The Tax Efficient Path to Financial Independence
I’m honored to be the featured guest on this week’s ChooseFI podcast. Brad, Jonathan, and I discussed careers in accounting, my professional journey, and some tax planning. I’m glad to say that I’ll be back on the podcast to discuss tax issues and planning in the future.
I hope you enjoy this episode. It is available at this website, YouTube, and wherever you listen to podcasts. https://www.choosefi.com/how-to-fund-your-childs-roth-ira/
As an employee, your employer’s 401(k) plan can be your most important wealth building tool. Understanding how it functions will help you build your wealth in a tax efficient manner.
A 401(k) plan is established by an employer. The employer provides the account, the account administration, and the investment choices. Usually, the investment options include a menu of stock and bond mutual funds and/or similar investments. In some plans, employer stock is one of the investment choices.
While the employer administers the plan, most of the assets in the plan (see Vesting below) belong the employees in individual accounts. Therefore, the employees, not the employer, enjoy the benefits and burdens of the economic appreciation and/or depreciation of the investments.
401(k) plans are subject to a host of rules, most of which (from a practical perspective) are the concern of the employer, not the employee. One important benefit of the rules for employees is that under ERISA, assets in a 401(k) plan are generally protected from creditors. During your lifetime only two creditors can access assets in your 401(k): the IRS and an ex-spouse.
Contributions to a 401(k) made by the employee (referred to as “employee deferrals” and “after-tax contributions” — see numbers 1 and 3 below) are always immediately “100% vested.” This means that regardless of whether the employee leaves the employment of the employer tomorrow, he or she owns the money he or she contributed to the 401(k) and any related growth.
However, contributions to a 401(k) account made by the employer may be subject to a vesting schedule. Simply put, vesting means amounts become the property of the employee after the employee has been employed by the employer for a certain period of time.
Some plans use a gradual vesting schedule. The least generous of these is as follows:
| Years of Service | Vesting Percentage |
| 2 | 20% |
| 3 | 40% |
| 4 | 60% |
| 5 | 80% |
| 6 | 100% |
More generous (i.e., quicker) vesting is permissible.
Some plans use a “cliff” vesting schedule. This means that employer contributions go from 0% vested to 100% vested when the employee has been employed for a certain period. The longest permissible period is 3 years.
The growth associated with employer contributions is also subject to vesting.
Vesting incentivizes staying with the same employer for a sufficient period of time to capture all of the employer contributions to a 401(k) plan. It can also incentivize returning to a former employer if you have worked a number of vested years of service for them.
Some plans provide for 100% immediate vesting for employer contributions as well as employee contributions.
There are five types of contributions to 401(k) plans, listed below in order of their prevalence (employee deferrals being the most prevalent).
Employees can contribute, through payroll withholding, a portion of their salary to a 401(k) plan. All 401(k) plans offer “traditional” contributions, meaning employees can contribute amounts to the 401(k) plan and exclude those amounts from their taxable income for the year. Some plans, but certainly not all plans, also offer “Roth” contributions, which are not excludible from taxable income, but, if properly withdrawn, can be tax free in the future when withdrawn.
Employee deferrals are the only type of contribution to a 401(k) plan that can be done as a “Roth” contribution. All other contributions are “traditional” contributions.
Read here for more on the desirability of Roth contributions compared to traditional contributions.
Neither traditional nor Roth contributions reduce the amount of income subject to payroll (i.e., Social Security and Medicare) taxes.
Matching contributions are one of the most powerful ways employees can build wealth. Previously, I have written that if you participate in a 401(k) plan with an employer match, you must make it your top wealth building priority to contribute at least enough to your 401(k) to secure all of the employer match.
How does it work? Different employers have varying matching programs. There are two components: 1) the percentage of salary that is matched, and 2) the percentage of the match.
Here is an illustrative example:
Example 1: Elaine Benes works for Pendant Publishing. She is under 50 years old and earns $100,000 in annual W-2 wages. Pendant Publishing matches 100 percent of employee contributions up to 3 percent of salary, and matches 50 percent of employee contributions for the next 2 percent of salary. Based on this matching program, Elaine would be a fool not contribute at least 5 percent of her salary to Pendant Publishing’s 401(k) plan. Doing so will earn her $4,000 of matching contributions from Pendant Publishing on her $5,000 of employee contributions.
Employers vary in terms of when they match contributions. Some employers match employee contributions only once a year (usually at or after year-end). Other employers match employee contributions each pay period. If you work for an employer that does so, you need to be careful not to max-out your 401(k) early in the year, as each pay period requires an employee 401(k) contribution in order to obtain the match. Here is an example:
Example 2: The facts are the same as Example 1. In addition, Pendant Publishing’s matches 401(k) contributions every pay period, and has 24 pay periods per year. Elaine believes it is a good idea to accelerate her 401(k) contributions, and thus contributes $3,750.00 of her salary for each of the first 6 pay periods of the year ($22,500 total) and makes no contributions the rest of the year. For those 6 pay periods she receives an employee match of $166.67 each pay period ($100,000 divided by 24 times 4 percent) for a total annual match of $1,000. By doing this, Elaine misses out on $3,000 of her potential employer 401(k) match, because for the next 18 pay periods, she contributes nothing to her 401(k).
Some 401(k) plans adjust for this and would fully match Elaine’s contribution (in her case, by adding $3,000 to her 401(k) plan), but many do not. In Elaine’s case, she should have stretched out her contribution such that she contributed at least 5 percent of each pay period’s paycheck to her 401(k).
Note that employers are not required to provide a matching program. There are some employer 401(k) plans that provide no match at all.
Tax Treatment: Employer match contributions are traditional contributions. They are not subject to income tax when added to your 401(k), but they will be in the future when withdrawn (as will the growth on matching contributions). Matching contributions are not subject to payroll taxes.
Some 401(k) plans allow for employees to make so-called after-tax contributions to their 401(k) through payroll withholding. These contributions are not excluded from the employee’s taxable income, but do create basis in the 401(k) account. After-tax contributions are what make Mega Backdoor Roth IRA planning possible. Unless one is engaging in Mega Backdoor Roth IRA planning, in most cases after-tax contributions are not advisable.
Tax Treatment: After-tax contributions do not reduce the employee’s taxable income (for both income tax and payroll tax purposes). In the future after-tax contributions are taxable to the employee as withdrawn, but the employee can use the created basis to reduce the income inclusion. Depending on how the 401(k) account is disbursed, that basis recovery may be subject to the Pro-Rata Rule.
Some 401(k) programs have a profit-sharing program, whereby the employer contributes additional amounts to each employee’s 401(k) account based on a formula.
Tax Treatment: Profit-sharing contributions are traditional contributions and are treated in the same manner as matching contributions, including being exempt from payroll tax.
Because of vesting, employees forfeit unvested amounts in their 401(k)s when they leave the employer’s employment prior to fully vesting in the 401(k). When that happens, the unvested amounts must be accounted for. In some plans, the unvested amounts are used to offset plan administrative costs. In other plans, forfeited amounts are added to the remaining participants’ accounts.
Tax Treatment: Forfeitures are traditional contributions and are treated in the same manner as matching contributions, including being exempt from payroll tax.
Contribution limits get a bit complicated because there are two distinct 401(k) plan contribution limits, not one. Numerical limits are updated annually by the IRS to account for inflation. The numbers provided below are the numbers for 2023.
There is an annual employee deferral limitation. For 2023, that limit is the lesser of $22,500 or total compensation (if under age 50) and the lesser of $30,000 or total compensation (if 50 or older). The limit applies to Roth employee contributions, traditional employee contributions, or any combination thereof.
This limit is per person, not per employer. Thus, those with side hustlers must coordinate employee deferrals to their large employer 401(k) plan with employee deferrals to their Solo 401(k). I discuss this topic in detail in my book, Solo 401(k): The Solopreneur’s Retirement Account.
There is a second, less understood limitation on 401(k) contribution. The annual limit for all additions to 401(k) and other employer retirement accounts is the lesser of $66,000 or total compensation (if under age 50) and the lesser of $73,500 or total compensation (if 50 or older).
The all additions limit applies to the sum of numbers 1 through 5 above (employee deferrals through forfeitures) plus a sixth amount. The sixth amount is the amount which is contributed by your employer to another qualified retirement plan account on your behalf.
Some employers offer additional qualified retirement plans. These plans often provide for a contribution to an account by the employer based on a stated percentage of compensation. Employers use various names for these plans. Contributions may be subject to vesting and are traditional contributions that are not subject to payroll tax.
The all additions limit applies per employer, not per employee as the employee deferrals limit does.
Many employers now auto-enroll new employees in a 401(k) plan. This has two components: contribution level and investment choice. In most cases, new employees should not simply settle for auto-enrollment. When you start a job, you should review your new 401(k) plan and make informed decisions regarding contribution level and investment choice.
Auto-enrollment will set a contribution level. Not all employers set the contribution level at a level that maximizes employer matching. Even if the automatic contribution level is set at a level that maximizes the employer match, that level might not be the appropriate level for any particular person.
Plans typically have a default investment plan for new 401(k) participants. It is best to review your investment options when you start a new job and select an appropriate investment allocation for your circumstances.
When a taxpayer is 59 ½ years old or older, they can withdraw amounts in a traditional 401(k) penalty free. Withdrawals are included in taxable income as ordinary income. Beginning at age 72, taxpayers must take out a required minimum distribution (“RMD”) for each year. The RMD is computed based on IRS tables.
