New to financial independence (FI or FIRE)? Are you steeped in financial independence, but confused about tax optimization?
If so, this is the post for you. It’s not “comprehensive tax planning for FI” but rather an initial primer on some basic financial independence tax planning tactics. I believe the three tactics here are the most compelling tactics for most pursuing financial independence.
But first, a caveat: none of this is advice for your specific situation, but rather, this comprises a list of the top three moves I believe those pursuing financial independence should consider. No blog post (this one included) is a substitute for your own and your advisors’ analysis and judgment of your own situation.
ONE: Contribute Ten Percent to Your Workplace Retirement Plan
To start, your top retirement savings priority in retirement should be to contribute at least 10 percent of your salary to your workplace retirement plan (401(k), 403(b), 457, etc.). I say this for several reasons.
It starts a great savings habit.
Subject to vesting requirements, it practically guarantees that you will get the employer match your 401(k) has, if any.
Assuming a traditional retirement account contribution, it gets you a valuable tax deduction at your marginal tax rate.
It will be incredibly difficult to get to financial independence without saving at least 10 percent of your salary.
Strive to eventually contribute the maximum allowed.
Here are some additional considerations.
Traditional or Roth
In some plans, the employee does not have a choice – employee contributions are “traditional” deductible contributions. Increasingly, plans are offering the Roth option where the contribution is not deductible today, but the contribution and its growth/earnings are tax-free in the future.
This post addresses the traditional versus Roth issue. I strongly favor traditional 401(k) contributions over Roth 401(k) contributions for most people. The “secret” is that most people pay much more in tax during their working years than they do during their retired years, even if they have significant balances in their traditional retirement accounts. Thus, it makes more sense to take the tax deduction when taxes are highest and pay the tax when taxes tend to be much lower (retirement).
Bad Investments
I’d argue that most people with bad investments and/or high fees in their 401(k) should still contribute to it. Why? First, consider the incredible benefits discussed above. Second, you’re probably not going to be at that job too long anyway. In this video, I discuss that the average/median employee tenure is under 5 years. When one leaves a job, they can roll a 401(k) out of the 401(k) to the new employer’s 401(k) or a traditional IRA and get access to better investment choices and lower fees.
Resource
Your workplace retirement plan should have a PDF document called a “Summary Plan Description” available in your workplace benefits online portal. Reviewing that document will help you figure out the contours of your 401(k) or other workplace retirement plan.
TWO: Establish a Roth IRA
For a primer on Roth IRAs, please read my Ode to the Roth IRA. Roth IRAs, like traditional IRAs, are “individual.” You establish one with a financial institution separate from your employer.
Generally speaking, a Roth IRA gives you tax-free growth, and if done correctly, money withdrawn from a Roth IRA is both tax and penalty free.
Roth IRA contributions can be withdrawn tax and penalty free at any time for any reason! The Roth IRA is the only retirement account that offers unfettered, tax-free access to prior contributions. Note, however, in most cases the best Roth IRA strategy is to keep money in the Roth IRA for as long as possible (so it continues to grow tax free!).
Taxable accounts get a very bad rap. It turns out they can be incredibly valuable.
First, they tend to be lightly taxed, even during our working years. In 2025, a $1 million investment in a broad based domestic equity index fund is likely to produce less than $13,000 of taxable income. Most of that income will qualify as “qualified dividend income” and thus be taxed at favored long-term capital gains rates.
Second, taxable accounts are the perfect bridge from working to retirement. When an investor sells an asset in a taxable account, they don’t pay tax on the amount of the sale. They pay tax on the amount of the sale less their tax basis (their original investment plus reinvested dividends). Basis recovery, combined with favored long-term capital gains tax rates, makes living off taxable accounts first in retirement very tax efficient.
Conclusion
Here are the top three tax moves I believe FI beginners should consider:
First, contribute 10 percent to your traditional 401(k) or other traditional workplace retirement plan, striving to eventually contribute up to the maximum.
Second, establish a Roth IRA.
Third, invest in taxable brokerage accounts.
Of course, this post is not tailored for any particular taxpayer. Please consult with your own tax advisor(s) regarding your own tax matters.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
What some call “tax basketing” and others call “asset location” is becoming increasingly important, particularly for early retirees and those aspiring to be early retirees.
Tax basketing is not portfolio allocation. Tax basketing is the step after portfolio allocation. First the investor decides the assets he or she wants to invest in and in what proportion.
Once that decision is made, tax basketing starts. The idea is where to hold the desired assets within the available tax categories (Roth, Traditional, Taxable, HSA) that makes the most sense from a tax efficiency perspective and a tax planning perspective.
Early Retirees and Aspiring Early Retirees
To assess tax basketing for many early retirees, I will need to make a few assumptions. First, the aspiring early retiree and the early retiree (our avatars) want to hold three main assets: domestic equity index funds, international equity index funds, and domestic bond index funds. That is simply an assumption: it is not investment advice for you or anyone else.
Second, our avatars have at least 50 percent of their financial wealth in traditional retirement accounts. This assumption makes our avatars like most Americans when it comes to their financial assets, and, in my experience, most considering or in early retirement. Third, our avatars want to have less than 50 percent of their portfolio in domestic bond index funds (again, just an assumption, not investment advice).
Lastly, most of this analysis ignores HSAs unless specifically discussed, since the balances in them tend to be rather modest and most of the Roth analysis below applies equally to HSAs.
Let’s dive deep on where our avatars should hold their desired portfolio, considering that they are either striving for early retirement or in early retirement.
Asset Yield
Tax basketing should consider many things. Chief among them is annual asset yield. Financial assets such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and exchange traded funds (ETFs) typically kick off interest and/or dividend income annually (often referred to as “yield”).
The expected amount of that income and the nature of that income strongly inform where to best tax basket each type of asset.
Let’s explore the three assets our avatars want using Vanguard mutual funds as a reasonable proxy for their annual income (yield) profile (not presented as investment advice).
All numbers are as of this writing and subject to change. That said, they strongly inform where we might want to hold each of these types of assets.
Let’s start with VTSAX, our domestic equity index. Notice two things? First, it produces remarkably low yield. Say I owned $1M of VTSAX in a taxable account. How much taxable income does that produce for me? Just around $12,200 annually. Further, most of that is tax-preferred qualified dividend income!
People worry about tax drag when investing in taxable accounts. Tax basketing can solve for most tax drag! Why would you worry about tax drag when it takes $1M of VTSAX to wring out just $12,200 of mostly qualified dividend income on your tax return?
What about VTIAX? In today’s environment, it produces more than twice as much dividend income as VTSAX, and much more of that income will be ordinary income (since only about 61.16% qualifies as QDI).
Lastly, let’s think about VBTLX. Bonds typically produce the most income (bonds tend to pay more out than equities do as dividends) and bonds produce only ordinary income. You can see that from a tax basketing perspective, bonds in taxable accounts tend to be undesirable.
Tax Basketing Insights
Domestic Equity Funds
Domestic equity index funds do great inside a taxable account! They barely produce any income on the owner’s tax return. The small amount of income they produce mostly qualifies for the favored tax rates of 0%, 15%, 18.8%, and 23.8%.
