Tag Archives: Roth 401(k)

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 AGI	13.75%
Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate	22%

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:

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).
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.
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.
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.
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 AGI	19.56%
Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate	33%

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.

Rule	Tax Bite	Age	Code Section	Regulation
First Five-Year Rule	Ordinary income tax on withdrawal of earnings from Roth IRA only	Generally bites only if owner is over 59 ½ years old	408A(d)(2)(B)	1.408A-6 Q&A 2
Second Five-Year Rule	10% early withdrawal penalty on withdrawal of taxable converted amounts from Roth IRA only	Only 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.

Year	Age	Roth IRA Contribution	Backdoor Roth IRA	Taxable Amount
2004	30	$3,000
2005	31	$4,000
2006	32	$4,000
2007	33	$4,000
2008	34	$5,000
2009	35	$5,000
2010	36	$5,000
2011	37	$5,000
2012	38	$5,000
2013	39	$5,500
2014	40		$5,502	$2
2015	41		$5,503	$3
2016	42		$5,501	$1
2017	43		$5,502	$2
2018	44		$5,501	$1
2019	45		$6,001	$1
2020	46		$6,002	$2
2021	47		$6,002	$2
2022	48		$6,001	$1
2023	49		$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.

Health Savings Accounts and Las Vegas

Want to make a bad financial decision? I’ve got an account that can help you do that tax and penalty free!

Of course, I do not recommend making bad financial decisions. However, at times it is useful to look at extremes to help us better understand and analyze financial planning alternatives.

Health Savings Accounts

If you’ve spent any time on my blog or YouTube channel, you’re probably aware that I’m fond of HSAs. Contributions are tax deductible (or excludable if made through payroll withholding). Amounts inside the HSA grow tax free. Withdrawals for qualified medical expenses, or reimbursements of qualified medical expenses, are tax and penalty free.

As long as the HSA owner is alive, he or she can reimburse themselves from the HSA for qualified medical expenses incurred after they first owned an HSA. Generally speaking, there’s no time limit on HSA reimbursements, other than the owner must be alive to receive the tax and penalty free reimbursement. See “Distributions from an HSA” on page 9 of IRS Publication 969 and Notice 2004-50 Q&A 39.

HSAs are great because they combine the best feature of a traditional retirement account (deduction or exclusion on the way in) with the best feature of a Roth retirement account (tax free treatment on the way out). Further, the lack of a time limit on reimbursements from an HSA provides the owner with tremendous flexibility in terms of deciding when to take tax and penalty free distributions.

Health Savings Accounts PUQME

Previously Unreimbursed Qualified Medical Expenses (PUQME, pronounced “Puck Me”). HSA owners can reimburse themselves tax and penalty free from their HSA up to their amount of their PUQME. PUQME includes qualified medical expenses of the owner, their spouse, and their dependents incurred after the HSA was first established. Qualified medical expenses deducted as an itemized deduction on a tax return (quite rare) do not qualify to be reimbursed from an HSA and thus are not PUQME. PUQME is a technical term I made up. 😉

Restricted Accounts

When we think about taxable brokerage accounts, traditional retirement accounts, Roth retirement accounts, HSAs, and other available options, we should consider the restrictions in place on the use of the funds. The more restrictions in place, the worse the account.

Time Restrictions

Taxable accounts, traditional retirement accounts, and Roth retirement accounts face various time restrictions on withdrawals. For example, taxable accounts qualify for favored long-term capital gains rates if held for a year. Of course, that restriction is academic if there’s a loss or no gain in the account.

Traditional retirement accounts suffer the most stringent time restrictions. Withdrawals occurring prior to the owner turning age 59 ½ are usually subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. Roth IRAs are not all that time restricted, as amounts withdrawn prior to age 59 ½ are deemed to first be nontaxable withdrawals of prior contributions. Roth 401(k)s can be somewhat time restricted, as amounts withdrawn prior to age 59 ½ are partially deemed to be withdrawals of taxable earnings (usually subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty).

HSAs are somewhat time restricted, though like Roth IRAs, they are not severely so. Once one has PUQME after having opened an HSA, he or she can withdraw money (up to their PUQME amount) from the HSA tax and penalty free.

Use Restrictions

Taxable accounts, traditional retirement accounts, and Roth retirement accounts are great in that they have absolutely no use restrictions. The government does not care what you spend the money on. The tax result is, at least generally speaking, unaffected by use.

There are some exceptions, such as the exceptions to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty such that early withdrawals from retirement accounts can qualify to avoid the 10 percent penalty. Further, one might say that because of qualified charitable distributions, using traditional IRAs for charitable purposes is use-favored. The above exceptions noted, as a general rule, use does not significantly change the taxation of withdrawals from taxable accounts, traditional retirement accounts, and Roth retirement accounts.

HSA Use Restrictions

HSA distributions that are not used for qualified medical expenses are subject to both income tax and a 20% penalty if the owner is under age 65.

However, recall that there is no time limit on the ability to reimburse oneself tax and penalty free for previously incurred qualified medical expenses. As a practical matter, the lack of time limit results in relatively modest use restrictions on an HSA. Below I’ll illustrate that with an extreme example.

HSAs and Las Vegas

Perhaps you’re yearning for the hot sand, broken dreams, and $5 lobster of Las Vegas. Could an HSA help? Let’s explore that possibility.

Peter, age 70, wants a weekend getaway in Las Vegas. Between a hotel suite, comedy club tickets, airfare, steak dinners, some Texas Hold’em poker, and the breakfast buffet, he estimates it will cost him $10,000.

Peter was covered by a high deductible health plan from age 55 through age 65. He maxed out his HSA annually during that time, and he has never taken a distribution from his HSA. The HSA is now worth $50,000, and between age 55 and today Peter has $30,000 of PUQME.

Could Peter use his HSA to pay for the weekend? Absolutely!

Wait a minute, Sean. Vegas isn’t a qualified medical expense! Sure, it isn’t. But Peter has $30,000 of previously unreimbursed qualified medical expenses. He can take out $10,000 from his HSA tax and penalty free and use it to buy poker chips in Las Vegas. Once an HSA owner has previously unreimbursed qualified medical expenses, they generally do not have an HSA use restriction up to the level of that PUQME.

As a practical matter, even the healthiest Americans are eventually going to have qualified medical expenses. As a result, most HSA owners will have runway, particularly in retirement, to reimburse themselves for previously incurred qualified medical expenses. That reimbursement money is in no way use restricted–it can go for a weekend trip to Vegas if the HSA owner desires.

HSA Planning Risk

But Sean, there’s no way Congress won’t close the loophole! Surely, at some point in the future, Congress will time-limit tax and penalty free reimbursements from HSAs.

