Tag Archives: Tax

Roth 401k Withdrawals

We live in a Roth IRA world (or, at least I wish we did). We also live in a world where increasing numbers of people invest through a Roth 401(k). 

The Roth 401(k) is still a relatively new account. Taxpayers and practitioners alike are still learning its contours. Things get even more complicated when you roll money from a workplace Roth 401(k) to a Roth IRA.

To get our feet wet, first I will illustrate the ordering rules for withdrawals from a Roth IRA. Then we will explore withdrawals from a Roth 401(k).

Note that much of this post discusses withdrawals before age 59 ½. In most cases, it is not wise to take a withdrawal from a retirement account before age 59 ½ unless (a) there is an emergency or (b) it is part of a well crafted financial plan.

Watch me discuss Roth 401(k) withdrawals.

Default Rule for Roth IRA Withdrawals: The Layers

Unless the distribution qualifies as a “qualified distribution” (see below), amounts come out of Roth IRAs in layers. Only after one layer has been exhausted can the next layer come out.

Here is the order of distributions that come out of a Roth IRA:

First Layer: Roth IRA contributions

Second Layer: Roth IRA conversions (first-in, first-out)

Third Layer: Roth IRA earnings

Here’s a brief example:

Example 1: Steve has made five $5,000 contributions to his Roth IRA in previous years. He also made a $10,000 conversion from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in 2014. In 2021, at a time when his Roth IRA is worth $60,000 and Steve is 45 years old, he takes a $10,000 withdrawal from his Roth IRA. All $10,000 will be a recovery of his previous contributions (leaving him with $15,000 remaining of previous contributions). Thus, the entire distribution from the Roth IRA will be tax and penalty free.

The Roth IRA contributions come out tax and penalty free at any time for any reason!

A qualified distribution from a Roth IRA is usually one where the account holder both (i) has owned a Roth IRA for at least 5 years and (ii) is at least 59 ½ years old. If either condition is not satisfied, the default layering rules described above apply. Qualified distributions from a Roth IRA are tax and penalty free regardless of the layers inside the Roth IRA.

See page 31 of IRS Publication 590-B for more information about qualified distributions from Roth IRAs.

Roth 401(k) Withdrawals

First, a practical note: employers may restrict in-service Roth 401(k) withdrawals before age 59 1/2. Consider that before thinking about how the tax rules apply to withdrawals.

Default Rule: Cream-in-the-Coffee

Generally speaking, Roth 401(k)s have (1) investment in the contract (“IITC”), which is generally previous contributions and conversions and (2) earnings. 

Unlike the sequenced layering of Roth IRA withdrawals, Roth 401(k) withdrawals generally default to what Ed Slott refers to as the “cream-in-the-coffee” rule (see Choate — discussed below, page 140).

As a result, withdrawals default to carrying out both some IITC and some earnings. Here’s an example:

Example 2: Lilly has made five $6,000 contributions to her Roth 401(k) in previous years. She also made a $10,000 conversion from a traditional 401(k) to her Roth 401(k) in 2014. In 2021, at a time when her Roth 401(k) is worth $60,000 and Lilly is 45 years old, she takes a $10,000 withdrawal from her Roth 401(k). Two-thirds ($6,667, computed as the fraction $40,000 divided by $60,000 times the withdrawal) of the $10,000 will be a recovery of her IITC (entirely tax and penalty free), and one-third ($3,333, computed as the fraction $20,000 divided by $60,000 times the withdrawal) of the $10,000 will be earnings, which are subject to both ordinary income taxation and a 10 percent penalty.

Quick Thought: Had Lilly’s Roth conversion occurred in 2017 or later, the portion attributable to the conversion ($1,667) would be subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty (but not to ordinary income taxation). See Section 402A(c)(4)(D) and Section 408A(d)(3)(F). Note an earlier version had “2018 or earlier” where the bolded words are in error. I regret the error.

Quick Thought: The cream-in-the-coffee rule does not factor in amounts in traditional 401(k) accounts, even if they are within the same 401(k) plan.

Solving the Cream-in-the-Coffee Issue

We see that the cream-in-the-coffee rule has bad effects. It does not allow exclusive access to tax-favored amounts when there are non-tax favored amounts in an account. So what to do? There are three primary exceptions to the cream-in-the-coffee rule. 

Exception 1: Wait for a Qualified Distribution

The cream-in-the-coffee rule can be waited out.

A qualified distribution from a Roth 401(k) is a withdrawal that occurs when the owner is age 59 ½ (see Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.402A-1 Q&A 2(b)(2)) and has had that particular Roth 401(k) account for five years (see Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.402A-1 Q&A 2(b)(1) and Q&A 4). Other qualified distributions can occur upon death or disability (if the 5 year test is satisfied), but for our purposes, we will assume for the rest of the article that any qualified distributions are qualified distributions occurring at or after age 59 ½ and after five years of ownership.

The owner of a Roth 401(k) who qualifies for a qualified distribution does not need to roll the Roth 401(k) to a Roth IRA to take a tax free withdrawal. Once the owner qualifies for a qualified distribution he or she can simply withdraw amounts from the Roth 401(k) tax-free.

However, as a practical matter, it is often the case that Roth 401(k)s are rolled into Roth IRAs (for several reasons). If the rollover from the Roth 401(k) to the Roth IRA would qualify as a qualified distribution if taken directly, then the entire amount in the Roth 401(k) (IITC and earnings) goes into the Roth IRA as a contribution. Ian Berger discussed this issue in an August 11, 2022 response to a question. His answer applies the rule in Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.408A-10 Q&A 3 (the sentence beginning with “Thus,”).

Up to the amount rolled into the Roth IRA can be distributed tax and penalty free. So long as the taxpayer has met the 5 year rule with respect to any Roth IRA, any future earnings beyond the amount rolled in can be withdrawn tax free at any time.

Quick Thought: I would be remiss if I didn’t insert the standard tax planner advice that rollovers from Roth 401(k)s to Roth IRAs are best accomplished through a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer.

There is one five year rule nuance to consider. If the taxpayer has never had a Roth IRA, he or she must wait 5 years (regardless of their age) to access later earnings generated by rollover contribution tax free. Here’s a quick example:

Example 3: John is 60 years old. He has never had a Roth IRA. He has had a Roth 401(k) with his employer for over five years. He has made $100,000 of contributions to the Roth 401(k) which has grown to $200,000. He does not need to roll his Roth 401(k) into a Roth IRA to take out money entirely tax and penalty free.

If John chooses to roll all $200,000 in his Roth 401(k) into a Roth IRA, all $200,000 goes into the Roth IRA as a contribution. If John withdraws more than $200,000 from the new Roth IRA before the Roth IRA turns 5 years old, those withdrawals of new earnings would be subject to income tax (though, of course, penalty free since John is over 59 ½ years old).

As a practical matter, as long as the taxpayer does not plan on withdrawing more than the rolled over amount in the first five years, this nuance is not likely to be a gating issue in determining whether the Roth 401(k) should be rolled over to a Roth IRA.

Exception 2: Roth 401(k) Rollover then Withdraw

The second strategy to overcome the cream-in-the-coffee rule is to rollover the Roth 401(k) to a Roth IRA without waiting.

If either the taxpayer is less than 59 ½ years old and/or has not held that particular Roth 401(k) for at least five years, the nonqualified distribution rules apply to the rollover. The Roth 401(k) goes into the Roth IRA as “contributions” to the extent of the IITC in the Roth 401(k), and as “earnings” to the extent of growth in the Roth 401(k).

Recall the example of Lilly above. Here is how it changes if she rolls the Roth 401(k) into a Roth IRA and then takes the withdrawal.

Example 4: Lilly has made five $6,000 contributions to her Roth 401(k) in previous years. She also made a $10,000 conversion from a traditional 401(k) to her Roth 401(k) in 2014. In 2021, at a time when her Roth 401(k) is worth $60,000 and Lilly is 45 years old, she rolls her Roth 401(k) over to a Roth IRA (her first ever). A month later, Lilly takes a $10,000 withdrawal from her Roth IRA. All $10,000 will be a recovery of her previous contributions (leaving her with $30,000 remaining of previous contributions). Thus, the entire withdrawal will be tax and penalty free.

While rollovers of nonqualified distributions do not eliminate Roth 401(k) earnings, they do eliminate the cream-in-the-coffee rule. As a result, Roth 401(k) to Roth IRA rollovers often make sense.

The Five Year Roth Earnings Rule

Where such rollovers can be disadvantageous is the five year rule as applied to earnings. Recall that being age 59 ½ is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to withdrawing Roth earnings tax free. You also need to meet a 5 year rule.

If you have a Roth 401(k) that is 5 years old but have never had any Roth IRA, and you are less than 5 years away from attaining age 59 ½, rolling into a Roth IRA could subject withdrawals of earnings (after age 59 ½) in excess of IITC to ordinary income taxation. That said, often withdrawals do not exhaust contributions in the first five years after a rollover. Thus, often this will not be a gating issue.