Recall our avatar with $1M in VTSAX. He only gets $12,200 in taxable income from that holding. If that was his only income, he doesn’t have to file a tax return, as the standard deduction is large enough to cancel out that income.
An additional point: most early retirees and potential early retirees will probably have domestic equities in all three of the main baskets: Taxable, Traditional, and Roth. To my mind, that’s not a bad thing. Yes, inside a traditional retirement account, the qualified dividend income becomes tax deferred ordinary income, not a great outcome, but also not a horrible outcome.
The tax tail should not wag the investment dog. But it is logical for most early retirees and aspiring early retirees to only hold domestic equities in taxable accounts and then hold domestic equities in traditional and Roth accounts as needed for their overall asset allocation.
International Equity Funds
International equity funds sit well in retirement accounts, whether they are traditional, Roth, and/or HSAs. They are not awful in taxable accounts, but they are not great. Why do I say that? Compare the 3.22% yield on them to the 1.22% yield on domestic equity index funds. Wouldn’t you rather have the higher yielding asset’s income sheltered by the retirement account’s tax advantages and the lower yielding asset be the one subject to current income taxes?
What About the Foreign Tax Credit?
It is true that holding international equities in a retirement account sacrifices the foreign tax credit. In a world where yields were the same and future gains were the same, the foreign tax credit would be enough to favor holding international equities in a taxable account.
However, we don’t live in that world. Further, the foreign tax credit tends to be quite small. For example, the foreign taxes withheld by Japan when Japanese companies pay Americans a dividend is 10 percent. Not nothing, but considering that there is more than double the yield paid on international equities, not enough to make it highly desirable from a tax standpoint to have income in taxable accounts. Rates vary, but can be as low as zero. Consider that most dividends paid by United Kingdom companies to American shareholders attract no dividend withholding tax and thus create no foreign tax credit on federal income tax returns.
This video breaks down the math on the foreign tax credit.
Domestic Bond Funds
Domestic bonds and bond funds sit very well in traditional retirement accounts. Why waste the tax free growth of Roth accounts on bond funds? Bonds tend to have a lower expected return, making them great for traditional retirement accounts, not Roth accounts. Further, why put the highest yield assets with the worst type of income (none of it QDI) in taxable accounts? The stage is thus set: put all the bonds in traditional retirement accounts and don’t look back.
Two traditional accounts domestic bonds do particularly well in are inherited IRAs and 72(t) IRAs!
Tax-Exempt Bonds
High income people ask: should I hold tax-exempt bonds since I have such high income? In the early 1980s, it might have made sense to alter investment allocation for tax planning reasons and invest in lower yielding tax-exempt bonds instead of high yielding taxable bonds. Back then tax rates were higher and most affluent Americans had most of their money in taxable accounts and pensions. The era of the IRA and the 401(k) was in its infancy and few had large balances in tax deferred defined contribution accounts such as traditional IRAs and traditional 401(k)s.
The world of the mid-2020s is quite different. Many pensions are gone, and affluent early retirees and aspiring early retirees tend to have much of their financial wealth in traditional IRAs and traditional 401(k)s.
That sets the stage beautifully for holding bonds in traditional retirement accounts. Income generated by bonds is tax deferred inside the traditional retirement account. Further, there’s usually plenty of headroom in the traditional IRAs and 401(k)s to hold all of the investor’s desired bond allocation. So why not hold all of the desired bond allocation inside traditional retirement accounts?
This means that for most people, there’s little reason to adjust a desired asset allocation in order to hold tax-exempt bonds and thereby sacrifice yield. Tax-exempt bonds receive no preference over taxable bonds inside a traditional 401(k) or IRA.
Keeping Ordinary Income Low
Do you see what tax basketing can do for the early retiree? If the only thing he or she owns in taxable accounts are domestic equity index funds (perhaps with a small savings account), he or she will have low taxable income and almost no ordinary income.
Or perhaps it is the Hidden Roth IRA where a retirees uses the standard deduction to live off of traditional retirement accounts. It allows the early retiree to use the standard deduction to fund living expenses from a traditional IRA and pay no federal income tax. Again, who’s complaining about paying no income tax?
Lastly, tax basketing can keep those qualified dividends and long-term capital gains at a 0% long term capital gains rate. For married couples with $96,700 or less of taxable income, the federal income tax rate on all long term capital gains and qualified dividends is 0%. One way to help ensure that outcome is tax basketing. Ordinary income from higher yielding bond funds pushes qualified dividends and long term capital gains up (through income stacking) and can subject some of it to the 15% rate. Why not hide out that ordinary income in traditional retirement accounts and only hold low yielding domestic equities in taxable accounts?
Aspiring Early Retirees
For the still working aspiring early retiree, having taxable investments generate low yield and preferred yield (qualified dividend income) can help save taxes during peak earning years. The high earner would prefer to have less QDI (through dividends paid by domestic equities) rather than more ordinary income (through dividends of ordinary income paid by domestic bond funds) hit their annual income tax return. This keeps taxable income lower, keeps the tax rate better on the portfolio income, and reduces or potentially eliminates exposure to the Net Investment Income tax.
In theory, the early retiree can fund their living expenses in three extreme manners: all from traditional retirement accounts, all from Roth retirement accounts, or all from taxable accounts. Testing these three from a Premium Tax Credit perspective can inform us about which tax basket is the best to spend from first in early retirement.
If Goldilocks funds her early retirement first from traditional IRAs and 401(k)s, she will find it’s too hot from a PTC perspective. All her spending creates taxable income, which reduces her Premium Tax Credit.
If Goldilocks funds her early retirement from Roth IRAs, she will find it’s too cold from a PTC perspective. Her spending creates no taxable income in all likelihood. That’s a huge problem from a PTC perspective. If one’s income is too low, they will not qualify for any PTC, creating a big problem in early retirement.
If Goldilocks funds her early retirement from taxable accounts, she’s likely to find it just right from a PTC perspective. Say she has $60,000 of living expenses. Will that create $60,000 of “modified adjusted gross income”? Absolutely not. It will create $60,000 less her tax basis in the assets she sold in modified adjusted gross income. This gives her an outstanding chance of having a low enough income to qualify for a significant PTC. If her basis was too high and she did not create enough income to qualify for a PTC, she could, prior to year-end, execute some Roth conversions to get her income to the requisite level.
What Goldilocks’ example demonstrates is that it is a good thing to have amounts, perhaps significant amounts, in the taxable basket heading into early retirement. While there is absolutely hope for those with little in the taxable basket, it will require some additional planning in many cases.
You know what can help mitigate RMDs? Tax basketing!
By holding all of one’s domestic bond investments in traditional IRAs and traditional 401(k)s, retirees can keep the future growth inside traditional retirement accounts modest. When compared to equities, bonds have a lower expected return and thus a lower expected future value. This, in turn, reduces future traditional account balances, reducing future required minimum distributions. Recall that RMDs are computed using the account balance from the prior year as the numerator. Keeping that numerator more modest reduces future RMDs.
