted in 2023, my three proposals go to work (in full!) on January 1, 2024. 

Any delay of the eligibility age will likely be at least somewhat delayed. No politician is going to vote to raise a 66 year old’s Social Security full retirement age overnight from age 67 to age 70. There’s zero chance of that. That’s demonstrated by this proposal, which proposes to increase Social Security eligibility ages by 3 years and admits that the proposal would not save money for at least 10 years! 

Would you be happy if you called a plumber to fix a leak in your sink and he responded, “Sure, happy to help, I’ll swing on by in 10 years.” No!

Further, I am not going to advocate for a politically untenable solution, and I wouldn’t recommend any politician do so either. There are plenty of solutions that can be implemented short of solutions that are guaranteed to be wildly unpopular with the electorate. 

One piece of evidence demonstrates just how unpopular cutting Social Security and Medicare are. A recent Axios-Ipsos poll (see the bottom of page 9) found that Americans generally oppose Social Security and Medicare cuts by a 7 to 2 margin. Any highly unpopular solution will ultimately be counterproductive. 

A group of Republican Congressmen argue Social Security eligibility ages should be increased in the future to account for increased life expectancy (see the bottom of page 88 of this file). I believe their argument is mistaken for two reasons. First, some increases in life expectancy are attributable to diminished infant mortality instead of increased lifespan in old age. Second, in 2020 and 2021, American life expectancy decreased.

PROPOSAL TWO: No Increase to the FICA Tax Rates (Employee and Employer)

Historically, there have been many payroll tax increases to fund Social Security and Medicare. I believe, in today’s economy, a simple payroll tax rate increase would be unfair and would hurt many Americans who have not benefited from the surge in financial markets the way the affluent have. In a world where working class workers have not experienced real significant salary increases in decades, while the stock market has soared over several decades, we can’t simply increase payroll taxes on everyone and call it fair.

Further, it might be tempting to only increase the payroll tax rates paid by employers. But this runs into two big problems. First, it’s a tax on job creation. I, for one, want employers of all sizes creating more jobs in the United States. Increasing the tax rates employers pay for Social Security and Medicare increases incentives to offshore jobs and shifts towards automation. Count me against that.

Second, increasing employer tax rates is a tax hike on the self-employed. The self-employed face many challenges. They are not a cohort that should shoulder the burden of closing the fiscal holes in Social Security and Medicare.

Tax Increases to Save Social Security and Medicare

PROPOSAL THREE: Increase the additional Medicare tax on earned income from 0.9% to 2.0% Use half the tax (1.0%) fund Medicare and half the tax (1.0%) fund Social Security.

PROPOSAL FOUR: Increase the Medicare surtax on net investment income from 3.8% to 5.0%. Use the increase (1.2%) to fund Social Security. 

These two proposals have several advantages. They incrementally increase taxes on the most successful in America in order to close the shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. They are not taxes on employers hiring more employees, so they do not discourage hiring. Further, these two tax proposals leverage off existing taxes such that implementation of the proposals should be relatively easy. 

PROPOSAL FIVE: Impose a new 25% excise tax on net investment income of college endowments with $1 billion or more in assets as of year end.

This new tax would replace the tiny 1.4% excise tax on some college endowments enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) in 2018. 

Congress can allocate tax collections between Social Security and Medicare as they best see fit. 

Once subject to the tax, a college endowment would be subject to it going forward until the endowment can demonstrate its year-end assets have been under $750 million for three consecutive years. 

Net investment income for this purpose would be the endowment’s Section 1411(c)(1)(A) income, less the following limited expenses: salaries and benefits for employees primarily working for the endowment (limited to $20,000 per month per employee), endowment tax return preparation fees, endowment legal fees, office supplies and equipment (printers, copiers, scanners, etc.) for the endowment, and computer software for the endowment (limited to $1 million per year). Capital gains and capital losses would be netted and no net capital loss could be taken, though any net capital loss would carry forward without limit to subsequent years. 

As the excise tax taxes endowments of financial assets, dorms, classrooms, and other buildings used by the university in their educational mission would not be endowment assets for purposes of the new excise tax. 

Estimated payments would be due the same dates as individual estimates are due (and the same underpayment penalties would apply), and the net investment income of any controlled endowment entity (domestic or foreign) would also be included in the endowment’s net investment income. 

These tax-free hoards have enjoyed incredibly favored treatment long enough. Some of these endowments now exceed $1 million per student, more than enough to fund many students without collecting a dollar of tuition. 