Exception 3: Roth 401(k) Withdrawal then Rollover

There is a third way to overcome the cream-in-the-coffee rule. It is to take a withdrawal from the Roth 401(k) and then rollover the earnings component to a Roth IRA. Let’s see how that would affect Lilly:

Example 5: Lilly needs $10,000 and has decided to access it from her Roth 401(k). Lilly has made five $6,000 contributions to her Roth 401(k) in previous years. She also made a $10,000 conversion from a traditional 401(k) to her Roth 401(k) in 2014. In 2021, at a time when her Roth 401(k) is worth $60,000 and Lilly is 45 years old, Lilly takes a $15,000 withdrawal from her Roth 401(k). Based on her Roth 401(k) consisting of two-thirds IITC and one-third earnings, $5,000 of the withdrawal is taxable and subject to an early withdrawal penalty. However, Lilly can, within 60 days, rollover the $5,000 of earnings into a Roth IRA. The earnings will go into the Roth IRA as earnings, and Lilly avoids the tax and penalty on the withdrawal.

Note that if Lilly does this partial rollover, the rollover piece is not subject to the cream-in-the-coffee rule. The partial rollover attracts earnings before attracting any IITC (see Treasury Regulation Section 1.402A-1 Q&A 5). 

Note further that if Lilly has no other Roth IRAs, she now has a Roth IRA that consists only of earnings. She will not (generally speaking) be able to touch this Roth IRA without ordinary income tax and a penalty until age 59 ½.

As a practical matter, the “withdraw then rollover” strategy may not be available to Lilly. The 401(k) plan may not allow partial distributions pre-age 59 1/2 after separation from service.

Coordination with the Rule of 55

Many like the Rule of 55, which is a rule that allows taxpayers to take amounts from workplace retirement plans such as 401(k)s without the early withdrawal penalty. It applies when a taxpayer separates from service at age 55 or older (up to age 59 ½, when withdrawals become penalty free), and the plan allows partial withdrawals.

So the question becomes, if you are in the 4.5 year Rule of 55 window (ages 55 to 59 ½) and you separate from service, should you leave a Roth 401(k) in the plan or roll it into a Roth IRA if you need to withdraw from it? Let’s consider an example.

Example 6: James is 56 years old and leaves his employment. He has contributed $100,000 over more than five years to his Roth 401(k), and it is currently worth $200,000. If he keeps the amounts in the Roth 401(k), every dollar he takes out will be half recovery of IITC (tax-free) and half a withdrawal of earnings (taxable, but qualifies for a penalty exception). If, instead, James follows the “rollover then withdraw” strategy and rolls his Roth 401(k) to a Roth IRA, the first $100,000 he withdraws before age 59 ½ will be a return of contributions, and only if he exceeds $100,000 in withdrawals will he have ordinary income and a penalty. A second option for James would be to do the “withdraw then rollover” strategy whereby James would direct half of each distribution (the earnings half) to a Roth IRA in order to avoid ordinary income taxation on the earnings portion.

This illustrates that numbers matter in this regard. It also shows that as long as the pre-age 59 ½ withdrawals will be less than the previous Roth 401(k) contributions, it is generally better to take the withdrawals from a rollover Roth IRA than from a Roth 401(k) penalty protected by the Rule of 55.

However, if one employs the “withdraw then rollover” strategy, keeping money in the Roth 401(k) can work as effectively as rolling over to a Roth IRA. 

A Note on Rollovers

Any designated Roth account (401(k), 403(b), and/or 457) can be rolled into a Roth IRA. Designated Roth accounts can be rolled into other designated Roth accounts, though note there can some be some complexity in this regard.

Roth IRAs cannot be rolled into a designated Roth account, including a Roth 401(k).

The IRS has a handy rollover chart accessible here. 

SECURE 2.0 Update

SECURE 2.0 makes three changes relating to Roth 401(k)s. First, it eliminates required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) from Roth 401(k)s during the owner’s lifetime. This change has little practical effect, as many Roth 401(k)s will ultimately be rolled to Roth IRAs anyway in order for the owner to obtain more investment choice and control of the account.

Second, SECURE 2.0 mandates that beginning in 2024, employee catch-up contributions to 401(k) accounts must be Roth contributions if the employee made more than $145,000 in wages the prior year.

Third, SECURE 2.0 allows employer contributions to Roth 401(k)s.

I suspect that based on the second and third changes, more employers may offer Roth 401(k)s in addition to traditional 401(k)s.

Further Reading

For those interested in seeing more information on distributions out of Roth IRAs after rollovers of Roth 401(k)s, please see Treasury Regulation Sec. 1.408A-10. For more information on rollovers of distributions from Roth 401(k)s into Roth IRAs, please see Treasury Regulation Sec. 1.402A-1.

Natalie B. Choate’s treatise Life and Death Benefits for Retirement Planning (8th Ed. 2019) is an absolutely invaluable resource regarding retirement account withdrawals, including Roth 401(k) withdrawals.

Conclusion

The rules around Roth 401(k)s are complex, and different than those applicable to Roth IRAs. This blog post only presents an educational introduction to those rules. Taxpayers should exercise extra caution, and often consult with tax professionals, before moving money out of a Roth 401(k).

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. 

Split-Year Backdoor Roth IRAs

Can I contribute to a Roth IRA? Can I do a Backdoor Roth IRA? These are two questions I often hear as a tax-focused financial planner.

Perhaps you find yourself preparing your 2020 tax return in early April 2021. You have not contributed anything to a traditional IRA or a Roth IRA yet for 2020. Do you have time to perhaps do a Roth IRA or a Backdoor Roth IRA? The answer is, “Absolutely!” if you have the right facts in place. Let’s discuss a comprehensive example:

Example 1: Jack is single, 35 years old, participates in a 401(k) at work, and has self-prepared his 2020 tax return but not yet filed it. It is April 9, 2021, and his tax-return software indicates that he does not qualify for a Roth IRA, as his modified adjusted gross income for 2020 is $150,000. Jack has no traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, or SIMPLE IRAs. Jack just learned about the existence of the Backdoor Roth IRA. 

What can Jack do? Can he do a Backdoor Roth IRA for 2020? The answer is, Yes! 

First, Jack should, by April 15, 2021, make a traditional, non-deductible IRA contribution of $6,000. When he does this, he should designate the contribution as being for 2020. With his soon-to-be-filed 2020 federal income tax return, he should file a Form 8606 which will report the $6,000 traditional, non-deductible IRA contribution. Easy enough. 

Assuming Jack contributed to his 2020 traditional, non-deductible IRA in April 2021, in May of 2021 Jack should convert the entire balance in his traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. Third, he should ensure he has no balance in traditional IRAs/SEP IRAs/SIMPLE IRAs as of December 31, 2021. 

Jack can also do a Backdoor Roth IRA for 2021, which may be advisable if (a) his modified adjusted gross income exceeds the Roth IRA contribution thresholds and (b) he will have no balance in traditional IRAs/SEP IRAs/SIMPLE IRAs as of December 31, 2021. 

Assume Jack makes a traditional, non-deductible contribution to an IRA for 2021 on June 1, 2021, and on July 2, 2021, he converts the amounts in the traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. Further assume (a) the amounts converted in May and July were $6,001 and $6,002, respectively, and (b) Jack has no balance in traditional IRAs/SEP IRAs/SIMPLE IRAs as of December 31, 2021. 

When Jack files his 2021 tax return, Page 1 of his Form 8606 should look like this:

Page 1 of the Form 8606 reflects the total basis in traditional IRAs (without considering the Roth conversions). Note that I had to use the 2019 version of the Form 8606, as the 2021 version has not yet been released. Please adjust all dates in your mind’s eye accordingly.

Page 2 (reporting the 2021 Roth IRA conversions) of the Form 8606 should look like this:

The gross amount of the Roth IRA conversions are taxable, but Jack gets to recover his $12,000 of traditional IRA basis.

Post Tax Return Filing Split-Year Backdoor Roth IRA

Example 2: Jim is single, 35 years old, participates in a 401(k) at work, and has self-prepared his 2020 tax return and filed it on March 15, 2021. Jim’s modified adjusted gross income for 2020 is $150,000. Jim has no traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, or SIMPLE IRAs. It is April 9, 2021 and Jim just learned about the existence of the Backdoor Roth IRA. 

Can Jim still do a Backdoor Roth IRA for 2020? Absolutely!

First, Jim should, by April 15, 2021, make a traditional, non-deductible IRA contribution of $6,000. When he does this, he should designate the contribution as being for 2020. So far, everything is the same as Example 1.

But here is where things change. Jim should also, by April 15, 2021, file a standalone Form 8606 with the IRS and be sure to sign the form on page 2. The Form 8606 will report the contribution to the traditional, non-deductible IRA. Jim will have to paper file the Form 8606 and mail it to the IRS Service Center that he would mail his Form 1040 to (if he were to paper file his Form 1040). 

Jim could then convert the traditional IRA to a Roth IRA to successfully complete the Backdoor Roth IRA. He should also ensure he had no balance in a traditional IRA, SEP IRA, or SIMPLE IRA on December 31, 2021. 

Advanced Split-Year Backdoor Roth IRA

Example 3: Jill is married to Joe, 35 years old, participates in a 401(k) at work, and has self-prepared their 2020 tax return but not yet filed it. Jill and Joe’s modified adjusted gross income for 2020 is $250,000. Jill has a traditional IRA with a balance of $100,000 (and no previous non-deductible contributions). It is April 9, 2021 and Jill just learned about the existence of the Backdoor Roth IRA. 