I don’t think so, for three reasons.

First, the HSA loophole is not that great. Consider the relatively modest HSA contribution limits. Sure, the government loses tax revenue due to HSAs, but it isn’t that much, particularly compared to vehicles such as Roth IRAs. Further, HSAs are, at most, a loophole during the owner’s lifetime and the lifetime of their surviving spouse. That’s it!

Left to a non-spouse, non-charity beneficiary, the entire HSA is immediately taxable income (typically at the beneficiary’s highest tax rate) in the year of the owner’s death. Death not only ends the loophole, it gives the government a significant revenue raiser by taxing the entire amount at ordinary rates on top of the inheriting beneficiary’s other taxable income.

Second, I suspect Congress wants taxpayers to bailout HSA money tax and penalty free prior to death. The immediate full taxation of HSA balances in the year of death is going to come as a nasty surprise to many beneficiaries.

Imagine significant taxes and perhaps dealing with the paperwork and hassle of reversing what becomes an excess contribution to a Roth IRA because of a surprise income hit due to the death of a loved one. Here’s what that could look like.

Mark and Laura are married and both turn age 47 in 2023. They anticipate about $200,000 of MAGI in 2023, in line with their 2022 income. Expecting their 2023 income to fall well within the Roth IRA modified adjusted gross income limits, each contributes $6,500 to a Roth IRA for 2023 on January 2, 2023. In September, Laura’s father passes away and leaves her an HSA worth $50,000. The HSA inheritance increases their 2023 MAGI to $250,000. The federal income tax hit on inheriting the HSA will be over $10,000.

As a result of their increased income, Mark and Laura are now ineligible to have made the 2023 Roth IRA contributions. The most likely remedial path involves Mark and Laura working with the financial institution to take a corrective distribution of the contributions and the earnings attributable to the contributions. The earnings will be included in Mark and Laura’s MAGI for 2023 as one last insult to inheriting a fully taxable HSA.

This is a lurking issue. If Congress puts 2 and 2 together, they will hope that HSA balances are small at death so as to avoid their constituents suffering a large, unexpected tax bill related to a loved one’s death. Time-limiting tax and penalty free HSA reimbursements would keep more money inside HSAs during an owner’s lifetime (and thus, at their death). At death, this would set up more beneficiaries to have nasty surprises when inheriting an HSA, a fate Congress most likely wants to avoid.

Third, time-limiting HSA reimbursements will go counter to the reason HSAs exist in the first place: to encourage the use of high deductible health plans. Time-limiting HSA reimbursements could trap amounts inside HSAs because taxpayers would lose amounts they could withdraw from the HSA without incurring tax (and a 20 percent penalty if under age 65). If taxpayers believe HSA money could become trapped, fewer will opt for a high deductible health plan. This will lead to increased medical costs as more and more Americans have lower deductibles and become sensitive to medical pricing.

Surviving Spouse’s HSA PUQME

I prepared a short 1-page technical write up providing my views on how previously unreimbursed qualified medical expenses are computed when a spouse inherits a health savings account.

HSA Resource

Kelley C. Long recently authored an excellent article on HSAs in the Journal of Accountancy.

Conclusion

Here’s hoping that you don’t take away the conclusion that HSA owners should spend their HSA money in Las Vegas!

Rather, my primary conclusion is that investments and tax baskets should be assessed considering their time and use restrictions. The fewer the time and use restrictions, the better. Of course, time and use restrictions are not the only factors to consider, but they are significant factors.

Secondary conclusions include (i) the HSA tends to be very flexible and (ii) the tax breaks available to HSA owners are not likely to be repealed or limited by Congress anytime soon.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

SECURE 2.0 and the FI Community

Congress just passed a very long retirement tax bill, colloquially referred to as SECURE 2.0 or the SECURE Act 2.0. The FI community is interested in anything affecting tax-advantaged retirement accounts. This post dives in on the impact of SECURE 2.0 on the FI community.

SECURE 2.0 Big Picture

SECURE 2.0 tinkers. It contains dozens of new rules. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds of the new rules, but I don’t recommend it. Many new rules have very little impact on financial planning for those in the FI community.

Here’s one example: SECURE 2.0 eliminates (effective 2024) required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) from Roth 401(k)s during the owner’s lifetime. Since Roth IRAs never had RMDs during the owner’s lifetime, and Roth 401(k)s are easily transferable to Roth IRAs at or after retirement, this is a rule change without much practical impact for most from a planning perspective.

However, there are two main takeaways those in the FI community should focus on when it comes to SECURE 2.0. First, SECURE 2.0 makes traditional, deductible retirement account contributions even more attractive. Second, SECURE 2.0 sets what I refer to as the Rothification Trap. Don’t fall into the Rothification Trap!

Traditional Retirement Account Contributions Are Even More Attractive

In the classic traditional versus Roth debate, SECURE 2.0 moves the needle towards traditional deductible retirement account contributions. Why?

SECURE 2.0 delays the required beginning date for RMDs! Starting in 2023, RMDs must begin at age 73, buying those born from 1951 through 1959 one more year to do tax-efficient Roth conversions prior to being required to take RMDs. But for most of the readers of this blog, the news is much better. Those born in 1960 or later now must take RMDs starting at age 75.

This is a big win for the FI community! Why? Many in the FI community will have artificially low taxable income in retirement prior to having to take RMDs at age 75. That increases the window for Roth conversions while a retiree otherwise has low taxable income.

Delaying RMDs makes traditional FI tax planning even more attractive, particularly for those born after 1959. Retirees will have through the year of their 74th birthday to make Roth conversions to (i) get tax rate arbitrage on traditional retirement accounts and (ii) lower RMDs when they are ultimately required.

The planning runway to do Roth conversions prior to taking RMDs just got three years longer. This gives both early retirees and conventional retirees that much more of an opportunity to do Roth conversions at low income tax rates prior to being required to take RMDs. There are three additional years of progressive tax brackets to absorb efficient Roth conversions and reduce future RMDs.

Rothification Trap

SECURE 2.0 promotes even more in the way of Roth contributions. It allows employees to elect to have their employer 401(k) and other workplace plan contributions be Roth contributions, effective immediately. See Section 604 of SECURE 2.0. Plans will have to affirmatively add this feature (if they so choose), so it won’t be immediately effective in most cases. I predict that at least some plans will offer this option. I suspect some plans will not offer this option, since Roth employer contributions must be immediately vested. Some employers will be hesitant to eliminate vesting requirements for employer contributions, though it must be remembered that some employers immediately vest all employer contributions.

In addition, effective starting in 2023, SEP IRAs and SIMPLE IRAs can be Roth SEP IRAs and Roth SIMPLE IRAs. See Section 601 of SECURE 2.0.