If a taxpayer withdraws money from a 401(k) prior to age 59 ½, the withdrawal is not only taxable, it is subject to a 10 percent early withdrawal penalty, unless a penalty exception applies.
Taxpayers may transfer amounts in a 401(k) to another 401(k) to an IRA. Amounts in traditional 401(k)s and IRAs can be converted to Roth accounts. Such conversions create taxable income, but are not subject to the early withdrawal penalty.
Your workplace 401(k) plan is a vitally important wealth building tool. It is important to be an informed user of your 401(k) in order to build tax advantaged wealth.
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.
There are limits to how much can be contributed to traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs. This post describes how excess contributions happen and how to resolve them.
Three introductory notes. First, if you find that you have made an excess contribution, you may be well advised to seek professional advice. Second, please don’t panic, but make sure to act swiftly. Excess contributions are resolvable but do not benefit from delays. Third, you should not plan to make an excess contribution for a variety of reasons.
There are (generally speaking) three situations that generate an excess contribution to a traditional IRA. They are:
This last category is not immediately obvious, but it does occasionally occur. For example, a taxpayer might inherit a taxable account and incorrectly roll it into an inherited IRA. Or a taxpayer might incorrectly roll an IRA they inherited into their own IRA. Or a taxpayer might attempt a 60-day rollover of amounts previously in an IRA and roll the money into an IRA after the 60-day deadline. Note that in some cases, this last mistake can be resolved by obtaining a private letter ruling from the IRS (doing so is beyond the scope of this post).
For 2019 and prior taxable years, there is an additional category: contributions to a traditional IRA when the taxpayer was 70 1/2 or older. The SECURE Act eliminates the prohibition on those 70 1/2 and older contributing to a traditional IRA.
Prior to the 2020 tax year, if you qualified to make a contribution to a Roth IRA, but not to a traditional IRA, you could direct your financial institution to recharacterize the contribution to a Roth IRA. This scenario only applied in situations where the taxpayer was over age 70 ½ when the contribution was made to the traditional IRA.
Now there is no scenario where this would be relevant. Anyone not qualifying to make a contribution to a traditional IRA would also not qualify to make a contribution to a Roth IRA.
However, recharacterizations of contributions from traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs can make sense for some taxpayers for tax planning reasons, and are allowable if done properly.
To recharacterize, you must contact the financial institution and direct them to move the contribution and its earnings to a Roth IRA. This must be disclosed in a white paper statement attached to your federal income tax return. The recharacterization deadline is the extended due date of the tax return (generally October 15th).
A second way to correct an excess contribution to a traditional IRA is to take a “corrective distribution” of the excess contribution and its earnings from the IRA. You will need to inform your financial institution of the excess contribution and request a corrective distribution of the excess contribution and the earnings attributable to the excess contribution. If the excess contribution is withdrawn prior to the extended filing deadline, the withdrawal of the contribution itself is generally not included in taxable income.
As observed in IRS Publication 590-A, page 34, in most cases the financial institution will compute the earnings attributable to the excess contribution. The earnings will be included in taxable income for the actual year the excess contribution was made. For example, if a 2023 IRA contribution is made in January 2024, and the taxpayer later takes a corrective distribution of that contribution and its earnings, the earnings will be includible in taxable income in 2024. In those cases where the taxpayer must compute the earnings, IRS Publication 590-A Worksheet 1-3 is a resource for figuring the earnings or loss.
See Example 1 in this article for insights on the reporting timing of earnings attributable to corrective distributions.
Up until the passage of SECURE 2.0, the earnings were also subject to the ten percent early withdrawal penalty (unless an exception otherwise applied). However, SECURE 2.0 Section 333 repealed the early withdrawal penalty with respect to withdrawals of earnings occurring pursuant to a corrective distribution. Note further that as of March 1, 2024 there is now some doubt as to the on going validity of SECURE 2.0.
If the corrective distribution occurs after the taxpayer files their tax return for the relevant taxable year, but before the extended filing deadline for the year (generally October 15th), the taxpayer must file an amended return which reports the corrective distribution.
A quick note on corrective distributions (as applied to both traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs): they can be done if the taxpayer has changed their mind. Natalie Choate makes this point in her excellent treatise Life and Death Planning for Retirement Benefits (8th ed. 2019, see page 132). Corrective distributions are not limited to simply those times when the taxpayer has made a contribution in excess of the allowed limits.
You can keep an excess contribution in a traditional IRA and apply it to a later year, if you are eligible to make a traditional IRA contribution in that later year. This method does not avoid the six percent penalty discussed below for the year of the contribution, but it allows the taxpayer to avoid taking a distribution of the excess contribution and stops additional impositions of the six percent excess contribution penalty. Generally, this method is only effective if the amount of the excess contribution is relatively modest, since a large excess contribution cannot be soaked up by only one year’s annual IRA contribution limit.
If you do not resolve the excess contribution prior to the extended deadline for filing your tax return, you must pay a six percent excise tax on the excess contribution annually until the excess contribution is withdrawn from the traditional IRA. You report and pay the excise tax by filing a Form 5329 with the IRS. Because this six percent tax is imposed each year the excess contribution stays in the traditional IRA, it is important to correct excess contributions to traditional IRAs promptly.
Note further that excess contributions withdrawn after the extended filing deadline are generally included in taxable income, though the taxpayer can recover a portion of any IRA basis they have under the Pro-Rata Rule.
There are (generally speaking) four situations that cause an excess contribution to a Roth IRA. They are:
A rather common excess contribution occurs when taxpayers contribute to a Roth IRA in a year they earn in excess of the MAGI limits. That can happen for a host of reasons, including end of year bonuses or other unanticipated income.
Another somewhat common mistake in this regard is made by those subject to required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) when trying to convert traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs. In early January a taxpayer might convert a chunk of their traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. This creates a problem if the taxpayer did not previously take out their annual RMD for the year. There is a rule providing that RMDs are the first money to come out of an IRA during the year, and RMDs may not be converted to Roth IRAs. Thus, “converting” the first dollars out of a traditional IRA (an RMD) during the year creates an excess contribution to a Roth IRA.
Assuming that the taxpayer qualifies to make a contribution to a traditional IRA, the excess contribution to a Roth IRA can be recharacterized as a contribution to a traditional IRA. Generally, the taxpayer must contact the financial institution and direct them to recharacterize the contribution and its earnings into a traditional IRA and must file a white paper statement with their tax return explaining the recharacterization.
Note that the recharacterization deadline is the extended due date of the tax return (usually October 15th).
A second way to correct an excess contribution to a Roth IRA is to take a corrective distribution of the excess contribution. You will need to inform your financial institution of the excess contribution and request a corrective distribution of the excess contribution and the earnings attributable to the excess contribution. The withdrawal of the excess contribution itself is generally not taxable.
The financial institution will compute the earnings attributable to the excess contribution. The earnings will be included in taxable income for the actual year the excess contribution was made. The same inclusion timing rules applicable to traditional IRA corrective distributions (discussed above) apply to the earnings from a Roth IRA corrective distribution.
If the corrective distribution occurs after the taxpayer files their tax return for the relevant taxable year, but before the extended filing deadline for the year (generally October 15th), the taxpayer must file an amended return which reports the corrective distribution and includes the earnings in taxable income (if the original contribution actually occurred in the year covered by the tax return).
As with excess contributions to traditional IRAs, you can keep an excess contribution in a Roth IRA and apply it to a later year, if you are eligible to make a Roth IRA contribution in that later year. This method does not avoid the six percent penalty discussed below for the year of the contribution, but it allows the taxpayer to avoid taking a distribution of the excess contribution and stops additional impositions of the six percent excess contribution penalty. Generally, this method is only effective if the amount of the excess contribution is relatively modest, since a large excess contribution cannot be soaked up by only one year’s annual Roth IRA contribution limit.
As with excess contributions to traditional IRAs, if you do not resolve the excess contribution to your Roth IRA prior to the extended deadline for filing your tax return, you must pay a six percent excise tax on the excess contribution annually until the excess contribution is withdrawn. It is best to resolve an excess contribution to a Roth IRA sooner rather than later to avoid annual impositions of the penalty.
Corrective measures applied to traditional IRA and/or Roth IRA contributions may require tax return reporting. Such reporting is discussed in various sources. Examples of such sources include IRS Publication 590-A, the Instructions to the Form 8606, and/or the Instructions to the Form 5329.
Excess contributions to IRAs and Roth IRAs happen. They are not an occasion to panic. They are an occasion for prompt, well considered action. Hopefully this article provides enough background for you to start your decision process and, if necessary, have an informed conversation with a competent tax professional.
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.
Rental real estate has significant tax advantages. One of them is the ability to claim losses against other income in limited circumstances.
As a default, many taxpayers cannot claim tax losses generated by rental real estate because of the passive activity loss rules. This post describes the situations where the owner of rental real estate are able to claim real estate tax losses against other income.
The passive activity loss rules can be greatly oversimplified by saying “you can only deduct passive losses against passive income.” So what do we mean by “passive income”?
For this purpose, “passive income” is not necessarily what you may colloquially refer to as passive income. Portfolio income such as interest, dividends, and capital gains does not count as passive income. Wage income is also not passive income. Income from trade or business activities that the taxpayer does not materially participate in is generally passive income.