Jill’s example is a bit more challenging than Jack and Jim’s previous example. Yes, it is possible that Jill could successfully complete a Backdoor Roth IRA for 2020. But it involves much more execution risk – the risk that the proper steps will not be completed in time. While taxpayers engaging in any sort of tax planning should consider engaging professional assistance, Jill is in a position where that is even more so the case. 

Here is how Jill could successfully execute a Backdoor Roth IRA for 2020. Jill should go to her workplace benefits website and download and review the “Summary Plan Description” for the 401(k) plan (sometimes initialized “SPD”). 

It may be the case that Jill’s workplace 401(k) plan will accept a roll-in of her traditional IRA. Many 401(k)s do, but many do not. Some plans will only accept roll-ins of other qualified plans (401(k)s, 403(b)s, etc.), and some plans will only accept roll-ins of qualified plans and so-called “conduit IRAs” i.e., IRAs that consist only of money that was formerly in a qualified plan. However, there are some plans that will accept roll-ins of both old qualified plans and any type of traditional IRA (though note that in all events 401(k) plans cannot accept roll-ins of amounts representing non-deductible IRA contributions).

If Jill’s workplace 401(k) plan will accept a roll-in of the $100,000 traditional IRA, then Jill could transfer (in a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer) her traditional IRA (other than the amount of any nondeductible contributions, including a $6,000 2020 contribution) to the 401(k). If she fails to do that by December 31, 2021, then any Backdoor Roth IRA would be very tax inefficient (and unavisable) – you can read more here in the “Jennifer” example. 

This is one reason I say that there is “execution risk” – perhaps Jill does the “Backdoor Roth IRA” steps but neglects the transfer of the old traditional IRA to the 401(k) until after December 31, 2021. If that happens, Jill’s Backdoor Roth IRA will now be very tax inefficient.

Some might say “couldn’t Jill start a side hustle, open a Solo 401(k) for it, and then roll the traditional IRA into the Solo 401(k)?” To my mind, that is a dangerous path. Jill’s side hustle might not rise to the level of a trade or business for tax purposes. If it does not, then it is not eligible to have a Solo 401(k). Any transfer of a traditional IRA to a plan that does not qualify as either an IRA, 401(k), 403(b), or similar plan is simply a taxable distribution subject to full income tax and a 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. Ouch!!!

Jill should not over think it. If she can easily roll her old traditional IRA into her workplace 401(k), then she should consider doing so and doing a Backdoor Roth IRA. But if she cannot, then fine, there are plenty of other ways to become financially independent and/or achieve retirement planning goals. Not having the Backdoor Roth IRA tool available is no killer to her future plans and goals. 

Note further that if Jill’s balance was in a SIMPLE IRA that was less than 2 years old, she could not roll the SIMPLE IRA into anything other than a SIMPLE IRA for the first two years of her SIMPLE IRA’s existence without incurring a 25% penalty.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @SeanMoneyandTax

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

The SECURE Act’s Impact on the FI Community

In late December 2019 the President and Congress enacted the SECURE Act. The SECURE Act makes some significant revisions to the laws governing IRAs, 401(k)s, and other retirement accounts. This post discusses the impacts of these changes on those pursuing financial independence.

The Big Picture

The SECURE Act is a big win for the FI community, in my opinion. 

The FI community significantly benefits from IRAs, 401(k)s, and other tax-advantaged retirement accounts. However, the federal government is facing increasing debts and annual deficits. That puts tax-advantaged accounts in the crosshairs. What Congress gives in tax benefits Congress can take away.

So what does the SECURE Act do? First, it actually gives us a couple more tax advantages during our lifetimes (see “Opportunities” below). Second, it significantly reduces the tax advantages of inherited retirement accounts for our heirs.

For those either with large retirement account balances or planning to have large retirement account balances, any change in tax laws is a potential problem. We should be glad that this round of tax law changes has occurred without our own retirement accounts being negatively impacted. Congress has passed the bill to our heirs, which, right or wrong, is a victory for us. 

When you see people in the financial press squawking about how awful the SECURE Act is, remember, it could be a whole lot worse–your retirement account could have been more heavily taxed during your lifetime! 

For those pursuing FI, the ability to use tax-advantaged retirement accounts remains the same, and in a couple small ways, has been enhanced. The next generation still has all those retirement account opportunities, even if they won’t be able to benefit from inheriting retirement accounts as much as they do under current law. 

Opportunities

Traditional IRA Contributions for those 70 ½ and Older

Starting in 2020, those aged 70 ½ and older will be able to contribute to a traditional IRA. This will open up Backdoor Roth IRA planning for those 70 ½ and older and still working. For those still working (or doing side hustles) at age 70 ½ or older, this is a nice change.

Remember, regardless of age, in order to contribute to an IRA, you or your spouse must have earned income. 

RMDs Begin at 72

For those attaining age 70 ½ after December 31, 2019, the age at which they will need to take RMDs will be 72, not 70 ½. This gives retirement accounts a bit more time to bake tax-deferred. It also slightly expands the window to do Roth conversions before RMDs begin. However, this last benefit is tempered by the fact that you must take Social Security no later than age 70. Roth conversion planning to reduce taxable RMDs should be mostly completed well before age 70 ½, regardless of this change in the law. 

Note that taxpayers can still make qualified charitable distributions (“QCD”) starting when they turn age 70 ½. While pre-age 72 QCDs won’t satisfy RMD requirements, they will (a) help optimize charitable giving from a tax perspective (by keeping adjusted gross income lower and avoiding the requirement to itemize to deduct the contribution) and (b) reduce future RMDs.

Annuities in 401(k)s

The new law provides rules facilitating annuities in 401(k) plans. This one requires proceeding with extreme caution. If your 401(k) plan decides to offer annuity products, you need to carefully assess whether an annuity is the right investment for you and you need to fully understand the fees charged. 

Remember, just because the law changed doesn’t mean your asset allocation should change!

Leaving Retirement Accounts to Heirs

This is the where the SECURE Act raises taxes. The SECURE Act removes the so-called “stretch” for many retirement plan beneficiaries. For retirement accounts inherited after December 31, 2019, only certain beneficiaries will be able to stretch out distributions over their remaining life (or based on the age of the decedent if over 70 ½ at death). For nonqualified beneficiaries, the rule will simply be that the beneficiary must take the account within 10 years of the owner’s death (the “10-year rule”).

My overall opinion on the SECURE Act stated above, planning for the next generation is important. Particularly if you are already financially independent and want to help your children become financially independent, the SECURE Act has significant ramifications.

Spouses

If your current estate plan features your spouse as your retirement account primary beneficiary, the SECURE Act should in no way change that aspect of your plan. Fortunately, the many advantages applicable to spouses inheriting retirement accounts will not change. Spouses remain an excellent candidate to inherit a retirement account. 

Minor Children

If you leave your retirement account to your minor children, they are exempt from the 10-year rule (and can generally take distributions based on IRS RMD tables that are generous to younger beneficiaries) while they are still minors. Once your children reach the age of majority, they will have ten years to empty the retirement account. 

The exception to the 10-year rule applies only to your minor children. It does not apply to your grandchildren, your adult children, and the children of others (including nieces and nephews). 

Other Eligible Beneficiaries

The exceptions to the 10-year rule apply to your spouse, your minor children, the disabled, the chronically ill, and persons not more than 10 years younger than you at your death. All others will need to empty retirement accounts within 10 years of inheritance. This will require some significant planning in cases where the beneficiary has inherited a traditional retirement account to strategically empty the account over the 10 year window to manage adjusted gross income, taxable income, and total tax. 

Planning

For those of you with estate plans involving adult children, the passage of the SECURE Act may well require revisions to your plans. First off, as a practical matter, your revocable living trust may need modifications. Many have designated a trust as a retirement account beneficiary. To do so properly requires conforming with specific income tax rules. Those with trusts as the beneficiary of their retirement account would be well advised to, at a minimum, consult with their lawyer to determine if the language of the trust needs updating.

Second, understanding that inheriting a traditional retirement account will now mean accelerated, and possibly significantly increased, taxation for their heirs, many will want to consider Roth conversion planning. Roth accounts will be subject to the 10-year rule, but the good news is that the beneficiary can keep the assets in the Roth account for 10 years, let it grow tax free, and then take out the money in 10 years tax free. Not too bad.

Roth conversion planning to optimize your heirs’ income tax picture is now even more important. However, it should not be done if it will impose a financial hardship on the account owner during their lifetime. The first priority should be securing the account owner’s retirement. Only if the account owner is financially secure should they consider Roth conversion planning to reduce their heirs’ tax liability.

Conclusion

Tax rules are always changing. This round of changes is a victory for those pursuing financial independence. Any tax law change that does not negatively impact your path to financial independence is a win. 

For those considering the financial health of their heirs, particularly their adult children, the SECURE Act should prompt some reconsideration of estate plans. Often it is wise to consult with professional advisors in this regard. 

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

Follow me on Twitter: @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. 

Roth Conversions for the Self-Employed

Are you self-employed? Is your self-employment income your primary source of income? If so, you might want to consider doing a Roth conversion before the end of the year.