Here’s the thing: for those planning an early retirement, Rothification is a trap! The name of the game for those thinking about early retirement is to max out deductions while working and later do Roth conversions in early retirement. This maximizes deductions while one is subject to their highest marginal tax rate (their working years) and moves income to one’s lower taxable income years (the early retirement years). The combination of these opportunities creates tax rate arbitrage.

I’m worried some in the FI community will say “I really love Roth, so I’ll make all my contributions–IRA, employee 401(k), and employer 401(k))–Roth now!” I believe that path is likely to be a mistake for many in the FI community, for two reasons. First, this foregoes the great tax planning opportunity presented by deducting retirement contributions at one’s highest lifetime marginal tax rates while working and then converting to Roths at low early retirement tax rates.

Second, it sets one up to have difficulty qualifying for Affordable Care Act Premium Tax Credits. In order to qualify for Premium Tax Credits, which could be worth thousands of dollars in early retirement, one must have income above their state’s applicable Medicaid threshold. For example, in 2023 a family of four in California with a modified adjusted gross income (“MAGI”) of less than $39,750 would qualify for MediCal (California’s Medicaid) and thus get $0 Premium Tax Credits if they choose to use an Affordable Care Act insurance plan. Most early retirees will want to be on an ACA plan instead of their state’s Medicaid insurance for a variety of reasons.

In a low-yield world, an early retiree with only taxable accounts and Roth accounts may find it difficult to generate sufficient MAGI, even with tax gain harvesting, to avoid Medicaid and qualify for a Premium Tax Credit. The earlier the retirement, the more likely having only taxable accounts and Roth accounts will eventually lead to an inability to generate sufficient MAGI to qualify for Premium Tax Credits.

Rothification Trap Antidote

How might one qualify for the Premium Tax Credit in early retirement? By doing Roth conversions of traditional retirement accounts! If there’s no money in traditional retirement accounts, there’s nothing to Roth convert.

I discussed the issue of early retirees not having enough income to qualify for Premium Tax Credits, and the Roth conversion fix, with Brad Barrett on a recent episode of the ChooseFI podcast (recorded before SECURE 2.0 passed).

Previously, I’ve stated that for many in the FI movement, the “dynamic duo” of tax-advantaged retirement account savings is to max out a traditional deductible 401(k) at work and max out a Roth IRA contribution (regular or Backdoor) at home. Now that SECURE 2.0 has passed, I believe this is still very much the case.

At the very least, those shooting for an early retirement should strongly consider leaving employer contributions to 401(k)s and other workplace retirement plans as traditional, deductible contributions. This would give them at least some runway to increase MAGI in early retirement sufficient to create enough taxable income to qualify for a Premium Tax Credit.

401(k), 403(b), and 457 Max Contributions Age 50 and Older

The two most significant takeaways from SECURE 2.0 out of the way, we now get to several other changes members of the FI community should consider.

First, for those age 50 and older, determining one’s maximum workplace retirement account contributions is about to get complicated. By 2025, there will be up to three questions to ask to determine what one’s maximum retirement contribution, and how it can be allocated (traditional and/or Roth), will look like:

What’s my age?
What was my prior-year wage income from this employer?
Does my employer offer a Roth version of the retirement plan?

Specifically, the changes to 401(k) and other workplace employee contributions are as follows:

Increased Catch-Up Contributions Ages 60, 61, 62, and 63

SECURE 2.0 Section 109 (see page 2087) increases workplace retirement plan catch-up contributions for those aged 60 through 63 to 150% of the regular catch-up contribution limit, starting in 2025.

Catch-Up Contributions Must be Roth if Prior-Year Income Too High

Starting in 2024, 401(k) and other workplace retirement plan catch-up contributions (starting at age 50) must be Roth contributions if the worker made more than $145,000 (indexed for inflation) in wages from the employer during the prior year. Interestingly enough, if the employer plan does not offer a Roth component, then the worker is not able to make a catch-up contribution regardless of whether they made more than $145,000 from the employer during the previous year. Hat tip to Josh Scandlen and Jeffrey Levine for making this latter point, which the flow-chart I featured in the originally published version of this post missed. Sorry for the error as we are all learning about the many intricate contours of SECURE 2.0, myself included!

I do anticipate that many 401(k) plans that do not currently offer a Roth component will start to offer one to allow age 50 and older workers to qualify for catch-up contributions (even if they now must be Roth contributions for those at higher incomes).

From a planning perspective, I still believe that catch-up contributions will make sense for many required to make them as Roth contributions. In such a case, the option is either (i) make the Roth catch-up contribution or (ii) invest the money in a taxable brokerage account. Generally speaking, I believe that it is advantageous to put the money in a Roth account. However, one can easily imagine a situation where someone is thinking about an early retirement and does not have much in taxable accounts such that it might be better to simply invest the money in a taxable account.

Note that the prior-year wage restriction on deducting catch-up contributions does not appear to apply to the Solo 401(k) of a Schedule C solopreneur, but it does appear to apply to the Solo 401(k) of a solopreneur operating out of an S corporation.

No Changes to Backdoor Roths

In another win for the FI community, the Backdoor Roth IRA and the Mega Backdoor Roth are not changed or curtailed by SECURE 2.0.

Rolling 529 Plans to Roth IRAs

SECURE 2.0 has a notable provision allowing up to $35,000 of a 529 plan to be rolled over to the Roth IRA of the beneficiary. I agree with Sarah Brenner that this rule is not one to get too excited about. Why I feel that way is another story for another day. That day is February 15, 2023, when my post on the 529-to-Roth IRA rollover drops on the blog.

SECURE 2.0 and the FIRE Movement on YouTube

Resources

Sarah Brenner’s helpful summary: https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/happy-holidays-congress-gifts-secure-20

The Groom Law Group goes through SECURE 2.0 section by section: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/secure-2-0-hitches-a-ride-just-in-the-9280743/

Final Omnibus (which contained SECURE 2.0) text: https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/JRQ121922.PDF

Jeffrey Levine’s detailed blog post on SECURE 2.0: https://www.kitces.com/blog/secure-act-2-omnibus-2022-hr-2954-rmd-75-529-roth-rollover-increase-qcd-student-loan-match/

Jeffrey Levine’s detailed Twitter thread on SECURE 2.0: https://twitter.com/CPAPlanner/status/1605609788183924738

My video about the two biggest problems with SECURE 2.0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsy1SQXogAg

My December 2022 SECURE 2.0 Resources post: https://fitaxguy.com/secure-2-0-resources/

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

SECURE 2.0 Resources

Here is the bill text for SECURE 2.0.