What is “material participation”? That could be its own blog post, but for our purposes, it is sufficient to know that, by itself, the activity of renting real estate is not “material participation” in a trade or business. Thus, in most instances, renting real estate will be considered a passive activity that generates passive income and passive losses.
Passive income, including rental real estate income, can be offset by passive losses. Thus, if a taxpayer rents Condo A and Condo B, and Condo A has $5,000 of net taxable income during the year and Condo B has $4,000 of a net taxable loss during the year, the taxpayer will be able to offset $4,000 of Condo A’s income with Condo B’s loss on his tax return.
First, the wet blanket. Most taxpayers will not qualify as real estate professionals. If you have a full time job outside of real estate, you can forget about qualifying as a real estate professional.
Why would one want to be a so-called “real estate professional”? Real estate professionals are allowed to deduct losses generated by rental real estate unencumbered by the passive activity loss rules.
How does one qualify as a real estate professional? To qualify, generally one must work primarily in real estate trades or businesses they materially participate in (i.e., you must work more in real estate than in any other jobs or business activities) and must work at least 750 hours during the year in real estate activities.
Qualification could be its own blog post, but for purposes of this particular post it suffices to say that (a) “real estate professional” is a high threshold, and (b) it is great to qualify, because you are able to deduct rental real estate losses against other income unencumbered by the passive activity loss rules.
Taxpayers who are not real estate professionals, but actively participate in their rental real estate can deduct up to $25,000 in rental real estate losses if their modified adjusted gross income (“MAGI”) is below certain limits. The threshold for “active participation” is much lower than that for “material participation.” Generally speaking, the two main requirements are that the taxpayer makes decisions with respect to the activity (or hires someone to do so) and owns at least ten percent of the activity.
Thus, you can actively participate in renting out a house you own in your own name. You cannot actively participate in the renting of real estate by a partnership if you own less than 10 percent of that partnership.
If your MAGI is $100,000 or less, you can deduct up to $25,000 of active participation rental real estate losses. If your MAGI Is $150,000 or more, you cannot deduct any active participation rental real estate losses. In between those two amounts, the $25,000 potential maximum loss is reduced by fifty cents for every dollar above $100,000.
Here’s an example:
Shirley owns House A which she rents out. After taking into account depreciation and other tax deductions, in 2019 House A generates a $15,000 taxable loss reported on Schedule E of Shirley’s tax return. Shirley reports a MAGI of $125,000 on her 2019 tax return. Thus, she is able to claim $12,500 of the House A loss against her other income on her 2019 tax return. The remaining $2,500 of the House A loss will be a suspended passive loss that will carry forward to her 2020 tax return.
Previously suspended passive losses can offset future passive income.
Continuing with Shirley from above, in 2020 Shirley has a MAGI of $200,000 and House A reports a rental profit of $1,000 on Shirley’s Schedule E. Shirley can use $1,000 of her previously suspended $2,500 passive loss to offset the $1,000 in income generated by House A on her 2020 tax return. The remaining $1,500 of the House A loss will be a suspended passive loss that will carry forward to her 2021 tax return.
Dispositions of property used in a passive activity creates passive income or passive loss. A disposition of substantially all of a passive activity can trigger the use of all of that activity’s previously suspended passive losses.
One important point here: to trigger the use of all the previously suspended passive loss upon a disposition, the disposition must be of substantially all of the activity. Disposing of only part of the activity, even a significant part, is not enough to trigger the use of all of the previously suspended passive loss.
For example, imagine you and a partner are 50/50 partners in a partnership that invests in four rental properties. Unless you are trying to qualify as a real estate professional, it is usually advantageous to list each of the four rental properties from that partnership as its own separate activity on Schedule E, Part 2. That way, the future sale of one of the four properties will be sufficient to be the disposition of “substantially all” of that property and trigger any previously suspended passive losses related to that particular property.
If the partnership is instead listed as a single activity, the future disposition of any one (or two or three) property owned by the partnership will not be enough to constitute “substantially all” of the activity. While any gain from the disposition creates passive income which can be offset with previously suspended and/or current passive losses, the entire previously suspended loss with respect to that particular property is not necessarily usable because the one property is only a component part of a single activity.
The ability to use rental real estate losses against other income, in the limited circumstances described above, is a significant tax advantage of rental real estate. While tax losses should never be the driving factor in the decision to invest in rental real estate, potential real estate investors should go into the investment understanding the impact it will have on their taxes. Investors in rental real estate often benefit from consultations with tax professionals in order to maximize the potential tax benefits of the investment.
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, investment, financial, legal, and tax matters.
Should you hold rental real estate in a self-directed retirement account? Is real estate a great asset to own in a Roth IRA? Is holding real estate in a self-directed retirement account a hack that can help supercharge your path to financial independence? Below I discuss what it looks like to hold real estate in a self-directed IRA or 401(k), with a particular focus on those looking to achieve FI.
Before I proceed, I need to lay a necessary predicate. Those actively pursuing financial independence will fall into one of the two following groups:
Group 1: Invest in a diversified portfolio of equities and bonds.
Group 2: Invest in real estate and a diversified portfolio of equities and bonds.
Why is there no third group, real estate investors only? For two main reasons. First, many pursuing FI have no interest in owning rental real estate and/or desire to only own a small number of properties. Second, as a general rule, investing in only one sector of the economy (technology, financials, pharmaceuticals, utilities, real estate, etc.) leaves an investor dangerously undiversified and vulnerable to very particular risks to a degree diversified investors are not.
The rest of this post focuses on tax basketing for individuals in Group 2: those pursuing FI and investing in rental real estate and a diversified portfolio of equities and bonds.
Recall that the basis of stock, bonds, mutual funds, and ETFs (what I will colloquially refer to as “stock basis”) is the amount you paid for the asset plus any distributions reinvested in the asset less any nondividend distributions (returns of capital). Stock basis is great, but for many in the FI community, its benefits are distant and significantly eroded by inflation.
Picture Jack and Jill, a married couple, each 25 years old and actively pursuing financial independence. They max out their IRAs and workplace retirement plans. They have a savings rate in excess of 50 percent, so they must invest in taxable accounts, and choose to invest in low-cost, well diversified index mutual funds. They target early retirement at age 40.
Other than very occasional tax loss harvesting, the basis Jack & Jill obtain in their taxable mutual fund accounts at age 25 will be meaningless to them until they are at least 40 years old. Even then, using something like the 4 percent withdrawal rule, they will touch only a small fraction of their basis every year. By then, the value of the basis they put in the mutual funds will have been significantly eroded by inflation.
But what if Jack and Jill instead decide that they will max out their IRAs and workplace retirement accounts (using stock and bond index funds), and then everything else will go into taxable rental real estate investments. What value does their basis have then? Much greater value, it turns out. Jack and Jill can immediately depreciate their rental real estate and start using their basis to reduce their taxable rental income from that property and other rental properties. Depending on their circumstances, they may be able to deduct some or all of any rental real estate loss against other taxable income.
When you invest in rental real estate in taxable accounts, your tax basis goes to work for you right away. When you invest in financial assets, your tax basis sits dormant, possibly for many years or the rest of your life. By the time you use your stock basis to obtain a tax benefit, the value of your stock basis (and thus the resulting tax benefit) may be severely diminished by inflation.
This strongly indicates you should house financial assets in retirement accounts and rental real estate in taxable accounts. House the rental real estate (pun intended) in taxable accounts where you can milk its basis for all it’s worth while housing the financial assets in retirement accounts.
You can use leverage to increase the tax value of rental real estate. A young couple will have to likely borrow some or all of the purchase price of their initial rental real estate investments. This can be advantageous from a tax perspective. Here’s an illustrative example:
Jack and Jill have $50,000 of cash to invest in a taxable account. They have decided to invest in a $250,000 fifth floor condominium to rent out. They borrow $200,000, purchase the property, and rent out the condo. In the first year they rent out the condo for a full year, they can get $9,091 ($250,000 divided by 27.5) in depreciation deductions and, assuming a 5% loan, almost $10,000 in interest deductions. Note this and all examples ignore any potential price allocation to land for simplicity.
Jack and Jill leveraged $50,000 into almost $19,000 in tax deductions in one year alone. Had they purchased $50,000 worth of financial assets, they would have received exactly nothing in tax deductions in the first full year, and the value of the $50,000 of basis would be eroding away to inflation. Even if they were able to tax loss harvest, at most the benefit would be a $3,000 deduction against their ordinary income.
In some cases, depreciation combined with other deductions causes rental real estate to produce a loss for tax purposes. Why put an asset that generates a tax loss in a retirement account?
If stock basis has such limited value, and rental real estate basis has such impactful, immediate value, why “exploit” stock basis in a taxable account while you neuter rental real estate basis in an IRA? It makes much more sense to utilize that rental real estate tax basis in a taxable account and put limited value stock basis in a retirement account.
When you leave your heirs rental real estate in taxable accounts, the government gives your heirs hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free tax deductions!
There’s no lack of content discussing the many tax benefits of real estate. Some of it discusses the step-up in basis at death and the ability to hold real estate in a self-directed retirement account. What little of this content acknowledges is that if you hold real estate in a self-directed retirement account, you lose the step-up in basis at death!
If you are at all concerned about Second Generation FI for your children, you need to consider this issue. The step-up in tax basis at death is an incredible opportunity for your heirs. Upon your death, your heirs get to re-depreciate your rental real estate based on the fair market value of the property at your death.
Here’s a comprehensive example.