Takeaways

  • If most of your taxable income is self-employment income (either reported on Schedule C or from a partnership), you might want to consider year-end Roth conversions to maximize your QBI deduction and pay a lower-than-expected federal income tax rate on the conversion.
  • To optimize this strategy, convert traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs (or do in-plan traditional 401(k) to Roth 401(k) conversions) to increase your QBI deduction. 

Why? Because of the still relatively new qualified business income (“QBI”) deduction (also known as the Section 199A deduction). 

QBI Deduction and Initial Limitation

Starting in 2018, there is a deduction for “qualified business income.” This is generally income from a qualified trade or business received from a sole proprietorship (and reported on Schedule C), from a partnership, or from a S Corporation (in these cases, generally reported to the taxpayer on a Form K-1 and reported on the Schedule E with the tax return). 

Important for this purpose is the initial limit on the QBI deduction. It is the lesser of following two amounts:

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

As a practical matter, in most cases the limit will be determined by the second limitation (such taxpayers are what I call “QBI Limited”). Many taxpayers will have much more taxable income than they have QBI. Consider spouses where one has self-employment income and the other has W-2 income. Unless the W-2 income is very small, their combined taxable income is likely to be in excess of their combined QBI, and thus they will be QBI Limited.

Alternatively, consider a situation where a single person has QBI from an S corporation (say $50,000) and the S corporation also pays him or her a W-2 salary (say $60,000). In such a case the QBI is $50,000 (20% of which is $10,000) and the taxable income might be $97,450 ($110,000 total from the S corporation less a $12,550 standard deduction), 20% of which is $19,490. This taxpayer would also be QBI Limited. 

Income Limited

But what if you are not QBI Limited, but rather, limited by the Income Limit listed above (what I call “Income Limited”)? Here is an illustrative example.

Example 1: Seth is single and self-employed. He claims the standard deduction in 2021. He reports a business profit of $100,000 on his Schedule C. He also has $1,000 of interest income.

His Income Limit is computed as follows:

Schedule C Income: $100,000

Interest Income: $1,000

Deduction for ½ Self-Employment Taxes: ($7,065)

Standard Deduction: ($12,550)

Taxable Income: $81,385

20% Limit: $16,277

Seth’s QBI Limit is computed as follows:

Schedule C Income: $100,000

Deduction for ½ Self-Employment Taxes: ($7,065)

QBI: $92,935

20% Limit: $18,587

In this case, Seth’s QBI deduction is only $16,277 (he is Income Limited), the lesser of these two calculated limits. 

Roth Conversion Planning

Is there anything Seth can do to increase his limitation and optimize his QBI deduction?

Imagine Seth has $20,000 in a traditional IRA (with zero basis). He could convert some of that traditional IRA to a Roth IRA by December 31, 2021. This would create taxable income, which would increase Seth’s Income Limit. Here is how that could play out:

Without Roth Conversion

Schedule C Income$ 100,000
Interest Income$ 1,000
Deduction for ½ Self-Employment Taxes$ (7,065)
Adjusted Gross Income$ 93,935
Standard Deduction$ (12,550)
Qualified Business Income Deduction (see above)$ (16,277)
Taxable Income$ 65,108
Federal Income Tax$ 10,072

With Roth Conversion

Schedule C Income$ 100,000
Interest Income$ 1,000
Deduction for ½ Self-Employment Taxes$ (7,065)
Roth IRA Conversion$ 11,550
Adjusted Gross Income$ 105,485
Standard Deduction$ (12,550)
Qualified Business Income Deduction$ (18,587)
Taxable Income$ 74,348
Federal Income Tax$ 12,105

What has the $11,550 Roth IRA conversion done? First, it has made the Income Limit ($18,587) the exact same as the QBI Limit ($18,587). Thus, Seth’s QBI deduction increases from $16,227 to $18,587. 

Second, notice that Seth’s taxable income has increased, but not by $11,550! Usually one would expect that a Roth IRA conversion with no basis recovery would simply increase taxable income by the amount converted. But not here! The interaction with the QBI deduction caused Seth’s taxable income to increase only $9,240 ($74,348 minus $65,108). 

This example illustrates that, under the right circumstances, a Roth IRA conversion can receive the benefit of the QBI deduction!

As a result, at Seth’s 22 percent marginal federal income tax bracket, his total federal income tax increased only $2,033. In effect, Seth pays only a 17.6 percent rate on his Roth IRA conversion ($2,033 of federal income tax on a $11,550 Roth IRA conversion). This is true even though Seth is in the 22 percent marginal tax bracket. His Roth IRA conversion is only 80 percent taxable. This is the flip-side of the 80% deduction phenomenon I previously blogged about here. 

Is it advantageous for Seth to convert his traditional IRA? Well, it depends on Seth’s expected future tax rates. If Seth’s future marginal tax bracket is anticipated to be 22 percent, then absolutely. Why not convert at a 17.6 percent instead of face a 22 percent rate on future traditional IRA withdrawals?

Strategy

Seth’s Roth IRA conversion is optimized. The takeaway is that the Roth IRA conversion gets the benefit of the QBI deduction, but only for amounts that increase the Income Limit up to the QBI Limit.

A *very general* rule of thumb for solving for the optimal Roth conversion amount is to multiply the difference between the QBI Limit and the Income Limit (without a Roth conversion) by 5. In Seth’s case, that was $18,587 minus $16,277 (which equals $2,310) times 5.

In this case, converting exactly $11,550 made Seth’s Income Limit exactly equal his QBI Limit. As long as the Roth conversion increases the Income Limit toward the QBI Limit, the conversion benefits from the QBI deduction.

But the first dollar of the Roth conversion that pushes the Income Limit above the QBI Limit does not receive the benefit. If Seth converted $11,551 from his traditional IRA to his Roth IRA, that last dollar above $11,550 would be taxed at Seth’s full 22 percent federal marginal tax bracket. 

Note that instead of / in addition to a Roth IRA conversion, Seth could do an in-plan traditional 401(k) to Roth 401(k) conversion, if he had sufficient funds in a traditional 401(k), and the 401(k) plan permits Roth 401(k) conversions.

Also note that the strategic considerations with QBI deductions become much more complicated once taxpayers exceed the initial QBI taxable income limitations (in 2021, those are $164,900 for single taxpayers and $329,800 for married filing joint taxpayers). 

Conclusion

Taxpayers whose taxable income consists mostly or exclusively of self-employment income should consider Roth conversions toward year-end. This is often an area that benefits from consulting with a professional tax advisor before taking action.

Further Reading

I have blogged about the QBI deduction and retirement plans here. After the IRS and Treasury provided some QBI deduction regulations in January 2019, I provided some QBI deduction examples and lessons here. 

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. 

Top 5 HSA Tips

For those with a health savings account, December is a great time to review how it has been used and to see if there are ways to better optimize the account.

One: Let it Grow!!!

When it comes to HSAs, often the best advice is Let it Grow, Let it Grow!!! Sing it to the tune of the popular Disney movie song if it helps you to remember.

Adding an “r” and a “w” would make Elsa a tremendous HSA advisor.

Spend HSA money only if one of the following two adjectives apply: DIRE or ELDERLY. Those neither in a dire situation nor elderly should think twice before spending HSA money! Instead, Let it Grow!

The tax benefits of an HSA are so powerful that funds should stay in the HSA (to keep growing tax free) and only be removed in dire (medical or financial) circumstances or by the elderly. Unless you leave your HSA to your spouse or a charity, HSAs are not great assets of leave to heirs. Thus, HSAs are great to spend down in your later years (after years of tax-free growth). 

Two: Max Out Payroll Contributions by December 31st

While you can contribute via non-payroll contribution by April 15, 2020 for 2019, contributing to your HSA through payroll deductions is generally optimal since it secures both an income tax deduction and a payroll tax deduction for the money contributed.

If you didn’t max out your HSA through payroll deductions in 2019 and your employer allows HSA payroll deductions, write the check to your HSA in early 2020 (for 2019) and set up your 2020 payroll elections so as to max out your HSA through payroll deductions in 2020.

Three: Review HSA Investment Allocation

Those with low-cost diversified investment choices in their HSA are generally well advised to invest in higher growth assets inside their HSAs. The HSA is a great tax-protected vehicle. That tax protection is best used for high growth assets. 

Those who have invested their HSA funds solely or mostly in cash should consider reassessing their HSA investment strategy.

Four: Track Medical Expenses 

Medical expenses incurred after coverage begins under a high deductible health plan (a “HDHP”) can be reimbursed to you from an HSA many years in the future. There is no time limit on the reimbursement. Unless you are elderly, long-delayed reimbursement (instead of directly paying medical expenses with a HSA) is usually the tax-optimal strategy. Keep a digital record of your medical expenses and receipts to facilitate reimbursements out of the HSA many years in the future. 

Five: Properly Report HSA Income (CA, NJ, NH, TN)

HSAs are tax-protected vehicles for federal income tax purposes and in most states. On your federal tax return, you need to report your HSA contributions and distributions (see Form 8889). However, you are not taxed on the interest, dividends, and capital gains earned in the HSA, and you do not need to report these amounts. 