SECURE 2.0 Big Picture

SECURE 2.0 tinkers, almost in an unprecedented fashion. Instead of repealing obviously bad retirement tax rules, it adds to them! I suspect that for many Americans, SECURE 2.0 will have only a marginal impact on their retirement savings and financial planning. This version of SECURE 2.0 has some aspects of what the House passed much earlier in 2022, but there are many significant additions and changes.

I discuss what I believe to be the two biggest problems with SECURE 2.0

Some Highlights (or Lowlights)

Increased catch-up contributions for those aged 60-63, effective starting in 2025
Denial of catch-up contribution deduction for those with prior-year income over $145,000, effective starting in 2024
Delay RMDs to age 73 for a decade, then delayed to age 75. This change is effective starting in 2023.
Increased auto-enrollment for workplace retirement plans
Roth options for (i) SIMPLE IRAs, (ii) SEP IRAs, (iii) employer contributions to employer plans such as 401(k)s
Minor emergency withdrawals from retirement accounts. Limited to one distribution per year of no more than $1,000, effective starting in 2024
$2,500 of contributions to emergency side accounts for workplace retirement plans, effective starting in 2024
Elimination of RMDs from Roth 401(k)s during the owner’s lifetime
Allowing Schedule C self-employed individuals to adopt a Solo 401(k) after year-end and make employee contributions (first year only), effective starting with the 2023 plan year
Indexing for inflation of the $1,000 annual catch-up contribution to traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs
Reform to penalties for missed RMDs
No change to the Backdoor Roth IRA rules and no change to the Mega Backdoor Roth IRA rules
Expansion of the exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty

Resources

Bill text

Jeffrey Levine’s excellent Twitter thread on the particulars of SECURE 2.0: https://twitter.com/CPAPlanner/status/1605609788183924738

Jeffrey Levine’s breakdown of SECURE 2.0 on Kitces.com: https://www.kitces.com/blog/secure-act-2-omnibus-2022-hr-2954-rmd-75-529-roth-rollover-increase-qcd-student-loan-match/

My breakdown of SECURE 2.0 and the FI Community: https://fitaxguy.com/secure-2-0-and-the-fi-community/

My mini Twitter thread on minor emergency withdrawals: https://twitter.com/SeanMoneyandTax/status/1605117417721434113

My mini Twitter thread on new employer plan emergency accounts: https://twitter.com/SeanMoneyandTax/status/1605119482803863552

My Plan

I have a retirement tax reform plan that I believe is better and simpler than SECURE 2.0.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

The MAGI Limitation on Roth IRA Contributions

During a recent Econome Encore presentation, a questioner asked a question that caused me to do a double take: Do Roth conversions create MAGI (modified adjusted gross income) for purposes of determining whether someone exceeds the MAGI thresholds to make an annual contribution to a Roth IRA?

I did a double take for several reasons. First, the presentation was early on a Sunday morning 😉 . Second, in practice, the issue rarely comes up, for reasons we will discuss later. Third, why wouldn’t income created by a Roth conversion count as MAGI for this purpose? It is taxable income, after all. Fourth, I was pretty sure the rule states that no, Roth conversions do not create MAGI for this purpose.

I quickly stated that I thought the rule does not consider Roth conversions to be included in MAGI, but I looked it up to be sure. My initial take was correct. Roth conversions are not included in MAGI for purposes of determining whether one can make an annual contribution to a Roth IRA. See IRC Section 408A(c)(3)(B)(i).

The Creation of the Roth IRA in 1997

It’s a bit of an odd rule, though. Why carve out Roth conversion income from the Roth IRA MAGI test? It’s especially odd considering that actual taxable withdrawals from a traditional IRA or 401(k) create MAGI for this purpose. Why carve out income from Roth conversions of traditional IRAs and 401(k)s?

It has to do with how Roth IRAs were created. In 1997, Congress created the Roth IRA to be effective starting in 1998. Roths were new. There was likely a concern along the lines of “a vehicle with tax-free growth could be abused.” Thus, there were two features of the Roth IRA subject to a MAGI limitation. Both the ability to make a direct annual contribution to a Roth IRA and the ability to convert amounts from a traditional retirement account to a Roth IRA were subject to a MAGI limitation. See page 40 of the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act text.

The MAGI limitations begged the question: how to define MAGI for this purpose? The bill drafters started with a common technique: they found another relevant definition of MAGI already existing in the Internal Revenue Code. Why reinvent the wheel? They started with the MAGI definition used to determine the ability to make a deductible traditional IRA contribution.

By itself, however, this definition would create a circular definition problem with respect to Roth conversions, as the IRA deduction MAGI definition used starts with AGI and then kicks out certain items. Roth conversions are included in AGI, so to avoid a circular calculation, the bill drafters had to kick Roth conversion income out of the Roth MAGI definition.

If Roth conversion income was included in the MAGI definition, then the taxpayer would have to test Roth conversions against themselves to determine if Roth conversions were allowed! For example, if AGI was $90K prior to a $40K Roth conversion, the $40K Roth conversion would disqualify itself, as the MAGI limitation on the ability to convert was $100K of MAGI.

Further, the bill drafters decided to create one MAGI definition for the two different limitations. They could have created two different MAGI definitions, but this would have made a new Code section even more lengthy and complicated. Remember, none of this existed as of 1997 when the bill was written. So, the final bill only had one MAGI definition for both limits. That one definition kicked out Roth conversion income, which it had to do to avoid the circular definition problem with respect to Roth conversions.

Changes to Roth IRAs

In 2006, Congress repealed the MAGI limitation on the ability to do Roth conversions, effective 2010. See pages 21 and 22 of this PDF of the Tax Increase Protection and Reconciliation Act of 2005. This is what opened the door to the Backdoor Roth IRA starting in 2010.

Interestingly enough, had there never been a MAGI limitation on the ability to do a Roth conversion, the kick out of Roth conversion income from the MAGI limitation on the ability to make an annual contribution to a Roth IRA might not exist. First, there would have been no circular definition problem to solve. Second, it would have been neater to simply reference the deductible traditional IRA contribution MAGI definition and leave it at that.

But, that’s not how the history of the Roth IRA transpired. We will never know if there would not have been a kick out of Roth conversion income in defining MAGI for annual Roth contribution purposes had today’s rules been the original Roth IRA rules.

Roth Conversions and Annual Roth IRA Contributions

For *many* taxpayers, particularly those in the FI community, the time to do Roth conversions is not while one is working. When one is working, he or she is likely to (a) qualify for annual Roth contributions and (b) to be in their highest lifetime marginal tax brackets. Usually, the best time to do a Roth conversion is during early retirement rather than during one’s highest earning years.