Sequence of Returns Risk and Tax Basketing
Some worry about sequence of returns (“SoR”) risk: what if I retire and the equity markets happen to have a year like 1987 or 2008 right as I’m retiring? At least in theory this is a risk of retiring at any time and the risk is magnified by an early retirement.
Say Maury, age 50, is about to retire and worried about SoR risk so he wants to have three years of cash going into retirement (again, not an investment recommendation, just a hypothetical). Cash generates interest income, which is bad from a tax efficiency perspective. Can Maury use tax basketing to manage for SoR risk and stay tax efficient? Sure!
Imagine Maury retires with $500K in a domestic equity index fund in a taxable brokerage, $240,000 of cash and/or money markets in a traditional IRA (3 years of expenses), $500K of domestic bonds in a traditional IRA, and about $1M in a combination of domestic and international equities in a traditional IRA.
Maury can live on the cash and only live on his taxable brokerage account. Wait, what? I thought the cash lives in the traditional IRA. It does.
But Maury can simply sell $80,000 of the domestic equity index fund annually and report mostly long term capital gains and (rather modest) qualified dividend income on his tax return. His income might be so low he wants or needs to do Roth conversions! Separately inside the traditional IRA he “spends down” the cash by annually buying $80,000 of any desired combination of domestic equities, international equities, and/or domestic bonds inside his traditional IRA.
Maury just used tax basketing to live off almost a quarter million of cash for three years without reporting a penny of interest income to the IRS!
Announcement
You have just read a sneak preview of part of the new book! Cody Garrett, CFP(R) and I are working on, tentatively titled Tax Planning To and Through Early Retirement. In 2025 the retirement tax planning landscape is changing, and Cody and I want to be on the cutting edge as retirement tax planning changes.
This post will, in modified form, constitute part of the book’s tax basketing (a/k/a asset location) chapter.
When will the book come out? Well, that’s a question better asked of elected officials in Washington DC than of your authors. 😉
What topics would you like us to cover in the book? Let us know in the comments below!
Stay tuned to me on X and LinkedIn and Cody on LinkedIn for updates on when the book will be available!
Conclusion
Tax basketing can be a great driver of success to and through early retirement. From a purely tax basketing perspective, domestic equity index funds tend to sit well in taxable accounts, international equity index funds tend to sit well in retirement accounts, and domestic bond index funds tend to sit well in traditional retirement accounts. Premium Tax Credit considerations tend to favor having some money in taxable accounts in early retirement. Good tax basketing can keep taxable income low and facilitate excellent early retirement tax planning.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
Retirement planning rarely intersects with the Constitution.
SECURE 2.0, the component of the late December 2022 Omnibus bill with dozens of retirement account rule changes, does.
As discussed by Judge James W. Hendrix in his excellent opinion in Texas v. Garland, the House of Representatives used proxies to establish a quorum to pass the Omnibus, in violation of the Constitution’s Quorum Clause.
The Constitutional issue with SECURE 2.0 is now ripe for the new Trump Administration. On its way out the door, the Biden Administration issued proposed regulations under Section 603 of SECURE 2.0 (mandatory Rothification of certain catch-up contributions) on January 13th.
Typically, the government gets comments on proposed regulations and considers changes around the edges before finalizing the regulations. But SECURE 2.0 presents a unique case.
I wrote a comment letter in response to the proposed regulations asking the government to withdraw the proposed regulations since the underlying statute was not passed in a Constitutionally qualified manner. You can read the comment letter here and here.
Let me know what you think about the Constitutionality of SECURE 2.0 in the comments.
This post and the linked-to comment letter do not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
Did you know that If you’re reading this before April 16, 2025 (before October 16, 2025 if you live in Los Angeles), it’s still possible to do a 2024 Backdoor Roth IRA?
Below I go through an example with a theoretical step plan to do two Backdoor Roth IRAs in 2025!
Everything below is academic information and opinion provided for your education and entertainment. It is not individualized tax, legal, or investment advice for you or anyone else.
2024 and 2025 Backdoor Roth IRA Example
Brad is 38. In early 2025, he learned about the Backdoor Roth IRA. He makes approximately $300,000 of adjusted gross income in each of 2024 and 2025, so he does not qualify for an annual Roth IRA contribution. Brad has no traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and/or SIMPLE IRAs.
Brad takes the following steps to implement two Backdoor Roth IRAs in 2025.
Step 1: Brad contributes $7,000 to a traditional IRA in February 2025. He codes the contribution as being for 2024. Brad invests it in a money market fund.
Step 2: In March 2025, Brad converted the entire traditional IRA balance, now $7,020, to a Roth IRA.
Step 3: In April 2025, Brad files his 2024 federal income tax return with a Form 8606 reporting the $7,000 2024 nondeductible traditional IRA contribution.
Step 7: Brad files a Form 8606 with his 2025 federal income tax return. It reports (1) the 2025 nondeductible traditional IRA contribution and (2) both Roth conversions.
It’s almost too easy 😉 . . .
Here is what Brad’s 2025 Form 8606 looks like (pardon the use of the 2024 version of the form, as I cannot currently access the 2025 version without a DeLeorean, a flux-capacitor, and 1.21 gigawatts of electricity).
What Has Brad Accomplished?
I believe this planning can be quite beneficial for Brad’s financial future. He just got $14,000 out of taxable accounts and into a tax free account for the rest of his life. Further, that $14,000 now enjoys a significant degree of creditor protection (note this does vary state to state).
Two years of a Backdoor Roth IRA don’t make that much of a difference. But what about 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Now we are talking about significant numbers that can help Brad accomplish his financial goals.
Conclusion
In early 2025 it is not too late to do a Backdoor Roth IRA for 2024. I refer to this as the Split-Year Backdoor Roth IRA. It can be combined with a current year Backdoor Roth IRA.The taxpayer has to have the right profile, including no balances in traditional IRAs, SEP IRA, and/or SIMPLE IRAs.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
Late 2022 ushered in a new type of contribution to Solo 401(k)s: Roth employer contributions. Traditional employee and employer contributions have been available for all of the Solo 401(k)’s post-EGTRRA history. Roth employee contributions have been available since 2006, even if plan providers were slow to adopt them.
Should the availability of Roth employer contributions change planning for most solopreneurs? Not to my mind.
I have three concerns with making Roth employer contributions to Solo 401(k)s.
First Concern: Validity
Roth employer contributions were part of SECURE 2.0, which was part of the Omnibus bill passed in December 2022. That Omnibus bill has been subject to litigation. In Texas v. Garland (accessible here and here), Judge James W. Hendrix ruled for the State of Texas that the House of Representatives impermissibly used proxies to establish a quorum in order to pass the Omnibus, in violation of the Constitution’s Quorum Clause.
I encourage you to read the Texas v. Garland opinion. It is very convincing in my opinion.
While Texas v. Garland does not technically apply to SECURE 2.0, its reasoning does. Any taxpayer in the country facing harm under SECURE 2.0 (perhaps because they were denied the deduction for catch-up contributions under SECURE 2.0 Section 603) can pick it up and ask another federal judge to invalidate SECURE 2.0. That leaves SECURE 2.0 on shaky footing.