Most colleges do not pay income tax on tuition and donations received. I don’t propose to change that, but it’s time these colleges, which mostly serve a select privileged few, pay a significant tax on their investment income. Considering these endowments are worth vast sums of money, that tax should be equal to the rate paid by highest income individuals on long term capital gains, 25% (20% long term capital gain rate plus 5% net investment income tax under my proposal).

You might think this is unfair to colleges. But let’s imagine we were tasked with creating the entire U.S. federal tax system from scratch. If I proposed to subject waiters and factory workers to both income taxes and payroll taxes on their entire salary, while exempting colleges from taxation on tuition collected and donations received, and then added a 25% net investment income tax on large endowments, you’d probably say “Wow, you’re being unfair to waiters and factory workers and too generous to colleges.” 

I don’t propose a revolution in tax policy, but rather a fair, equitable, and incremental tax change that increases the tax burden on those most able to bear it in order to combat funding shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. 

Stabilizing The Federal Government’s Finances

PROPOSAL SIX: Significant reductions in military and foreign spending

Practically all Americans reading this are owed Social Security and/or Medicare benefits! That makes you a creditor of the U.S. government. 

Your creditor’s financial health matters to you. It’s time your creditor got its house in order. Your creditor’s house is not in order for many reasons, including spending that is consistent with neither the founding nor the history of our great republic.

Incredibly enough, the United States has nearly three times as many foreign military bases as it has embassies. It’s time to ditch the bases and bring the troops home for many reasons. Having so many military and other government personnel overseas is contrary to the great history of our republic. As John Quincy Adams said, “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Today’s historically out-of-whack military and foreign spending is destabilizing the government’s finances. It’s time to cut military and foreign spending significantly and redeploy that money to reduce the deficit and secure the financial stability of the federal government. 

A financially stable government is much more likely to be able to successfully meet its Social Security and Medicare obligations. 

Some might argue that neither our current level of military spending nor Social Security and Medicare are consistent with the founding and history of our country, so shouldn’t both be cut? Jeffrey Sachs has observed that there is some popular support for cutting America’s foreign military involvement. On the other hand, there is very little appetite among the electorate for reductions to Social Security and Medicare. There’s no reason to consider wildly unpopular options when there are much more popular options on the table. 

Self-Help

PROPOSAL SEVEN: Change Your Health

Not every change to improve the Social Security and Medicare system needs to come from Congress.

Over the years I have become more and more convinced that almost everything we learned about health and nutrition is wrong. It is time for each of us to radically take charge of our own healthcare. We need to do this regardless of the fiscal state of Social Security and Medicare. But my hope is this shift will reduce spending on Medicare. 

I have seen my health improve by focusing on eating high quality animal fats and proteins, avoiding seed oils (which are very new in human history), and dramatically reducing sugar consumption. One reason I continue with that focus is that, as discussed by Doctors Ken Berry and Lisa Wiedeman, sugar feeds cancer! See also Dr. Ken Berry discussing this further. Avoiding certain foods can dramatically improve health outcomes and reduce medical spending (including Medicare spending). 

My hope is that more and more Americans will become aware of the role of diet in health, and that will, over time, reduce long term medical expenses, including the expenses paid for by Medicare. Eventually, this renewed health will hopefully lead to longer life spans and increase future Social Security payments. If this happens, it hurts Social Security many years in the future. That much delayed good problem to have will hopefully be more than compensated for by earlier (and hopefully permanent) reductions in Medicare costs. 

Conclusion

As the federal government racks up more and more debt, and the clock ticks towards financial peril for both Social Security and Medicare, it’s time to take action to preserve and protect these programs. 

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

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

The above does not represent the opinion of anyone other than the author, Sean W. Mullaney. The author was not compensated by any individual or entity for writing this blog post, and this blog post does not necessarily reflect the views of any current or former employer of Sean W. Mullaney.

Sean on the Catching Up to FI Podcast

Listen as I talk tax with Becky Heptig and Bill Yount on the Catching Up to FI podcast.

You can access the podcast on Apple Podcasts.

We discuss tax planning for financial independence, particularly planning for those catching up later in their careers.

The show notes include references to the following FI Tax Guy blog posts.

The Advantages of Living on Taxable Assets First in Early Retirement

TikTok Tax Advice

Early Retirement and Social Security

HSAs and Las Vegas

This post, and the above mentioned podcast episode, 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.