Jake buys a small rental condo for $100,000 in 2019. He fully depreciates it over 27.5 years, saving significantly on his taxes. He dies in 2049 when the condo is worth $400,000. He leaves the condo to his adult son Jake Jr. He also leaves a Roth IRA with financial assets to Jake Jr. worth $400,000.
What result? Jake Jr. inherits the condo with a $400,000 tax basis and gets to depreciate that new $400,000 basis for 27.5 more years! This drastically reduces his taxable income from the property and may create a currently useable taxable loss. While Jake Jr. must withdraw the inherited Roth IRA within 10 years, the money from the Roth IRA is tax free to Jake Jr. And because Jake Jr houses the inherited Roth IRA at a discount brokerage (such as Vanguard, Fidelity, or Schwab), the Roth IRA pays minimal fees.
What if instead Jake had housed the financial assets in his taxable accounts and the rental property in his Roth IRA. First, the financial assets will produce interest, dividends, and capital gain distributions that will be taxable to Jake Jr. every year. Second, Jake Jr. will pay more in annual fees to a self-directed Roth IRA custodian. Further, Jake Jr. will lose the ability to claim any tax loss generated by the condo against his other income.
The effect is magnified if Jake Jr. leaves the rental property to his son, Jake III. Jake III will again get to step-up the basis in the condo to its fair market value when Jake Jr. dies and re-depreciate it! Over several generations the step-up in basis cycle can create potentially millions of dollars of tax depreciation deductions!
If you are going to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars (possibly millions) of tax deductions for your heirs, you ought to have a compelling reason to do so. I do not believe there’s a compelling reason to house real estate in a retirement account and forego these free future tax deductions.
Roth IRAs are great for protecting the income generated by financial assets from taxation. The step-up in basis is great for protecting the income from rental real estate from taxation. Why waste a Roth IRA on real estate when your heirs will get a fantastic step-up in basis in your real estate to shield a significant portion of the income from taxation (and may possibly generate useable current real estate losses)?
All of this is magnified if the rental real estate is in a traditional IRA instead of a Roth IRA. Instead of depreciation and other deductions to shield rental income from taxation, every dollar you ever take from a traditional IRA will be subject to ordinary taxation (even if the underlying rental property is unprofitable). Combining this with self-directed retirement account custodian fees makes a traditional retirement account a terrible place to house rental real estate.
As discussed, the step-up in real estate basis is effective in reducing or eliminating taxable income rental real estate. But the step up in basis does nothing to reduce income from interest, dividends, and capital gain distributions generated by inherited financial assets. This further indicates that the step-up in basis is better used on real estate than on financial assets.
Tax basis is not the only consideration in determining where to tax basket assets. Below is a run through of several other important considerations.
As of 2023, costs for investing in well diversified index funds in retirement accounts at discount brokerages are approaching zero. Costs for self-directed IRAs and 401(k)s are more substantial. Costs can include a set-up fee, annual account fees, one-off service fees, and fees for valuations.
Starting at age 73, you must take RMDs from your traditional retirement accounts and employer Roth accounts. In the year after your death, certain heirs must take RMDs from your retirement accounts (including Roth IRAs). To do this, the recipient must know the value of each retirement account on December 31st of the prior year. For publicly-traded stock and bond based mutual funds and ETFs, the financial institution will simply report this information to you. For real estate, it is a very different ballgame. You will need to obtain a third party valuation, as the December 31st value of any particular piece of real estate is not readily apparent or known. This is an additional annual cost of owning real estate inside a retirement account.
If you sell financial assets in a taxable account, you’re stuck with the capital gain, which will increase your federal (and possibly state) income tax bill. There are narrow and/or costly exceptions, including, the qualified opportunity zone program, which requires you to invest in a very specific type of investment that you may have absolutely no interest in investing in, for a minimum period of time. The qualified opportunity zone program can also apply to real estate capital gains.
The other exceptions to stock capital gain, including donations to charities, donor advised funds, and/or charitable trusts, are expensive, in that they require you to relinquish some or all of your economic ownership in order to avoid a taxable capital gain.
If you want to sell your rental real estate, you can use a Section 1031 “like-kind exchange” and simply exchange the rental property for another piece (or pieces) of rental real estate. This defers the capital gain on the sold property for as long as you hold onto the substitute property. Section 1031 exchange treatment is not available for financial assets.
While Section 1031 exchanges may not satisfy investors in every instance, the availability of Section 1031 exchanges is a reason to keep real estate in taxable accounts.
If you put your real estate in a retirement account, you voluntarily subject yourself to a whole host of rules. One is that you are not allowed to use the rental real estate for personal use. Another is that not allowed to personally manage or repair the property. Any violation of these rules can disqualify the retirement plan, resulting in a distribution of the property to the plan owner. This can result in a large taxable income hit and/or early distribution penalties if the owner is under age 59 ½.
Is your rental property at all debt financed? If it is, and it is in an IRA, your IRA (including a Roth IRA) will be subject to income tax (the “unrelated business income tax”) on the portion of the taxable income that is attributable to the debt (the “unrelated debt financed income”). For example, if you have a condo that was purchased half with debt, half the income will be subject to tax (at the IRA level) as UDFI.
Further, as an entity your IRA is subject to taxation at very steep tax brackets. While the first $1,000 of UDFI is exempt from taxation, by the time the taxable UDFI exceeds $12,500, the IRA pays the highest individual marginal ordinary income tax rate (currently 37 percent) on the income.
There are UDFI workarounds. One is to roll a self directed IRA/Roth IRA to a self directed 401(k)/Roth 401(k). 401(k) plans are not subject to tax on UDFI generated by rental real estate. In order to move to a self directed 401(k)/Roth 401(k) plan, you must have a trade or business that can sustain the self directed 401(k) or self directed Roth 401(k).
If you roll from a Roth IRA to a self directed Roth 401(k), you solve your UDFI problem but you subject yourself to RMDs (and valuation issues) starting at age 73, reducing future tax free growth. You also added a requirement to file an annual Form 5500 tax return with the IRS if the self directed Roth 401(k) has $250,000 or more of assets. Another workaround is placing the real estate in the IRA/Roth IRA in a C corporation. This will lower the tax rate the UDFI is subject to down to 21 percent, but will also subject the non-UDFI income to that 21 percent tax rate.
In some cases, depreciation combined with other deductions causes rental real estate to produce a loss for tax purposes. This can occur even if the property is “cash-flow positive” i.e., it produces cash income in excess of its cash expenses.
Why put an asset that generates a loss in a retirement account? Often times losses are suspended, meaning the rental property nets to zero on the tax return for that particular year. But the suspended loss is tracked and can be used in the future. Read this post for more information on deducting real estate losses.
Is the ability to use real estate losses from real estate held in taxable accounts limited? Absolutely. But it is fully eliminated if the real estate is in a retirement plan. Such losses can never be used on an individual’s tax returns.
Discount brokerages have made this the best era to be a well diversified investor in equities and bonds. Costs associated with investing in index funds in retirement accounts are approaching zero.
This means equities and bonds reside in retirement accounts very well. Why do you need to gild the lily at that point? You have great investment options at a low cost.
To my mind, there is no compelling reason to reject this approach, particularly considering (1) depreciation and other tax advantages that help make rental real estate efficient in taxable accounts and (2) the burdens associated with housing real estate in retirement accounts.
In the vast majority of cases, if you want to own both financial assets (stocks/bonds/mutual funds/ETFs) and rental real estate as part of your portfolio, you are well advised to house your rental real estate in taxable accounts and save your retirement accounts for the financial assets.
It comes back to the tyranny of tactics. Real estate in an IRA sounds great, but when you peel back the onion, simplicity usually wins. Does this mean some with real estate in a retirement account will not achieve financial independence? Absolutely not. But the simpler path will keep your costs low and will likely be tax efficient.
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.
To answer that question, let me posit two hypotheticals:
Hypothetical 1: Mark buys one share of Acme Industries stock for $100 on Monday. The following Monday he sells that share for $100.
Hypothetical 2: Judy buys one share of Kramerica Industries for $20 on Monday. On Thursday, Kramerica Industries announces the release of a new bottle that dispenses both ketchup and mustard, and the stock soars. On the following Monday, Judy sells her share of Kramerica Industries for $100.
What tax result? Do both Mark and Judy have $100 of taxable income? Of course not. We know that Mark has no taxable income and Judy has $80 of taxable income? But how do we know that? The answer: Basis!
Basis is the tax concept that ensures amounts are not taxed twice when they should not be. In Mark’s case, he has no real income when he sells the stock. Judy however, does have income. When she sells the Kramerica stock, she realizes the $80 gain.
Basis is what allows us to measure the appropriate gain or income to the seller of property. While we have a sense that Mark should not have had taxable income and Judy should have, without basis we have no way of measuring whether a disposition of property should trigger a taxable gain, loss, or nothing.
Generally, the basis of an asset is its historic cost, plus any capital improvements or additions made to the asset. In the case of a financial asset in a taxable account, basis is simply the purchase price plus reinvested distributions less any nondividend distributions (returns of capital).
Basis serves another function. Business assets are usually subject to a depreciation allowance on the theory that assets waste away from wear and tear over a useful life. The method and time period for depreciating an asset varies based on the asset. Residential real estate is depreciated in a straight line over 27.5 years. Most non-real estate property is depreciated using an accelerated method and over a shorter period. One business asset that never depreciated is land, on the theory that land has an indefinite useful life.