Short of litigation, there’s the question of what the new Administration will do with the Omnibus and SECURE 2.0. Texas v. Garland is litigation between the old Department of Justice and Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas. Ken Paxton is much closer aligned politically with the Trump Administration. Will the Trump DoJ continue to litigate against Ken Paxton? The Trump Administration may simply refuse to uphold the Omnibus, including SECURE 2.0.
My hope is that if that happens taxpayers who have relied on SECURE 2.0 will be held harmless. For example, amounts in Roth 401(k)s (including Solo 401(k)s) attributable to employer contributions should be deemed to be amounts validly within the Roth 401(k) plan, so past reliance does not cause future harms (such as failed plan qualification). That said, my hope, a reasonable hope, is just a hope.
Regardless of one’s views on the Quorum Clause litigation, there’s at least some doubt as to SECURE 2.0’s validity, including the validity of Roth employer contributions to Solo 401(k)s. That makes planning into them difficult, in my opinion.
Second Concern: Section 199A Problem
Ben Henry-Moreland of Kitces.com wrote a thoughtful article on Roth employer contributions to Solo 401(k)s potentially reducing a solopreneur’s Section 199A qualified business income deduction.
I both agree and disagree with Mr. Henry-Moreland. I agree in a general sense that recent IRS guidance has muddied the waters when it comes to tax return reporting of Roth employer contributions to Solo 401(k)s. I disagree with his conclusion that this guidance results in non-deductible Roth employer contributions to Solo 401(k)s reducing the Section 199A qualified business income deduction.
The concern is Roth employer contributions might reduce the amount of qualified business income that then determines the Section 199A QBI deduction. Mr. Henry-Moreland is concerned about this because of Notice 2024-2 Q&A L9 (page 76 of this file). It tells plans how to report Roth 401(k) employer contributions in general. The question is “what reporting obligations apply to [Roth employer] contributions?”
Before I state the concerning answer, one must remember the context. This particular Q&A is about reporting, not about taxation. In theory, Roth employer contributions (taxable to the employee) should be simply added to W-2 income for most employees. But that creates a huge headache from a large employer systems perspective. That’s W-2 income that is income tax taxable but not payroll tax taxable. Ugh!
To avoid the payroll systems issue (which is mostly a large employer issue rather than a Solo 401(k) issue), the Notice provides that Roth employer contributions are reported “as if: (1) the contribution had been the only contribution made to an individual’s account under the plan, and (2) the contribution, upon allocation to that account, had been directly rolled over to a designated Roth account in the plan as an in-plan Roth rollover.” (emphases added). The Notice goes on to state that because of this treatment the Roth employer contribution is reported to the employee as taxable on a Form 1099-R.
Mr. Henry-Moreland is concerned that as applied to a Schedule C solopreneur, this is reported by deducting the contribution from net self-employment income (presumably on Schedule 1, Line 16) and then taxing the amount on Form 1040 Lines 5a and 5b. This reduction of net self-employment income would result in a reduction in the Section 199A QBI deduction.
While I hear Mr. Henry-Moreland’s concern, I disagree with it for several reasons. First, the Q&A in question applies to reporting by plans. It does not appear to apply to (1) determining taxable income or other tax relevant amounts and (2) tax return reporting by individuals. It is telling that the answer is silent as to any forms filed by individuals while it goes into depth as to how the Form 1099-R is to be filed.
Second, the words “as if” in the Notice’s answer are illuminating. The reporting is done “as if” X and Y happened for tax purposes. That means X and Y did not happen for tax purposes, which is good news from a Section 199A perspective. Third, the Notice does not purport to affect Section 199A in any way. Fourth, qualified business income is determined under Section 199A and Treas. Reg. Section 1.199A-3. Neither SECURE 2.0 Section 604 nor Notice 2024-2 mention Section 199A and qualified business income. Thus, I believe that Notice 2024-2 and Roth employer contributions to Solo 401(k)s do not reduce the qualified business income deduction.
The above views voiced, there may be some small risk that Roth employer contributions to Solo 401(k)s are not only nondeductible, they also reduce the qualified business income deduction. That’s a negative when assessing their desirability from a planning perspective.
How to Report Solo 401(k) Roth Employer Contributions on 2024 Tax Returns
What follows is my academic opinion, not advice for you or anyone else. To properly report Roth employer contributions to a Solo 401(k) made in 2024 for 2024 and arrive at the correct Section 199A QBI deduction, I believe the following is the best way to proceed:
(1) Report Schedule C income and deductions as normal. This should help generate the appropriate Section 199A QBI deduction.
(2) Report the amount of the Roth employer contribution to the Solo 401(k) in full in Box 5a of Form 1040.
(3) Assuming no other pension, annuity, 401(k), or other qualified plan distributions, report $0 for the taxable amount of pension and annuity distributions in Box 5b of Form 1040.
My view is that the above will properly report that which must be reported to the IRS while also (i) avoiding any double counting and (ii) properly computing the Section 199A QBI deduction that the taxpayer is entitled to.
If anyone at the IRS or the Treasury Office of Tax Policy is reading this, it would very helpful for the government issuing guidance (1) clarifying that no, Roth employer contributions to Solo 401(k)s do not reduce the Section 199A qualified business income deduction and (2) illustrating the proper tax return reporting for Roth employer contributions to Solo 401(k)s.
Third Concern: Planning Desirability
For this section, let’s assume that I am wrong when it comes to the first concern and I am correct regarding the second concern. Making those two assumptions, Roth employer contributions to Solo 401(k)s are valid and do not reduce the Section 199A QBI deduction.
Great!
Does that mean we should plan into such contributions? I believe the answer is generally “No” for most solopreneurs.
Even with the “deduction-reduction problem” issue with traditional Solo 401(k) contributions, traditional Solo 401(k) contributions are often going to be better than Roth Solo 401(k) contributions.
Picture a solopreneur in the 24% marginal tax bracket. He or she can make employer contributions to a traditional Solo 401(k) and save 19.2 cents on the dollar (24% times 80% to account for the reduction to the Section 199A QBI deduction).
Okay, well, how is that money taxed in retirement? I’ve done blog posts and YouTube videos about this subject. Some of that money could be taxed at 0% because of the standard deduction (the Hidden Roth IRA), then against the 10% bracket and then against the 12% bracket. We can hardly say traditional contributions are always the “right answer,” but we can acknowledge that (1) retirees tend to be lightly taxed in retirement and (2) retirees greatly benefit from today’s tax environment, including large standard deductions and progressive tax brackets.
I question the planning value of Roth employer contributions. Say you disagree with me. You still have Roth employee contributions. Why not hedge your bets by making Roth employee contributions and deductible traditional employer contributions? Both of these types of contributions are well established under the law.
Conclusion
Roth employer contributions to Solo 401(k)s are on shaky legal ground and are not that desirable from a planning perspective. There’s even a chance they reduce the Section 199A QBI deduction. Based on those concerns, I believe Roth employer contributions to Solo 401(k)s are undesirable for most solopreneurs.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
The 2025 fires in Los Angeles have been devastating. My heart goes out to all those affected, and you are in my prayers.
Los Angeles County now has a deadline delay for their 2024 tax returns, 2024 and 2025 tax payments, and IRA contributions.