As a practical matter, at the time many Americans qualify to make a Roth contribution, they are not likely to be in an optimal Roth conversion posture. Of course, your circumstances could vary. For example, consider someone taking a 12 month sabbatical from the workforce (starting March 1st) who has 2 months of earned income during the year. Perhaps he or she should (a) make a Roth IRA contribution based on their 2 months of earnings and also (b) do Roth conversions based on having a relatively low income for the year.

Click here for the IRS website detailing the 2023 MAGI limitations on the ability to contribute to a Roth IRA.

While We’re On the Subject of the Annual MAGI Limit on Roth IRA Contributions . . .

My belief is that one of the next changes Congress should make to Roth IRAs is to remove the MAGI limit on contributions.

Let’s think about this. A 50+ year old billionaire can contribute up to $30,000 to a workplace traditional or Roth 401(k) regardless of their income level. If this is possible, why is there a MAGI limitation on the ability to contribute $6,500 or $7,500 (age 50 or older, 2023 numbers) to a Roth IRA? It makes absolutely no sense, especially considering that some people, though not all people, can get around the MAGI limitation through the Backdoor Roth IRA.

Further, our neighbors to the north have no income limitation on the ability to contribute to a Tax-Free Savings Account, Canada’s equivalent of the Roth IRA. It’s time for Congress to repeal the MAGI limitation on the ability to make an annual Roth IRA contribution.

Watch me discuss the real answer to the Backdoor Roth IRA gimmick, which is the repeal of the MAGI limitation on the ability to make an annual Roth IRA contribution.

Conclusion

There’s a bit of an odd rule when it comes to determining MAGI for purposes of determining whether a taxpayer can make a contribution to a Roth IRA. It stems from the creation of the Roth IRA in 1997 and the fact that back then, there was also a MAGI limitation on the ability to convert amounts to a Roth IRA. Today, the kick out of Roth conversion income is a taxpayer favorable rule that is rarely significant in practice. More broadly speaking, I hope Congress repeals the MAGI limitation on the ability to make an annual Roth IRA contribution.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

Three Ways the Solo 401(k) Supports Financial Independence

Financial independence encourages thinking about one’s financial future in a different way. You were told to “build a career and retire at age 65.” Financial independence says you should write your own financial script. The system, your parents, and a large employer should not be the authors of your financial future.

Guess what goes perfectly well with a financial independence mentality? The Solo 401(k)! The Solo 401(k) helps you control today’s tax burden and helps you plan for your retirement your way.

Here are three ways the Solo 401(k) can support the financial independence journey.

Choice and Low Fees

One advantage of working for yourself is you gain control over your workplace retirement account. Solopreneurs themselves determine where their Solo 401(k) is established and the investment options available to them. They determine contribution levels and whether or not to contribute to a Roth account.

Solopreneurs are no longer at the mercy of a large employer’s 401(k) plan, which may not have the investments they want, a Roth option, and/or low fees.

Further, many Solo 401(k) providers offer low or no fees to establish a Solo 401(k) with their institution. For example, today neither Schwab nor Fidelity charges Solo 401(k) fees, other than the fees of the underlying investments (such as mutual fund expenses). Vanguard charges $20 per mutual fund inside a Solo 401(k) (other than the underlying fund fees), though the $20 fee can be waived if the solopreneur has enough qualifying assets invested with Vanguard.

Tax Rate Arbitrage

The Solo 401(k) supports very significant tax deductions. For those at their peak earning years, contributions to Solo 401(k)s can benefit from high marginal tax rates. Further, in certain circumstances, traditional deductible Solo 401(k) contributions can help solopreneurs qualify for the qualified business income deduction, increasing the marginal tax rate benefit of traditional, deductible Solo 401(k) contributions.

During early retirement, retired solopreneurs can convert traditional retirement accounts to Roth accounts. Those Roth conversions can be sheltered by the standard deduction, and then taxed at the 10 percent and 12 percent marginal federal income tax rate. This arbitrage opportunity (deduct contributions at high marginal rates, later convert the contributions and earnings to Roth accounts at lower tax rates) can supercharge the journey to financial independence.

Reducing MAGI for PTC Qualification

Many solopreneurs have their medical insurance through an Affordable Care Act plan. These plans often have hefty annual premiums. However, there is a Premium Tax Credit (“PTC”) that can significantly reduce the cost of those premiums.

PTCs decline as modified adjusted gross income (“MAGI”) increases. Very generally speaking, from a planning perspective, as MAGI increases, PTCs decline by approximately 10 to 15 percent. Solopreneurs can reduce MAGI by contributing to a traditional deductible Solo 401(k). That decrease in MAGI can significantly increase the PTC, defraying their ACA medical insurance premiums.

Conclusion

The Solo 401(k) can help solopreneurs achieve financial independence. Chapter 13 of my new book, Solo 401(k): The Solopreneur’s Retirement Account, goes into further detail about marrying the Solo 401(k) with one’s own FI journey. The book is available from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other outlets.

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.

TikTok Tax Advice

There’s tax advice available on TikTok. Is it worth following? Does it miss the big picture?

Retirement Saving Through Various Forms of Life Insurance

TikTok tax advice often boils down to something like the following: don’t save in traditional retirement accounts where you will get crushed by taxes in retirement. Rather, save for retirement through permanent life insurance products (such as indexed universal life insurance policies) to get tax free growth and tax free withdrawals during retirement.

Watch me discuss two problems with TikTok tax advice on YouTube.

This advice is not just offered on TikTok, though, anecdotally, it appears TikTok is at least something of a hub for promoting indexed universal life (“IUL”) and other forms of permanent life insurance.

One recent example of this sort of advice posits a retired couple making $160,000 a year in IRA/401(k) distributions and $40K in Social Security/pension income and worries that the couple will have a terrible tax problem.

But is that really the case? Let’s play it out with a detailed example.

Sally and Joe both turn age 75 in 2022. They are California residents. During their working years, they were prodigious savers in their workplace 401(k) plans, and their employers offered generous matching contributions. As a result, in 2022 they have required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) of $160,000. They also will have $40,000 of Social Security income, $4,000 of qualified dividend income, and $1,000 of interest income. Further, being tax savvy, they contribute $500 a month to their church through qualified charitable distributions (“QCDs”) from their traditional IRAs. They claim the standard deduction as their home is paid off and thus have no mortgage interest deductions.