Each asset is depreciated based on its depreciable basis, which is generally historic cost plus capital improvements. For example, if you purchase a fourth floor residential condominium for $1,000,000 and rent it out, each full year it is used in the rental business you divide the $1,000,000 depreciable basis over 27.5 to come up with a depreciation deduction of $36,364, which lowers the taxable income from the rental activity, and may even be currently deductible against other income if the rental property produces a loss. Note that some of the basis may be attributable to land, which is good basis that can be recovered upon a sale, but it cannot be depreciated.
The tax code offers a tremendous benefit for those looking to facilitate Second Generation FI. The tax basis of inherited assets is “stepped-up” to the fair market value of the asset on the original owner’s date of death. This means, among other things, it is usually much better to leave an asset to an heir at death rather than to gift that asset to an heir during life. The asset left upon death has a stepped-up asset basis, while the gifted asset only has the original owner’s basis in the hands of the recipient.
I previously wrote an example of how this works:
William lives in a house he purchased in 1970 for $50,000. In 2019 the house is worth $950,000. If William gifts the house to his son Alan in 2019, Alan’s basis in the house is $50,000. However, if William leaves the house to Alan at William’s death, Alan’s basis in the house will be the fair market value of the house at William’s death.
Lastly, in order to qualify for the step-up at death, an asset must be held in a taxable account. Assets held in retirement accounts do not receive a step-up at death.
Basis is what makes tax loss harvesting possible. Picture Joey, who owns Blue Company stock worth $10,000. He purchased the stock a year ago for $13,000. He can sell his Blue Company stock and deduct the $3,000 loss on his tax return, realizing a nice benefit.
Tax loss harvesting is a neat tool in the tax planning tool box. But it’s a fools errand to succumb to the “tyranny of tactics” and arrange one’s portfolio around tax loss harvesting. At most, tax loss harvesting reduces your taxable income in any particular year by $3,000. Over the long run, that is not the way to build wealth and achieve financial freedom.
Sure, play the tax loss harvesting card when the right opportunity arises, but don’t structure your portfolio with dozens of holdings in the hopes you can get a $3,000 loss every year. Rather, structure your portfolio with your ultimate goal in mind, and if toward year-end an opportunity to do some tax loss harvesting arises, pounce on it.
The term “basis” means something a bit different in the context of retirement accounts. Two points: First, it is possible to have basis in a traditional account. Generally this means that nondeductible, or “after-tax” contributions have been made to the account, and thus, in the future when there are taxable distributions a portion of the distribution will be offset by that basis.
Second, the assets inside of a retirement account (including a Roth account) do not have basis to the owner of the account. These assets do have basis, but that basis is never directly accessible to the owner of the account (in the way that depreciable basis or stock basis is accessible to the owner). Importantly, assets inside of a retirement account do not enjoy the step-up in basis at the owner’s death that assets in taxable accounts enjoy.
Tax basis is an important attribute to understand as you do tax planning. In two weeks I will build on this post to discuss in detail important implications of tax basis for those pursuing financial independence.
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.
In my last post, I discussed the basics of the Backdoor Roth IRA, which can be a great planning tool for some higher income Americans. But not everyone qualifies for a tax-efficient Backdoor Roth IRA. Recall Jennifer’s case:
Jennifer makes too much to qualify to make a Roth IRA contribution in 2022. She contributed $6,000 to a nondeductible traditional IRA on April 19, 2022. She also had a separate traditional IRA with no basis. As of December 31, 2022, that separate traditional IRA was worth $93,998.53.
If, in 2022, Jennifer were to convert the $6,000 that she put into the nondeductible traditional IRA to a Roth IRA she would increase her taxable income by over $5,600. Ouch!
Jennifer has two possible options to qualify for a much more tax efficient Backdoor Roth IRA. The first option is to use her workplace 401(k), 403(b), or 457 plan. Some 401(k) plans and other workplace plans allow participants to “roll in” amounts in traditional IRAs. Workplace plans are not required to offer participants this option. If a workplace plan does, it can be worthwhile to consider this option in order to facilitate Backdoor Roth IRA planning.
Of course, there are considerations that go beyond income tax planning, including the quality of the investment choices available in a traditional IRA versus a workplace 401(k) or other retirement plan, and the expenses associated with each option.
A second option is rolling the traditional IRA into a Solo 401(k) plan. Jennifer must have a Solo 401(k) plan from self-employment and the plan must accept IRA roll ins in order for her to do this. As with workplace retirement plans, Solo 401(k) plans are not required to accept traditional IRA roll ins, and any decision must appropriately consider the relevant non-tax issues (as discussed above). Further, a Solo 401(k) plan has several requirements (including the conduct of a trade or business) that should be carefully considered before opening a Solo 401(k).
If Jennifer wants to roll her traditional IRA into a workplace retirement plan or Solo 401(k), she should structure the transfer as a “trustee-to-trustee” direct rollover of the money between the financial institution holding the traditional IRA and the workplace retirement plan or Solo 401(k). If instead of a trustee-to-trustee direct rollover, Jennifer receives a check from her IRA financial institution payable to her, she has 60 days to roll over that check (i.e., to get it to her workplace retirement plan or Solo 401(k)). If she does not move the money within the 60 days, the distribution from the IRA is taxable, subject to early withdrawal penalties if Jennifer is under age 59 ½, and cannot be transferred into a retirement plan.
Roll ins should be completed by December 31st of the year of the Roth IRA conversion. Otherwise the pro-rata rule will bite, because there will be a balance in the taxpayer’s traditional IRAs at year-end. That balance will attract a sizable portion of the $6,000 of IRA basis established by the nondeductible traditional IRA contribution. This causes the Roth IRA conversion to grab little basis and thus be tax inefficient.
For simplicity’s sake, it is usually best to clean out traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs and then make the nondeductible traditional IRA contribution.
Prior to implementing a traditional IRA to 401(k) “roll-in” strategy, Jennifer should review all of her traditional IRAs to ensure that she has no basis in any existing traditional IRA. IRA basis amounts cannot be rolled into the 401(k) and must be left behind under the rule of Section 408(d)(3)(A)(ii) and this technical write up.
Those with amounts in SIMPLE IRAs, need to be careful. During the first two years of the SIMPLE IRA account, it cannot be rolled into a plan other than another SIMPLE IRA plan. Doing so would create a taxable event, subject to both early withdrawal and excess contribution penalties (on the transfer to the non-SIMPLE IRA).
Thus, if Jennifer’s traditional IRA balance is in a SIMPLE IRA and she first deposited into the SIMPLE IRA less than two years ago, she must wait until the two year window has expired to roll her SIMPLE IRA into a workplace retirement plan or a Solo 401(k).
In addition, those with a SIMPLE IRA (beyond the two year window) or a SEP IRA from their current employer may not be allowed in-service distributions. Thus, they would not be able to roll over those accounts into a 401(k)/Solo 401(k)/403(b)/457. Additionally, amounts may be added to these accounts prior to December 31st. These considerations make it difficult to successfully execute Backdoor Roth IRA planning for those currently covered by an employer’s SIMPLE IRA or SEP IRA.
Any Backdoor Roth IRA planning should involve an additional diligence step: ensuring that as of December 31st of the year of the Roth conversion step, the taxpayer has a zero balance in all traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs. This helps ensure the Backdoor Roth IRA is a tax-efficient tactic.
Jennifer expects to earn $300,000 from her W-2 job in 2022, is covered by a workplace 401(k) plan, and expects to have some investment income. On March 1, 2022, Jennifer has a $90,000 balance in a traditional IRA but otherwise has no balance in a traditional IRA, SEP IRA, or SIMPLE IRA.
On March 2, 2022, Jennifer directs her workplace 401(k) plan and her IRA custodian to roll her traditional IRA to her workplace 401(k) plan. Her traditional IRA is rolled into her workplace 401(k) through a trustee-to-trustee direct rollover.
Jennifer contributes $6,000 to a traditional IRA on April 20, 2022. The contribution is nondeductible. Because the contribution is nondeductible, Jennifer gets a $6,000 basis in her traditional IRA. Jennifer must file a Form 8606 with her 2022 tax return to report the nondeductible contribution.
On May 2, 2022, Jennifer converts all the money in her traditional IRA to a Roth IRA (a Roth IRA conversion). At that time, Jennifer’s traditional IRA had a value of $6,001.47. Jennifer also ensures that as of December 31, 2022, she has a $0 balance in all traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs.
If Jennifer executes the above steps as described above, she will get the desired result. Done in this manner, the Roth IRA conversion step results in an increase in Jennifer’s taxable income of just $1.47 ($6,001.47 fair market value less $6,000 of traditional IRA basis).
What if Jennifer’s workplace retirement plan does not accept roll ins? What if Jennifer doesn’t have access to a Solo 401(k)? What if Jennifer’s workplace retirement plan accepts roll ins but does not have quality investment options and/or charges high fees?
Remember, Jennifer’s ultimate goal is not to do a Backdoor Roth IRA. Her goal is financial independence! She should not let what I call the “tyranny of tactics” distract her from her ultimate goal.
The Backdoor Roth IRA is a great tactic to employ toward achieving that goal. But it’s okay if you can’t use this particular tactic. Plenty of people have and will achieve financial independence without executing a Backdoor Roth IRA.
If you can’t use the Backdoor Roth IRA for whatever reason, simply use other appropriate tactics, including but not limited to a high savings rate, to achieve your financial goals.