Los Angeles County Tax Deadline Delay
The IRS announced that because of the January 2025 fires in Los Angeles, Angelenos have an extended deadline, October 15, 2025, to perform most 2024 tax acts that otherwise would have been due early in 2025. The Franchise Tax Board has followed suit and also issued their own delay announcement with respect to California state income tax returns and payments.
2024 Traditional and Roth IRA Contributions
The deadline for Los Angeles County residents to make 2024 contributions to traditional and/or Roth IRAs has been extended to October 15, 2025. As a practical matter, I wouldn’t encourage reliance on this particular deadline delay. Financial institutions may find it difficult to allow “late but timely” 2024 IRA contributions on their platform when it is available only to residents of a single county.
If you are an Angeleno reading this after April 15, 2025 and want to make an IRA contribution for 2024, I recommend initiating the process by calling the financial institution rather than using the financial institution’s website.
2024 Backdoor Roth IRAs
Los Angeles County residents now have until October 15, 2025 to execute the first step of a 2024 Backdoor Roth IRA, the nondeductible contribution to a traditional IRA for 2024. This would be a Split-Year Backdoor Roth IRA.
2024 Tax Returns and Payments and 2025 Q1 Through Q3 Estimated Tax Payments
Los Angeles County residents now have until October 15, 2025 to (i) file their 2024 federal and California income tax returns, (ii) pay the amount due with their 2024 federal and California income tax returns, (iii) make fourth quarter 2024 estimated tax payments, and (iv) make 2025 first through third quarter estimated tax payments.
Who Benefits?
Residents of Los Angeles County qualify for the extended deadline. Note (1) there’s no need to have suffered any loss or damage due to the fires and (2) the extensions apply to the entirety of Los Angeles County. It is not just limited to residents of the City of Los Angeles.
Taxpayers with records in Los Angeles County can also benefit.
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.
Happy New Year! It’s Backdoor Roth IRA season, so let’s talk about the issue that refuses to go away . . . the timing of the two steps of the Backdoor Roth IRA.
Recall that the Backdoor Roth IRA is a two-step transaction. First, there is a nondeductible contribution to a traditional IRA. The second step is a relatively close-in-time conversion of the nondeductible traditional IRA contribution and any minor growth to a Roth IRA. Assuming the correct profile, this can move money into a Roth IRA for a year the person exceeds the Roth IRA contribution MAGI limits.
If there are two steps of the Backdoor Roth IRA, that begs a question: Just how long do I have to wait between the two steps, i.e., how long does the nondeductible traditional IRA contribution have to sit in the traditional IRA prior to the Roth conversion step? A minute? A day? A month? A year?
The Backdoor Roth IRA and the Step Transaction Doctrine
There has been a concern with the Backdoor Roth IRA: the step transaction doctrine, which can collapse steps into a single step. In theory, the two steps of the Backdoor Roth IRA can be viewed as a single step (a direct contribution to a Roth IRA), which creates an excess contribution(subject to a potential 6 percent penalty). Michael Kitces has written that he is concerned that, because the Roth conversion step might occur so soon after the nondeductible traditional IRA contribution, the step transaction doctrine can apply to the Backdoor Roth IRA. Kitces generally advocates waiting a year between the steps based on his step transaction doctrine concern. To my knowledge he has never changed his view on the issue.
Two late 2010’s developments moved the needle in the practitioner community towards Mr. Levine’s view. First, the IRS, in informal comments, indicated they were not too concerned with the Backdoor Roth IRA. Second, the legislative history to 2017’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act indicated that Congressional staffers believed the Backdoor Roth IRA was valid. I believe this second development was overblown, as legislative history, to the extent relevant, is relevant to the legislation then being passed. It is not relevant, to my mind, to prior legislation (the Backdoor Roth IRA enabling legislation passed in 2006 – see Section 512). That said, both developments were informative, though certainly not binding.
Sean’s Take
I have never been too concerned with the Step Transaction Doctrine and the Backdoor Roth IRA. In 2019, I co-wrote a Tax Notes article (available behind a paywall) about the issue with Ben Willis, my former PwC colleague. We concluded that it is not appropriate to apply the step transaction doctrine to a taxpayer’s use of the explicit, taxpayer favorable IRA rules. I believe we made a good case that the step transaction should not apply to the Backdoor Roth IRA based on the contours of the doctrine.
The Backdoor Roth IRA and Section 408(d)(2)(B)
Since 2019, I have further developed my thinking. I now believe a little commented-on rule in the IRA statute is very instructive: Section 408(d)(2)(B).
Section 408(d)(2)(B) provides that all IRA distributions during the year are treated as a single distribution. As a result, the timing of IRA distributions is irrelevant. A January 1st distribution is treated the same as a March 29th distribution, which is treated the same as a December 31st distribution. Roth conversions are distributions from an IRA.
By grouping all IRA distributions into a single distribution, the Internal Revenue Code tells us the timing of IRA distributions, including Roth conversions, during the year is irrelevant.
It would be exceedingly odd to apply a judicial doctrine (the step transaction doctrine) to give that timing relevance when the Code strips away that relevance. Anyone arguing the step transaction doctrine applies to a Backdoor Roth IRA is saying that the step transaction doctrine should override the specific rule of Section 408(d)(2)(B) in determining the degree of relevance afforded to the timing of the Roth conversion step.
I strongly believe it is not appropriate to apply the step transaction doctrine when the Internal Revenue Code itself gives us a rule telling us the timing of the Roth conversion is irrelevant.
Backdoor Roth IRA Favored Timing
I have two beliefs. First, timing is irrelevant when doing the Backdoor Roth IRA. Second, my views are not guaranteed to yield a 9-0 Supreme Court decision 😉
Based on those two beliefs, I have a third. The most desirable Backdoor Roth IRA path is to wait until the end of a month passes and then do the Roth conversion step of the Backdoor Roth IRA. This is the old Ed Slott tactic and locks in an end-of-month statement showing some interest or dividends in the traditional IRA.
It could look something like this:
Roger contributes $7,000 to his traditional nondeductible IRA on January 2, 2025 for 2025 and invests it in a money market fund. On February 1, 2025, he converts the entire amount, now $7,027, to a Roth IRA. He has no other IRA transactions during the year and on December 31, 2025 he has $0 balances in any and all traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs.
Oh no, Roger created $27 of taxable income on his Backdoor Roth IRA. We’ve finally found something worse than IRMAA!
All kidding aside, here’s what Roger’s 2025 Form 8606 could look like (pardon the use of the 2023 form, the latest version available as of this writing): 8606 Page 18606 Page 2And, yes, Roger should convert the entire traditional IRA balance, not just the $7,000 originally contributed to the traditional IRA.
To my mind, this works as a good Backdoor Roth IRA. So now you say, But Sean, what about your first belief? I thought timing was irrelevant!
I respond, (A) see my second belief and (B) what’s the downside of my desired approach?
$27 of taxable income creates $10 of federal income tax if Roger is in the highest federal tax bracket, and Roger will have $27 more protected from future tax by the Roth IRA.