Alright, let’s see what Sally and Joe’s 2022 tax picture (all numbers are estimates) looks like:

First, their rough 2022 federal income tax return:

Federal Income Tax Return
RMDs	$ 160,000
Social Security	$ 40,000
15% Social Security Exclusion	$ (6,000)
Interest	$ 1,000
Qualified Dividends	$ 4,000
QCD RMD Exclusion	$ (6,000)
Adjusted Gross Income (“AGI”)	$ 193,000
Standard Deduction	$ (25,900)
Additional SD Age 65+	$ (2,800)
Federal Taxable Income	$ 164,300

Let’s turn to what their $164,300 federal taxable income means in terms of federal and California income taxes paid and their 2022 cash flow:

2022 Income Taxes and Cash Flow (Estimated)
Federal Income Tax	$ 27,100
Effective Tax Rate on AGI	14.04%
Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate	22%
California Taxable Income (Approximate):	$ 149,000
California Income Tax (Approx.)	$ 7,862
Effective CA Income Tax Rate on Fed AGI	4.07%
Marginal CA Income Tax Rate	9.30%
Total Fed & CA Effective Income Tax Rate	18.11%
Cash Flow After Fed & CA Income Tax & QCDs	$ 164,038

By my math, after paying both income taxes and charitable contributions, this retired couple has $164,000 in cash flow for living expenses. Considering that, like many retirees, they live in a paid-off home, do we really believe there is a significant risk they will not be able to pay their bills? This couple ought to be able to enjoy a very pleasant, comfortable lifestyle, including recreational activities and travel.

Are Sally and Joe really getting crushed by income taxes? As residents of a high tax state, they do pay about $35K in combined federal and state income taxes. Sure, if $35K was on the table in front of you, you’d grab it pretty quick. But considering the $200K plus in cash flow they generated during the year, paying $35K in income taxes to the IRS and California is hardly financially debilitating.

Most retired couples, even financially successful couples, will not have federal adjusted gross income of $193,000. If Sally and Joe are not crushed by income taxes (paying just an 18.11% estimated effective rate even living in a high-tax state), it is likely most retirees will be able to withstand the tax hits at retirement from having significant savings in traditional deferred retirement accounts.

The Trade-Off Unstated on TikTok

TikTok tax advice often presents the boogeyman of taxes in retirement. It says “don’t invest in your 401(k) because it will get crushed in retirement.” Even if that were true, it usually neglects an important consideration: the upfront benefit of investing in a 401(k).

During their working careers, it is likely that Joe and Sally were subject to marginal income tax rates of 24% or more federal and 9.3% California. Had they used permanent life insurance to save instead of using their 401(k)s, they would have lost 33 cents (or more) on every dollar in immediate tax savings, as there is no tax deduction for amounts contributed to life insurance policies.

The existence of the tax deduction for amounts contributed to a traditional 401(k) does not automatically mean that using permanent life insurance products for retirement is a bad idea. However, in weighing the tax benefits of the traditional 401(k) approach compared to the permanent life insurance approach, one must consider the immediate, and potentially substantial, tax benefits of traditional 401(k) contributions.

One consideration in weighing the pros and cons of each: traditional 401(k) contributions generally get a tax benefit at the taxpayer’s marginal tax rate, while withdrawals from traditional 401(k)s and IRAs are more generally taxed at a taxpayer’s lower effective rate. On the way out, withdrawals are taxed through the relatively progressive tax brackets existing today, getting the benefits of the 10%, 12%, and 22% federal income tax brackets.

Uncertainty

But, Sean, what about future tax rate increases! The federal government is running a huge deficit and it’s not getting any better.

This is a valid point. But let’s consider a few things. First, in my example, Sally and Joe were subject to a 33.3% marginal tax rate during their working years, and barely over an 18% effective tax rate during their retirement. For the math to work out to make permanent life insurance more attractive (tax-wise) than traditional 401(k)s for them, tax rates would need to be increased substantially, by over 80%. Thus, even if tax rates on retirees such as Joe and Sally were to increase 85% from current levels, the tax math might only marginally favor using permanent life insurance instead of a traditional 401(k).

Second, if there are going to be income tax rate increases, they are more likely to be to the upper tax brackets. There are fewer taxpayers (read: voters) subject to the higher tax brackets, so those are the ones the politicians are more likely to increase. Increasing the 10%, the 12%, and/or the 22% tax brackets will impact more voters and lead to more election risk for the politicians.

Third, recent history suggests that the politicians are not likely to target retirees. It’s true that Social Security went from being tax free to being largely subject to taxation, up to 85% taxable. Interestingly enough, the second Social Security tax increase, which subjected Social Security to possibly being 85% taxable, passed through a Democratic Congress in 1993. The following year the Democrats suffered historic losses in the House and Senate elections. Many factors came into play, but it is interesting that since 1994 tax policy has generally benefited retirees (no more tax increases on Social Security, increasingly progressive tax brackets, and the increased standard deduction).

Perhaps the politicians in both parties have learned a lesson when it comes to retiree taxation.

Is there zero risk that retirees could be subject to higher taxes in the future? Absolutely not. But, is that risk great enough to eschew traditional 401(k) contributions in favor of permanent life insurance? Not in my opinion.

Further, there are simpler, less costly planning techniques other than permanent life insurance that those using 401(k)s for retirement planning can avail themselves of, including Roth accounts and health savings accounts.

Roth Accounts

Savers worried about future tax rate hikes have a simple, easy to implement tool to hedge against future tax rate increases: the Roth IRA. The Roth IRA solves the same tax problem that permanent life insurance solves for. In today’s environment, Roth IRAs are available at a vast array of financial institutions with very low fees.

As I have previously discussed, many savers will benefit from the combination of a maxed out traditional 401(k) and a maxed out annual Roth IRA.

Many will point out the possibility of much greater contributions to an indexed universal life insurance policy than to a Roth IRA. While true, many of those concerned with getting large amounts into tax-free accounts while working can turn to the Roth 401(k), which has significantly greater annual contribution limits than the Roth IRA.

Roth Conversions

Many in the FIRE community have access to Roth conversions during what are likely to lower taxable income years. The tax idea behind retiring early is to load up on traditional 401(k) contributions during working years, and then convert amounts inside traditional retirement accounts to Roth accounts during early retirement years prior to collecting Social Security.

In early retirement years, many in the FIRE movement appear, at least initially, to be poor on their tax return. No longer working, and not yet collecting Social Security, one’s tax return only includes interest income, dividend income, and some capital gains income. If that income is relatively low (which it is likely to be for many early retirees), it likely leaves room for Roth conversions at the 10% or 12% tax brackets during early retirement.

This is tax rate arbitrage. First, deduct 401(k) contributions in the 24% or greater federal income tax brackets during one’s working years. Then, during early retirement, convert amounts in the traditional retirement accounts at a 10%, 12%, or perhaps 22% marginal federal income tax rate.