I discuss how to properly report a Backdoor Roth IRA on a tax return and what to do if has been incorrectly reported here.
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.
If you read enough FI blogs, you will eventually come across the term “Backdoor Roth IRA.” This post answers the question “What’s the deal with Backdoor Roth IRAs?”
Why would someone do a Backdoor Roth IRA? The Backdoor Roth IRA gets money into a Roth IRA in cases where the taxpayer earns too much to make a direct annual contribution to a Roth IRA. Doing the Backdoor Roth IRA gets money that would have been invested in a taxable account into a tax-free Roth account. Further, the money in the Roth account gets better creditor protection than money in a taxable account.
Before 2010, what is now referred to as a Backdoor Roth IRA would have been permissible and/or necessary in only relatively limited circumstances, and then only in years prior to 2008. But a 2006 change in the law opened up the Backdoor Roth IRA in the form we know now (starting in 2010).
Two fundamental concepts must now be addressed. The first is a Roth IRA contribution.
This post discusses Roth IRA contributions in detail. Simplified, U.S. citizens and residents with earned income can make an annual Roth IRA contribution of up to $7,000 in 2024 ($8,000 if 50 or older). Done for many years, it can be a tremendous wealth building tool, since it moves wealth into an account that is tax-free (if properly executed).
The one catch is that your “modified adjusted gross income” (or “MAGI”) must be below a certain threshold in order to make a Roth IRA contribution. To make a full contribution in 2024, your MAGI must be less than $146,000 (if single) or $230,000 (if married filing joint).
Because of these limits, many taxpayers are unable to make a Roth IRA contribution. Further, based on the qualification rules for traditional deductible IRA contributions, most taxpayers unable to make a Roth IRA contribution are also unable to make a deductible traditional IRA contribution.
The second fundamental concept is a Roth IRA conversion. A Roth IRA conversion is a movement of amounts in traditional accounts to a Roth IRA. This creates a taxable event. The amount of the Roth IRA conversion, less any “basis” in the traditional account (more on that later), is taxable as ordinary income on the taxpayer’s tax return.
Prior to 2010, only taxpayers with a modified adjusted gross income of $100,000 or less were allowed to do a Roth IRA conversion. This amount was not indexed for inflation and applied per tax return, making it particularly difficult for many married couples to qualify.
In 2006, Congress changed the law, effective beginning in 2010. As of January 1, 2010, there is no modified adjusted gross income limitation on the ability to do a Roth IRA conversion. The richest, highest earning Americans now qualify to do a Roth IRA conversion just as easily as anyone else.
Okay, so there’s no MAGI limitation on the ability to execute a Roth IRA conversion. So what? Aren’t they taxable? What’s the advantage of doing one?
Recall I mentioned a taxpayer’s basis in a traditional account. Basis in an IRA occurs when a taxpayer makes a nondeductible contribution to a traditional IRA. Here is an example.
Mike expects to earn $300,000 from his W-2 job in 2024, is covered by a workplace 401(k) plan, and expects to have some investment income. Mike has no balance in a traditional IRA, SEP IRA, or SIMPLE IRA.
Mike contributes $7,000 to a traditional IRA on April 20, 2024. The contribution is nondeductible. Because the contribution is nondeductible, Mike gets a $7,000 basis in his traditional IRA. Mike must file a Form 8606 with his 2024 tax return to report the nondeductible contribution.
The “backdoor” opens because of the confluence of two rules: the ability to make a nondeductible traditional IRA contribution and the ability to do a Roth IRA conversion regardless of your income level. Let’s extend Mike’s example a bit.
On May 2, 2024, Mike converts all the money in his traditional IRA to a Roth IRA (a Roth IRA conversion). At that time, Mike’s traditional IRA had a value of $7,011.47.
What result? To start, all $7,011.47 is taxable. All money converted in a Roth IRA conversion is taxable. Uh oh! But there’s good news for Mike. Mike gets to offset the $7,011.47 that is taxable by the $7,000 of basis in his traditional IRA. Thus, this Roth IRA conversion will only increase Mike’s taxable income by $11.47 ($7,011.47 minus $7,000).
The combination of these two separate, independent steps (a nondeductible traditional IRA contribution and a later Roth IRA conversion) is what many now refer to as the Backdoor Roth IRA. Notice this is only possible because of the repeal of the MAGI limitation on Roth IRA conversions. Under the rules effective prior to 2010, Mike would have been allowed to make the nondeductible traditional IRA contribution, but his income (north of $300,000) would have prohibited him from a Roth IRA conversion.
The Backdoor Roth IRA allows Mike to obtain the benefits of an annual Roth IRA contribution without qualifying to make a regular annual Roth IRA contribution.
Any Backdoor Roth IRA planning should involve an additional diligence step: ensuring that as of December 31st of the year of the Roth conversion step, the taxpayer has a zero balance in all traditional IRAs, SEP IRAs, and SIMPLE IRAs. This helps ensure the Backdoor Roth IRA is a tax-efficient tactic.
The Backdoor Roth IRA works well for someone with Mike’s profile. But it does not work well for everyone. Let’s change up the example a bit.
Jennifer’s story is the same as Mike’s story above, except that she had a separate traditional IRA before she did her 2024 nondeductible IRA contribution. That separate IRA had no basis. As of December 31, 2024, that separate traditional IRA was worth $92,988.53.
This one change in facts dramatically increases Jennifer’s taxable income from the Roth IRA conversion. Jennifer must apply the so-called Pro-Rata Rule to the Roth IRA conversion. Even though her two IRAs are in separate accounts, they are treated as one IRA for purposes of determining how much of Jennifer’s $7,000 of basis she recovers upon her Roth IRA conversion.
Jennifer starts with $7,011.47 of income (the amount she converts). To determine the amount of her $7,000 of basis she gets to recover against the proceeds of the Roth IRA conversion, we must multiply that $7,000 times the amount converted ($7,011.47) divided by the sum of the amount converted and her traditional IRA balance at the end of the year ($7,011.47 plus $92,988.53). Thus, Jennifer gets to recover 7.00147 percent of the $7,000 of basis, which is only $490.80. This results in Jennifer’s Roth IRA conversion increasing her taxable income by $6,520.67 ($7,011.47 minus $490.80).
What was a great idea for Mike becomes a horrible idea for Jennifer when she has a significant balance in another traditional IRA.
Note further that Jennifer would have the same bad outcome if that $92,988.53 traditional IRA was instead in a traditional SEP IRA or in a traditional SIMPLE IRA.
Assume Mike did his Roth IRA conversion and did not have any other money in traditional IRAs in 2024. He will get a Form 1099-R from his financial institution. In box 1 it will report a gross distribution of $7,011.47 (the amount of the Roth IRA conversion).
In box 2a the Form 1099-R will say that the “taxable amount” is $7,011.47 and box 2b will be checked to indicate that the “taxable amount not determined.” Wait, what? How can $7,011.47 be the taxable amount while the next box claims the taxable amount is not determined? The answer is the basis concept discussed above.
Mike’s financial institution does not know the rest of Mike’s story (his income, retirement plan coverage at work, IRAs at other institutions, etc.), so it has no way of determining how much basis, if any, Mike recovers when he did the Roth IRA conversion. Box 2b simply means that Mike might have recovered some basis, but the institution is not in a position to determine if he did.
Form 8606 helps complete the tax reporting picture. By filing that form, Mike establishes that he was entitled to $6,000 of traditional IRA basis and how the pro-rata rule applies (if at all) to his Roth IRA conversion. It is important that Mike file a properly completed Form 8606 with his timely-filed 2024 federal income tax return.
When Mike files his 2024 Form 1040, he puts $7,011.47 on line 4a (“IRA distributions”) and $11.47 on line 4b (“Taxable amount”). Most tax return preparation software will round cents to the nearest whole dollar.
Note that failing to report the transactions on the Forms 8606 and 1040 in this way can result in Mike paying an incorrect amount of tax.
This post discusses what you can do if you find yourself in Jennifer’s situation to get a result similar to Mike’s result. I discuss how to properly report a Backdoor Roth IRA on your tax return and what to do if has been incorrectly reported here.
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.
Previously I have blogged about small business retirement plans. This post (revised in January 2020) folds the new Section 199A qualified business income (“QBI”) deduction into the discussion.
For an introduction to Section 199A, please read this. For more on Section 199A, please read this additional post.
Section 199A, enacted in December 2017 as part of tax reform, gives owners of businesses (including partners, owners of S corporations, and sole proprietors) that generate QBI a deduction in the amount of 20 percent of the QBI.
In January 2019, the IRS and Treasury issued regulations providing detailed rules under Section 199A. Those rules define QBI. As part of the definition of QBI, taxpayers must subtract contributions to self-employment retirement plans from QBI.
When a self-employed individual contributes to a traditional retirement plan, they generally reduce the amount of their QBI deduction (because the retirement plan contribution lowers QBI).
Here’s a quick example (using 2018 tax numbers) of how that works.
Example: Mike makes $50,000 from his sole proprietorship (as reported on Schedule C). He pays $7,065 in self-employment tax (Social Security and Medicare). He deducts half of his self-employment tax ($3,533) from his taxable income and his QBI. Mike is married to Jane. Jane has $34,000 of W-2 wages. Mike and Jane file jointly and take the $24,000 standard deduction.
Mike thus receives a QBI deduction of $9,293 (20% of $46,467). This makes Mike and Jane’s taxable income $47,174 ($50,000 less $3,533 plus $34,000 less $24,000 less $9,293).