The Backdoor Roth IRA Should Not Exist
That the Backdoor Roth IRA exists is ridiculous. It is obnoxious that our tax laws are so complicated that one of the most prominent financial planners, Michael Kitces, could plausibly claim the step transaction doctrine adversely impacts the Backdoor Roth IRA.
Let’s end all of this and adopt a rule that notorious tax haven, Canada, has adopted: Eliminate the income limit on the ability to make an annual Roth IRA contribution! Canada’s Tax-Free Savings Account (their version of a Roth IRA) has absolutely no income limit on the ability to make a contribution. America should adopt that rule as a small part of what hopefully will be a dramatic simplification of American income tax laws in 2025.
Conclusion
I do not believe that the step transaction doctrine should apply to the Backdoor Roth IRA. I do not believe that the timing of the two steps is relevant for determining their ultimate federal income taxation. That said, I like waiting until the following month to do the Roth conversion step.
Of course, the entirety of this article is simply academic commentary. It is not tax, legal, or investment advice for you or anyone else.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
There are only three types of annual contributions to individual retirement accounts (“IRAs”). They are:
Traditional, nondeductible contributions
Traditional, deductible contributions
Roth contributions
This post discusses when a taxpayer can make one or more of these types of annual contributions.
Let’s dispense with what we are not talking about. This post has nothing to do with annual contributions to employer retirement plans (401(k)s and the like) and self-employed retirement plans. We’re only talking about IRAs. The Individual in “IRA” is the key – anyone can set up their own IRA. IRAs are not pegged to any particular job or self-employment.
The above list is the exhaustive list of the possible types of annual contributions you can make to an IRA. But there is plenty of confusion about when you are eligible to make each of the three types of annual contributions.
Two notes on this. First the limit is shared between traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs. In theory, someone under age 50 could contribute $4,000 to a traditional IRA and $3,000 to a Roth IRA. In practice, contributions are rarely divided between the traditional and the Roth, but it does occasionally happen.
Second, the limits have an additional limit: the contribution cannot exceed earned income. This means that those fully retired cannot contribute to an IRA unless they have a spouse who has earned income. A fully retired person (or a homemaker) can use their spouse’s earned income as their earned income and contribute to what is often referred to as a Spousal IRA.
Why Contribute to an IRA?
Why you would consider contributing to an IRA? The main reason is to build up tax-deferred wealth (traditional IRAs) and/or tax-free wealth (Roth IRAs) for your future, however you define it: financial independence, retirement, etc. A second potential benefit is the ability to deduct some annual contributions to traditional IRAs. A third benefit is some degree of creditor protection. States offer varying levels of creditor protection to traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs, while the federal government provides significant bankruptcy protection for traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs.
Traditional Nondeductible IRA Annual Contributions
There’s are only one requirement to contribute to a traditional, nondeductible IRA for a taxable year:
You and/or your spouse have earned income during that taxable year.
That’s it! As long as you satisfy that requirement, you can contribute to a traditional nondeductible IRA, no further questions asked.
Example: Teve Torbes is the publisher of a successful magazine. He is paid a salary of $1,000,000 in 2025 and is covered by the magazine’s 401(k) plan. Teve can make up to a $7,000 nondeductible contribution to a traditional IRA, and Teve’s wife can also make up to a $7,000 nondeductible contribution to a traditional IRA.
There is no tax deduction for contributing to a traditional nondeductible IRA. The amount of your nondeductible contribution creates “basis” in the traditional IRA. When you withdraw money from the traditional IRA in retirement, a ratable portion of the withdrawal is treated as a return of basis and thus not taxable (the “Pro-Rata Rule”).
Example: Ted makes a $6,000 nondeductible traditional IRA contribution for each of 10 years ($60,000 total). When he retires, the traditional IRA is worth $100,000, and he takes a $5,000 distribution from the traditional IRA. Ted is over 59 ½ when he makes the withdrawal. Of the $5,000 withdrawal, Ted will include $2,000 in his taxable income, because 60 percent ($3,000 — $60,000 basis divided by $100,000 fair market value times the $5,000 withdrawn) will be treated as a withdrawal of basis and thus tax free.
Traditional nondeductible IRA contributions generally give taxpayers a rather limited tax benefit. However, since 2010 traditional nondeductible IRA contributions have become an important tax planning tool because of the availability of the Backdoor Roth IRA.
Making a nondeductible IRA contribution requires the filing of a Form 8606 with your federal income tax return.
Traditional Deductible IRA Annual Contributions
In order to make a deductible contribution to a traditional IRA, three sets of qualification rules apply.
ONE: No Workplace Retirement Plan
Here are the qualification rules if neither you nor your spouse is covered by an employer retirement plan (401(k)s and the like and self-employment retirement plans):
You and/or your spouse have earned income during that taxable year.
That’s it! As long as you satisfy that requirement and you and your spouse are not covered by an employer retirement plan, you can make a deductible contribution to a traditional IRA, no further questions asked.
Example: Teve Torbes is the publisher of a successful magazine. He and his wife are 45 years old. He is paid a salary of $1,000,000 in 2025. Neither he nor his wife is covered by an employer retirement plan. Teve can make up to a $7,000 deductible contribution to a traditional IRA, and Teve’s wife can also make up to a $7,000 deductible contribution to a traditional IRA.
TWO: You Are Covered by a Workplace Retirement Plan
Here are the deductible traditional IRA qualification rules if you are covered by an employer retirement plan:
You and/or your spouse have earned income during that taxable year.
Your modified adjusted gross income (“MAGI”) for 2025 is less than $89,000 (if single), $146,000 (if married filing joint, “MFJ”), or $10,000 (if married filing separate, “MFS”).
Note that in between $79,000 and $89,000 (single), $126,000 and $146,000 (MFJ) and $0 and $10,000 (MFS), your ability to make a deductible contribution to a traditional IRA phases out ratably. Here is an illustrative example.
Example: Mike is 30 years old, single, and is covered by a 401(k) plan at work. Mike has a MAGI of $84,000 in 2025, most of which is W-2 income. Based on a MAGI in the middle of the phaseout range, Mike is limited to a maximum $3,500 deductible contribution to a traditional IRA.
Assuming he makes a $3,500 deductible IRA contribution, Mike has $3,500 worth of IRA contributions left. He can either, or a combination of both (up to $3,500) (a) make a contribution to a nondeductible traditional IRA, since he meets the qualification requirement to contribute to a nondeductible traditional IRA or (b) make a contribution to a Roth IRA, since he meets the qualification requirements (discussed below) to contribute to a Roth IRA.
THREE: Only Your Spouse is Covered by a Workplace Retirement Plan
Here are the deductible traditional IRA qualification rules if you are not covered by an employer retirement plan but your spouse is covered by an employer retirement plan:
You and/or your spouse have earned income during that taxable year.
Your MAGI for 2025 is less than $246,000 (MFJ) or $10,000 (MFS).
Note that in between $236,000 and $246,000 (MFJ) and $0 and $10,000 (MFS), your ability to make a deductible contribution to a traditional IRA phases out ratably.
Roth IRA Annual Contributions
Here are the Roth IRA annual contribution qualification rules.
You and/or your spouse have earned income during that taxable year.