It is very different if you live in California and New Jersey. Neither California nor New Jersey recognize HSAs as having any sort of state income tax protection. They are simply treated as taxable accounts in those states. In preparing your California or New Jersey state tax return, you must (1) increase your federal wages for any excluded HSA contributions, (2) remove any deduction you took for HSA contributions (non-payroll contributions to your HSA), and (3) report (and pay state income tax on) your HSA interest, dividends, capital gains, and capital losses.

This last step will generally require accessing your HSA account online and pulling all of the income generating activity, including asset sales, in order to properly report it on your California or New Jersey tax return. 

Tennessee and New Hampshire do not impose a conventional income tax, but do tax residents on interest and dividends above certain levels. HSA interest and dividends are included in the interest and dividends subject to those taxes.

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

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

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

IRS Identity Protection PIN

UPDATE (January 13, 2021): The IRS has expanded the PIN program to all Americans. See https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/all-taxpayers-now-eligible-for-identity-protection-pins Hat Tip to Ed Zollars for the update: https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2021/1/13/ip-pin-program-available-to-all-taxpayers

The post below has NOT been updated for the January 13, 2021 update. Please use the below for general background purposes only and refer to the IRS website and Mr. Zollars’ article.

Identity theft continues to be a significant 21st century concern. It can happen in many ways. One particularly nefarious way is that your identity might be stolen to file a tax return with the IRS. Below I discuss a relatively new program that the IRS has made available to many Americans to help prevent identity theft with the IRS. If you are eligible, you should give strong consideration to opting into the program.

Identity Theft and Tax Returns

Obviously identity theft is bad. But why would someone use your identity with the IRS?

The answer is a tax refund. The scam often works like this: a scammer steals your identity and files a tax return with your name and Social Security number early in the year, before you have a chance to file your tax return for the prior year. The scammer will report taxable income and tax payments such that the tax return claims you have a significant income tax refund due from the IRS. The phony tax return will direct the refund such that the scammer gets the tax refund.

This becomes a nightmare for the victim. Once the IRS accepts the tax return and issues the scammer a refund, the victim will not be able to file a tax return. The IRS will reject the valid return and will not issue any tax refunds owed to the victim. The victim now faces what is likely months of remedial action to correct the situation.

Identity Protection PINs

The IRS is aware of this problem. They have an optional program that allows certain people to obtain an Identity Protection Personal Identification Number (PIN). The PIN functions to protect a taxpayer. 

If a taxpayer has an Identity Protection PIN issued with the IRS, the IRS will only accept that taxpayer’s electronic tax return if the tax return provides the Identity Protection PIN. That stops the sort of scams described above. For paper returns, a missing or incorrect PIN will delay the IRS accepting the tax return while the IRS takes additional steps to verify that the tax return came from the taxpayer whose name and Social Security number appear on the tax return. Either way, obtaining a PIN provides a level of protection against tax return identity theft.

Spouses each separately apply for their own PIN and the IRS will issue each spouse a unique PIN. If the spouses file jointly, both PINs are included on the tax return. If you have an Identity Protection PIN and use a paid tax preparer, it is important that your paid tax preparer include the PIN on your tax return. 

Eligibility

You are eligible to apply for an Identity Protection PIN from the IRS if:

Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington.

The yellow states below are the ones in which all taxpayers may apply for an IRS Identity Protection PIN (hat tip to 270toWin.com).

PLEASE SEE UPDATE FROM JANUARY 13, 2021 ABOVE: NOW ALL AMERICANS CAN POTENTIALLY QUALIFY.

Application

To obtain an IRS Identity Protection PIN, you can start at this website.

You will need to establish an IRS electronic account. The IRS website will guide you through the process and will use some credit history information to verify your identity. Once you have your IRS electronic account, you can easily obtain an IRS Identity Protection PIN. 

Future Years

Your PIN changes every year. At the beginning of the year, the IRS will put your new PIN (for use in filing the prior year’s tax return) in your IRS electronic account and they will mail your PIN to your last address of record. This makes it crucial to file a Form 8822 with the IRS to officially change your address with the IRS anytime you move, so that any PIN related correspondence (including retrievals in the event you lose your PIN) are directed to your correct address. 

The IRS will change your PIN every year, so it is important to ensure you use the correct PIN when filing your tax return. A PIN received in October 2019 will be for 2018 and you will need to use the PIN issued early in 2020 to file your 2019 tax return. 

Conclusion

Taxpayers eligible for the IRS Identity Protection PIN program should strongly consider applying for a PIN. It can help protect you from the serious headache of having your identity stolen and used to file a false tax return in your name. 

Further Reading

Kay Bell wrote a great post about the IRS Identity Protection PIN program here. 

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

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

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

The Tax Challenges of ISOs

Incentive stock options (“ISOs”) are a great employee benefit. ISOs are very powerful because they provide the possibility of compensating employees at preferential long term capital gains rates instead of at ordinary income tax rates, and they avoid Social Security and Medicare taxes. ISOs can also help build wealth by allowing employees to purchase employer stock at a discount. However, ISOs can create several tax challenges, and reporting them on your tax return can be confusing.

Incentive Stock Options

Employers grant employees incentive stock options as an incentive to stay with the company. The company grants the employee an option to purchase the stock of the company at a certain price (the “exercise price” or the “strike price”). That price is no less than the company’s current stock price (i.e., the stock price on the grant date, defined below). 

There is a $100,000 annual limit on the fair market value of stock subject to ISO treatment per employee. If an employee leaves the employer’s employment, he or she must exercise or forfeit their ISOs within three months.

Three dates matter when considering ISOs. 

Grant Date: The date the employee is granted the option (i.e., the first date the employee has the option to purchase the stock at the strike price).

Exercise Date: The date the employee exercises the ISO (i.e., the date the employee purchases the stock of the company under the terms of the ISO at the strike price). 

Disposition Date: The date the employee sells the stock acquired by the previous exercise of the ISO.

Tax Treatment

Grant: There is no tax consequence to the employee upon the grant of the ISO.

Exercise: Upon exercise, there is no income tax consequence to the employee. However, the difference between the fair market value of the ISO and its strike price is an adjustment that creates income for alternative minimum tax purposes (the dreaded AMT). Fortunately, the late-2017 tax reform bill increased AMT exemptions (i.e., the amount of income below which the AMT does not apply), thus reducing, but not eliminating, the potential negative impact AMT can have on ISO exercises. 

Further, the AMT issue is removed if the exercise and later stock disposition occur in the same year. As a practical matter, it is often the case that the later stock disposition occurs almost instantaneously after exercise, which takes the AMT issue off the table. 

Dispositions: ISOs have very favorable tax treatment upon disposition if the disposition of the shares satisfies both of the following rules.

  1. The disposition is at least two years from the grant date; and,
  2. The disposition is at least one year from the exercise date.

If both rules are satisfied, the employee has long term capital gain or loss upon the disposition of the shares. Long term capital gains are taxed at preferential rates for federal income tax purposes.

Example: Gary works for Acme Explosives, Inc. Acme grants Gary 10,000 ISOs at an exercise price of $10 per share on January 1, 2018. Gary exercises the ISOs on June 1, 2018 at a time when the fair market value of the stock is $15 per share. On February 1, 2020, Gary sells each share acquired through the ISO exercise at a price of $20 per share. Assume that Gary was not subject to AMT in 2018. 

Because Gary sold the Acme shares at least one year after exercise and at least two years after the ISO grant, Gary’s sale qualifies entirely for long term capital gain treatment (creating a $100,000 capital gain — $200,000 sales proceeds less $100,000 basis) and creates no taxable ordinary income.

Early Dispositions

Often employees will dispose the ISO stock before the time required to get favorable income tax treatment. As a practical matter, employees often exercise the ISO and immediately sell the stock. 

Employees are exposed to the economic performance of their employer through their job and possibly other equity holdings. Thus, they often want to reduce the risk associated with their employer’s performance and dispose of their ISO stock as soon as possible. Most view the tax cost as well worth it considering that (i) the employee immediately pockets (net of tax) the difference between the fair market value of the stock and the strike price, and (ii) the diversification benefits of investing the ISO proceeds into other investments.

If the employee disposes of the ISO stock early (referred to as a “disqualifying disposition”), what result? The difference between the strike price and the fair market value of the stock at exercise becomes ordinary income to the employee reported to the employee as compensation income included in Box 1 of the employee’s Form W-2. The remaining amounts create long or short term capital gain or loss.

Example: Angela works for Acme Anvils, Inc. Acme grants Angela 10,000 ISOs at an exercise price of $10 per share on January 1, 2019. Angela exercises the ISOs on June 1, 2019 at a time when the fair market value of the stock is $15 per share. On December 1, 2019, Angela sells each share acquired through the ISO exercise at a price of $20 per share. 

Because Angela’s December 2019 sale violates both timing tests, Angela’s sale does not qualify for long term capital gain treatment. Thus, Angela has $50,000 of compensation income ($15 fair market value less $10 strike price times 10,000 shares) of ordinary compensation income. The remaining $50,000 of gain is short term capital gain. 

Fortunately, the compensation income is not included in compensation income for purposes of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes (and, thus, is not included in Boxes 3 and 5 on the Form W-2). Because Angela sold the ISO shares in the same year she exercised the ISOs, there will not be a separate AMT consequence of the ISOs. 