Two observations: A) using permanent life insurance instead of traditional 401(k) contributions followed by early retirement Roth conversions denies members of the FIRE community a significant tax rate arbitrage opportunity. While there is no taxable income inclusion when withdrawing from a permanent life insurance policy, there is also no tax deduction for contributions to IULs, whole life insurance, and other permanent life insurance policies.

B) By doing Roth conversions during early retirement, FIRE members reduce the uncertainty risk described above. FIRE members face a shorter time frame during which significant savings are in traditional retirement accounts, as the goal is (generally speaking) to get the money (mostly) converted to Roths prior to age 70.

The Roth conversion tool reduces the risk that future tax increases will crush savers who mostly use traditional 401(k)s during their working years. While this is true for all savers, it is most especially true for members of the FIRE community.

A note on tax optimization: Imagine Joe and Sally were retired at age 55, today’s tax laws existed, and they had many years with artificially low taxable income. Say they did not do Roth conversions during this time. Is that a mistake? From a tax optimization perspective, absolutely. They would have likely been able to do Roth conversions at a 10% or 12% federal income tax rate, which is lower than both their retirement 22% marginal federal income tax rate and 18.11% combined effective income tax rate. While they are not tax optimized, they are something more important in my example: financially successful. Yes, tax optimization is important, but it is not the be-all and end-all. My guess is that financially successful individuals do not regret the failure to tax optimize on their deathbeds, though I look forward to reading Jordan “Doc G” Grumet’s new book to be sure.

Conclusion

I’m not here to tell you exactly how to save for retirement. But I am concerned that TikTok tax advice has two deficiencies. First, it overstates the problem of taxation in retirement. Is there a potential problem? Yes. Is it as severe as some make it out to be? Not under today’s laws. Further, there are tactics such as annual Roth IRA contributions and Roth conversions during early retirement that can address the problem. Second, TikTok tax advice understates the current benefit of deductible traditional 401(k) contributions during one’s working years.

Four Ways to Fight Inflation

Decisions you make today can subject you to more inflation tomorrow! Read below about ways to increase or decrease your exposure to inflation tomorrow.

Watch me discuss fighting back against inflation.

Tax Planning

As a practical matter, most Americans have the majority of their retirement savings in traditional, pre-tax vehicles such as the 401(k). Having money in a traditional 401(k) is not a bad thing. However, the traditional 401(k) involves trade offs: an upfront tax deduction is the primary benefit in exchange for future taxation when there is a withdrawal or Roth conversion.

Having money inside traditional retirement accounts subjects future inflation to taxation. Some of the future growth in a traditional retirement account is likely to be attributable to inflation, and thus there will be a tax on inflation. Further, there are no inflation adjustments when it comes to the taxation of traditional IRA and traditional 401(k) withdrawals.

An antidote to this problem is the tax free growth offered by Roth accounts and health savings accounts. Getting money into Roths and HSAs excuses future growth from taxation, including growth attributable to inflation.

Roth 401(k) versus Roth IRA

Of course, inflation is only one consideration. Many will do some traditional retirement account contributions and some Roth retirement account contributions. The question then arises: which Roth account to use?

My view is that for many a Roth IRA contribution (whether a direct annual contribution or a Backdoor Roth IRA) is better than a Roth 401(k) contribution. Many do not qualify to deduct a traditional IRA contribution but can deduct a traditional 401(k) contribution. Considering that reality, why not combine a deductible traditional 401(k) contribution and a Roth IRA contribution?

Long Term Fixed Rate Debt

Often we discuss how inflation hurts Americans, and we should be concerned about the bad effects of inflation. However, there is a way to become a beneficiary of inflation: using long-term, low interest fixed rate debt to your advantage.

That’s right: hold onto that low rate 30 year mortgage like it’s a life raft! Okay, that’s a bit hyperbolic, but the overall point holds. Inflationary environments are great for debtors, particularly those debtors who have locked in a low interest rate for a long term.

Here is an example: Sarah and Mike have a 30 year, $400,000 mortgage on their primary residence at a 2.9% fixed interest rate. By paying the required monthly payment, and no more, they benefit from any future inflation. By paying off the mortgage later rather than sooner, they are using devalued future money to pay the mortgage rather than more valuable current day dollars.

Sarah and Mike benefit from inflation! Are there reasons to pay off a mortgage early? Sure. But in an inflationary environment, paying off the mortgage early gives the bank more valuable dollars to satisfy the debt.

To my mind, a fixed rate, long term mortgage is a great hedge against inflation.

That said, there are few perfect financial planning tactics. Most involve risk trade offs. One risk Sarah and Mike assume by not paying down the mortgage early is the risk of deflation. To obtain this inflation hedge, they expose themselves to the risk of deflation. If the U.S. dollar starts to deflate (i.e., it appreciates in value), Sarah and Mike will find themselves paying more valuable dollars to the bank in the future.

Travel Rewards

Travel rewards can help fight inflation. One way is using sign-up bonuses and other accrued points to pay for hotel room nights or flights. Using points gets out of cash paying and thus inflation of the dollar hurts a bit less.

However, keep in mind that travel reward points are subject to their own inflation! The hotel chain or airline can devalue the redemption value of points at any time. Thus, if everything else is equal, those with significant travel rewards point balances might want to spend those points sooner rather than later for travel.

A second consideration are the features of credit cards. Some travel branded credit cards come with certificates for free nights or a companion pass for a companion to receive free or discounted flights. If flighting inflation is a key goal, favoring cards that offer free-night certificates or companion passes can be a way to fight inflation.

Spending that Leads to More or Less Future Spending

We’re used to assessing the price tag. $28,000 for that brand new car: “that’s a great deal!” or “that’s a terrible deal!” But the price tag is only one part of the financial picture.

If you buy a black cup of coffee at Starbucks, it might cost you $2.65. Fortunately, that’s it. The cup of coffee isn’t likely to cause you to incur later costs.

What about a $45,000 SUV? That purchase will cause later costs, many significant. For example, the cost to insure a $45,000 SUV might be significantly more than insuring a $22,000 sedan. What about gas? By purchasing a larger, less fuel-efficient car, you lock in more future spending, and thus more exposure to future inflation.

Think about buying a large home with a pool in the backyard. That square footage attracts property tax, heating and cooling costs, and inflation in both costs. The pool in the backyard requires constant upkeep, subjecting the homeowner to another source of inflation.

To my mind, food is a big one in the fight against inflation. What you eat today could very well translate into medical costs tomorrow, exposing you to significant inflation. Spending on foods with vegetable oils and sugars today is likely to increase your future exposure to medical expense inflation.

The lesson is this: you can use today’s spending to reduce your exposure to future inflation.

Conclusion

Is there a perfect answer to inflation? No. But with some intentional planning and spending today, Americans can reduce their exposure to the harmful effects of future inflation.

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.