Your MAGI for 2025 is less than $165,000 (single), $246,000 (MFJ), or $10,000 (MFS).
Note that in between $150,000 and $165,000 (single), $236,000 and $246,000 (MFJ), and $0 and $10,000 (MFS), your ability to make a Roth IRA contribution phases out ratably.
Notice that whether you and/or your spouse are covered by an employer retirement plan (including a self-employment retirement plan) is irrelevant. You and your spouse can be covered by an employer retirement plan and you can still contribute to a Roth IRA (so long as you meet the other qualification requirements).
Here is an example illustrating your options in the Roth IRA MAGI phaseout range.
Example: Mike is 30 years old, single, and covered by a workplace retirement plan. Mike has a MAGI of $159,000 for 2025, most of which is W-2 income. Based on a MAGI 60 percent through the phaseout range, Mike is limited to a maximum $2,800 contribution to a Roth IRA.
Assuming he makes a $2,800 annual Roth IRA contribution, Mike has $4,200 worth of IRA contributions left. He can make up to $4,200 in annual contributions to a nondeductible traditional IRA, since he meets the qualification requirement to contribute to a nondeductible traditional IRA.
Deadlines
The deadline to make an IRA contribution for a particular year is April 15th of the year following the taxable year (thus, the deadline to make a 2025 IRA contribution is April 15, 2026). The deadline to make earned income for a taxable year is December 31st of that year.
Rollover Contributions
There’s a separate category of contributions to IRAs: rollover contributions. These can be from other accounts of the same type (traditional IRA to traditional IRA, Roth IRA to Roth IRA) or from a workplace retirement plan (for example, traditional 401(k) to traditional IRA, Roth 401(k) to Roth IRA).
Rollover contributions do not require having earned income and have no income limits and should be generally tax-free. For a myriad of reasons, it is usually best to effectuate rollovers as direct trustee-to-trustee transfers.
As a practical matter, it is often the case that IRAs serve at the retirement home for workplace retirement plans such as 401(k)s.
Further Reading
Deductible traditional IRA or Roth IRA? If you qualify for both, it can be difficult to determine which is better. I’ve written here about some of the factors to consider in determining whether a deductible traditional contribution or a Roth contribution is better for you.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
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.
Incredibly, Donald Trump has signed up to make that choice, starting January 20th.
How can that be? It relates to SECURE 2.0. SECURE 2.0 made dozens of additions to the already complicated retirement account rules. Many like its delaying retirement account required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) for many Americans from age 72 to age 73 (and eventually to age 75).
But there is a big time issue few have commented on.
It has to do with the Omnibus Bill’s purported passage in December 2022. If the Omnibus, which contained SECURE 2.0, was not passed in a Constitutionally qualified manner, any Administration enforcing it would be acting counter to the Constitution and contrary to the rule of law.
The Constitutional Problem with SECURE 2.0
A federal judge, in a very well written and reasoned opinion, determined that the 2022 Omnibus Bill, was passed by the House of Representatives at a time the House did not have a required quorum to enact legislation. In Texas v. Garland (accessible here and here), Judge James W. Hendrix ruled for the State of Texas that the House of Representatives impermissibly used proxies to establish a quorum. The House did not have a majority of members physically present, and thus did not have a sufficient quorum to enact legislation at the time of Omnibus’s purported passage.
The quorum rule isn’t contained in the back of a House of Representatives parliamentary procedure manual. Rather, it is contained in the Quorum Clause of the United States Constitution, making it the highest level of legal authority.
This ruling has broad implications for SECURE 2.0. If the Omnibus was not enacted in a Constitutionally qualified manner, SECURE 2.0 is not the law of the land. Any Administration enforcing it would be enforcing a law that is simply not the law of the land.
I encourage the reader to read the Texas v. Garland opinion. I find it convincing, but you get to be the judge and jury in your own mind.
Assuming the new Administration agrees with Judge Hendrix’s reasoning, they should announce they will not enforce SECURE 2.0 in order to avoid acting contrary to the law.
Proposed Action
I recommend that shortly after President Trump’s inauguration the IRS and Treasury issue a Notice announcing the following:
In order to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, the IRS and Treasury will not enforce SECURE 2.0.
Considering the equities involved, the uniqueness of taxpayers having acted under an announced law that was not, in fact, the law, and the limited enforcement resources available, the IRS will not challenge any acts made, plan/account qualification, and tax return positions taken based on SECURE 2.0 prior to the issuance of the Notice. Plans and financial institutions will be allowed a reasonable amount of time to adequately account for the Notice.
In order to eliminate harm from detrimental reliance on SECURE 2.0, appropriate equitable remedies will be applied to prior acts taken under SECURE 2.0 with relevance going forward. For example, any Roth SEP IRAs and Roth SIMPLE IRAs properly created and funded under SECURE 2.0 will be deemed to be Roth IRAs with respect to which valid contributions were previously made.
The IRS and Treasury will exercise their authority under Sections 402(c)(3)(B) and 408(d)(3)(I) and waive the 60-day requirement with respect to rollovers for any SECURE 2.0 qualified distributions followed by three year repayments so long as the distribution occurred prior to the issuance of the Notice and repayment is made back to the retirement account no later than December 31, 2025.
The IRS will not require RMDs and not enforce the failure to withdraw penalty for those who turned age 72 in 2023 and for those who turned age 72 in 2024.
The IRS will require RMDs and enforce the failure to withdraw penalty for those who turn age 72 starting in 2025.
Update February 3, 2025 — the previous version of this post said “73” instead of “72” in the previous two bullets — my apologies for the error.
Relevant 2025 limits will be applied not factoring in provisions from SECURE 2.0. Thus, guidance such as Notice 2024-80 is modified accordingly. For example, the 2025 qualified charitable distribution limit is $100,000 and for those age 60-63 the catch-up contribution limit is $7,500.
I recommend the new Administration issue that notice shortly after Inauguration Day to uphold the Constitution regardless of whether the new Congress chooses to take additional action with respect to SECURE 2.0.
The question then becomes what to do in Congress, if anything, with respect to SECURE 2.0. Since it is likely Congress will enact significant tax legislation, there will be one or more opportunities to address the issue.
I propose that as part of the 2025 tax changes Congress passes, Congress include a provision repealing SECURE 2.0 for the avoidance of doubt. That will end any possible litigation around SECURE 2.0, since the IRS will have waived any challenges resulting from acts occurring prior to the Trump Administration, and Congress will have repealed it (in case it is the law, counter to my opinion) going forward.
SECURE 2.0 had more to do with 401(k) plan administrators and lawyers securing full employment than securing retirement for working Americans. SECURE 2.0 being pushed to the side would be no tragedy. Perhaps Congress should salvage a few good provisions, but most of it should be left on the scrap heap while Congress focuses on more important tax reforms and extending Tax Cuts and Jobs Act individual tax cuts.
I am more ambivalent about the delays in RMDs. Congress could simply enact SECURE 2.0’s RMD delays as part of its 2025 tax reforms. That said, I believe that tax cuts such as eliminating the taxes on tips and overtime are much better tax policy and should be prioritized.