Tax Reporting

Staying with Angela’s example, the $50,000 of ordinary income will be reported as compensation income in Angela’s Form W-2 Box 1, but not in Boxes 3 and 5. Box 14 should indicate “ISO DISQ” and $50,000 as the amount.

Angela should also receive two other tax reporting documents. First, Angela should receive a Form 1099-B. The form should indicate $200,000 of sales proceeds ($20 per share times 10,000 shares) and should indicate a basis of $100,000 (Angela’s historic cost basis, as she paid $10 per share for 10,000 shares). Angela should also receive a Form 3921. This form should indicate the exercise price per share ($10) and the fair market value per share on the date of the exercise ($15).

The IRS will expect to see at least two numbers on Angela’s tax return. First, the compensation income must be reported on Angela’s Form 1040 box 1. Second, the $200,000 stock sale should be reported on Schedule D and on Form 8949. 

This is where it gets interesting. If Angela simply reports $200,000 as gross proceeds and $100,000 as basis on her Schedule D and her Form 8949, she is going to have a very bad tax result. Why? Angela’s W-2 includes $50,000 of the overall $100,000 of income she recognized on the ISO exercise and disposition. If she simply reports a $100,000 gain on her Schedule D/Form 8949, her total reported income will be $150,000, creating $50,000 in over-reported taxable income. 

Thus, Angela must increase the basis she reports on Schedule D and Form 8949 by the $50,000 of ordinary compensation income reported on her Form W-2. Her Schedule D and Form 8949 should report both the $200,000 of gross proceeds and $150,000 of basis in the disposed of Acme shares. 

Estimated Taxes

Even though the gain on a disqualifying disposition of an ISO is taxable as ordinary income in Box 1 of the Form W-2, there is no requirement that the employer withhold any income tax with respect to the gain. Thus, the onus falls to the employee to ensure he or she pays the proper amount of federal and state estimated income tax to avoid penalties. The good news is that there is a safe harbor under which employees can avoid underpayment penalties. 

For federal income tax purposes, there will not be an underpayment of estimated tax penalty if the employee has paid in at least 90 percent of their current year total tax liability and/or 100 percent of their prior year total tax liability. If current year income is $150,000 or more, 100 percent becomes 110 percent. 

Regardless of whether there is a qualifying disposition triggering long term capital gain or a disqualifying disposition triggering ordinary income, the employee should endeavor through a combination of estimated tax payments, additional workplace withholding, and/or additional spousal workplace withholding to ensure that he or she has withheld enough during the year to avoid federal and state underpayment penalties. 

Conclusion

ISOs can be a great wealth building tool. But because of the tax rules and at times confusing tax reporting, they present a challenge. Anyone with ISOs (or with clients that own ISOs) should step back and fully understand the tax ramifications of selling them. It is often advisable to work with a professional advisor as you sell ISOs and manage the tax ramifications of the sale. 

Further Reading

The IRS provides some tax resources on ISOs starting on page 12 of Publication 525.

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

Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax

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

Defending HDHPs

In the financial independence community and beyond, high deductible health plans (“HDHPs”) have received significant criticism. Few downplay the significant tax benefits of their tag-team partner, the health savings account. But some have written that the HSA sweetener is not sufficient to make high deductible health plans desirable. 

Below I offer a different perspective. I write regarding the approach of anyone seeking financial independence, but I believe much of what is discussed below applies regardless of whether you are seeking financial independence. 

One quick caveat: the below assumes that you are relatively healthy when you select your medical insurance, and that you expect that you will most likely remain so. For those with significant, chronic medical conditions, an HDHP is not likely to be a good medical insurance choice.

HDHP Critiques

High deductible health plans have been criticized by both the national media and by financial independence writers. Several studies have found that those covered by HDHPs tend to delay or forego needed medical assistance when compared with the population at large. This study found that those with HDHP insurance tend not to take advantage of free preventive services. Based on these study findings, there is a concern that the use of HDHPs can cause long term harm and worsen medical and health outcomes. 

Financial Independence Mentality

Those actively seeking financial independence (“FIers”) embrace two beliefs. First, they believe they are not constrained by others’ failures. While FIers understand that others’ failures can be indicative of difficulties they themselves might face, FIers believe that with intentional action they can overcome those difficulties.

FI exists because people see what the “average” or “typical” person does (for example, a very low savings rate) and say, “wait a minute, I’m going to do something very different.” FIers acknowledge a societal trend and then pursue a different path with intention. 

Second, FIers prioritize valuable purchases over immediate bottom-line results. Being financially independent (or seeking FI) frees you from the tyranny of any particular financial number when considering necessary expenses.

Health Insurance and Behavior

Your medical insurance should not determine whether you seek medical care. Only your current condition should determine whether you seek medical care. Assuming, only for the sake of argument, that the studies’ findings are correct, should those findings deter someone pursuing FI from using an HDHP as their medical insurance? I argue that they should not, for several reasons.

First, the studies probably did not include you. Why would you have a limiting belief about your own future behavior based on studies of other people? Even if you were in one of the studies and delayed or forwent necessary medical treatment, is it not possible that you could change your behavior?

Second, why not simply accept that cost will deter some people from obtaining needed medical assistance, but resolve that you will not act in such a shortsighted fashion. Many FIers seek to obtain financial assets of $1 million, $1.5 million, $2 million or more to fund the rest of their lives. Neither an unanticipated $300 medical expense nor an unanticipated $5,000 medical expense will derail your plans to achieve financial independence. 

If you commit to FI, you are committing to acting very differently than most people when it comes to spending and saving. Why then would you believe you will act like the average study subject when it comes to obtaining medical treatment for a medical need? 

Third, there is nothing preventing those with HDHPs from taking advantage of free preventive services. Many workers do not take advantage of the employer match to their 401(k). That outcome does not make a 401(k) a bad retirement plan. Rather, it illustrates that in many areas of life, people should be more intentional about taking advantage of what is offered to them. Suboptimal human behavior does not make 401(k)s and HDHPs bad, and others’ mistakes should not limit your insurance choices.

Finally, financial independence exists in part to make personal finances revolve around what needs to happen, and not to have what needs to happen revolve around personal finances. FIers ought to make medical care decisions based on their health, and not based on avoiding a medical bill that is ultimately minor in the grand scheme of things.

The Role of Insurance

What the studies appear to illustrate is a widespread misunderstanding of medical insurance. Insurance does not exist to determine whether you obtain medical assistance. Insurance exists to prevent financial ruin. 

Might an unexpected medical situation be expensive if you have an HDHP? Yes, absolutely. But should it be ruinous? It should not be. Your annual out-of-pocket maximum for medical expenses will be high: imagine in your mind’s eye that it is $10,000. In the event of a medical calamity, you will pay $10,000 in expenses annually. Then your finances are protected. 

Does an unexpected $10,000 expense hurt? Absolutely. But if your FI plan was to build $1.5 million in assets to fund the rest of your life, is not possible that you instead build $1.51 million in assets? Why would you put off necessary medical care to avoid a very slight increase in the assets you will need to build up to become financially independent? Are you much worse off in this situation than someone with zero-deductible medical insurance? Their “FI number” is $1.5 million; yours is $1.51 million. 

You might argue “but might my insurance company deny my claim?” That is a valid concern with insurance. But it is a concern whether you have a gold-plated, zero-deductible insurance plan, an HDHP, or any other type of medical insurance. Thus, the possibility that you might have to fight with your insurance company to get an expense covered is not a reason to avoid HDHPs. 

Risk/Reward Trade-off

When you use an HDHP, you assume additional risk. Put simply, you risk paying annual medical expenses up to the higher deductible. Two things should be noted about that risk. First, it is capped, as described above. A capped risk is the sort of risk that those building up assets should usually be willing to take on, as long as there is sufficient benefit to doing so.

Second, you are compensated for taking that risk. While your future annual medical expenses are uncertain, the benefits of using an HDHP are largely certain and immediate. Namely, they are:

  1. Lower insurance premiums
  2. Income and payroll tax savings (if the HSA is properly funded)
  3. Employer contributions to the HSA on your behalf
  4. Tax-deferred or (if withdrawn correctly) tax-free growth of the investments in the HSA

For taking on the risk of medical expenses up to the annual out-of-pocket maximum, there are two or three measurable, guaranteed benefits every pay period for using the HSA/HDHP combination. And while the fourth benefit can vary greatly (depending on the length of tax-free growth, future tax rates, etc.), it too is a significant benefit.

When evaluating an insurance plan, the risk/reward trade-offs and the costs are what should be evaluated. When comparing an HDHP with a lower deductible insurance plan, you must weigh the assumption of a speculative, capped risk in exchange for the benefits listed above. Based on the protection against very high annual medical expenses and the four benefits listed above, an HDHP appears to be, in many cases, a good risk/reward trade-off for those without expensive, chronic medical conditions. 

Conclusion 

The studies have not found that an HDHP is suboptimal from a risk trade-off perspective. Rather, they have found suboptimal consumer behavior. That’s where FI comes back in. FI is all about turning around suboptimal saving, investing, and consumer behavior and re-ordering financial priorities. Why shouldn’t obtaining necessary medical care be among the highest financial priorities? Why can’t you examine your own healthcare purchasing behavior and improve it? 