Let’s assume that Mike wants to make a $10,000 employee contribution to his Solo 401(k) to lower his taxable income by $10,000. Sure enough, the math does not work that way due to the QBI deduction. Mike’s QBI is now $36,467 (the original QBI of $46,467 less the $10,000 traditional Solo 401(k) contribution). Thus, his QBI deduction is now reduced to $7,293 (20% of $36,467). This makes Mike and Jane’s taxable income $39,174 ($50,000 less $3,533 plus $34,000 less $24,000 less $10,000 less $7,293).
Notice that $39,174 is $8,000 less than $47,174, not $10,000 less than $47,174. The interaction of Section 199A and the small business retirement plan creates the oddity that a $10,000 deduction (the traditional Solo 401(k) contribution) reduces taxable income by only $8,000.
QBI has thus created a new class of deductions – what I call “80% deductions.” These deductions reduce QBI and thus (in total effect) are deductible at only 80 percent of their gross amount.
As applied to small business retirement plans, 80% deductions are particularly troublesome. Recall Mike put $10,000 into his Solo 401(k), netting him an $8,000 federal tax deduction. When Mike goes to take the $10,000 (and its growth) out of the Solo 401(k), all of it will be taxable.
Matching 80% deductions with 100% inclusions is usually not smart tax planning.
I’ve written more about this phenomenon (what I call the Solo 401(k) Trap) here.
In cases where taxpayers are below the taxable income limitations of Section 199A ($163,300 and $326,600 (MFJ) for 2020), taxpayers will have to weigh the benefit of the 80 percent deduction for a traditional contribution to a small business retirement plan versus other options. Some of those other options include (if eligible):
Roth versus traditional receives much Internet discussion, particularly in the FI community. All agree that a taxpayer’s current marginal tax rate is vitally important. 80% deductions lower marginal tax rates. Take Mike, who with his retirement plan contributions lowered his 2018 taxable income to $39,174. As a married filing joint taxpayer, his marginal federal income tax rate is 12 percent. However, the marginal rate on the $10,000 retirement plan traditional contribution is only 9.6 percent (80 percent of 12 percent). In order for the traditional contribution to be advisable, Mike better be pretty sure he can pull the money out of the Solo 401(k) at a marginal federal tax rate below 9.6 percent. Being that the lowest marginal tax rate is 10 percent today, that does not seem very likely.
In Mike’s case, he would have been much better advised to leave his taxable income at $47,174 and made the Solo 401(k) contribution a Roth Solo 401(k) contribution.
Many small business owners are looking for current tax deductions, and many are in marginal tax brackets much above the 12 percent bracket. The interaction between Section 199A and small business retirement plans creates a new pecking order for self-employed individuals looking to reduce taxable income through plan contributions. That order is as follows:
I’ve written about my fondness for HSAs here. What’s important for this purpose is that contributions to HSAs do not reduce QBI. Thus, contributions to HSAs are “100 percent deductions” and not 80% deductions. In addition to all their other advantageous tax attributes, HSA contributions should be prioritized over small business retirement plan traditional contributions from a Section 199A perspective.
Deductible contributions to traditional IRAs (for those who qualify) also should be prioritized over traditional contributions to small business plans from a Section 199A perspective.
In the previous version of this post, I expressed the concern that deductible traditional IRA contributions might reduce QBI. Fortunately, there is nothing the IRS and Treasury has provided (including the instructions to the new Form 8995) indicating that the government believes deductible traditional IRA contributions reduce QBI. Based on my understanding of the tax law, which has been reinforced by IRS and Treasury silence on the matter, I am comfortable that deductible traditional IRA contributions should not reduce QBI.
There is no requirement to contribute to small business retirement plans. You can simply take profits and invest them in taxable accounts. Considering that traditional small business retirement plans contributions are now 80% deductions that must later create 100% income, you may opt to simply not make plan contributions and keep profits in taxable accounts. That may be very sensible if either or both the following are true: 1) you are currently in a very low marginal federal tax bracket and 2) you anticipate being in a much higher marginal federal tax bracket in the future.
For S corporation owners, only the operating income after the owner’s W-2 salary is eligible for the Section 199A deduction. Small business retirement plan contributions are 80% deductions for the S corporation owner just as they are for the sole proprietor and for partners of partnerships with flow-through QBI.
Consideration should be given to employee versus employer contributions. To my mind, the new Section 199A deduction does not necessarily impact whether to make an employee contribution to a Solo 401(k) as a W-2 employee of your business. Yes, your salary is an 80% deduction. But what you from there with your salary (take it home, put it into a traditional Solo 401(k), or put it into a Roth Solo 401(k)) does not increase or decrease your qualified business income (though it could impact the taxable income limitations).
But an employer contribution to a Solo 401(k) (which must be a traditional contribution) does reduce your QBI. Employer contributions to Solo 401(k) plans often fall into the Solo 401(k) Trap.
In many cases, if you qualify for the QBI deduction you should give strong consideration to foregoing the employer contribution. Planning in this regard can benefit from professional consultations.
If you have employees, offering a SIMPLE IRA plan does not change the Section 199A result with respect to their salary. Normal operating expenses (including salaries) of QBI-generating businesses do create 80% deductions, but there is only so much that can be done about that. Unlike your own retirement plan contributions, which are (almost) entirely discretionary, operating expenses are necessary for the conduct of the business. Giving your employees the option of deferring some of their salaries through a SIMPLE IRA does not change the math on the Section 199A deduction, since employees’ salaries reduce QBI regardless of whether the employees contribute some of their salary to a SIMPLE IRA.
The relatively small mandatory employer contribution to employees’ SIMPLE IRAs are 80% deductions, making them a bit more expensive for the business owner (assuming the owner qualifies to claim the QBI deduction).
The Section 199A QBI deduction makes SEP IRA contributions more expensive for most self-employed business owners. In order to make contributions to his/her own SEP IRA, the owner must also make contributions (in an equal percentage of compensation) to the employees, and now those deductions are only 80% deductions (assuming the owner qualifies to claim the QBI deduction).
For some taxpayers, Section 199A will make their small business retirement plan contributions more, not less, valuable. In a previous post, I gave the example of Jackie, a sole proprietor lawyer whose 2020 taxable income (pre-retirement plan contributions) of $215,848 left him unable to claim any Section 199A QBI deduction. Maximum employer and employee traditional contributions of $57,000 to a Solo 401(k) lowered his taxable income such that he was able to qualify for a $31,770 QBI deduction (a 100% deduction) in addition to the $57,000 traditional retirement plan contribution deduction (an 80% deduction).
This interaction turned the $57,000 deduction into an effective $77,370 deduction (80 percent of $57,000 plus $31,770). In this case, Jackie’s retirement plan contributions are 136% deductions!
For upper income taxpayers near the QBI taxable income limitations, small business retirement plans may be a very powerful tool, and unlike those with more modest incomes, these upper income business owners may have an opportunity to maximize their Section 199A deduction by contributing to retirement plans.
The combination of Section 199A and small business retirement plans creates tax planning opportunities and challenges. Many small business owners will benefit from professional advice to determine the best path forward considering the new law, opportunities, and challenges.
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.
If you are self-employed or have a side hustle, you have great opportunities for tax-advantaged savings. Small business retirement planning has been an area of significant confusion due to the multitude of plans available and the different qualification rules for each.
Below I describe the three most important plans for most small businesses to consider, provide the qualification requirements, and discuss when each plan is the best option.
Fortunately, for roughly 90 percent of small businesses, there are only three options worth considering: the Solo 401(k), the SIMPLE IRA, and the SEP IRA. In many cases, one of the three options quickly becomes the advantageous option.
After I discuss the three main small business retirement plans, I will provide some commentary on other available plans, but for most small businesses, the playbook consists of these three plans.
The administrative burdens (forms, paperwork, fees to financial institutions) of all three of these programs are relatively light these days, though all three plans do have some forms that must be properly completed, signed, and filed.
Before we begin, three quick notes. First, on limitations. Below I provide (in a general sense) the upper annual limits on contributions to the plans. It is important to note that contributions can be made in a manner below the limits – the plans are flexible in this regard. Second, generally you can contribute to a small business retirement plan and to a Roth and/or traditional IRA. Having access to a small business retirement plan does not prohibit a contribution to a Roth IRA or a traditional IRA. Third, before implementing a plan it is best to discuss your business and needs with the plan provider. Providers can have rules that are different from (and/or in addition to) the applicable tax rules.
The Basics: A Solo 401(k) (sometimes referred to as an “Individual 401(k)”) is a 401(k) plan established by a self-employed individual for only their own benefit. Solo 401(k)s can be established by self-employed individuals in their own name and by corporations (usually S corporations in this context). Self-employment for this purpose includes a sole proprietorship, limited liability company (“LLC”), or other entity treated as disregarded from their single owner and reported on a Schedule C on their tax return.
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 $19,500 ($26,000 if 50 or older) in 2020. Employer contributions are limited to either 20 percent of self-employment income or 25 percent of W-2 wages (if the self-employed individual is paid through a corporation, including S corporations). Total employee and employer contributions are limited to $57,000 ($63,500 if age 50 or above) in 2020.
Today, many financial institutions (including Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard) offer low-cost Solo 401(k) options.
If eligible, the Solo 401(k) is almost always the best option for the self-employed individual. It offers the greatest potential for tax savings of the self-employed plans and it is relatively easy to administer.