Further, the tax benefit of eliminating the tax on Social Security potentially dwarfs the tax benefit of a one or three year delay in RMDs. There’s a very valid argument that eliminating taxes on Social Security and having RMDs start at age 72 is appropriate and will leave many seniors in a vastly improved tax position when compared to where they stood prior to 2025.
Conclusion
I would pick the Constitution over delayed RMDs any day of the week. The Constitution is far more important than any retirement account tax rule. While it is not good to say dozens of rules that Americans have planned around are invalid, it is far worse to disregard the Constitution.
My hope is that the new Administration’s tax policy staff, including the new Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, work to uphold the Constitution.
The new Administration, consistent with Judge Hendrix’s ruling, should acknowledge the Constitutional problem with SECURE 2.0 and addresses it head on. Doing so will demonstrate President Trump’s commitment to honor the Constitution and the rule of law.
This post is for educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, investment, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
Note that a version of this proposal has been posted to the crowd sourced policy website PoliciesforPeople.com. The views reflected in this post are only those of the author, Sean Mullaney, and are not the views of anyone else.
It’s that time of year again. The air is cool and the Election is in the rear-view mirror. That can only mean one thing when it comes to personal finance: time to start thinking about year-end tax planning.
I’ll provide some commentary about year-end tax planning to consider, with headings corresponding to the timeframe required to execute.
As always, none of this is advice for your particular situation but rather it is educational information.
Urgent
By urgent, I mean those items that (i) need to happen before year-end and (ii) may not happen if taxpayers delay and try to accomplish them late in the year.
Donor Advised Fund Contributions
The donor advised fund is a great way to contribute to charity and accelerate a tax deduction. My favorite way to use the donor advised fund is to contribute appreciated stock directly to the donor advised fund. This gets the donor three tax benefits: 1) a potential upfront itemized tax deduction, 2) removing the unrealized capital gain from future income tax, and 3) removing the income produced by the assets inside the donor advised fund from the donor’s tax return.
In order to get the first benefit in 2024, the appreciated stock must be received by the donor advised fund prior to January 1, 2025. This deadline is no different than the normal charitable contribution deadline.
However, due to much year end interest in donor advised fund contributions and processing time, different financial institutions will have different deadlines on when transfers must be initiated in order to count for 2024. Donor advised fund planning should be attended to sooner rather than later.
Taxable Roth Conversions
For a Roth conversion to count as being for 2024, it must be done before January 1, 2025. That means New Year’s Eve is the deadline. However, taxable Roth conversions should be done well before New Year’s Eve because
It requires analysis to determine if a taxable Roth conversion is advantageous,
If advantageous, the proper amount to convert must be estimated, and
The financial institution needs time to execute the Roth conversion so it counts as having occurred in 2024.
Before the Election, many commentators said “you’ve gotta get your Roth conversions done before tax rates go up in 2026!” If this were X (the artist formerly known as Twitter), the assertion would likely be accompanied by a hair-on-fire GIF. 😉
I have disagreed with the assertion. As I have stated before, there’s nothing more permanent than a temporary tax cut! Now with a second Trump presidency and a Republican Congress, it is likely that the higher standard deduction and rate cuts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will be extended.
Regardless of the particulars of 2025 tax changes, I recommend that you make your own personal taxable Roth conversion decisions based on your own personal situation and analysis of the landscape and not a fear of future tax hikes.
Adjust Withholding
This varies, but it is a good idea to look at how much tax you owed last year. If you are on pace to get 100% (110% if 2023 AGI is $150K or greater) or slightly more of that amount paid into Uncle Sam by the end of the year (take a look at your most recent pay stub), there’s likely no need for action. But what if you are likely to have much more or much less than 100%/110%? It may be that you want to reduce or increase your workplace withholdings for the rest of 2024. If you do, don’t forget to reassess your workplace withholdings for 2024 early in the year.
One great way to make up for underwithholding is through an IRA withdrawal mostly directed to the IRS and/or a state taxing agency. Just note that for those under age 59 ½, this tactic may require special planning.
These items can wait till close to year-end, though you don’t want to find yourself doing them on New Year’s Eve.
Tax Gain Harvesting
For those finding themselves in the 12% or lower federal marginal income tax bracket and with an asset in a taxable account with a built-in gain, tax gain harvesting prior to December 31, 2024 may be a good tax tactic to increase basis without incurring additional federal income tax. Remember, though, the gain itself increases one’s taxable income, making it harder to stay within the 12% or lower marginal income tax bracket.
I’m also quite fond of tax gain harvesting that reallocates one’s portfolio in a tax efficient manner.
Tax Loss Harvesting
The deadline for tax loss harvesting for 2024 is December 31, 2024. Just remember to navigate the wash sale rule.
RMDs from Your Own Retirement Account
The deadline to take any required minimum distributions from one’s own retirement account is December 31, 2024. Remember, the rules can get a bit confusing. Generally, IRAs can be aggregated for RMD purposes, but 401(k)s cannot.
RMDs from Inherited Accounts
The deadline to take any RMDs from inherited retirement accounts is December 31st. For some beneficiaries of retirement accounts inherited during 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023, the IRS has waived 2024 RMDs. That said, all beneficiaries of inherited retirement accounts may want to consider affirmatively taking distributions (in addition to RMDs, if any) before the end of 2024 to put the income into a lower tax year, if 2024 happens to be a lower taxable income year vis-a-vis future tax years.
Can Wait Till Next Year
Traditional IRA and Roth IRA Contribution Deadline
The deadline for funding either or both a traditional IRA and a Roth IRA for 2024 is April 15, 2025.
Backdoor Roth IRA Deadline
There’s no law saying “the deadline for the Backdoor Roth IRA is DATE X.” However, the deadline to make a nondeductible traditional IRA contribution for the 2024 tax year is April 15, 2025. Those doing the Backdoor Roth IRA for 2024 and doing the Roth conversion step in 2025 may want to consider the unique tax filing when that happens (what I refer to as a “Split-Year Backdoor Roth IRA”).
HSA Funding Deadline
The deadline to fund an HSA for 2024 is April 15, 2025. Those who have not maximized their HSA through payroll deductions during the year may want to look into establishing payroll withholding for their HSA so as to take advantage of the payroll tax break available when HSAs are funded through payroll.
The deadline for those age 55 and older to fund a Baby HSA for 2024 is April 15, 2025.
2025 Tax Planning at the End of 2024
HDHP and HSA Open Enrollment
It’s open enrollment season. Now is a great time to assess whether a high deductible health plan (a HDHP) is a good medical insurance plan for you. One of the benefits of the HDHP is the health savings account (an HSA).
For those who already have a HDHP, now is a good time to review payroll withholding into the HSA. Many HSA owners will want to max this out through payroll deductions so as to qualify to reduce both income taxes and payroll taxes.
Self-Employment Tax Planning
Year-end is a great time for solopreneurs, particularly newer solopreneurs, to assess their business structure and retirement plans. Perhaps 2024 is the year to open a Solo 401(k). Often this type of analysis benefits from professional consultations.
FI Tax Guy can be your financial planner! Find out more by visiting mullaneyfinancial.com
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, investment, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