There can be good reasons not to select an HDHP based upon your particular circumstances. Perhaps you have a chronic condition, you do not like the HDHP’s particular insurance carrier, and/or you do not believe the risk trade-off benefits are sufficient. But don’t eschew an HDHP because of a limiting belief about something under your own control: your behavior as a patient and medical consumer. 

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.

Health Savings Accounts

Health savings accounts (“HSAs”) are a tremendous wealth building tool. For healthy individuals and families, a health savings account paired with a high deductible health plan (“HDHP”) can be a great way to manage medical costs and grow tax advantaged wealth. 

HSA Basics

A health savings account is a tax advantaged account. Contributions to an HSA are tax deductible. The interest, dividends, capital gains, and other income generated by assets in an HSA is not currently taxable (the same as with a 401(k) or IRA). If withdrawn for qualified medical expenses (or to reimburse the owner for the payment of qualified medical expenses), withdrawals from an HSA are not taxable. 

The HSA combines the best of a traditional retirement account (deductible contributions) and the best of Roth retirement accounts (tax-free withdrawals) if done properly. 

The annual HSA contribution limits (including both employer and employee/individual contributions) are $3,650 for an individual HDHP and $7,300 for a family HDHP in 2022. Those aged 55 or older can make annual catch-up contributions of an additional $1,000 to their HSA. 

HSA Eligibility

Who is eligible to contribute to an HSA? Only those currently covered by a high deductible health plan. As a general matter, a high deductible health plan is medical insurance with an annual deductible of at least $1,400 (for individuals) or $2,800 (for families) (using 2021 numbers). The insurance plan document should specifically state that the plan qualifies as a high deductible health plan. You must be covered on the first day of the month in order to contribute to a HSA in that month.

Once you cease to be covered by a HDHP, you keep your HSA and can use the money in it. The only thing you lose is the ability to make further contributions to the HSA.

HDHPs may not be a good insurance plan if you have certain chronic medical conditions or otherwise anticipate having high medical expenses. But if you are relatively healthy, HDHPs often make sense, particularly if you are young. 

There are some other eligibility requirements. Those also covered by other medical insurance plans, those enrolled in Medicare, and those who can be claimed as a dependent on someone else’s tax return are not eligible to contribute to a HSA.

Benefits of an HSA

Tastes Great and Less Filling

If done right, an HSA is a super-charged tax advantaged account. You get a deduction on the front end (when the money is contributed to the HSA), tax free growth, and no taxation if the money is used for qualified medical expenses or to reimburse the owner for qualified medical expenses. 

There’s no need to debate traditional versus Roth with an HSA. If done right, you get both!

HSA Payroll Tax Benefit

As a tax planner, this is one of my favorite benefits. There are many ways to legally reduce income taxes. Reducing payroll taxes, on the other hand, is more difficult. 

If you fund your HSA through payroll withholding, amounts contributed to the HSA are excluded from your salary for purposes of determining your Social Security and Medicare taxes. This results in saving on payroll taxes. HSA contributions enjoy this benefit while 401(k) elective deferrals do not.

Note that to qualify for the HSA payroll tax break, you must contribute to your HSA through payroll withholding. If, instead, you contribute through a direct personal contribution to your HSA, you do not get to deduct the contribution from your Social Security and Medicare taxable income, though you still get a federal income tax deduction for such contributions. 

Employer Contributions

Many employers offer a contribution to your HSA account. Often these employer contributions are a flat amount, such as $650 or $700 annually. This amounts to essentially free money given to you in a tax advantaged manner. 

Lower Insurance Costs

A great benefit of the combination of HDHPs and HSAs is lower medical insurance premium payments. By insuring with an HDHP, you usually save significant amounts on medical insurance. 

The healthier you are and the wealthier you are, the less financial protection you need against unanticipated medical expenses. Thus, HDHPs are often a good option for those fortunate enough to be relatively healthy and/or wealthy. 

Higher deductibles reduce the premium. The trade-off is that you self-fund more of your medical expenses. If those medical expenses are modest, the combination of saving on insurance premiums and the tax benefits can more than make up for the (potentially) higher medical expenses. 

HSA Reimbursements

Take note of when you first establish your HSA. Qualifed medical expenses incurred on that date or later can be reimbursed from your HSA.

Why is this important? Because if you track your qualified medical expenses, you can build up years of expenses that you can reimburse yourself, tax-free, from your HSA. There is no time limit to pay yourself a tax-free reimbursement from your HSA. Here is an example:

Keith established an HSA in 2011, when he was 30 years old. In 2015, he had a medical procedure and his total qualified medical expenses were $4,000. In 2018, Keith had $500 worth of qualified medical expenses for two medical appointments. In 2019, Keith had $3,500 in qualified medical expenses for a procedure and various doctors’ appointments. 

Assuming Keith had sufficient funds in taxable accounts when he incurred these expenses, Keith should (a) use those taxable funds to pay his medical expenses, (b) track his qualified medical expenses, and (c) after the money has had many years of tax-free growth, Keith should reimburse himself from his HSA for some or all of these $8,000 worth of qualified medical expenses. 

Unless you are financially strapped or in a dire medical situation, you should strive to use taxable funds to pay current medical expenses and allow the funds in your HSA to enjoy years, possibly decades, of tax-free growth. With no time limit on HSA reimbursements, you can access the funds later in life tax-free.

Note, however, that in the relatively rare cases where a taxpayer deducts medical expenses on their income tax return, expenses paid with HSA money cannot be deducted. In addition, if you have previously deducted medical expenses, those expenses are not “qualified medical expenses” that can be reimbursed tax-free from an HSA. Deducing medical expenses is rare because you can only deduct medical expenses if (i) you itemize your deductions and (ii) to the extent your medical expenses exceed 7.5 percent of your adjusted gross income (“AGI”).

No RMDs

Every tax advantaged retirement account (other than the Roth IRA) is subject to required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) during the account owner’s lifetime. HSAs, fortunately, are not subject to RMDs. They provide incredible flexibility for your financial future, particularly when you carefully track your reimbursable qualified medical expenses for many years. 

Qualified Medical Expenses

Qualified medical expenses are generally those expenses that qualify for the medical expense deduction. While this itself could be its own blog post, you can look to IRS Publication 502, which details which expenses qualify. 

Some items that you might not immediately think of, but are qualified medical expenses, are COBRA insurance premiums and Medicare Part B, Part D, and Medicare Advantage premiums. So if you ever pay COBRA premiums, it is great to pay them out of taxable accounts and keep a tally of the payments you made. Years later you can reimburse yourself for those premiums tax-free from your HSA (assuming you established the HSA prior to paying the COBRA premiums and you did not claim the COBRA premiums as an itemized deduction). 

Taxation of Non-Medical Withdrawals

If you are under age 65, withdrawals from HSAs that are not used for qualified medical expenses are subject to income tax and subject to an early withdrawal penalty of 20 percent. 

If you are under age 65, you can avoid these harsh tax results for an HSA withdrawal if you can find prior qualified medical expenses you can reimburse yourself for, and apply the withdrawal against those prior expenses. If such expenses do not exist, you can roll the money back into the HSA within 60 days (a 60-day rollover). Note you are limited to only one 60-day rollover during any 12 month period.

If you are age 65 or older, you are no longer subject to the 20 percent early withdrawal penalty. Withdrawals that are not for qualified medical expenses (or reimbursements thereof) are subject to income tax (in the same way a traditional IRA withdrawal would be). 

At age 65, an HSA remains an HSA and also becomes an optional IRA (in effect) without RMDs. This, combined with the ability to use HSA funds to pay Medicare Part B, Part D, and Medicare Advantage premiums tax-free, make an HSA a great account to own if you are age 65 or older. 

The Biggest HSA Mistake

Think twice before taking money out of an HSA!

An HSA and the investments in it can be analogized to an oven and a turkey. The HSA is like the oven. The investments are like the turkey. Putting the turkey in the oven is great. But it needs sufficient time to roast. If you take the turkey out of the oven too soon, you spoil it! The investments in your HSA are similar. They need time to bake tax-free in the HSA. If you take them out too soon, you spoil it!

Only the elderly, the financially strapped, and those facing medical emergencies and crises should withdraw HSA funds. Everyone else should keep money in an HSA to grow tax-free. If you are not in one of three listed categories, you should think long and hard before paying medical expenses with HSA money. 

Why waste the tremendous tax benefits of an HSA for minor, non-emergency medical expenses? Doing so is the biggest HSA mistake. Pay those expenses out of pocket, track them, and years later reimburse yourself tax-free from your HSA after the funds have grown tax-free for decades!

The only potential way to correct this mistake is to do a 60-day rollover of the withdrawn amounts back into an HSA. Note that rollovers are limited to one per any 12 month period. Other than the 60-day rollover, the mistake is not correctable. 

The Second Biggest HSA Mistake

The second biggest HSA mistake is not investing a significant percentage of your HSA funds in equities and/or bonds. According to this report, only four percent of HSAs had balances invested in something other than cash as of the end of 2017. Not good!