An important note on the Solo 401(k) vis-a-vis the SIMPLE IRA and the SEP IRA: the Solo 401(k) is the only small business plan that allows Roth “employee” contributions. This allows self-employed individuals the ability to put away up to $19,500 ($26,000 if 50 or older) annually that will grow tax free. For all three plans, the “employer” contribution is always a traditional contribution (i.e., tax deductible today, taxable upon withdrawal). Note, however, that not all financial institutions offer the Roth employee contribution option in their Solo 401(k) plan, so it is important to check with the provider before signing up if the ability to make a Roth contribution is important to you.
Spouses employed by the self-employed individual (or their corporation) can also participate in the Solo 401(k) (only to the extent of their earnings from the business and subject to the above stated limitations), increasing the tax benefits of the plan.
Eligibility: In order to establish a Solo 401(k) plan, a person must have self-employment income, and must not have employees other than their spouse. For this purpose, an employee is anyone who works 1,000 hours during the year for the business. Starting in 2024, an employee also includes anyone who has worked 500 hours in each of 3 consecutive years.
Different plans have different rules on other employees. Some Solo 401(k) plans do not allow you to have any non-owner/non-spousal employees (regardless of the numbers of hours worked).
To have a Solo 401(k) in any tax year, the plan must be established by the deadline for the tax return, including extensions. That deadline also applies to employer contributions.
Generally, employee deferrals to a Solo 401(k) must be made by the end of the calendar year. There is an exception: if the Solo 401(k) is for a self-employed person (reporting self-employment income on Schedule C), the employee deferral must be formally designated by year-end, but then can be paid into the Solo 401(k) before the tax filing deadline (including extensions if the taxpayer extends his/her Form 1040).
Ideal for: Solo 401(k)s are ideal for anyone who is self-employed and does not have employees (other than a spouse).
The Basics: The SIMPLE IRA works in a manner somewhat similar to a 401(k) plan. It allows employees (including self-employed owners of the business) to defer up to $13,500 ($16,500 if 50 or older) of earnings in 2020 through traditional employee contributions. The SIMPLE IRA also has relatively modest required employer contributions to each eligible employee’s account (described below).
Today, many financial institutions (including Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard) offer low-cost SIMPLE IRA options.
In order to have a SIMPLE IRA for the year, the employer must establish the SIMPLE IRA by October 1st of the year. One narrow exception is when the business is established after October 1st, in which case the plan must be established when administratively feasible.
The SIMPLE IRA has two main advantages over the SEP IRA. First, it gives the self-employed owner and any employees a valuable option – the option to make traditional contributions to the SIMPLE IRA account. By contrast, the SEP IRA (discussed below) does not allow for employee contributions. Second, the required employer contribution is relatively low. Employers must make either matching contributions of 3 percent of salary (in 2 out of every 5 years that percentage can be reduced to 1 percent) or automatic annual contributions of 2 percent of salary to each employee’s SIMPLE IRA. Thus, the SIMPLE IRA can give the self-employed owner(s) the option to defer up to $13,500 ($16,500 if 50 or over) of earnings in a relatively affordable manner.
Eligibility: In order to be eligible for a SIMPLE IRA, the employer must have no other retirement plan and must have 100 or fewer employers during the year.
Ideal for: Self-employed individuals that are not eligible for a Solo 401(k) and are looking to provide themselves and their employees the option to defer some taxable income at a relatively low cost to the employer. Partnerships where two or more owners (non-spouses) work in the business and/or small businesses with employees are good candidates for a SIMPLE IRA.
The Basics: A SEP IRA is allows only employer contributions. Generally, the employer can make annual contributions of up to 25 percent of eligible compensation (20 percent of a sole proprietor’s self-employment income), limited to $57,000 of contributions (in 2020).
Today, many financial institutions (including Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard) offer low-cost SEP IRA options.
The SEP IRA has two important advantages. First, it allows the employer to elect each year whether to make contributions. The employer can elect to forego contributions or reduce the contribution each year. Second, the SEP IRA has the latest deadlines of all the plans. A SEP IRA can be established for a tax year by the deadline for filing that tax year’s tax return, including extensions.
The main disadvantage of a SEP IRA is that it generally requires equal percentage contributions to all eligible employees. Said differently, in order for the self-employed owner of the business to make an employer contribution to his/her own account, the business must make the same percentage contribution to all eligible employees. This makes the SEP IRA an expensive way to save for your own retirement if you are self-employed and have employees. SEP IRAs are also subject to “top heavy” rules whereby the employer may be required to put in additional contributions to the rank-and-file employees’ SEP IRAs if the owners’ and executives’ SEP IRA balances are too high vis-a-vis the rest of the employees’ SEP IRA balances.
Eligibility: An employer (a sole proprietor, partnership, or corporation, including S corporations) can establish a SEP IRA program. Employees that are 21 years old, earn $600, and have worked for three of the previous five years for the employer must be allowed to participate.
Ideal for: There are three situations in which a SEP IRA can be highly advantageous. The first is for a side hustlers that maximize their 401(k)/403(b)/TSP contributions to their W-2 employer’s plan. The SEP IRA provides a mechanism for these side hustlers to defer more income. Note, however, that this can also be accomplished through a Solo 401(k), and in most cases the Solo 401(k) is preferable to the SEP IRA (if a taxpayer is eligible for both).
The second situation is when a self-employed person has not established a self-employed retirement plan by year-end. In such cases, the taxpayer can establish and fund a SEP IRA for the prior year before their tax return deadline (including extensions).
Third, a SEP IRA can be helpful in situations where a small business has a small number of employees, all or most of which are very important to the business. The SEP IRA provides a way to give highly valued employees a significant benefit.
For most side hustlers, the question becomes: are you covered by a retirement plan (such as a 401(k)) at your W-2 job? If you are not, the Solo 401(k) in most instances is likely your best option.
If you are covered by a workplace retirement plan, such as a 401(k), then the SEP IRA may be your best option, since you can defer up to the lesser of 20 percent of your side-hustle income or $57,000 (in 2020) while you can take advantage of your $19,500 ($26,000 if 50 or older) employee contributions through your workplace plan. While the “employer” contribution calculation is the same for a SEP IRA and a Solo 401(k), the administrative cost of the SEP IRA (including IRS filings) tends to be lighter than that of the Solo 401(k).
In some situations, side hustlers might want to forego a SEP IRA and use a Solo 401(k) (instead of a workplace 401(k)) for some or all of their annual employee contributions. That would be true if you want to make Roth employee contributions and your workplace plan does not allow them and/or you believe the investment options in your Solo 401(k) plan are better than the options in your employer’s plan. However, in all cases consideration should also be given to ensuring you at least get the full match in your employer’s 401(k) plan.
One important consideration for side hustlers and all self-employed individuals is what I call the Solo 401(k) Trap. Because of the new Section 199A deduction, many will want to forego deducting retirement plan contributions to self-employment retirement accounts (i.e., traditional employee contributions to Solo 401(k)s and employer contributions to Solo 401(k)s and SEP IRAs) and instead make Roth employee contributions to Solo 401(k)s.
Note that there is no benefit to having both a Solo 401(k) and a SEP IRA for your side hustle, because contributions to both plans count against the relevant limitations (i.e., having two separate plans does not increase a taxpayer’s contribution limitations).
There are other options available to small businesses. All (with the exception of the SIMPLE 401(k)) of them involve significantly more administrative burden and costs than the Solo 401(k), the SIMPLE IRA, and the SEP IRA. Often these plans are not feasible for small businesses and these plans are rarely feasible for side hustlers.
SIMPLE 401(k)s are very similar to SIMPLE IRAs, with some differences on the margins not worth mentioning here. Most financial institutions offer SIMPLE IRAs instead of SIMPLE 401(k)s.
Keoghs come in both defined contribution and defined benefit (i.e., pension) models. Keoghs involve significant additional administrative burdens when compared to Solo 401(k)s, SIMPLE IRAs, and SEP IRAs.
There is nothing stopping a small business from establishing a 401(k) plan just like the largest employers. However, as a practical matter, it is difficult for most small businesses to do so. First, they involve significant set-up and maintenance costs. Second, 401(k)s are subject to discrimination testing to prevent business owners and high compensated employees from enjoying the benefits of the plan to a much greater degree than rank-and-file employees. This testing can lead to either reversals of previous contributions to the plan or additional employer contributions to rank-and-file employees.
A defined benefit plan (where the employee receives a stated benefit during retirement years and the employer funds the plan during the employee’s working years) is another option. These plans require significant compliance costs, including actuarial calculations. Further, if you have employees, these plans can be quite expensive for the self-employed business owner. In addition, these plans often work against the financial independence model in that they tie up assets until the account owner reaches a certain retirement age. However, given the right set of circumstances (usually older, highly compensated earners), these plans can be advantageous and create large current tax deductions.
Small businesses have a great opportunity to create tax advantaged retirement savings. For those eligible for a Solo 401(k), in most cases significant consideration should be given to establishing one. Depending on your circumstances, the SIMPLE IRA or the SEP IRA might be a great solution.
My hope is that this post has given you some working knowledge of the three main options for small businesses. Small business owners will often benefit from obtaining professional advice regarding their retirement planning and the programs they ought to establish.
Next week’s post (click here) explores small business retirement plans in light of the new Section 199A qualified business income deduction and how the two concepts interact.
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.