Roth 401(k) vs Roth IRA

Many taxpayers ask the question: should I contribute to a Roth 401(k) or contribute to a Roth IRA? While there is no universal answer to this question, for many in the financial independence (FI/FIRE) community, I believe there is a clear answer.

Roth Accounts

What is not to love about Roths? If withdrawn properly, they promise tax free growth and tax free withdrawals. Further, Roths (be them 401(k)s or IRAs) give taxpayers tax insurance: income tax increases in the future are not a problem with respect to money invested in a Roth account. Roths even provide some ancillary benefits during retirement if the United States ever adopts a value added tax (a “VAT”).

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 $140,000 (single) or $208,000 (married filing joint) of modified adjusted gross income (2021 numbers).

The maximum annual contribution to a Roth IRA is $6,000 (if under age 50) or $7,000 (if age 50 or older) (2021 and 2022 numbers).

I have previously written about my fondness for Roth IRAs. One reason for my fondness is that 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.

Roth 401(k)s

Roth 401(k)s are a workplace retirement plan. Contributions can be made through payroll withholding. Many employers offer a Roth 401(k), though they are far from universally adopted.

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 2021, the annual Roth 401(k) contribution limit is $19,500 (under age 50) or $26,000 (age 50 and older).

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 members of the FI/FIRE community 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 30, 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 $90,000. They have approximately $2,000 of annual interest and dividend income. They claim the standard deduction. 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 ($6,000 each) and contribute to a traditional 401(k) ($19,500 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 $19,500 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).

For Stephen and Becky, the hope is that in early retirement tax laws either stay the same as they are today or at least keep today’s flavor. The idea is to take a deduction while working at a 22 percent marginal tax rate (by contributing to the traditional deductible 401(k)). Then, in early retirement, they convert amounts in the traditional 401(k) to a Roth. At that point, hopefully they have a marginal federal income tax rate of 10 percent or 12 percent. Many early retirees have an artificially low taxable income (and thus, a low marginal income tax rate) prior to collecting Social Security.

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 $6,000 annual Roth IRA contribution.

Situations Where the Roth 401(k) Contributions Make Sense

For those in the financial independence community, generally there are four situations where choosing to contribute to a Roth 401(k) makes sense. In three of these situations, the tax rate arbitrage play available to Stephen and Becky isn’t available. In the fourth situation (tax insurance), there is a separate consideration causing the taxpayer to forgo an initial tax deduction to get assurance as to the tax rate they will be subject to.

In the 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, which I’ve previously discussed, 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 or 12 percent?

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

Young Earners with Low Incomes

Many careers start with modest salaries early but have the potential to experience significant salary increases over time. My previous career in public accounting is one example. Medicine is another example. Young accountants and doctors, among others, making modest starting salaries should consider Roth 401(k) contributions at the beginning of their careers. As their salaries increase, they should consider shifting their contributions to a traditional 401(k).

As a *very general* rule of thumb, those in the 10 percent or 12 percent marginal federal income tax rate (particularly those not subject to a state income tax) should consider prioritizing Roth 401(k) contributions (regardless of occupation).

No Hope

Picture a charismatic franchise NFL quarterback. He’s got a $40M 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).

Tax Insurance

We really do not know what the future holds. That includes future federal and state income tax rates.

Thus, some workers may want to buy tax insurance. Roth 401(k) contributions are a way to do that. The extra tax paid (because the taxpayer did not deduct traditional 401(k) contributions) is an insurance premium. That insurance premium ensures that the taxpayer won’t be subject to future income tax (including potential tax rate increases) on amounts inside the Roth 401(k) and the growth thereon.

Remember, none of this is “all or nothing” planning. Some may want to allocate a piece of their workplace retirement plan contributions to the Roth 401(k) to get some insurance coverage against future tax rate increases.

Conclusion

In the FI community, a maxed out traditional 401(k) and a maxed out Roth IRA (whether through a regular annual contribution or through a Backdoor Roth IRA) can be the dynamic duo of retirement savings. This combination can provide tax flexibility while maximizing current tax deductions. Roth 401(k) contributions often have a significantly greater tax opportunity cost as compared to the tax opportunity cost of Roth IRA contributions. In such situations, the Roth IRA is preferable to my mind.

Of course, each individual is unique and has different financial and tax goals and priorities. The above isn’t advice for any particular individual, but hopefully provides some educational insight regarding the issues to consider when allocating employee retirement account contributions.

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.

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

How Bad is the Retiree Tax Problem?

Future Retirees’ Tax Risk

The Risks of Not Having Money in Traditional Retirement Accounts

Qualification for Premium Tax Credits

Charitable Contributions

Unused Standard Deductions

Deduct at Work, Roth at Home

Conclusion

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

If Anyone on Capitol Hill is Reading This . . .

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

When Might the Second Roth IRA Five-Year Rule Apply

Conclusion

Further Reading

Health Savings Accounts

Health Savings Accounts PUQME

Restricted Accounts

Time Restrictions

Use Restrictions

HSA Use Restrictions

HSAs and Las Vegas

HSA Planning Risk

Surviving Spouse’s HSA PUQME

HSA Resource

Conclusion

SECURE 2.0 Big Picture

Traditional Retirement Account Contributions Are Even More Attractive

Rothification Trap

Rothification Trap Antidote

401(k), 403(b), and 457 Max Contributions Age 50 and Older

Increased Catch-Up Contributions Ages 60, 61, 62, and 63

Catch-Up Contributions Must be Roth if Prior-Year Income Too High

No Changes to Backdoor Roths

Rolling 529 Plans to Roth IRAs

SECURE 2.0 and the FIRE Movement on YouTube

Resources

SECURE 2.0 Big Picture

Some Highlights (or Lowlights)

Resources

My Plan

The Creation of the Roth IRA in 1997

Changes to Roth IRAs

Roth Conversions and Annual Roth IRA Contributions

While We’re On the Subject of the Annual MAGI Limit on Roth IRA Contributions . . .

Conclusion

Choice and Low Fees

Tax Rate Arbitrage

Reducing MAGI for PTC Qualification

Conclusion

Retirement Saving Through Various Forms of Life Insurance

The Trade-Off Unstated on TikTok

Uncertainty

Roth Accounts

Roth Conversions

Conclusion

Further Reading

Tax Planning

Roth 401(k) versus Roth IRA

Long Term Fixed Rate Debt

Travel Rewards

Spending that Leads to More or Less Future Spending

Conclusion

Roth Accounts

Roth IRAs

Roth 401(k)s

Roth 401(k) vs Roth IRA

Situations Where the Roth 401(k) Contributions Make Sense

Transition Years

Young Earners with Low Incomes

No Hope

Tax Insurance

Conclusion