While I never provide investment advice on the blog, I do discuss the tax location of assets, in a general sense (not as applied to any particular investor). Cash is not a great asset to hold in an HSA. With today’s low interest rates, cash generates little in interest income. HSAs offer tax-free interest, dividends, capital gains, and growth!  That makes them great for high growth, high income assets. Why waste that incredibly favorable tax treatment on very low-yielding cash?

I call this the second biggest mistake (not the first) because unlike the first mistake, this mistake is easily correctable.

Of course, investors must evaluate their HSA investment options and their own individual circumstances to determine if the other investments are preferable to cash based on their particular circumstances.

State Treatment of HSAs

Two states do not recognize HSAs: California and New Jersey. For purposes of these two states, HSAs are simply taxable accounts. On California and New Jersey state income tax returns (a) there is no deduction/exclusion for HSA contributions, (b) interest, dividends, and capital gain distributions generated by HSA assets are taxable, (c) sales of assets in a HSA generate taxable capital gains and losses, and (d) nonqualifying withdrawals of money from an HSA have no tax consequence.

Tennessee and New Hampshire do not impose a conventional income tax. But they do tax residents on interest and dividends above certain levels. Interest and dividends generated by HSAs are included in the interest and dividends subject to those taxes.

HSAs and Death

This is the good news/bad news section of the article. 

First, the good news: HSAs are great assets to leave (through a beneficiary designation form) to a spouse or to a charity. If you leave your HSA to your spouse, he or she inherits it as an HSA and can use it (and benefit from it) just as you did. Charities also make for great HSA beneficiaries. They can use the money in the account and pay no tax on it. You will need to work with your financial institution to ensure the beneficiary designation form properly captures the charity as the intended beneficiary. 

The bad news: HSAs are terrible assets to leave to anyone else. If you leave an HSA to a non-spouse/non-charity, the recipient includes the entire balance of the HSA in their taxable income in the year of your death. 

Conclusion

With a little planning, an HSA can be a great asset to own, and can provide tremendous tax-free benefits. Generally speaking, time is a great asset if you own an HSA. Let your HSA bake tax-free for many years and you will be happy to receive tax-free money later in life to pay for medical expenses or as a reimbursement for many years of previous medical expenses.

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.

SEP IRA Versus Solo 401(k)

If you qualify for both a SEP IRA and a Solo 401(k), is there a clear winner? In the past, it was often the case that the tax benefits of a SEP IRA and a Solo 401(k) were similar, particularly if you also had access to a 401(k) plan at a full-time employer. Today the landscape has changed, and in most cases, there’s a clear winner.

This post discusses whether a SEP IRA or a Solo 401(k) is better in situations where the self-employed person qualifies for both plans.

Note that both plans have eligibility requirements. For example, under the tax rules, if you employ anyone other than your spouse for 1,000 hours or more during the year you are ineligible for a Solo 401(k). There are additional tax rules and separate (and additional) plan rules to consider to determine if you are eligible for a particular SEP IRA and/or Solo 401(k).

The Basics

Both the SEP IRA and the Solo 401(k) are self-employed retirement plans. They can be established by legal entities (in this context, often S corporations) or they can be established by individuals that have self-employed income. That self-employment income generally must come through a sole proprietorship or through a limited liability company (“LLC”) that is disregarded for tax purposes and reported on a Schedule C filed with the individual’s tax return. 

SEP IRAs

A SEP IRA allows only “employer” contributions. For this purpose, your own sole proprietorship or disregarded LLC can be your employer. 

Generally, the employer can make annual contributions of up to 25 percent of eligible W-2 compensation (from a corporation) or 20 percent of an individual’s self-employment income, limited to $66,000 of contributions in 2023.

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

A SEP IRA can be established for a tax year by the deadline for filing that tax year’s tax return, including extensions. 

The administrative compliance burden of a SEP IRA is generally very manageable. 

History of the SEP IRA vs. the Solo 401(k)

Watch me discuss the history of both the SEP IRA and the Solo 401(k).

Solo 401(k)s

A Solo 401(k) (sometimes referred to as an “Individual 401(k)”) is a 401(k) plan established by a self-employed individual for their own benefit. 

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

Employee contributions are limited to the lesser of earned income or $22,500 ($30,000 if 50 or older) in 2023. Employer contributions are limited to up to 25 percent of eligible W-2 compensation (from a corporation) or 20 percent of an individual’s self-employment income, limited to $66,000 of contributions in 2023. Total employee and employer contributions are limited to $66,000 ($73,500 if age 50 or above) in 2022. 

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

The administrative compliance burden of a Solo 401(k) is generally very manageable, but note that once there are more than $250,000 in the plan and/or the plan is closed, a Form 5500-EZ must be filed.

The Clear Winner

At this point, you might be saying, “Great, both the SEP IRA and Solo 401(k) are attractive. Is there really a big difference between them? Should I care too much about which plan I establish?”

The answer is that in most cases, the Solo 401(k) is the much better option for a self-employed person. If you are considering a SEP IRA over a Solo 401(k) in a situation where you qualify for both, you ought to think twice about that decision.

Here are the main reasons why the Solo 401(k) is much better than the SEP IRA in most cases.

Employee Contributions

The Solo 401(k) allows employee contributions. If your self-employment income is relatively modest, this greatly increases the amount you could contribute. For example, if Jane, under age 50, has a side-hustle that earns her $10,000 in 2023 after the deduction for one-half of self-employment taxes is accounted for, her maximum Solo 401(k) contribution is $10,000, while her maximum SEP IRA contribution is only $2,000 (20% of $10,000).

Note that this assumes that Jane has contributed $12,500 or less to a workplace 401(k) or similar retirement plan. Using the 2023 limitations, $22,500 is the maximum total employee deferrals Jane can make to her 401(k) and similar plans, so Jane’s other employer retirement accounts should also be considered.

Section 199A and 80% Deductions

I have previously written about the new Section 199A qualified business income (“QBI”) deduction and its impact on self-employed retirement plans. Traditional contributions to both Solo 401(k) plans and SEP IRAs create, for many taxpayers, deductions that are only “80% deductions.” Here is an example.

After self-employment taxes, Joe, a single taxpayer, earns $120,000 from his sole-proprietorship. Joe makes a 10 percent employer contribution ($12,000) to either his Solo 401(k) or SEP IRA. In the 24 percent marginal tax bracket, he expects to save $2,880 ($12,000 times 24%) on his federal income taxes. He is surprised to learn that he only saved $2,304 on his federal income taxes. 

How is that possible? While Joe is correct that he receives a $12,000 retirement plan contribution tax deduction, he failed to consider that he lost $2,400 of his QBI deduction. A traditional Solo 401(k) contribution and a SEP IRA contribution is an 80% deduction. In Joe’s case, he received a net federal income tax deduction of only $9,600 (80 percent of $12,000). 

Why then would Joe prefer a Solo 401(k) to a SEP IRA? Because the Solo 401(k) gives him a planning option that avoid the 80% deduction issue. Instead of making traditional contributions to a Solo 401(k), Joe can make Roth employee contributions to a Solo 401(k).

Note further that Joe could possibly implement Mega Backdoor Roth IRA planning by making after-tax contributions to his Solo 401(k). Many Solo 401(k) plans do not offer this option, but some do.

The SEP IRA does not offer these options. 

Not all financial institutions offer the Roth Solo 401(k) and the after-tax Solo 401(k) contribution options. It is important to understand the features of any particular Solo 401(k) before you adopt it as your plan. 

For upper income taxpayers, the 80% deduction phenomenon may not be an issue, considering that the ability to claim the QBI deduction is reduced or eliminated above certain income thresholds. These taxpayers need not prefer the Solo 401(k) to a SEP IRA for QBI deduction reasons, but may prefer to have the increased planning ability, such as the ability to make Roth and/or after tax contributions to the Solo 401(k) that a SEP IRA does not offer. They may also prefer the Solo 401(k) for the reasons discussed below.

Backdoor Roth IRA Planning

The Backdoor Roth IRA is a great planning tool. But the Pro-Rata Rule can cause significant snags. For example, if you execute the two independent steps of a $6,500 Backdoor Roth IRA in a year when you have a separate significant traditional IRA, SEP IRA, or SIMPLE IRA at year-end, you will cause most of the Backdoor Roth IRA to be taxable. 

The SEP IRA is a significant roadblock to the ability to execute an efficient Backdoor Roth IRA. A Solo 401(k) does not cause this problem with the Backdoor Roth IRA. For this reason alone many will want to choose a Solo 401(k) instead of a SEP IRA, even if they plan on making traditional deductible contributions to the plan. 

Catch Up Contributions

If you are age 50 or older, you can make up to $7,500 (in 2022) in catch up employee contributions to a Solo 401(k).

This option does not exist for a SEP IRA. Thus, for high earning self-employed persons age 50 or older, a Solo 401(k) has an additional advantage over the SEP IRA.

Solo 401(k) Book

This post was originally published in 2019. In 2022 I published Solo 401(k): The Solopreneur’s Retirement Account, a book that goes into much more depth about Solo 401(k)s.

Conclusion

If you qualify for both, generally the Solo 401(k) is better than a SEP IRA. If you are going with a SEP IRA over a Solo 401(k), you should understand the reasons for doing so. Finally, self-employed retirement plans is an area that taxpayers usually benefit from receiving personal advice from a qualified tax advisor. 

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.